• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

My thoughts on the Zeiss 10X42SF (1 Viewer)

Henry,

I am familiar with the discussion in the thread that you mentioned. I guess the points that I was trying to make were these:
-the SF distortion is more complex than SV's and I am not sure that the effect induced by it should be called RB like for the SV, as a part of the SF's FoV should not roll (due to pincushion)----but I might be mistaken; I mean it does not look like a rolling globe, does it?
-I thought that the complex pincushion+barrel distortion of the SF might reduce the "RB" effect, compared with SV, but people who are affected by RB appear to suggest the opposite---maybe it is the barrel distortion that amplifies the effect, but then how about the pincushion distortion that should attenuate/eliminate it for a large part of the FoV?

Peter.
 
Last edited:
I directly compared them side by side for several days and overall much preferred the SV, I don't know about "conformation bias" just what my eyes told me I liked better personally. The only area that I felt the SF had the edge was CA control and superior weight and balance. I did say in earlier posts that some would prefer the SF, definitely not me though, the yellow cast when viewing with the sun to my back was the final nail in the coffin. I'm not a brand loyalist and will buy whatever pleases me regardless of the name, I am very glad you enjoy your SF.


pesto said:
Robert:
Because you already have the SV your comparison with the SF might suffer from "confirmation bias". I have compared the SV and SF and found the SF to be superior in 10 out of 15 categories---but of course that might also be a form of bias, but not a confirmation bias as I own both.

Peter.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hi Ted

For those that have a CA problem like myself, the SF is considerably better at reducing it than the SV, the SV not bad but I would like better. My SV was noticeably sharper than SF sample I had on hand.

I know the Norwegian test in this thread
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=311321 is considered flawed in some ways, but I think they nailed the resolution and sharpness difference between the SF and SV. As always we all see different things http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=315527, thats what make discussions interesting.:t:




Theo98 said:
I've been searching the past 4 months, awaiting a Zeiss dealership to obtain the SF 10x42. Finally found an optical specialty retailer within an hour drive who had the 10x42 SF's in stock. I brought my EL 10x50 SV's (his were sold-out) to compare and although not actual apples to apples, these are the Best offered by these top tier optical manufactures! Was able to glass in clear bright mid day conditions (not optimum, but what was available), but clearly able to focus on dark shadow areas and very high contrast FOVs.

Ergonomics - As mentioned here and with many other reviewers, the 10x42 SF's trump the 10x50 SV's in less weight and a more reward balance that feels great in the hands...Excellent ergonomic performance overall! Barrel textures are smooth but grippy and I personally enjoyed the more forward setting of the smooth, large and precise focus control of the SF...very nice. Yes, this physical design allows me to easily hand hold the SF 10x image. But, I was surprised that my SV, along with its' added body heft, installed ocular and objective caps and full neck strap additional weights (at least +16 ounces total over bare SF) was Also as stable with its 10x image! Guess I'm use to handling the 10x50 SV ergonomics and within the 2 hours of comparative glassing, didn't really feel an advantage for me with the lighter SF (a full day of birding might change that opinion...;)). I'm sure as a first timer, I'd take note of the extra robust nature of the SV, but could easily prefer the finest feel and handling of the SF!

Optically - SF=Very Nice! Extremely clear FOV!
*I immediately noticed a relaxed and easy on the eyes FOV that presents the BEST I've ever looked through in any 42mm Zeiss (conquest or HT)! I didn't think the +15ft FOV would make a difference, but in general relaxed glassing, I did sense a somewhat more lateral open presentation with the SF. When I looked hard at the peripheral edges, the SV had the edge in sharpness, with the SF giving me a somewhat slight kidney beaning effect, but it is still excellent.
*The SF color bias, to my eyes, were ever so slightly hinting on the cool side, with a blue \ green emphasis...something I noted before with the Victory HT's. Shadow resolution was as good as the 50mm SV, hinting at excellent coatings and great spectrum balance for lower light transmission. Overall, I still see an absolute neutral color balance in the SV, with as accurate color optical renditions as I've ever experienced in comparison to my direct eyesight.
*DOF are excellent in both. However, at a 100m sharp focal point, I did notice a deeper foreground\background in-focus FOV with the SV that seemed to enhance the overall immersive and impressive 10X scene. The SF is Superb in this regard, but I seemed to get lost easier with the SV, sort of a slightly better stereopsis...as if the 10X powered image was like looking through a panorama picture window, an "if you were there" effect! The difference wasn't much, but to my eyes, just a slightly better relaxing view of the SV.
*CA and Flare are both Well Controlled. I believe the differences might be due to the larger 50mm aperture, but the SF seemed to present better, but very slight, flare control. The SV appears ever so slightly brighter, but certainly not washed out and with the larger EP, definitely contributes to my experience as a superb low light optical instrument. I seem to be insensitive to CA and couldn't induce any on a center focus or edge FOV scenes, even in an open-to-dense forest foreground against an extremely bright blue sky background.
*Resolution and Sharpness are Both Superb and Stunning. IF you had my arm behind my back real hard, I might have to state the SV (due to its bigger objectives) was Slightly sharper under certain challenging high contrast situations. I feel Any differences here would never be noticeable without side-by-side viewing
*RB as reported by some users, was non-existent in this SF. I can still see it ever so slightly in my SV, but the more I use it, the less of an effect it appears to have on my glassing enjoyment!

