Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 vs Cabelas Euro HD 8x32 (2 Viewers)

Annabeth2 said:

I'm confused by the resolution test results. Was it inconclusive due to the tripod mount issue? Or, were you able to tell which bin is sharper ?

Click to expand...

I apologize for the confusion. It would have been easier if they had used numbers and letters, but because of its layout and the way the different columns and rows are numbered I slipped up in making it clear enough.

I have enclosed a pic of the chart in order to clarify my findings. There's a large black square right in the middle of the chart near the top. On the right hand side below that square is column -1. If you follow my two poorly drawn red lines you'll see that the upper one is pointing to the 2nd row in column 1 (not the larger set in column -1) and the lower line is pointing to the last row, #6 of the same column.

My unaided eye could easily make out both vertical and horizontal bars of the larger set that the upper red line is pointing to and with the Zeiss tripler I could do the same for the last row in that column that the lower red line is pointing to.

When looking at this chart here's a few things to keep in mind. Size wise, the enclosed pic on my 24" screen is within a millimeter or two of the printed version that I use for these tests. I view the chart from a distance of about 20' and with my 1.5X magnification reading glasses I can barely even see those lines in the 6th row of the 1st column from less than 12". When I managed to keep my hand still enough every now and then I did get a clear glimpse of the next smaller set with the Zeiss. That, coupled with the slightly sharper stars it showed, leads me to believe that doing the aforementioned test using both the correct bino harness and tripler adapter would clearly show its slightly higher resolution/sharpness. Hopefully that clarifies this test for you.

I really enjoyed the Cabels/Zeiss/Pentax comparisons, Well Done!

Thanks for the clarification. It helps a lot.

David

Greetings. Many thanks for the wonderful read. Perhaps you can advise with how the Cabelas handles with you vis-a-vis the Zeiss, most specifically in reference to the ocular placing for optimum view. To obtain the Zeiss' optimum view--at least in my case--few seconds are needed to arrive at that perfect alignment. Of course, once I am there, the results from the FL are superb, but the repetitive alignment process several times in the hike is annoying to a degree, and I hope that you have found the Cabelas better in that respect.

Further, I wonder why Meopta is not marketing this model under its own name. One can speculate, but has the company addressed this question before. Thank you very much.

I think "Meopta Man" mentioned something about this in one of the original Meopta 8x32 threads.

I still question ''vivid'' colours as anything meaningful. My $350.00 Terra has the most ''vivid'' colours of all my glass and I would put that down to a warm colour bias and lower transmission.

Personally, I don't see these vivid colours as realistic - aesthetically pleasing perhaps but not true-to-life. Leica tends toward vivid and you can see why when you look at the lower transmission values and the skew of the curve.

If you don't like the term "vivid" for the Meopta, just substitute "washed out" or "a little dingy" for the FL. That's exactly the conclusion I reached comparing the FL to the SV. I never would have described the FL that way before making this comparison.

Interestingly, it's also the same conclusion I reached comparing the Meopta S2 scope to a Swaro ATM 80 earlier this year. I kept the Meopta. Haven't seen the ATX, but I suspect it's a similar step up from the ATM/ATS.

In neither case did it appear a question of color balance or brightness (well, a part of the FL's "dingy" is indeed a touch of yellow, let's say when you're looking at bright overcast skies). These latest coatings/glasses are a step up. Things look entirely natural to me, just better.

And really, none of this should be surprising considering how long the FL's have been around.

Kammerdiner said:

If you don't like the term "vivid" for the Meopta, just substitute "washed out" or "a little dingy" for the FL. That's exactly the conclusion I reached comparing the FL to the SV. I never would have described the FL that way before making this comparison.

Interestingly, it's also the same conclusion I reached comparing the Meopta S2 scope to a Swaro ATM 80 earlier this year. I kept the Meopta. Haven't seen the ATX, but I suspect it's a similar step up from the ATM/ATS.

In neither case did it appear a question of color balance or brightness (well, a part of the FL's "dingy" is indeed a touch of yellow, let's say when you're looking at bright overcast skies). These latest coatings/glasses are a step up. Things look entirely natural to me, just better.

And really, none of this should be surprising considering how long the FL's have been around.

Click to expand...

