FL to SF (1 Viewer)

S

St. Elmo

Well-known member

• Jan 27, 2015

• #1

I'm not sure how the HT fits into the line of descent, but if the SF is considered the successor to the FL, I'd really like to see a side-by-side. Anybody out there with both?

 

J

jan van daalen

Well-known member

• Jan 27, 2015

• #2

St. Elmo said:

I'm not sure how the HT fits into the line of descent, but if the SF is considered the successor to the FL, I'd really like to see a side-by-side. Anybody out there with both?

Click to expand...

I would say that the HT is the successor of the FL and the SF is a different league. Like the SV and the SLC.

Jan

 

H

henry link

Well-known member

• Jan 27, 2015

• #3

I agree with Jan. The optical formula of the 42mm HT looks to be little if any changed from the 42mm FL. Optical differences appear to be limited to increases in glass and perhaps AR coating transmission and improvements to internal baffling. The SF is a radically different optical design from stem to stern.

 

Last edited: Jan 27, 2015

V

Vespobuteo

Well-known member

• Jan 28, 2015

• #4

St. Elmo said:

I'm not sure how the HT fits into the line of descent, but if the SF is considered the successor to the FL, I'd really like to see a side-by-side. Anybody out there with both?

Click to expand...

yep, that would be really interesting to see,
I really need a lot of motivation to upgrade from my 7x42 FL…
|8.|

 

arran

Well-known member

• Mar 10, 2015

• #5

Indeed the HT is a restyled version of the FL.
Out of testing in the field my experience is that the HT has higher light transmission and more sensitive to internal reflections and glare than the SF
The SF beats these 2 without doubt on sharpness and glare

 

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist

• Mar 14, 2015

• #6

arran said:

Indeed the HT is a restyled version of the FL.
Out of testing in the field my experience is that the HT has higher light transmission and more sensitive to internal reflections and glare than the SF
The SF beats these 2 without doubt on sharpness and glare

Click to expand...

The HT is very different from the FL - I have both. Maybe not in optical design but in coatings for sure as the reflected colour is now quite orange / red compared to the purple / magenta of the FL.

The difference is mostly whiter whites and more neutral colour bias as well as better contrast..........all IMO of course.

 

Troubador

Moderator

Staff member

Supporter

• Mar 14, 2015

• #7

Jan, Henry and Arran are all correct: HT is an FL, but it is not just an FL.

So James is right too: side by side the differences are easy to see, whiter whites and to my eyes, significantly richer reds although still 'neutral' overall and not 'warm' as a Leica.

For me the handling is much better for long periods of viewing, but for sure FL is a landmark in the history of Zeiss bins.

Lee

 

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist

• Mar 14, 2015

• #8

Well, there is HT glass in the HT that isn't in the FL's as well, although many would call that marketing and not innovation......