Zeiss SF vs Swarovision FULL FIELD OPTICS REVIEW !!! (1 Viewer)

ZEISS 8X42 SF VS SWAROVSKI 10X42 SWAROVISION.

First my apologies to open a new thread but i think that some users will find positive this review where SF vs SV optical properties are tested.

After a full week comparing both bin during 7 days i can bring here my conclusions, They don't share same magnification of course but 2x difference is not a big deal for me after been using high end bins during last 20 years.
Test place photo number 1.

Also i was using the SF extensively before in parque nacional de Cazorla ( Spain ) and some pictures where posted on new zeiss SF threat about internal reflections and glare, those pictures are also attached on this post for your check & review.

SF VS SWAROVISION.

1 FOV

There is a huge difference of FOV in between those bins despite his magnification, and also between some 8x bins like 130m of my ultravid 8x42 and those 148m of SF.
The field of view is very immersive With no tunnel view just like a window view BRAVO Zeiss !!!! Like in the old Glory days with 7x42 Dialyt 10x40 BGAT etc etc.

2 COLOR.

Swarovision has a slight Cold Blue view and Zeiss a yellow Green towards warm side, I didn't notice before because is not very obvious you have to check it with both binoculars side by side. Otherwise is very difficult to notice it.

Both bins are very very neutral but i think Zeiss is the winner here, dont expect the electrifying Kind of view like on FL or HT I think that Zeiss alredy take care about birding or naturalist market deploying a highly color corrected binocular.

The colors on Swaro are a litthe bit more saturated and neutral as well something that i really like, some people may agree or disagree is a question of personal taste thats all.
Blacker blacks and a litthe bit more saturated reds,oranges yellows on birds makes them stand out agains ochre or Brown colors.

Zeiss success here if a perfect and neutral color reproduction is desired SF will give a neutral view, some users report also subdued color son SF, for me maybe during night time.
i prefer a more saturated view but i have to recognice that this new pink T coatings do a great job with a very neutral true to life colors.

More about color reproduction this time lets take a look at bin coatings.

The red pinkiest coating of Zeiss are able to give more intensity on brows and greens and but reds are subdued washed out just a simple look to a red roof will tell you how much red light are reflected by those coating.

The Green yellow coatings of swaro produce a litthe bit soft midtone greens but nothing to worry about the effect is more subtle than reds on Zeiss.

3 Contrast.

Apparent contrast is lower on Zeiss just because its hight light trasmition gives some times the feeling of too much light……..or too bright view.

I notice this also between my Leica ultravid 8X42 and SF 8X42 so same magnification and exit pupils.

Dont make me wrong the contrast is almost equal on SF and Stars and higher on Leicas.
I was just talking about APPARENT Contrast…..

4 Sharpness.

Both binoculars are able to resolve fine details until the limit of its magnification, the tiniest letters on distant traffic signals are shown on both bins in accordance with its magnification.

But is more easy to the eye to see those fine letters on Swaros or leicas due to hight apparent contrast and better DEFINITION !!!!

Also when observing birds flying the shape of those birds are like cut against the sky on Leicas and Swaros but not on SF so optical definition is playing his role here.

Deffinition is a combination of sharpness and contrast and for me here Swaros and More pronounced on Leicas are better in this regard. For me Leica is the best on this just a Marvell like on his camera lenses.

5 CA Color aberration.

Once again Zeiss success here, CA is lower on Zeiss than on Swaro with a very small marging
A huge difference can be seen agains the Leicas, but mine are old ones non HD model.

Lateral CA still present, but i have to look for it so again NICE JOB !!!!!!

6 Glare Flare.

SF is the best but in my opinion a step down when compared agains HT as i remember.

There is a big difference and Zeiss is much more better than the swarovision when the sun is near or very close ( See Picture number 2 ), SF is able to go deeper keeping a cleanest and more contasty view even in such difficult conditions.

Is not free of issues and on mine there is a difference among right and left barrel when looking ridiculously close to the sun not a big deal but something is different inside right barrel, check pictures attached.


