10 X 32 Victory FL's? (1 Viewer)

I have been thinking about getting a 10x and am leaning toward picking up a pair of 10 x 32's . I have used 10 X 42's in the past but have never picked up a pair of 10 x 32's . How are they in the field?

Hello AZBirder,

I bought this binocular, five years, ago, when I was 58. I found it to be optically superb, sufficiently bright for daytime use, and ergonomically fine. However, I could never use it as a primary binocular. At my age, it was difficult to keep steady; and the field of view made it impossible to follow birds in flight. However, when I used it with an 8x or 7x power, its higher magnification often allowed for an easier identification. Of course, I do not use it open country.

You should first try one out or buy one from a vendor with a liberal return policy.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

I've got the Zeiss Victory 10x25's and find them superb for general use and hiking. If you don't need a wide field and want a bit more oomph than a 25mm, the 10x32's should be great. Guess it depends on your eyes and goals for these bins.

FWIW, I'm 60 and have had my 10x25's for about five years and still love them.

Of course, the 10x30 Canon IS solve whatever issues you might have with holding them steady.

Given the small exit pupils, I would guess that eye placement would be fussier than an 8x32 and the image not as bright when light levels drop (until the "twilight factor" kicked in).

After using 8x and 10x full sized and midsized bins of the same or nearly the same exit pupil, I'm beginning to think that the "twilight factor" is not significant enough to make a critical difference at 10x on dim overcast days. For me, the "eights are better" under those conditions, perhaps because my focus accommodation deteriorates as light levels fall and the shallower DOF of the tens make them harder for me to focus.

This reviewer rates the 10x32 FL "the best of the best":

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_10_52/ai_n26970132/

Also check out the 10x32 EDG I. Not as dear on the budget and perhaps easier to hold for the big handed birder (and unlike the FL, it has no "ribs" - not a fan of "ribs" unless their BBQ).

Bob (Caesar) swears by them. But then again, he's got a potty mouth so he pretty much swears about everything. He has commented favorably on the 10x32 EDG somewhere on the Nikon forum.

If WP is not an issue, the Nikon 10x35 EII is lightweight (23 oz.) and yet fits my large hands well and provides reasonably steady images, as much as my shaky hands are capable of. Plus it has a bit larger exit pupil than a 10x32 and a W-I-D-E 7* FOV. But not enough ER for most eyeglass wearers (13.5mm).

Brock

I own several 10 x 32s. The top (read expensive) models made by the Zeiss, Leica, Nikon and Swarovski are optically much better than the less expensive makes. This seems to be characteristic of the 10 x 32 format. They also, generally speaking, have somewhat wider fields of view than most of the large 10 x 42s. Arthur Pinewood has covered their limitations quite accurately. They are excellent for Hawk Watching during the fall migration season in locations like Cape May and Hawk Mountain where you don't need to be physically active and also at the shore where the view is more expansive.

For general use you will probably find a wide field 8 x 32 more versatile and easier to use. There are many good ones to chose from.

Bob (The potty mouth)
The mods will not allow a sample demonstration:h?:

About a month ago I met the opportunity to try a 10x32 FL and I was very impressed
- especially given the fact that they are extremely portable.
For many of us, a 10x is needed, and while not the primary bin, it fills a need.

For some reason, I'm not into 8x bins, but prefer using my 6,5x and a 10x.
My initial impression of the Victory FL was that it was easier to use than the Minox HG 8x33, but I didn't have it for comparison as I sold it 6 months ago.

Anyway, by coincidence I found out that BF member Laurence Jackson had one for sale and that the price was reasonable. So it's on its way now.:king:

I will keep you informed.

An important thing to keep in mind while reading the review by the hunter is that he uses the 10x32 at greater distances than birders normally would. So DOF and focusing are not as critical.

Note this comment by Richard (rdspalm) about the 10x32 FL in comparing it to the 10x42 SV EL, which is touted for its exceptional depth perception and 3-D effect in post #20 on the same thread linked below.

...."I would have more problems with depth of field on a pair of Zeiss FL 10 x 32. On the Zeiss I find the frequent refocussing a nuisance."

Post #17: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=173954

I find refocusing "a nuisance" with most 8x32 roofs but particularly those with fast focusers. From reading comments on bins such as the 10x32 HG, it seems to be even more of nuisance in the 10x model.

So while this might not be an issue while looking at static birds or circling hawks far away, you might find yourself fiddling with the focuser on the 10x32 FL if they come closer or while they are in flight circling to and fro.

I experienced this the other day with the 10x35 EII, which has better depth perception than some full sized 10x roofs I've tried. At a distance, the 10x EII pulled in more detail on the turkey vulture circling the park. When the turkey vulture was almost overhead, it was hard to keep the bird in focus as he circled, moving closer and farther during each circle.

I quickly switched to the 8x EII and was able to follow the bird (and see its ugly red head) w/out having to refocus as it circled.

Since the two bins use the same EP, it should be possible to make an EII "switch power" like the Leupold. However, like the Leupold, the FOV would probably be compromised.

If it were possible and Nikon did make such a bin and keep their respective FsOV, I would be willing to sell the farm to buy one. Can you imagine going from 8x @ 8.8* to 10x @ 7* with the flip of a lever? The mind reels.

Hey! Potty Mouth. How do the 10x32 FL and 10x32 EDG compare in terms of depth perception and your need to refocus at typical birding distances?

Potty Mouth? Clean it up with Orbits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEJJUGJZxpU

Brock

Never used a #!&^ FL so I can't comment on it. The EDG is a real good *&%^! though.

Bob

I don't think the Zeiss Victory 10x32 has any difference concerning depth of field compared to other 10x binoculars. What is true, is that the Zeiss has an extremly fast focus, which makes it difficult at times to get on spot immediately. One gets used to that, but I'd prefer it slightly slower.
I really like the Zeiss 10x32, very portable and superb optics, very wide AFOV. But actually I still prefer the Ultravid 8x42 in most occasions. I mainly use the 10x32 in the mountains, they are light enough to not bother hanging at my neck when hiking all day long and the 10x is good for the longer distances in the mountains...

These are the only 10x32 that I've tried and actually liked. I've not tried the latest 10x32 from Nikon, but in comparison to everything else (i.e. the other alphas), the 10x32 FL is by far my favorite in this format. I found the low CA, contrast, and brightness impressive.

--AP

Interesting stuff.

I picked-up a 7x42 FL for everyday use last year so I am fairly used to it's fast focus. In general, I prefer fast focus. However, I could see how it could be a problem in a dimmer binocular with less depth of field.

Decisions, decisions...

ceasar said:

Never used a #!&^ FL so I can't comment on it. The EDG is a real good *&%^! though.

Bob

Click to expand...

I feel like I just read a Beetle Bailey cartoon strip.

http://joshreads.com/images/07/01/i070117bb.jpg

Thanks, Bob. I guess what I was thinking about was the difference in the focuser speeds. From dalat's comment, the 10x32 FL seems to focus fast like the HG. The EDG is supposed to focus be a bit slower than the the HG, but I guess they are all relatively fast compared to the lumbering 10x35 EII porrosaurus, which probably contributes to its better depth perception.

Does anybody have a clue as to why with the EII they pumped up the objective size (makes the exit pupils closer to the 8x) like they do in compacts, which are typically 8x20 and 10x25, but in midsized roofs at the top tier, they keep the aperture the same, thus substantially shrinking the exit pupils from 4mm for 8x32 to 3.2mm for the 10x32? Why not a 10x35? Save on cost?

Brock

Alexis Powell said:

These are the only 10x32 that I've tried and actually liked. I've not tried the latest 10x32 from Nikon, but in comparison to everything else (i.e. the other alphas), the 10x32 FL is by far my favorite in this format. I found the low CA, contrast, and brightness impressive.

--AP

Click to expand...

Agree 100%

The 10x32 arrived today.

These are my initial impressions:

Color neutral to cold/ish,

Lots of "walk-in" view/transparency/PFOV and great AFOV. (well-known fact)

Very bright

Enough eye relief to use with glasses. According to the specifications, it is 16 mm but the ocular lenses are barely recessed at all.
(even the Monarch X 10,5x45 has 16 mm but the ocular lenses are more recessed. Not really great with spectacles.
The Hawke Frontier ED 10x36 was absolutely useless for me with spectacles, although the eye relief spec is 16,6 mm but the ocular lenses are deeply recessed)

Easy view - I have no feeling that it is finicky to use whatsoever, and the Minox HG 8x33 was not as easy to find the eye placement with, despite its greater exit pupils.

Slightly too small for my hands but not to the extent that it's a problem.

Solid but not as solid as the Minox HG was.

Negligible CA but the sweet spot is not huge, rather adequate for birding.

Only downside so far is the straylight handling. The Vortex Fury 6,5x32 beats it hands down in that part of the contest. However that binocular has not as great AFOV as the Victory, which may explain why it excels.

Seems I finally found a decent mate to the Fury - considering its RRP the Fury is the real "Victor" and I can't honestly say the Victory FL is worth 8 or 10 times more.

My estimation is that I will use the Fury about 70-75% of the eye time but the Victory will not disappoint me because it does really deliver.
I would say it performs well above the bunch of 10x42s, but packed into a sub-compact shell.
Amazing, considering that 10x32 is a tricky configuration, Zeiss made a good job with this one.

I would have wanted to see a 6,5x or 7x32 Victory FL (just for the sake of it :smoke

//L

If I were you, I would put your Fury in a box and forget about them for a few months. That 10x view will grow on you. You just need to give it a chance. The Zeiss Victory 10x32 FL is top of class and has few optical peers and none will be lighter/smaller.

looksharp65 said:

The 10x32 arrived today.

These are my initial impressions:

Color neutral to cold/ish,

Lots of "walk-in" view/transparency/PFOV and great AFOV. (well-known fact)

Very bright

Enough eye relief to use with glasses. According to the specifications, it is 16 mm but the ocular lenses are barely recessed at all.
(even the Monarch X 10,5x45 has 16 mm but the ocular lenses are more recessed. Not really great with spectacles.
The Hawke Frontier ED 10x36 was absolutely useless for me with spectacles, although the eye relief spec is 16,6 mm but the ocular lenses are deeply recessed)

Easy view - I have no feeling that it is finicky to use whatsoever, and the Minox HG 8x33 was not as easy to find the eye placement with, despite its greater exit pupils.

Slightly too small for my hands but not to the extent that it's a problem.

Solid but not as solid as the Minox HG was.

Negligible CA but the sweet spot is not huge, rather adequate for birding.

Only downside so far is the straylight handling. The Vortex Fury 6,5x32 beats it hands down in that part of the contest. However that binocular has not as great AFOV as the Victory, which may explain why it excels.

Seems I finally found a decent mate to the Fury - considering its RRP the Fury is the real "Victor" and I can't honestly say the Victory FL is worth 8 or 10 times more.

My estimation is that I will use the Fury about 70-75% of the eye time but the Victory will not disappoint me because it does really deliver.
I would say it performs well above the bunch of 10x42s, but packed into a sub-compact shell.
Amazing, considering that 10x32 is a tricky configuration, Zeiss made a good job with this one.

I would have wanted to see a 6,5x or 7x32 Victory FL (just for the sake of it :smoke

//L

Click to expand...

Congrats! on the new FLs. Good to hear that the eye placement isn't finicky. That's one of my concerns with 10x32s, and along with that if the 3.2mm exit pupil is sufficient for cloudy days, which we get plenty of.. though not today (just added that in case Steve was going to give another local weather report

Okay, so you know I got to ask, not to be a party pooper (scoop that poop!). The edge distortion (astigmatism, which has been criticized by some FL owners and "test drivers")... how noticeable is it to you?

Also, have you used the bins at twilight yet? If so, how does the 10x32 FL hold up?

Brock

brocknroller said:

if the 3.2mm exit pupil is sufficient for cloudy days

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

Also, have you used the bins at twilight yet? If so, how does the 10x32 FL hold up?

Click to expand...

Well, it is clear and obvious that these have a top notch transmission.
Cloudy days is no problem at all. I tried them against the Dialyt/Classic 10x40 when sun was setting, and I had to look into the deepest shade in the backyard shrubbery to see any difference - and still I think that the yellow cast of the Dialyt helps there. What helps the Victory is its great contrast.

When darkness arrived, I tried it against the Monarch 10,5x45, and I had to look twice to convince myself. The Monarch was a wee tiny bit brighter but there was not such significant difference that it is needed for any reasonable birding task. (I will probably sell it and perhaps get myself an 8x56. Or not.)

brocknroller said:

The edge distortion (astigmatism, which has been criticized by some FL owners and "test drivers")... how noticeable is it to you?
Brock

Click to expand...

This 10x has a FOV of 120 meters/1000 m which is more or less normal for an 8x, or at least not unusual. Some 8x bins have less than that. But this is a 10x.
So when it comes to judge edge performance, one must keep in mind that the edges are really far out. I haven't been able to perform any real edge sharpness test, and I'm extremely prone to center the bird rather than turn my eyes on it.

That said, this is not a Swarovision. The edges aren't super sharp.
This bothers me much less than the prominent CA of the Monarch X. False color seems to attract my attention even off-center, while some lacking sharpness doesn't.
You may recall my post where I had first tried the Victory and the EL 10x32.
The Swarovski was out of question, having so poor usable eye relief. Not so the Zeiss.

EDIT: Admittedly, I hadn't let my eyes adapt sufficiently to the darkness. Possibly the difference would be more apparent if I had.

I think there is some confusion in some of the posts over what the Twilight Factor tries to represent. It is simply a number that attempts ranking between optics of different magnifications and objective lens sizes. Its basic premise is that MAGNIFICATION is more important than objective lens size when it comes to seeing more DETAIL (including color) in ALL ambient light scenarios, e.g. a 10x35 will roughly equal a 8x42.

On the otherhand, an optics Brightness Factor is solely dependant on exit pupil size and is only relevant in total darkness once nightvision adaptation has taken place, a process that typically takes ~30minutes. Nightvision is not the same as pupil dilation which is occurs instantaneously to compensate for light intensity.

RJM,

you're correct about everything in your post.
The twilight factor may seem an odd way to rank binoculars, but like you say, it does correspond to a real quality of different binoculars.
At night, however, a 7x50 is more qualified than a 10x35.

looksharp65 said:

RJM,

you're correct about everything in your post.
The twilight factor may seem an odd way to rank binoculars, but like you say, it does correspond to a real quality of different binoculars.
At night, however, a 7x50 is more qualified than a 10x35.

Click to expand...

It only corresponds if all things are equal (lens coatings, prisms, manufacturer etc). The twilight factor for a 7x42 is the same as a 42x7 and you would not see much out of the 42x7 binocular (don't look there isnt one, or there shouldn't be).