Considering the same budget I had and basic knowledge I've obtained, I could easily see myself choosing the SF 10x42's over the SV and being perfectly content. As per Peter above, I might just be verbalizing a confirmation bias for what I already own and use. Thus, as per my real world usages, experiences and exposures to many great optics over the past year (roofs and porros alike), I'll just keep an eye out for maybe a future SF 10x50. Now That could make overall top Alpha glass choices Real Interesting! As Always, YMMV :t:

Ted
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Zeiss Victory SF 10x42

I will also give my thoughts on the new Victory SF. I have had one on trial for a couple of weeks and wanted to compare with some other 10X optics as well as the 8.5x42 EL SV.

I am not a fanboy of any brand, as I have owned several Nikon, Swarovski
and Zeiss models.

My first experience with flat field binoculars is with the Nikon SE porros and I hold them in high regard, I also have had the LX and LXL models, and the Nikon EDG 10x42 for 6 years.

I have had the 8.5x42 EL SV for over 4 years, and the orig. EL before that.
I like the open frame construction, I find that a very comfortable
way to view.
I want to discuss flat field optics in general, now that Zeiss has the SF, I wanted to try these out, and will comment on a few things.
Nikon has designed the EDG with a very nice sweet spot almost to the edge, without any distortions along the way.
The SV, has a nice flat field view also, but I do notice the distortion wave
out near the edges, the view is not as natural as the others.
The SF, is different as it is more similar to the EDG, with the flat field without
being too flat.

I will not comment on any color bias or resolution, as I have not tested those
issues and these binoculars are all very good, and so there are other things
that are just as important.

As far as handling the SF is just as mentioned in many reviews, the nice
wide open frame allows your hand to easily use them, and the focuser
is very convenient, and very smooth. I have used these with gloves, and
they have more room than the SV, and the focuser on the SF is superior
to my SV. I find I will need to send it in for a service, as it does stick a
little bit, the comparison made that clear. I find the larger diameter focuser
of the EDG and SF easier to use than the smaller Swarovision. That is
one improvement Swaro. needs to work on.

The Nikon handling is also good, and the focuser is very smooth. One
thing about both the SV and the EDG is that the eyecups are of metal
construction, that seems better built than the SF plastic.
The SF has only 1 detent from full out, the EDG and SV have more
positions, and I can get all 3 to work just right, as I do no wear glasses.
The rearward balance of the SF is very good, as it makes them seem lighter.

I do have the Swaro. 10x50 SLC Neu, and this has been my brightest 10X
binocular, and the 10x50 easy view is very nice.
What I have found when comparing to the SF 10x42, is that the wider
FOV of this model helps it compare very favorably to the 10x50 SLC.
And when testing the SF shows to be similar in brightness.
And the SLC is over 40 oz. compared to the SF at 28.

Just to summarize, Zeiss has a very nice binocular with the SF, and
so when considering a new top end model, I would be sure to check
this one before buying. I am very impressed with the Zeiss SF. ;)

I have a picture of some models I compared with, starting with the
Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42. I did this, just to show the size difference.

Jerry
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0609.jpg
    DSC_0609.jpg
    95.1 KB · Views: 209
Last edited:
I don't know about "conformation bias" just what my eyes told me I liked better personally. The only area that I felt the SF had the edge was CA control and superior weight and balance
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point: you do not know about confirmation bias but your subconscious mind does....Just one example: CA control appears to be very important to you, yet you prefer the set you already have that, to your eyes, has more CA which you have complained about. Anyways, I am glad you enjoy your EL 10x50, a great set indeed---it's only its weight that keeps me away from buying one, or maybe it's confirmation bias that does so.....
 
Last edited:
CA control is very important to me because I see it quite readily in binoculars that most others see none in. If I would have been looking at the SF and SV both for the first time, I still choose the SV, I just simply like them better in a number of ways that are important to me, my preference and nothing more. For those that choose the SF, that's great, it's their choice and also totally valid. I was going to eat either Grape Nuts or Cheerios in a few minutes but after learning of all the psychology involved in making choices, maybe I'll just have toast and jelly.3:)


pesto said:
CA control appears to be very important to you
Click to expand...
 
All joking aside, the SV/EL is significantly better than the SF for star gazing. This is an application in which the SF leaves something to be desired (indeed its complex distortion makes stars look like anything but points), as likely it was not designed for it.
 