Those pictures where taken very close o the sun a few degrees off.

7 Field Flattered

For this test i use the night Sky to check it, double Perseo cluster was perfect to check it.

Very easy on SF the aberrations start to appear on last 20 % of field of view and on Swarovisions last 5% of FOV.
Night time agains star fields can be a very but honest test for any optical system.

During daytime lets say than last 15% of FOV on SF start to show a degradation on his view but is a gente degradation towars the very edge and the field of view is much bigger so for me there is not a clear winner.

8 Optical dispersión and overal lens coatings quality.

A/ During daytime:

Both binoculars are able to give a cristal clear view when looking from indoors giving a very trasparent or with less glass influence view no clear winner both bins are almost equal……..no surprise both manufactures use top coatings and technologies on his top bins …………

Outdoors when looking with the sun back the coldest view of swaro gives the impression of more trasparent view via very small marging and the opposite turning the view 180 degrees agains the sun side, here the better suppression of stray light on SF gives a deeper and more clear view.


B/ Night time:

Here Swarovski is the best.
Why ? because swaros are able to produce pin point stars, my 10x42sv or SLC 15X65 HD are almost perfect on night skies.
Jupiter is sown as a perfect round hard ball with zero optical dispertion around.

On Zeiss bright stars and planet are not perfect pin point and some spikes are present on its view IS NOT a huge effect but present.

During night streetlights dont produce any ghost or relection on any of this bins unless you obseve under a strong sodium light………..

In this conditions a Little bit more clean view is given by the swaros, not by much but noticeable, maybe cooler view help here at night time to clean up the yellow orange night time Streetlights light ????

9 Rolling Ball RB.

I never notice this on my swarovision 10x42 but to be honest i never try to look for it

On SF even without looking for it sometimes this effect becomes very obvious.

10 Zeiss signature.

Yes Zeiss signature or as its known on photography world Zeiss 3P and POP.

This binocular has a lot of it, this is an area where SF kills my 8x42 BL ultravid who looks flat…..no volumes or dimension on building nothing like the view thru SF where the objets jump to you.
This effect becomes very apparent when both bins are compared at the same time, i can say that this SF has some of the quality of best porro desings on his view !!!!!!!

I was observing consecutive hills here in my homeland and the effect is pretty obvious agains my ultravids and less prone agains swarovisions who has also a nice but less pronounced 3D effect. Check photo number 1.

FIT AND FINISH

ZEISS Claims on his Brochure:

Developed by engineers Handcrafter by specialists.

The art of German engineering and precisión production make every VICTORY SF a masterpiece of extraordinary quality and crafsmanship…….precise assembly and throught to the demanding quality assurance measures.


OK ….so who forgot to properly glued the rubber armour of mine to the bin magnesiun body ??????

Or the rubber armour of other SF users ?

Well i dont want to speak about Zeiss save wheight decisión and its consecuences like the weak feeling plastic eyecups…..they just work thats all.
For Sure those eyecups are the worst among the big 3 but they work.

Problem comes when they try to save weight and the consecuence is a weak instrument who breaks at first impact as happen to a member of BF or the fact that they dont finish the bins as they claim to do.
Another problem comes whith the diopter button when is out feels completely loose and difficult to adjust……this should not happens at this Price point with Zeiss flagship binocular.

Its a SHAME !!!!!!!! Zeiss you claim something that doesnt exit.

SF feels weak and is weak even more i an say that is thounsand milles away of your Dialyt Models Desing selection Night Owls or 70 years old oberkochen porros in terms of quality and crafsmanship.

Sum up.

Warning !!!!!!!! My SF is not the first SF that i Have so i recommend to
those really interested to Buy an SF to go to your local dealer, take your time and check carefully sharness on both barrels and also a comparative side by side review with your actual bin.

The best of each:

Zeiss : FOV, 3D Pop into the view, Low CA, Superb bright view those T coatings really Works very well and of course sf Focus Wheel.

