Have you tried the HT? You will be surprised how good they are. Don't believe everything you read. They're the brightest, lightest and best low light binoculars on the market.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
New Zeiss Victory HT 8x54 review from Allbinos (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter John A Roberts
- Start date
The thing is if you look around you can find an HT 8x56 for around $1800. Not much more than a Conquest HD 8x56. The HT is brighter, has perfect color fidelity and the biggest advantage over the Conquest HD, FL and SLC 8x56 is they are 20% lighter and handle much better. The HT 8x56 only weighs 36 oz. compared to the 44 oz. weight of the FL, SLC and Conquest HD, which makes a huge difference if you are going to use it as a birding binocular. The other big advantage of the HT over the other big eye binoculars optically is its flat transmission curve which makes it brighter in low light because it transmits higher in the blue orange spectrum where are rods are most sensitive to light and the completely neutral color presentation. In an HT, the whites are really white. There is no greenish tint like in the FL and Conquest HD. You have to try them to appreciate their perfect color fidelity. It is refreshing to use a Zeiss that doesn't have the green monster all the time.
You have to look at the transmission graphs to understand why the HT 8x54 is brighter than the FL 8x56. Yes, the FL may have a 2% higher peak transmission, but it is NOT in the Blue Orange area of the spectrum where are rods in our eye are most sensitive to light. Zeiss designed the HT with a flat transmission curve through the Blue Orange area of the spectrum specifically to make the binoculars brighter in low light, and that is what it does. Of course, the flat transmission curve also has the added benefit of giving the HT perfect color fidelity with no green tint like the FL. Another big advantage. The transmission curve of the HT is sensational! There is no other binocular like it on the market, not even the Habicht. The Habicht 7x42 may peak higher, but it is not flat like the HT through the Blue Orange spectrum. The HT is the brightest binocular on the market, without a doubt.Funny I read something completely different from the allbinos evaluation!
The old FL has 2% higher transmission and the total score is also above the HT???
Something doesn't seem right here, either with allbinos or the HT...
Andreas
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Long story short, I've already tested the HT 8x54, I felt similar to Henry and Kimmo, not my glass.
I think the SLC 8x56 has a much better corrected optics, 2% more transmission or not is pretty unimportant to me.
Andreas
I trust Henry more than I trust myself, and I trust myself more than I trust you.
We all have priorities and preferences and that is what makes a choosing a binocular a personal decision but to a lot of people a 2% difference in transmission would be important in selecting a binocular designed for low light.
That is fine and Henry is definitely knowledgeable about binoculars, but my point is all binoculars including the HT have their strengths and weaknesses, and you have to consider your priorities and preferences when choosing one, not what somebody else tells you should have. The HT could be weak in SA and CA, but it has a lot of other strong points like low light performance and color fidelity, and those performance characteristics could be more important to some people when choosing a low light binocular. I definitely would not base my binocular purchasing decision on what Henry likes, and I don't think anybody does, or we would all be carrying big heavy Zeiss FL 8x56's around our necks!I trust Henry more than I trust myself, and I trust myself more than I trust you.
I chose the 8x56 SLC, an autonomous decision, but what Henry condemns doesn't interest me.
The 8x56 SLC is definitely one of the best big eye binoculars. All the Swarovski's are superb, and probably the best in many cases. You can't really go wrong with any Swarovski. When somebody dogs a binocular, it doesn't stop me from trying it. I found some of my favorite binoculars taken out of someone else's trash heap!
To be honest Dennis, I think more people respect Henry's opinion, which is at least considered and consistent, than yours that changes every 5 minutes!! BTW, I thought the 7x42 Habicht was the brightest binocular available, or is that now old news??
I agree. I don't think my opinion has changed on the HT, has it? My point is Henry's criticism of the HT is based on SA and CA, and he doesn't mention the strong points of the HT, like the very high flat transmission curve and superb color fidelity and light weight. Because of Henry's criticism, a lot of people might rule the HT out without even trying it, which would be a mistake because it is an excellent binocular, and they might like it better overall than the FL 8x56 or SLC 8x56. It all depends on your priorities and preferences and what is important to you in a binocular. Zeiss has achieved their design goals with the HT because it is probably the brightest low light binocular you can buy. I hadn't tried the HT 8x54 when I said the Habicht 7x42 was the brightest binocular available. Since the transmission curves on the HT and Swarovski Habicht 7x42 are so close and equally flat in the blue and orange area of the spectrum, it will probably depend on your age if one seems brighter than the other. If you are under 60 years old and your eyes can use the bigger exit pupil of the HT, then the HT will have more apparent brightness than the Habicht but if you are over 60 years old and your pupils are only dilating to about 6 mm or so the HT and the Habicht will seem equally bright. Also, due to the Twilight Factor, the HT 8x56 would show more detail in low light than the Habicht 7x42 even though the apparent brightness would be about the same. Zeiss is probably correct when they say the HT 8x54 is the brightest low light binocular you can buy. They are not blowing smoke.
