New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (2 Viewers)

Sagittarius · Sep 5, 2014

Mike, which of the major players of the binocular world use Schott glass ?
If anyone should know, it would be you, Mike. |8)|
Inquiring minds want to know, Mike. :t:

dalat · Sep 5, 2014

There is a nice post in another forum answering most of the glassy questions here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1070119/0&year=2011#10180091

The true (but very boring) answer is that they buy from the company that can deliver, and have good prices.

Only the special, mission-critical glasses in a construction is locked down to one or three main sources. The rest can actually be sourced from a number of players.

Click to expand...

This. I actually flinched when I saw the thread title, because I hadn't run across this question in respect to camera optics, but it is very common with sport optics and I'm quite tired of hearing it.

I work for a company in that field (I'm not not really into the optical part myself though) , and we always get asked at trade shows (especially in the US) something like "What kind of Glass do you use?", "Where does your glass come from?" or "Do you use Schott glass?". It is very confusing to people when you start telling them that glass is a material with physical properties and can be sourced from different manufacturers without anyone ever knowing the difference. And it gets even more puzzling when you tell them that a technical drawing for a particular lens may specify e.g. five glass types from different manufacturers, albeit with the same physical properties (index and Abbe V-number) that are specified with tolerances. At that point, it simply doesn't matter who makes it. Of course there are some glass types that are not commonly available from all manufacturers, and some can even be sourced from one manufacturer only, but that is of minor interest to the end user (it can become a logistical nightmare for the manufacturer though if your only source cannot deliver).

Schott isn't owned by Zeiss as in "Carl Zeiss AG", the manufacturer of optics. Schott and Zeiss are independent companies that are both owned by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung, a foundation. So they are more like brothers and not like father and son with Zeiss having power over Schott.

jan van daalen · Sep 5, 2014

dalat said:
There is a nice post in another forum answering most of the glassy questions here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1070119/0&year=2011#10180091

Hadn't found this one yet.

Thanks

Troubador · Sep 5, 2014

dalat said:
There is a nice post in another forum answering most of the glassy questions here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1070119/0&year=2011#10180091

Interesting post that you quote there Florian.

Many years ago I discovered a bubble in an element of the lens that my father had fitted to his SLR. I did some desk research on this phenomenon (this was way before PCs and Google etc) and I remember reading that at the time optical glass was commonly specified not just by Abbe Number / Refractive Index but also by the number of defects like the bubble (I think they called them seeds) I saw. The more you paid, the few defects you could expect in the glass you bought and this was brought about by greater care and expense during the melting and cooling process. My sources noted that some glass suppliers could supply glass with zero defects but that this was very expensive.

Does this situation still pertain today I wonder. If so there could be a hierarchy of available glasses, defined as much by the quantity of defects as the optical properties.

My point here Florian is that your OP seems to view all glasses with similar optical properties as created equal and interchangeable, and I am wondering if this is really correct.

Lee

jan van daalen · Sep 5, 2014

ceasar said:
There are 14 Schott Glass plants in North America. One of them is less than 20 miles from where I live. The 2nd link is a recent press release about the plant. The release states that the "Schott Group" has a work force of 15,400 people.

http://www.us.schott.com/english/locations.html

http://www.us.schott.com/english/news/press.html?NID=560&freturl=/english/company/index.html

Bob

Bob,

Same down here. Just 20 miles from here there is a Schott situated. Schott has brought out a beautifull book called Schott history 1884-2009, published for their 125 year. I got mine from "our" Schott plant. You should visit them and ask for that book.

Jan

brocknroller · Sep 5, 2014

jan van daalen said:
Gary,

That's right, but only stating that (like James did) does not do right to the role Schott played to the Zeiss development.
Stating that Zeiss owns Schott and therefor only uses Schott glass and/or other brands can not use Schott glass because Zeiss won't accept that (Brock's statement) is completely out of any reality.

For me, Zeiss and Schott are equal but your statement above is correct.

Jan

Jan,

:stuck: You have a real penchant for twisting my words, which is why I am always reluctant to reply to your posts. I did not say that other brands can't use Schott glass, Swaro uses Schott glass.

My point had to do with why Swaro isn't suing Zeiss for making the SF while it did threaten Nikon over the EDG (even before the SV EL was launched).