Leica: Build like a tank. Superb resolution and Sharp view. Very hight contrast and definition. Despite its hight contrast very natural colors. NOBODY on this planet is able to produce the nice colors pallete and microcontast that leica gives.
Take a leica and look into a Wall with colors worn by the sun and check it with another bin….the gentle degradation in color is so nicely shown on leicas that is an step above the others, no surprise here they have a huge experience in photography and their lenses are a MYTH.

Swarovski:

For me the best overall binocular, from outside feel solic and nicely desing no flaws on mine 5 years old now.
Superb optics nicely design to be neutral with a subtle oversaturated colors who helps to see birds details agains ochre colors, Sharp until the very edge, very easy to focus and nicely desing diopter setting that Works perfecly.

It has a good microcontrast and definition and when a difficult target like bright planets or stars has to be shown is able to keep a very hight quality view with minimal optical dispersión. Overal the best balanced desing.

To finish just one thing binocular like watches are a very personnel decisión so all the best and check with care before buy.

I will be happy if this long post helps just to only one person and also excuse my poor english.

Have a nice day !!!!!!!

Thanks for great and extended review.Wow!!!
I have been comparing the SF and the SV in the 10x42 versions at 2 locations in sunny and cloudy conditions.
Overall I agree with the experience you had.
Although , what appeared to be clair was that the zeiss was much brighter in an overshadowed street and the microcontrast and the resolution scores were better with the SF.This was made clear trying to read small letters , black on white in a long overshadowed tunnel.We both were convinced being able to see better the small letters with SF.
In full sun conditions, the difference was small and almost no internal glare issues with SF
Issues focus drive: while turning the SF focus , I felt different resistance , but the micro focussing was OK but not as smooth as eg the zeiss conquest that resembles the Japanese made focusdrives.The SV focus drive was much smoother overall , but the fine focus drive remains a bit nodgy and hesitating.
Eye cups : what surprises me is that there is only two steps up in the turning out of the cups.This first one is OK for me, but look at the conquest , you have more turnout steps.
Design : i like the beautiful design of the SF , but the length is quite pronounced and might be bothering for some
In this way I rather like the leica ultravid design.
Diopter : no issues at all , i do not expect any diopter shift like with the EDG I we had in the past.
The field of view as mentioned in the tech specs is a pro of course .
Comparing with the new leica hd plus : the eyecups and compactness are best as is the focus drive.
The image of the leica is not as bright , but only slight difference.
I went out with a Leica hd plus which will be my companion for,the next years.
There has been a time I was a bit swaro crazy with their flat field , open bridge,...
But after several repairs of the swaro focus drive, I,totally reviewed my idea on quality of a bin.
I am back in the camp of Leica again, a bin like my old brick in the eighties , never let me down as my wife's ultravid during the most harsh conditions.

Thank you Globetrotter for this extensive review.

Your comments on the Swarovski bins - do you refer this also to the SLC-series?

@arran: What exact model of the Leica tribe was your "old brick" in the eighties?

Nice review. Very detailed and informative. It is really helpful for people like you and Frank to do these really nice reviews that are knowledgeable. I do like the fact that you still preferred the Swarovision over the new kid on the block the Zeiss SF. Now I don't have to trade my Swarovision in on an SF.

Elmer Fudd said:

Thank you Globetrotter for this extensive review.

Your comments on the Swarovski bins - do you refer this also to the SLC-series?

@arran: What exact model of the Leica tribe was your "old brick" in the eighties?

Click to expand...

A leica 10x42 bn

Thanks for the review. I wish it could have been 8x vs. 8.5x or 10x vs. 10x so it was more "apples to apples," particularly in terms of CA control since I would expect to see more CA in a 10x bin although the Swaro 10x42 SLC-HD was excellent at controlling CA. Ditto for the FOV comparison, but in most other areas, you gave a good feel for how the two compare eyeball to eyeball. For example, the AR coatings and color bias.

"The red pinkiest coating of Zeiss are able to give more intensity on brows and greens and but reds are subdued washed out just a simple look to a red roof will tell you how much red light are reflected by those coating."