Last edited:
Glad to hear you agree that people value Henry's opinion more than yours Dennis!!
I don't have one actually!! Too big and heavy for me!
The only fairly light 8x50 I know of is the Opticron Discovery 8x50 at 28 oz. I heard it has a lot of CA.
Last edited:
Just remember. Opinions are like a certain lower posterior body part. Everybody has one!Glad to hear you agree that people value Henry's opinion more than yours Dennis!!
I think Dennis' 8x54 are now sold and we can speak freely? I wanted to like the HT 54's so much, I really did. Small and light and great focuser and Zeiss's wonderful smooth barrels. But the edge of field....what happened? It's a major step back from the Dialyt classics. It's tunnel vision. Very small "sweet spot" and then most of the FOV is blurry.
It looks like they've got the wrong eyepieces in there. Wish they would use the oculars from the Dialyts, SFs, or the 42mm HT's even.
I wanted to like the HT 54's so much, I really did. Small and light and great focuser and Zeiss's wonderful smooth barrels. But the edge of field....what happened? It's a major step back from the Dialyt classics. It's tunnel vision. Very small "sweet spot" and then most of the FOV is blurry. It looks like they've got the wrong eyepieces in there. Wish they would use the oculars from the Dialyts, SFs, or the 42mm HT's even.
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
I haven't posted on this thread lately just to avoid the unpleasantness of dealing with Dennis. I'm afraid if you want the best off-axis corrections neither the FLs nor the HTs are going to deliver. I'd call them adequate at correcting field curvature and off-axis astigmatism, but just barely. The 8x54 HT I tested had those barely adequate off-axis corrections, but (unlike the 8x42 HT I also tested) the 8x54 also had unexpectedly high axial spherical aberration and lateral CA, which were optically disqualifying in a way that the monochromatic off-axis aberrations weren't. The 8x54 I tested also had a slight yellow/green color bias, similar to my 8x56 FL, but that wouldn't have been disqualifying either. See the post below :
www.birdforum.net
The image in that post shows that my 8x56 FL and the 8x54 HT I tested both displayed a yellow/green bias, most likely from the rapid roll-off in the transmission of both at the red end of the spectrum, something that shows up in every spectrogram I've seen of those two binoculars. My guess, based on two other spectrograms I've seen of the is FL that the sharp roll-off in Allbino's spectrogram of the 8x56 FL between 550 and 475 nm was exaggerated. Notice that review came soon after Allbinos began using a spectrometer in 2010, a period when a number of dubious transmission measurements appeared in their reviews.
That's all I've got to add except for one more link to a thread from the days when Dennis was temporarily a very happy 8x56 FL owner. If you can wade through all of it I think you'll notice that there is nothing but high praise and no complaint to be found about "distortion", color bias or even weight - that is until the divorce is already underway in posts #129-131. 131 reads like a school boy's whopper after being caught red handed.
www.birdforum.net
Tests of the Zeiss 8x54 HT
I’ve finally finished assembling star-test and other images from the Zeiss 8x54 HT I spent some time with. There are too many images for one post, so I’ve decided to make 5 separate posts. Anybody with comments please wait until all 5 are up. Thanks. The first two images are star-test...
www.birdforum.net
The image in that post shows that my 8x56 FL and the 8x54 HT I tested both displayed a yellow/green bias, most likely from the rapid roll-off in the transmission of both at the red end of the spectrum, something that shows up in every spectrogram I've seen of those two binoculars. My guess, based on two other spectrograms I've seen of the is FL that the sharp roll-off in Allbino's spectrogram of the 8x56 FL between 550 and 475 nm was exaggerated. Notice that review came soon after Allbinos began using a spectrometer in 2010, a period when a number of dubious transmission measurements appeared in their reviews.
That's all I've got to add except for one more link to a thread from the days when Dennis was temporarily a very happy 8x56 FL owner. If you can wade through all of it I think you'll notice that there is nothing but high praise and no complaint to be found about "distortion", color bias or even weight - that is until the divorce is already underway in posts #129-131. 131 reads like a school boy's whopper after being caught red handed.
King Of Beasts!
I picked up a Zeiss 8x56 FL probably because Henry Link said it was optically one of his favorite binoculars and I respect his opinion. I compared it to my favorites right now the Canon 10x42 L IS and I have to say Henry was right as usual. The big Zeiss is one of the best binoculars I have ever...
www.birdforum.net
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
Coatings would be the most likely improvement, but I notice you can still see the early roll-off in the red in both Allbino's and Gij's spectrograms. My money is on the singlet focusing lens as the weak link that causes the high Spherical Aberration and lateral color compared to the 8x56 FL. I assume that was still part of the design recently when the rotating cutaway of a 54 HT was added to the Zeiss website.
I'm certainly not going to try another one at my expense, but if anyone wants to send me a nice new one at their expense and risk I'll be happy to test it.
I'm certainly not going to try another one at my expense, but if anyone wants to send me a nice new one at their expense and risk I'll be happy to test it.