Zeiss Foundation owns Schott and Swaro uses Schott glass (not exclusively, but among other glass), and therefore, the two companies have a closer relationship with each other than Swaro and Nikon. So I speculated that Swaro might be less likely to threaten litigation against Zeiss because it uses Schott glass.

Then again, perhaps Zeiss learned from the EDG situation that they should contact Swaro first before making a bin that's close to the SV EL (and even designed by Dobler, who was the or one of the designers of the original EL) before going ahead with production of the SF, and make some kind of arrangment, so they didn't have to go through what Nikon did -- a complete redesign -- which Mike Freiberg said was "costly."

I'd be very interested to hear what Mike Jensen has to say about this if he's allowed to share that information.

But then you seemingly went off on a tangent about how big Schott was compared to Zeiss, and asked how many employees Zeiss has, so I found the answer to your question (which is slightly outdated since the website stated 24,000 employees and Mike said 25,000), and I posted the answer, however, I don't see the relevancy to how many employees Zeiss has to my question about the Swaro/EDG litigation threat and the SF.

Brock

dalat · Sep 5, 2014

Troubador said:
My point here Florian is that your OP seems to view all glasses with similar optical properties as created equal and interchangeable, and I am wondering if this is really correct.

Hi Lee, didn't you just answer that question yourself?

Troubador said:
I remember reading that at the time optical glass was commonly specified not just by Abbe Number / Refractive Index but also by the number of defects like the bubble (I think they called them seeds) I saw.

The number of defects is characterised by certain specifications, and when this specifications are met, it shouldn't matter who met them.

JabaliHunter · Sep 5, 2014

brocknroller said:
My point had to do with why Swaro isn't suing Zeiss for making the SF while it did threaten Nikon over the EDG (even before the SV EL was launched).

Lets face it, when the 1st EDG came out it did look like a knock-off Swaro EL from the east... I'm sure that had something to do with it. And you say, Swaro only threatened, so there may just be something to that... and Nikon wouldn't want that reputation so decided that discretion was the better part of valour and changed the design?

As to the SV and SF, there would have to be something concrete to latch onto to have a court fight - and in this case I assume that there just isn't. They don't even look particularly similar to me...

Troubador · Sep 5, 2014

dalat said:
The number of defects is characterised by certain specifications, and when this specifications are met, it shouldn't matter who met them.

Yes, I know what you mean, but when I was in the steel industry it was common that different manufacturer's were more capable of meeting meeting some specification tolerances than others, and they also had their own variations on international specs for certain end-uses.

For example a common grade was 18 Cr and 8 Ni but this could be tuned for different applications for example deep drawing or stretch forming into sinks or table ware.

Also for table ware and cutlery manufacture it was necessary to take care to reduce or eliminate surface defects all the way from the feed stock of hot rolled coil through to the final cold rolled coil or sheet.

I may be wrong but I find it hard to believe that all optical glasses of the same grade are homogenous from all suppliers.

What I am trying to say is that there were other specifications 'behind' the AISI or Werkstoff or BS book specifications and I am wondering if it is the same for glass.

For example I would not be surprised if it is difficult to achieve certain levels of freedom from defects at the same time as you achieve certain optical characteristics and maybe not all suppliers can do this or perhaps not all at the same price.

Lee

brocknroller · Sep 5, 2014

JabaliHunter said:
Lets face it, when the 1st EDG came out it did look like a knock-off Swaro EL from the east... I'm sure that had something to do with it. And you say, Swaro only threatened, so there may just be something to that... and Nikon wouldn't want that reputation so decided that discretion was the better part of valour and changed the design?

As to the SV and SF, there would have to be something concrete to latch onto to have a court fight - and in this case I assume that there just isn't. They don't even look particularly similar to me...

I don't think the EDG I looked any more like the EL than a lot of open bridge roofs. Look at the Rainier, for example.

alpen_rainier_10x42_hd_ed_binoculars

There must be at least half a dozen companies making open bridge roofs. The EDG had different armor than the EL, the focus mechanisms were different, Swaro's pulls out and the knob turns the diopter, Swaro's pulls out to access the diopter ring, the eyecups are different, and having handled both, they don't even feel like each other in the hand.

Any open bridge bin is going to resemble the EL and to that extent, look like a "knock-off." Surprisingly, Swaro was able to patent the body design, at least in Europe, so technically, they could sue any company that used the open bridge design which sells their roofs in Europe, but they haven't.