I get the same impression comparing the FL to the HT. But I would still contend that ''vivid'' colours seem very often imparted to warm [brownish / yellowish] colour bias. The Terra is ''vivid,'' although it is not entirely life-like. My 20 year old 7x42 Classic has rich, warm colours but it, too, has a slightly warm bias. Same thing with my 20 year old 7x36 Elite - greens and yellows are oversaturated [like the Terra], which gives the impression of brightness and ''vividness.'' The Elite, though, has poor white rendering and relatively weak brightness compared to modern glass.

james holdsworth said:

I still question ''vivid'' colours as anything meaningful. My $350.00 Terra has the most ''vivid'' colours of all my glass and I would put that down to a warm colour bias and lower transmission.

Personally, I don't see these vivid colours as realistic - aesthetically pleasing perhaps but not true-to-life. Leica tends toward vivid and you can see why when you look at the lower transmission values and the skew of the curve.

Click to expand...

Well, partially I agree. The binocular will not produce light, only subtract some wavelength ranges. Ideally, the transmission rate should be 100% at all wavelengths. Second best might be for example 94% with a flat curve.
Neither of these options seem to exist yet, but as far as I can see, the SV's are quite colour neutral.

When 100% transmission of all wavelengths is impossible and no maker seems to be able to produce a perfectly flat curve, it's time to compromise.
And then, not only personal taste and aesthetical considerations will influence the buyer's choice, but also the intended use.

If I were an ornithologist specialised on terns, I would certainly choose the FL or a Kowa Genesis/Prominar. But if I was a duck expert, I might be very happy with a Nikon HG. Each colour bias may have disadvantages that can be turned into advantages.

I have made a clear statement before that the FL series by no means is colour neutral, however "yellow" would be the last hue to come into my mind when trying to describe it.

You're saying "warm colour bias and lower transmission" is the source of vivid colours. But I claim it's not all that simple. The Nikon HG's colour balance goes towards orange and its white rendering is downright lousy.
It suppresses blue very efficiently, hereby not only increasing the colour contrast but also reducing the transmission rate.

The older Meostar, though, has a definitely yellow hue that doesn't increase the colour contrast, particularly not in overcast weather. At times I find the image slightly dull, I want some more brightness and contrast.
As far as I can see from this and other reviews, Meopta has managed to address that single optical disadvantage that separated them from the top tier manufacturers. It had to be done, and they did it.
AB's review makes me very excited to get my own sample. His description of the colours suggests that they hit the nail's head for me, and I will have a binocular that is a clear step above the "old" Meostar but has the optics and the ergonomics that better the FL I sold the other day.

//L

absolut_beethoven said:

Comparing the size of the sweet spot of these two samples that I have on hand, I was surprised to see that the Cabelas has a marginally larger area that remains in focus before blurring becomes noticeable. I only use one eye for this test because with both eyes open when the small print that I’m checking out is on the left with my right eye, then that same print will be smack in the middle of the sweet spot with my left eye and my brain tries to reconcile both images into one, so it becomes more difficult to determine exactly where the image starts blurring. The sweet spot on most good quality binos usually extends to about 70% to 80% of the FOV, unless they have field flattening correction lenses. As mentioned above, there’s not a big difference between these two and I’d estimate that blurring starts around the 70% to 75% on the Zeiss, and about 80% on the Cabelas. Neither is sharp enough right at the edges to read that same small print, but even although it’s still soft and out of focus, doubling the size of the font makes it readable. Both fulfill my criteria in that the view is still useful enough to notice anything moving into your FOV, unless you’re only checking out humming birds and bumble bees!

Click to expand...

AB,

since I am unacquainted with the 8x32 FL I may have the wrong idea about the sweet spot size and the reasons for the blur outside of it.
But I do know that the 10x32 FL can not be refocused to any useful edge sharpness, while the Meostar 8x32 can.
So the Meostar has field curvature and the FL something else. If there's not a total edge sharpness I prefer field curvature above other aberrations, since it occasionally will seem to deliver a deeper depth of field. And I believe that in good daylight, the perceived sweet spot size will increase with the increased depth of field caused by the human pupil contraction.

//L

looksharp65 said:

I have made a clear statement before that the FL series by no means is colour neutral, however "yellow" would be the last hue to come into my mind when trying to describe it.

//L

Click to expand...

Well, maybe "brown" would be a better choice. Whites just aren't as white with the FL as with the SV. They look a little dingy. It's truly not something I ever saw without direct comparison though. And yes, if the Meopta coatings on the HD's are like those on the S2 scope I'd say Meopta has got it down!

The FL has astigmatism I think--Henry once posted some excellent photos of it using pinpoints of light as they approached the edge of the field. Anyway no it can't be focused away and if you're like me you never really get used to it, especially after using the SV's for something like 3 years now.

james holdsworth said:

I still question ''vivid'' colours as anything meaningful. My $350.00 Terra has the most ''vivid'' colours of all my glass and I would put that down to a warm colour bias and lower transmission.

Personally, I don't see these vivid colours as realistic - aesthetically pleasing perhaps but not true-to-life. Leica tends toward vivid and you can see why when you look at the lower transmission values and the skew of the curve.

Click to expand...

I think you hit the real issue saying "aesthetically pleasing" because it is really down to the view that personally give a user most pleasure. I can't comment on the Zeiss 10x but I have the 8x32FL and it is without doubt the best 8x I have looked through, one point being it's brightness, I would not say the 8x32FL is "washed out", but comparing it with my Leica 8x32, the leica does undoubtedly tend to be more vivid, and for me, I quite like that slight warmness, it seems somehow less harsh and a more pleasing view.
So the Zeiss 8x32FL is technically better, sharper, lighter, colours are more true to life, but for me the Leica is more aesthetically pleasing, if I had to give up one of them, it would be a very hard choice, and I think it just might be the Leica that I kept. Happily I don't have to do that, so I can enjoy the good points of both.

Kammerdiner said:

Well, maybe "brown" would be a better choice. Whites just aren't as white with the FL as with the SV. They look a little dingy. It's truly not something I ever saw without direct comparison though. And yes, if the Meopta coatings on the HD's are like those on the S2 scope I'd say Meopta has got it down!

The FL has astigmatism I think--Henry once posted some excellent photos of it using pinpoints of light as they approached the edge of the field. Anyway no it can't be focused away and if you're like me you never really get used to it, especially after using the SV's for something like 3 years now.

Click to expand...

Mark, since we largely agree I won't quibble with you. Our eyes are different and I'm thinking our FL's were different. So I can't say you're wrong.
However:
My main objection to the FL's colour rendition is not lack of whiteness but rather lack of pale pink and pale peach, and how it seems to "over-expose" the image to make all colours a bit pale. I can't say I think it really has a colour bias, but if it has, it's somewhere in the cyan range.

//L

Thanks for the comprehensive review and in-depth discussion!
To clarify one question asked earlier, the Cabela's Euro 8x32 HD binoculars are "Made in Czech Republic". MeoPro series binoculars purchased in North America are "Assembled in USA" in Hauppauge, NY and purchased outside of North America are "Assembled in Czech Republic" in our headquarters.

Bencw said:

I think you hit the real issue saying "aesthetically pleasing" because it is really down to the view that personally give a user most pleasure. I can't comment on the Zeiss 10x but I have the 8x32FL and it is without doubt the best 8x I have looked through, one point being it's brightness, I would not say the 8x32FL is "washed out", but comparing it with my Leica 8x32, the leica does undoubtedly tend to be more vivid, and for me, I quite like that slight warmness, it seems somehow less harsh and a more pleasing view.
So the Zeiss 8x32FL is technically better, sharper, lighter, colours are more true to life, but for me the Leica is more aesthetically pleasing, if I had to give up one of them, it would be a very hard choice, and I think it just might be the Leica that I kept. Happily I don't have to do that, so I can enjoy the good points of both.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

I've had both a Zeiss 8x32FL and Leica 8x32BR simultaneously. I worked with them for a week in a variety of conditions, including the USAF optical chart. The Leica was sharper on the chart, had a larger sweet spot, and had more pleasing (for me) color rendition. Low light performance was indistinguishable between the two.

That was four years ago.

Last month I went through the same exercise with a different Zeiss 8x32FL and a Leica 8x32HD... same exact results with different binoculars.

I just don't get all the love for the 8x32FL... granted it has terrific eye relief, and is a pleasing package aesthetically, but in my experience it's optically an inferior bin to the Leica 8x32 Ultravid.

But differences make the world go round!

Thanks to all for your comments and making this review helpful and interesting to our forum members. Sorry for the delay in addressing your comments, but family and overtime at work take precedence over this OCD hobby/obsession of mine :t:

First off to address the issue of my description of one binos color being more *vivid* than the other. By vivid, I mean more realistic looking. Let’s face it, neither looks 100% exactly like the real thing, which in this case is the spectacular splash of fall colors of the trees in my back yard in bright sunlight. Seeing as they’re only about 30’ away, it’s easy for me to do quick A/B comparisons and decide which looks closer to what my naked eyes see. IMHO in this test under the aforementioned conditions, the Cabelas did a much better job than the Zeiss. The more muted the light, the smaller the differences were. In the twilight test, I honestly couldn’t see any big differences between them except as previously mentioned. Others may see things differently.

ibramr – Eye placement is a little bit easier with the Zeiss due to the larger eye cups which fit my face better. I’m sure that it’ll be a non-issue for me once I get the winged attachments which will also block out the stray light from the side. As far as alignment with the eye pieces is concerned, both are very similar in that alignment is reasonably quick and easy, but not in the same category as the better quality 8x42 class. The larger exit pupil improves eye placement at the cost of being larger, heavier and more expensive.

looksharp65 – I’m one of those who doesn’t spend much time trying to view things at the edge of the FOV for long as it tires my eyes very quickly. Having said that though, I was intrigued by what you said about the Zeiss not being able to get the outer edge into focus so I did that test with the binos to see for myself. I don’t know what your definition of useful focus is, but I could improve the soft out of focus part of the Zeiss to about 80% of the sweet spot sharpness, and about 95% of the sweet spot sharpness with the Cabelas. Personally, I automatically just center anything that catches my attention and focus on that, so hopefully this info is useful to you.

Mac308 – As Henry has previously pointed out, not only do these variations show up in different samples of the same model, but sometimes the differences are even obvious in the left barrel vs the right one. Hence the importance of checking binos out carefully before finalizing the deal.

By chance has anyone checked the Conquest HD vs the Meopta HD? I wonder which one has less CA?

absolut_beethoven said:

Mac308 – As Henry has previously pointed out, not only do these variations show up in different samples of the same model, but sometimes the differences are even obvious in the left barrel vs the right one. Hence the importance of checking binos out carefully before finalizing the deal.

Click to expand...

Does no one see what this says about the quality of even alpha glass?
If the quality control standards are so lax that the left and right barrels are obviously different, consumers deserve better. Especially as very few buyers have the luxury of personally sorting through a row of new glasses to pick out the cherry specimen.
I think this is a huge opportunity for the Chinese manufacturers. Adding actual performance measurements for every glass as part of the production process would be the next step towards market leadership, much as the JB standards were for the Japanese suppliers in the 1950s.

etudiant said:

Does no one see what this says about the quality of even alpha glass?
If the quality control standards are so lax that the left and right barrels are obviously different, consumers deserve better. Especially as very few buyers have the luxury of personally sorting through a row of new glasses to pick out the cherry specimen.
I think this is a huge opportunity for the Chinese manufacturers. Adding actual performance measurements for every glass as part of the production process would be the next step towards market leadership, much as the JB standards were for the Japanese suppliers in the 1950s.

Click to expand...

I agree and think it unacceptable that any $2000.00 + product go out the door with such potential variation. Given the ''hand-made'' nature of these products, how hard is it to do simple resolution testing on each barrel before they go out the door?

Set a max. arc/sec reading and stick to it - heck advertise that - ''our binoculars are guaranteed to resolve to less than 3 arc/sec'' or some-such.

etudiant said:

Does no one see what this says about the quality of even alpha glass?
If the quality control standards are so lax that the left and right barrels are obviously different, consumers deserve better. Especially as very few buyers have the luxury of personally sorting through a row of new glasses to pick out the cherry specimen.
I think this is a huge opportunity for the Chinese manufacturers. Adding actual performance measurements for every glass as part of the production process would be the next step towards market leadership, much as the JB standards were for the Japanese suppliers in the 1950s.

Click to expand...

I don't know what it says about the quality of Alpha glass. I couldn't find a reference to Henry's post in this thread which is what AB was commenting on.

Bob