The coatings appear to be identical or at least very similar to the AR coatings on the FL and HT. The HTs were designed for hunters, so you can understand why they would want the browns and greens to "pop" since they are typically looking for brownish prey (deer, ground hogs, bears, elk, moose, pheasant, turkey, etc.) against grass and trees. Some Steiner binoculars have even a narrower band to bring out the browns even more for hunters.

But if the SF was designed for birders, I would expect the color saturation to be more like the SV EL, which Swaro claims it made for birders. Still, the SLC-HDs are "warm," too, so Swaro has deviated from its 'yellow haze busting" heritage even for hunters.

I wonder if the red-pink reflection off the FL/HT/SF's objectives is the red part of the spectrum reflecting back since it's not being transmitted? Seems logical. RIP Leonard.

Anyway, it appears your Leica is even better than the SV EL for color saturation, and to me, at least, that's important for birding under normal conditions. Helps the birds "pop out" from the background. In low light or in the din of winter, a boost in the middle of the spectrum helps compensate for lower level of sunlight reaching our eyes.

In bright light, however, that boost can be overkill. Some users have reported views through the FL and HT look "washed out" under bright lighting conditions. Too much of a good thing. OTOH, I find the reddish bias of my Nikons make the view look a bit darker when its overcast and the ground and trees are snow covered in the winter.

For every season, there is a bin, turn, turn, turn....

If you owned the SF and SV EL/UV, you'd be a A Man for All Seasons
'
It was interesting to read that you saw RB with the SF and not with the 10x42 SV EL. From looking at Holger's distortion comparison chart, the SF has considerably more pincushion than the 8.5x42 SV EL, though the SF still has less pincushion than many other bins such as the Swaro SLCs.

It could be that you saw RB in the SF because RB is more noticeable in low distortion binoculars with wider apparent fields of view, which the SF has (67.6* for the SF vs. 64* for the SV EL). A few others have also reported RB in the 8x42 SF, but not in "epidemic proportions" like the 8.5x SV EL.

first of all, I enjoyed reading your review, which sounds just like I want reviews: honest, down to earth and understandable.

Second, I (unfortunately) feel that comparing the 8 SF with the 10SV was a little comparing apples to pears. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the comparison, but the difference in FOV makes a big difference for about anything.

Thirs (or last): can you add some kind of comparison about the focus? You mentioned this in your conclusion, but like in any good report / paper, you shouldn't mention new results in your conclusions section ;-)

temmie said:

...
Second, I (unfortunately) feel that comparing the 8 SF with the 10SV was a little comparing apples to pears. D

Click to expand...

Hey, that's funny because of the word by word translation of the idiom in the German language "Äpfel mit Birnen vergleichen".

What language do you normally use in your home country Belgium? And do you use the same idiom?

In the English language it's called "comparing apples to oranges".

I love these forums visited by international folks. :t:

Hi Elmer, it's Dutch, you know, that German dialect ;-)

temmie said:

Hi Elmer, it's Dutch, you know, that German dialect ;-)

Click to expand...

No no..... it's Vlaams, a language of its own:t:

Jan

Elmer Fudd said:

Thank you Globetrotter for this extensive review.

Your comments on the Swarovski bins - do you refer this also to the SLC-series?

@arran: What exact model of the Leica tribe was your "old brick" in the eighties?

Click to expand...

I only refer to Swarovision but i have The SLC 15X56 HD AND THE COATINGS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE green yellow ones on Swarovision.

Are like pink/red very similar to Zeiss coatings. I think that my 15X56 HD has better corrected colors than my swarovision 10x42 but my SV was one of the first models so.......

I really don't know if they already change or update coatings on SV models.

[email protected] said:

Nice review. Very detailed and informative. It is really helpful for people like you and Frank to do these really nice reviews that are knowledgeable. I do like the fact that you still preferred the Swarovision over the new kid on the block the Zeiss SF. Now I don't have to trade my Swarovision in on an SF.

Click to expand...

For me keep your SV......Unless a bigger FOV is desired both SV and SF are top Bins, in case to go for SF maybe is a good idea wait a little bit until they fix some issues.

The binocular of the century

Zeiss Oberkochen 10x50 and SF

The binocular of the century.

GLOBETROTTER said:

Zeiss Oberkochen 10x50 and SF

The binocular of the century.

Click to expand...

Wonderful instruments GT.

But which one is the binocular of the century? SF or Oberkochen Porro?

Lee

Troubador said:

Wonderful instruments GT.

But which one is the binocular of the century? SF or Oberkochen Porro?

Lee

Click to expand...

What do you think ?

The oberkochen 10x50 was rated as best binocular ever.....thats the reason to be the binocular of the century almost 45 years ago.

GLOBETROTTER said:

The oberkochen 10x50 was rated as best binocular ever.....thats the reason to be the binocular of the century almost 45 years ago.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Zeiss didn't switch to more modern coatings when they made the "Serie 25". The 10x50 (or, for that matter, the 8x30B and the 8x50) WITH modern coatings would be very hard to beat, even today.

By the way, the 10x50 was the first binocular I know of that had what we know call "ED-glas". When it was introduced Zeiss said the objective, an air-spaced doublet, was "semi-apochromatisch", and it shows in the field. No colour fringes at all.

Hermann

Hermann said:

Unfortunately Zeiss didn't switch to more modern coatings when they made the "Serie 25". The 10x50 (or, for that matter, the 8x30B and the 8x50) WITH modern coatings would be very hard to beat, even today.

By the way, the 10x50 was the first binocular I know of that had what we know call "ED-glas". When it was introduced Zeiss said the objective, an air-spaced doublet, was "semi-apochromatisch", and it shows in the field. No colour fringes at all.

Hermann

Click to expand...

Yeah !!!!! can you imagine this bin with modern glass and coatings....

The original design was on 1956 so 59 years ago !!!! Mine is from 1981 special edition and as you say they keep same optical formula and coatings.

Take a look to this picture attached, is the certificate from ZEISS with his optical explanation.....

GLOBETROTTER,

Thanks very much for posting that information. The center paragraph contains several intriguing and somewhat puzzling statements.

If the use of flint glass with a refractive index above BaK4 is effective at reducing lateral color ("chromatic magnification difference") then I wonder why it isn't always used. Or was it just needed in this particular binocular because of the wide air space in the objective doublet's "teleconstruction"?

Replacing the flint with a lanthanum flint in the objective doublet is just the opposite approach to reducing secondary spectrum from the modern one of replacing the crown with ED glass. In the former the flint is the "special" glass, although it's hard to imagine what could have been used as a mating glass since lanthanum flints all have higher refractive indices than normal flints and thus would seem to be worse matches for any possible "crown". In any case a 20% reduction in secondary spectrum is pretty trivial. Apochromatic correction of secondary spectrum would be more like 75% to around 90% using Fluorite or one of its glass equivalents.

Henry

I have tried a few of old military Zeiss binoculars with impressive quality(far superior to standard binoculars at that time). For example an 8x30 with large ocular lenses allowing the entire FOV with eyeglasses on. Also with an impressive sharpness towards the edges.
I very much think that some of the old military binoculars would optically compete with the high grade models today if they had the modern coatings of today. The main difference is the coating, which wasn't very good at that time.

Swedpat said:

I have tried a few of old military Zeiss binoculars with impressive quality(far superior to standard binoculars at that time). For example an 8x30 with large ocular lenses allowing the entire FOV with eyeglasses on. Also with an impressive sharpness towards the edges.
I very much think that some of the old military binoculars would optically compete with the high grade models today if they had the modern coatings of today. The main difference is the coating, which wasn't very good at that time.

Click to expand...

You are right main difference are coating and they are better build.

The problem now is roof bins are the only option among alphas and they are scared to rebuild old hight quality porros because with new coating and glass will surpass easy any roof......and they already invest a lot in Roof desings

Cheers.