The thing is, none of those other roofs could compete at the alpha level like the EDG could. So the EDG was a threat.

I don't remember the exact language that Mike Freiberg used, but the gist is that Swaro told Nikon to stop making the EDG I or else. As it turned out, there was a flaw with the EDG focuser, anyway, so they would have to redesign it (whatever was redesigned was internal, externally, the EDG II focuser looks the same as the EDG I), but they could have kept the same body. With the threat of litigation, they also had to redesign the body, and they came up with the open hinge design, which some people like better than the original open bridge. Swaro then came out with the open hinge SLC-HD. Who's copying whom now?

Once word got out that Nikon would replace your EDG I with a more expensive EDG II if there was a defect, EDG buyers were finding defects that Nikon never even heard of, and some of those EDG I owners sold their EDG IIs at a tidy profit since the EDG Is were steeply discounted. It was a fiasco for Nikon. I still wonder why they rushed the EDG I out the gate knowing that reviewers had reported problems with focusers on the prototypes they tried, the same problems that buyers did once they bought them.

You see what's happening to the SF now. Zeiss found some minor flaw and is delaying production until the bugs are worked out.

This is speculation, but I wonder if Nikon heard it through the grapevine that Swaro would be releasing the SV EL and wanted to beat it to the market with the EDG I? Got to be some reason why a company would knowingly go into production with a major flaw like a loose focuser that won't focus without pushing it down hard with your finger and that's so loose that when you look up at a bird in a tree, the focuser knob comes loose and hits you right between the eyes. ZAP!

Swaro could sue Zeiss for making the SF based on the open bridge design alone, though putting in that third bridge might have been Zeiss's loophole.

There's still a mystery here that has yet to be revealed....

Brock

jan van daalen · Sep 5, 2014

brocknroller said:
Jan,

:stuck: You have a real penchant for twisting my words, which is why I am always reluctant to reply to your posts. I did not say that other brands can't use Schott glass, Swaro uses Schott glass.

My point had to do with why Swaro isn't suing Zeiss for making the SF while it did threaten Nikon over the EDG (even before the SV EL was launched).

Zeiss Foundation owns Schott and Swaro uses Schott glass (not exclusively, but among other glass), and therefore, the two companies have a closer relationship with each other than Swaro and Nikon. So I speculated that Swaro might be less likely to threaten litigation against Zeiss because it uses Schott glass.

Then again, perhaps Zeiss learned from the EDG situation that they should contact Swaro first before making a bin that's close to the SV EL (and even designed by Dobler, who was the or one of the designers of the original EL) before going ahead with production of the SF, and make some kind of arrangment, so they didn't have to go through what Nikon did -- a complete redesign -- which Mike Freiberg said was "costly."

I'd be very interested to hear what Mike Jensen has to say about this if he's allowed to share that information.

But then you seemingly went off on a tangent about how big Schott was compared to Zeiss, and asked how many employees Zeiss has, so I found the answer to your question (which is slightly outdated since the website stated 24,000 employees and Mike said 25,000), and I posted the answer, however, I don't see the relevancy to how many employees Zeiss has to my question about the Swaro/EDG litigation threat and the SF.

Brock

Brock,

Sorry you feel that way, but only o in this unique special case I jumped to soon to my conclusion. My bad!! Sag's post on 957 and yours on 984 brought me to that idea.
What I should have said was: your speculation that Swarovski using Schott glass would make them, in your opninion, less confrontational towards Zeiss, is IMHO completely out of any reality, because Zeiss Optics is peanuts compared to Schott, but both are equal under the Foundation umbrella and Zeiss Optics has no leverage what so ever over Schott.

I got the idea that a lot of BF members seems to think that Zeiss Optics owns Schott and tried to get clear which position ones has in the Foundation.
This has indeed no relevancy towards Nikon (but somehow you allways succeed to bring the subject to Nikon:eat.

Jan

mooreorless · Sep 5, 2014

henry link said:
Sorry to revisit an earlier digression, but I haven’t been keeping up much lately. I’m seeing now that I stand accused of “rudeness” toward Leif and I’ve been made the poster boy for the lab coats.