Last edited:
I believe it's a good thing that they're different in some areas, if they were the same it would be boring and redundant. They are both superb, just different, they give people a choice.



pesto said:
All joking aside, the SV/EL is significantly better than the SF for star gazing. This is an application in which the SF leaves something to be desired (indeed its complex distortion makes star look like anything but points), as likely it was not designed for it.
Click to expand...
 
SuperDuty said:
For those that choose the SF, that's great, it's their choice and also totally valid. I was going to eat either Grape Nuts or Cheerios in a few minutes but after learning of all the psychology involved in making choices, maybe I'll just have toast and jelly.3:)
Click to expand...

SuperDuty said:
I believe it's a good thing that they're different in some areas, if they were the same it would be boring and redundant. They are both superb, just different, they give people a choice.
Click to expand...

All Words of Wisdom to enjoy Optical Nirvana, or maybe, just a simple breakfast! :eat: 3:) :t:

Ted
 
Hi,

Maybe someone can explain something to me regarding image quality. I use binoculars for birds, nature and astronomy. Many times I see references to binoculars not providing good images and signs of distortion when observing stars. See post 50 above that I tend to agree with.

A binocular is an inanimate optical device that has no knowledge of what it is being used to observe. Surely, if it provides distortion when viewing stars, will it not show the same distortion say in a birds feather or other fine detail in nature. Why would you see distortion when observing stars and not when observing anything else. If there is distortion in the optical train it must affect all images, day or night ? As the image is effectively made up of many overlapping diffraction discs, if the view is distorted on stars, will not the same situation apply to every object observed ?

Confused and thanks,

Doug........
 
doug el10x32 said:
Hi,

Maybe someone can explain something to me regarding image quality. I use binoculars for birds, nature and astronomy. Many times I see references to binoculars not providing good images and signs of distortion when observing stars. See post 50 above that I tend to agree with.

A binocular is an inanimate optical device that has no knowledge of what it is being used to observe. Surely, if it provides distortion when viewing stars, will it not show the same distortion say in a birds feather or other fine detail in nature. Why would you see distortion when observing stars and not when observing anything else. If there is distortion in the optical train it must affect all images, day or night ? As the image is effectively made up of many overlapping diffraction discs, if the view is distorted on stars, will not the same situation apply to every object observed ?

Confused and thanks,

Doug........
Click to expand...

Hi Doug

I am not an optics expert Doug but I will stick my neck out here and risk a comment or two.
AFAIK all bins are basically a jumble of distortions. All of them. Optical train designers make tough choices about how to balance distortion A against distortion B because if you try to eliminate distortion A while you might be successful, distortion B goes crazy. So binocular optical design is about making choices about balancing a range of distortions.
Of course you are correct that these distortions are there no matter what you observe but my understanding is that point light sources set against an inky blackness can make some of these distortions so obvious that it spoils the viewing.
These very same bins may satisfy most people most of the time for observing terrestrial subjects because the distortions are not obvious to most people. Go looking for them and you may be able to see them, but then you are observing the bins not using the bins for observing, which is a fascinating but quite different subject.
IMHO.

Lee
 
I have the 10x 42 sf now in use for 6 months now
And no swaro in my collection , I have all of the SV and 2 habichts , can beat the zeiss sf on sharpness , flare control and anti shake ability
Focus drive is also much smoother
Sorry to say , but the Swarovski stay in the cupboard as long as the sf in sight
 
SuperDuty said:
I may have received a subpar 10X42 SF, but my 10X50 SV was noticeably sharper in direct comparison.
Click to expand...

Good evening from Italy.
I am using the SF 8x42 and the new Swarovski from several weeks. Often, I go out to observe by both. I agree with Kimmo about colors; I judge the Zeiss a little 'more' yellow than Swarovski, while the "Austrian" in certain circumstances has a bluish hue. However, the SF provides the best performance against the light, with less reflections, at least my specimen. Unfortunately neither its has containment of chromatic aberration similar to Kowa Genesis (Prominar) 8.5x44. I observe frequently with all three and the Kowa, in axis, is phenomenal: zero chromatic aberration. Stop.
I like particulary the wide field of Zeiss and it balance, but i love also the highest sharpness and build quality of new Swarovski. However beginning to have doubts: I also have a 8x56 (Minox HG) and I wonder if , at the end, it would be better to have only a 10x50 to do ALL.
 

Attachments

  • trio.jpg
    trio.jpg
    84.1 KB · Views: 149
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars. Part 2 first anniversary
Replies
2
Views
646
Scott98
S
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars
Replies
11
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
C
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
15 16 17
Replies
324
Views
54K
Maljunulo
M
B
My 1st Zeiss - Jenoptem 7x50W
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
etudiant
E
Aquaplas
Expirience with Zeiss Service bad.
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
GrampaTom
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top