So far I haven’t seen anything on this thread that would cause me to change how I test binoculars. This is a hobby after all, so I’m only keen to do what’s fun and for me that’s gathering information about optical performance by applying some of the classical techniques of telescope testing to binoculars.

If anybody has any questions about some method I use please ask me about it. If I can be convinced it’s flawed or irrelevant I’ll be more than willing to change. However, I’m not going to be baited into what I know will be an unpleasant exchange by responding to Leif’s openly hostile post. If anyone is interested in knowing how I was “very rude” to him “not so long ago”, the entire incident is contained in this thread from February 2013.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=249992

Henry I hope this does not mean that you will not post reviews/ posts etc. on here. I could understand why you might not want to. I would sure miss your posts!!
Regards, Steve

Chosun Juan · Sep 6, 2014

henry link said:
Sorry to revisit an earlier digression, but I haven’t been keeping up much lately. I’m seeing now that I stand accused of “rudeness” toward Leif and I’ve been made the poster boy for the lab coats.

So far I haven’t seen anything on this thread that would cause me to change how I test binoculars. This is a hobby after all, so I’m only keen to do what’s fun and for me that’s gathering information about optical performance by applying some of the classical techniques of telescope testing to binoculars.

If anybody has any questions about some method I use please ask me about it. If I can be convinced it’s flawed or irrelevant I’ll be more than willing to change. However, I’m not going to be baited into what I know will be an unpleasant exchange by responding to Leif’s openly hostile post. If anyone is interested in knowing how I was “very rude” to him “not so long ago”, the entire incident is contained in this thread from February 2013.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=249992

mooreorless said:
Henry I hope this does not mean that you will not post reviews/ posts etc. on here. I could understand why you might not want to. I would sure miss your posts!!
Regards, Steve

I will 2nd that Henry! :t:

I think that even though the view through a binocular consists of a 'system' comprising instrument + observer (+ target and environment that matter!

that steps to quantify the optical characteristics of the instrument are extremely valuable. Especially when attempted to a disclosed 'scientific' method that in essence should be repeatable, open to changes in assumptions and starting conditions, and able to be critiqued and improved upon.

'Removing' the 'human' 'variable' as far as possible (even though that's nowhere near complete) is worthwhile and much appreciated. :t:

Folks making the point that 'their' viewed experience is the only thing that counts is correct - for them as a 'unique' individual 'system'. Even though we share common DNA, environment, broad range of behaviours, physiology, and development etc, and instruments are designed to accommodate the 'normal' user ('normal' as in the statistical sense), our own makeup may present an entirely different 'view' compared to other people. All are correct for themselves. Besides we've all been living with our 'own' 'views' for our entire lives, and thus are 'normalised' to it's peculiarities - so much so that we may not even notice. Hence my earlier question to Ed about just what exactly is 'normal' human vision.

Other users and different instruments are great - they can bring these 'peculiarities' into stark relief. We have already seen such a phenomena even with the few scant reports of viewing the SF.

So keep up the good work henry! :t: It does help :cat:

Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan · Sep 6, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
Ed,

You are probably the best person to ask about this .... as far as flattness (field curvature), pincushion, and /or barrel distortion, as well as sharpness - what does the natural human eye see? Is there a descriptor for how this varies with degrees off centre?

Granted I've been living inside this head of mine for quite a while now (well mostly :hippy: , so I'm probably quite 'normalised' and biased to the view, but the field characteristics of my vision seem quite pleasant to me (flatness, pincushion , etc) - apart from perhaps wanting more resolution and zoom magnification would be awesome!

Apart from the zoom dream, how would normal human vision translate into a binocular's optical prescription i.e. field characteristics ? Is it possible to replicate, or improve upon in a bin ? and which ones get closest ? :cat:

Chosun :gh:

elkcub said:
Hi Chosun Juan,

I'm not quite sure where to grab onto those questions. However, in general, designers are up against a statistical problem since, (a) there is considerable variation even among emmetropes, and (b) the human brain has uncanny abilities to adapt, or, as you might say, become "normalized." When it comes to design decisions about how much to correct various aberrations (field curvature, distortion, CA, etc.) my approach would be to maximize consistency with the oculomotor system and perception. But not many opticians know those subjects. Nonetheless, significant advances are being made to determine how best to correct aberrations — and this is not always known to designers. Some of this advance comes from basic research like Holger's, and some from empirical trial and error. Having said that, however, I doubt that there will ever come a time when there is enough science-driven agreement to quash otherwise profitable "innovations." The challenge, I guess, is for each buyer to know what's hype and when enough is enough. BF is great for that purpose. I'm still learning.

Ed

Ed,

Thank you for your response - and yes the topic could fill another thread, or most likely several volumes of books!

Oh to be an emmertrope! |8.| The reason I asked is that I really don't notice distortions in my own vision. If I really scrutinize, there is maybe a bit of detectable barrel distortion at the edge of the normal viewing cone (60* straight in front). This would match up with the 'distortion test' I did on Holger's site where I was somewhere in the range of 0.7 -0.8, yet I don't notice any 'rolling ball' when rapidly panning my own head (just lots of rattling inside!

If there's any CA there - I'm st*ffed if I can see it .....

As a myope, with each eye of different strength, and I'm pretty certain some astigmatism creeping in here and there along with diminishing focus accommodation - my view gets 'corrupted' the minute I put my eyeglasses on. I readily note however 'changes' to the 'system' view when looking through different bins. (Henry actually gave us a wonderful tip in determining a bin's distortion characteristics - by looking from the objective end :t

Could you please elaborate some more re:- bin design, on your "approach would be to maximize consistency with the oculomotor system and perception." ?

My own uneducated guess would be very mild pincushion starting maybe 2/3 of the way out (to give the illusion of an enhanced 3-D view), and counter 'rolling ball' phenomena for just about all users; very very mild field curvature starting at >80% of the way out (suited to user age, hence focal accommodation - determined by bin format =exit pupil target audience); no astigmatism; No longitudinal CA and no lateral CA over at least 90% of the field; maximized light transmission (96%+ seems possible these days), flat curve - ie. neutral colour rendition; near as possible perfect control of remaining stray light and glare; resolving limits and resolution at least 2x greater than the best human eyes (Rayleigh and Dawes limits should be met) ; 70 degree AFOV; at least 18mm eye relief (20 would help); and the highest quality glass (yes Lee - no bubbles!

) This should give at least a 60% 'super sweet' spot which would be a vast improvement on the ~15%'. now, and sharpness and clarity over just about the entire field.....
Of course I think PorroII prisms, 9x50, in a nifty Carbon Fibre body (sub 30 Oz all up), and CW focuser would be the bees knees too!

Thoughts ??

And which bin gets closest for you - the beloved SLC'S ?

Thanks :t:

Chosun :gh:

ceasar · Sep 6, 2014

jan van daalen said:
brocknroller said:

Jan,

:stuck: You have a real penchant for twisting my words, which is why I am always reluctant to reply to your posts. I did not say that other brands can't use Schott glass, Swaro uses Schott glass.

My point had to do with why Swaro isn't suing Zeiss for making the SF while it did threaten Nikon over the EDG (even before the SV EL was launched).

Zeiss Foundation owns Schott and Swaro uses Schott glass (not exclusively, but among other glass), and therefore, the two companies have a closer relationship with each other than Swaro and Nikon. So I speculated that Swaro might be less likely to threaten litigation against Zeiss because it uses Schott glass.

Then again, perhaps Zeiss learned from the EDG situation that they should contact Swaro first before making a bin that's close to the SV EL (and even designed by Dobler, who was the or one of the designers of the original EL) before going ahead with production of the SF, and make some kind of arrangment, so they didn't have to go through what Nikon did -- a complete redesign -- which Mike Freiberg said was "costly."

I'd be very interested to hear what Mike Jensen has to say about this if he's allowed to share that information.

But then you seemingly went off on a tangent about how big Schott was compared to Zeiss, and asked how many employees Zeiss has, so I found the answer to your question (which is slightly outdated since the website stated 24,000 employees and Mike said 25,000), and I posted the answer, however, I don't see the relevancy to how many employees Zeiss has to my question about the Swaro/EDG litigation threat and the SF.

Brock

Brock,

Sorry you feel that way, but only o in this unique special case I jumped to soon to my conclusion. My bad!! Sag's post on 957 and yours on 984 brought me to that idea.
What I should have said was: your speculation that Swarovski using Schott glass would make them, in your opninion, less confrontational towards Zeiss, is IMHO completely out of any reality, because Zeiss Optics is peanuts compared to Schott, but both are equal under the Foundation umbrella and Zeiss Optics has no leverage what so ever over Schott.

I got the idea that a lot of BF members seems to think that Zeiss Optics owns Schott and tried to get clear which position ones has in the Foundation.
This has indeed no relevancy towards Nikon (but somehow you allways succeed to bring the subject to Nikon:eat.

Jan

Click to expand...

Jan, (and Brock too.)

This is about Swaro and Nikon.

Do either of you think Nikon got Swaro's permission to make and sell this particular double hinged binocular?

http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Binoculars/Monarch-X-8.5X45.html

If not, why would it have been necessary to get it for the EDG?

Bob

brocknroller · Sep 6, 2014

jan van daalen said:
brocknroller said:

,,,,
This has indeed no relevancy towards Nikon (but somehow you allways succeed to bring the subject to Nikon:eat.

Jan

Click to expand...

Just trying to balance out how you always succeed to bring up the subject of Swarovski even when it has no relevance, which at least the EDG does with the SF.

Brock

Sagittarius · Sep 6, 2014

Jan,

If Zeiss Optics has no leverage, why does Schott not offer HT glass to other manufacturers ?
Why is HT glass proprietary and exclusive to Zeiss optics only ?
Wouldn't Swarovski benefit by using HT glass in their newest SLC binoculars with Abbe-Konig prisms ?

NDhunter · Sep 6, 2014

Sagittarius said:
Jan,

If Zeiss Optics has no leverage, why does Schott not offer HT glass to other manufacturers ?
Why is HT glass proprietary and exclusive to Zeiss optics only ?
Wouldn't Swarovski benefit by using HT glass in their newest SLC binoculars with Abbe-Konig prisms ?

I do think all this talk about Schott glass is interesting. They have
many different products to offer. That same glass may be available
to others. Zeiss likes to name drop, as Schott is a family member.
Other brands may not feel the need or even want to.

Nobody here knows what those things are, unless you are privy to
some very confidential information.

I would not be concerned in the least. Any binocular is a sum of its
parts. The glass brand is a small part.

Jerry

Chosun Juan · Sep 6, 2014

Sagittarius said:
Jan,

If Zeiss Optics has no leverage, why does Schott not offer HT glass to other manufacturers ?
Why is HT glass proprietary and exclusive to Zeiss optics only ?
Wouldn't Swarovski benefit by using HT glass in their newest SLC binoculars with Abbe-Konig prisms ?

NDhunter said:
I do think all this talk about Schott glass is interesting. They have
many different products to offer. That same glass may be available
to others. Zeiss likes to name drop, as Schott is a family member.
Other brands may not feel the need or even want to.

Nobody here knows what those things are, unless you are privy to
some very confidential information.

I would not be concerned in the least. Any binocular is a sum of its
parts. The glass brand is a small part.

Jerry

Apart from what Jerry said about the bin being the "sum of its parts" I wouldn't be so sure that Schott doesn't supply the HT glass elsewhere ....

Take a look at the Allbino's light transmission graph for the Swarovski 10x42SV .... ~94% transmission in the blue - it's got to have that or something very much like it in it ....

I haven't seen a transmission curve for the A-K 56mmSLC's yet, but the design could certainly make use of that type of glass, but then again so could a possible 8x32HT (ie. an 8x32FL with some HT glass bunged in it) !! |^| :cat:

Perhaps Swarovski Just thinks that their little "Gold Hawk" trumps any "HT" logos splashed all about the joint .... :king: :smoke:

Chosun :gh:

jan van daalen · Sep 6, 2014

Sagittarius said:
Jan,

If Zeiss Optics has no leverage, why does Schott not offer HT glass to other manufacturers ?
Why is HT glass proprietary and exclusive to Zeiss optics only ?
Wouldn't Swarovski benefit by using HT glass in their newest SLC binoculars with Abbe-Konig prisms ?

Sagi,

A model is the outcome of several used glasstypes.
I do not know wether a brand uses HT glass. I do know that Zeiss marketing wise say THEY do.
HT glass is only HT glass. Put some elements in glass and you have a certain type of glass. IMO can Hoya and O'Hara for example make the same glass.

Jan

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (2 Viewers)

Well-known member

...

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

porromaniac

...

Well-known member

Attachments

Moderator

porromaniac

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Given to Fly

Well-known member

porromaniac

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread