• 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.

Zeiss Victory HT - is its high price really justified? (1 Viewer)

Oh, well, if all that were so clear to me, then I would probably start writing my next book about "future strategies for better binoculars - a manufacturer's guideline" :)

I have used the 8x42 HT over a short time, and I had a current Swarovski 8.5x42 SV for comparison. I preferred the handling of the Zeiss, but the wider apparent field of the Swaro left me in doubt about whether or not I would be able to really like the Zeiss. This doesn't mean that I regard the Swaro wide enough, of course. Swaro could still improve on the focuser, here the Zeiss appeared comparably more precise. These binoculars are great, but I want more field before I really invest that much money into optics.

Cheers,
Holger

Holger:

It is good for you to respond, as I was wondering if you would
hold back and mention that is in your new book. By the way if
it comes available in English, I would like to get one.

I have not tried the new Zeiss HT, as it has not been available in
any of the stores I frequent. I do like the new Zeiss Conquest,
and it seems to be a solid choice in the midrange.
I have the Nikon EDG, the SE's, and also the Swarovision,
and have spent some time with all of these.

The Nikon EDG is very good in the 10x42, and it is better than the
10x42 SE, but in the 8x32 size, the Nikon SE beats out the 8x32 EDG,
mainly in stray light handling. The Nikon SE seems to be a great design, and that is well known. But for an all around choice the Nikon EDG does everything very well, being waterproof, and all the rest.

I do see your mention of wanting a wide FOV, and I am thinking you are
referring to the Nikon EII, you've mentioned that one.
I suppose that is the latest, widest, best of the wide binoculars available.

I would be surprised to see any maker designing any roof binocular
that would compare.

Jerry
 
A binocular, for me and I think most of this board - be it birders, hunters or just outdoorsmen / naturalists, needs to work in the field for the task at hand.

That's where I think bench testing and star testing falls flat and fails to either exploit the true benefits of a design or detect flaws that become apparent in the field.

Yes, this testing does expose flaws or attributes to the optics, some of which would otherwise be invisible but it is the more apparent things that come to mind - how does the focus work in extreme cold, heat, how is the contrast in strong back-light, how is the resolution of very distant flying birds, how is the CA on contrasty raptors or shorebirds, how white / clean does snow appear and how controlled is lateral colour in this environment? These, for me, are [some of] the real tests of a binocular - some may work great on the bench but flub these tests.

I would consider any such technical only testing to be very incomplete without using a binocular extensively in the field as intended by the manufacturer.
 
A binocular, for me and I think most of this board - be it birders, hunters or just outdoorsmen / naturalists, needs to work in the field for the task at hand.

That's where I think bench testing and star testing falls flat and fails to either exploit the true benefits of a design or detect flaws that become apparent in the field.

Yes, this testing does expose flaws or attributes to the optics, some of which would otherwise be invisible but it is the more apparent things that come to mind - how does the focus work in extreme cold, heat, how is the contrast in strong back-light, how is the resolution of very distant flying birds, how is the CA on contrasty raptors or shorebirds, how white / clean does snow appear and how controlled is lateral colour in this environment? These, for me, are [some of] the real tests of a binocular - some may work great on the bench but flub these tests.

I would consider any such technical only testing to be very incomplete without using a binocular extensively in the field as intended by the manufacturer.

Dead right James

And from my perspective as nature observer (not specialising in birds) I need bins that provide good colour separation. So bins that have a 'warm view' with colours that 'pop' while they present an attractive view don't work for me.

For example they make red/ginger/brown seaweeds merge somewhat into a nice vibrant mass but its harder to make out an otter in there or even some species of shorebirds. Its the same with surveying marshy ground for flowers, I need bins that separate different tones of green and green/yellow and yellow/red etc.

If 'warm' bins tell lies about seaweeds and otters, you can bet they are doing the same for birds.

I haven't seen any interpretation of bench light transmission data that help with this, but field work reports can show this up.

Lee
 
Dead right James

And from my perspective as nature observer (not specialising in birds) I need bins that provide good colour separation. So bins that have a 'warm view' with colours that 'pop' while they present an attractive view don't work for me.

For example they make red/ginger/brown seaweeds merge somewhat into a nice vibrant mass but its harder to make out an otter in there or even some species of shorebirds. Its the same with surveying marshy ground for flowers, I need bins that separate different tones of green and green/yellow and yellow/red etc.

If 'warm' bins tell lies about seaweeds and otters, you can bet they are doing the same for birds.

I haven't seen any interpretation of bench light transmission data that help with this, but field work reports can show this up.

Lee

One of mi amigos swears by his relatively inexpensive porro Steiners for hunting just for that reason. He said the contrast is better than any binocular he has ever tried. He hunts a lot, in a lot of places and I would guess he has been exposed to some pretty good glass over the years. It's not an expense issue, he has as much tied up in hunting gear as I do my house probably. He just loves his beat up Steiners.
 
One of mi amigos swears by his relatively inexpensive porro Steiners for hunting just for that reason. He said the contrast is better than any binocular he has ever tried. He hunts a lot, in a lot of places and I would guess he has been exposed to some pretty good glass over the years. It's not an expense issue, he has as much tied up in hunting gear as I do my house probably. He just loves his beat up Steiners.

If it works for your pal then he has found his bins for life.

Steiners are not common over here in the UK and I haven't come across a dealer who sells the full range.

For myself I have never been a fan of porros as they feel to me as though they have been designed especially to not fit the human hand, although Typo has opened my eyes to how good they can be even at modest prices.

Lee
 
If it works for your pal then he has found his bins for life.

Steiners are not common over here in the UK and I haven't come across a dealer who sells the full range.

For myself I have never been a fan of porros as they feel to me as though they have been designed especially to not fit the human hand, although Typo has opened my eyes to how good they can be even at modest prices.

Lee

Yes there are a few porros out there I'd really like. One that caught my eye at Birdfair in the summer was the Steiner Commander 7x30. The colour rendition was good, better than the Navigator and cheaper alternatives for example but perhaps not 'best in show', but the sharpness was fantastic. A match for anything IMO. They didn't bring the Nighthunters but according to Allbinos the transmission for the 8x30 porro is comparable to the best.

Responding to the earlier comments about the Conquest HD. I compared a few to the HT. I rather liked them, the 8x32 in particular, but none of those samples were quite as sharp as the HTs I tried (or the SLCs). There may be better examples out there of course.

David
 
Last edited:
Responding to the earlier comments about the Conquest HD. I compared a few to the HT. I rather liked them, the 8x32 in particular, but none of those samples were quite as sharp as the HTs I tried (or the SLCs). There may be better examples out there of course.

David

I'm surprised you found the SLC's sharper than the Conquests, I really enjoyed the SLC HD's , particularly the wide and immersive FOV and the almost complete lack of CA but I just didn't find them as crisp and sharp as the Conquests. The Conquests have an almost electric sharp crispness to them whereas the SLC's view seemed softer and less penetratingly razor like to my eyes somehow. Just a matter of preference I suppose.

One thing that does bother me just a little sometimes with the Conquest HD is the obvious presence of CA under certain conditions, I guess the HT's don't have this problem. Would love to hear more comparisons of the the Conquest HD's V the HT's if anyone has experience of both.
 
I'm surprised you found the SLC's sharper than the Conquests, I really enjoyed the SLC HD's , particularly the wide and immersive FOV and the almost complete lack of CA but I just didn't find them as crisp and sharp as the Conquests. The Conquests have an almost electric sharp crispness to them whereas the SLC's view seemed softer and less penetratingly razor like to my eyes somehow. Just a matter of preference I suppose.

One thing that does bother me just a little sometimes with the Conquest HD is the obvious presence of CA under certain conditions, I guess the HT's don't have this problem. Would love to hear more comparisons of the the Conquest HD's V the HT's if anyone has experience of both.

I'm certainly not going to argue about what you found. I suspect it's just sample variation. In the same set of comparisons the SLC was sharper than the ELSV 8.5x42 I tried, and even one out of the three Terras beat the Conquest HDs on show as well. Just that day the HT and SLC came top of the x42 comparisons. It's just another argument for trying before you buy. Of course sharpness is just one of a list of features to consider and others may have quite different priorities.

David
 
One thing that does bother me just a little sometimes with the Conquest HD is the obvious presence of CA under certain conditions, I guess the HT's don't have this problem. Would love to hear more comparisons of the the Conquest HD's V the HT's if anyone has experience of both.

I tested both the Conquest and the HT ...10x;s.

I really loved the price of the Conquest but really loved the ergonomic feel of the HT ....I liked the optical of both to be told.

The conquest gave me blackout ...it also had some CA... I was also in general, a little suspect on overall quality 'inside'....if you can make a product that good and offer it for a $1000 US, what are you cheapening out 'inside' that might hurt longevity of the bino? ...Anyhow, that is a quick summary of several lengthy postings I have completed on this Zeiss forum in June / July 2013.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=258855

jim
 
Last edited:
For myself I have never been a fan of porros as they feel to me as though they have been designed especially to not fit the human hand ...

Funny you should say that. I personally prefer the shape of traditional porros - as long as they're not too big. I find I can hold them better over extended periods of time.

That said, maybe someone will one day produce a birding binocular with Perger prisms. All the optical advantages of a porro in a slimmer package.

Hermann
 
Funny you should say that. I personally prefer the shape of traditional porros - as long as they're not too big. I find I can hold them better over extended periods of time.

That said, maybe someone will one day produce a birding binocular with Perger prisms. All the optical advantages of a porro in a slimmer package.

Hermann

Herman:

I just read your post up on the Leica forum, and now I know what
you have on your wish list, a Perger porro prism binocular. ;)
Am I right?

I am not counting the rangefinder Leica model, as it is already there,
maybe the new Ultravid will it be a slimmer and smaller Perger.


Tell Leica, they are watching. It is kind of fun to talk about construction,
and as we know Swarovski has ventured into Abbe Koenig prisms for
the first time.

Jerry
 
Last edited:
That was a great and extremely thorough comparison . Seems like they are neck and neck in some areas. I got blackouts with the HD 8x42's at first too but for some reason I just seem to have naturally adjusted and rarely get them anymore.
Build quality seems fine to me on the Conquests so an extra £650 for the HT's over the Conquests is a hell of a jump for small optical improvements in some areas but I have to admit I'm very tempted!

I tested both the Conquest and the HT ...10x;s.


I really loved the price of the Conquest but really loved the ergonomic feel of the HT ....I liked the optical of both to be told.

The conquest gave me blackout ...it also had some CA... I was also in general, a little suspect on overall quality 'inside'....if you can make a product that good and offer it for a $1000 US, what are you cheapening out 'inside' that might hurt longevity of the bino? ...Anyhow, that is a quick summary of several lengthy postings I have completed on this Zeiss forum in June / July 2013.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=258855

jim
 
I am not counting the rangefinder Leica model, as it is already there, maybe the new Ultravid will it be a slimmer and smaller Perger.

I recently saw the Geovid in a shopwindow. Looks very interesting, but it is huge. The new Ultravid has to be much slimmer and smaller than that, if Leica want's to maintain one of the most important adantages above the competion, the compactness. Not sure if this is possible with Perger prims.
 

Attachments

  • 62112_lei+swa+zei.jpg
    62112_lei+swa+zei.jpg
    41.6 KB · Views: 176
I recently saw the Geovid in a shopwindow. Looks very interesting, but it is huge.

The rangefinder does play a role there.

The new Ultravid has to be much slimmer and smaller than that, if Leica want's to maintain one of the most important adantages above the competion, the compactness. Not sure if this is possible with Perger prims.

The compactness of the Leicas comes at a price, namely an optical performance that isn't up to scratch compared to the competition. A Perger porro would no doubt be longer (the reasons are explained by Andreas Perger in Holger's book), but would most likely have a far better optical performance. Provided they don't bungle it, of course.

Hermann
 
I just read your post up on the Leica forum, and now I know what you have on your wish list, a Perger porro prism binocular. ;)
Am I right?

Yes, you are ... :t: I'm in the market for a waterproof 8x42 or perhaps 8x50, given that my most up-to-date roofs are 20 years (Leica 8x32 BA) and 13 years (Zeiss Victory 10x40) old. But I'm not willing to compromise, and to my mind a roof would be a compromise, even an AK.

My first priority would be a traditional Porro I or Porro II, with modern eyepieces and up-to-date sealing of course. That would be the simplest and most elegant solution. But it isn't likely to happen after all the major manufacturers brainwashed their customers into believing that only roofs are "modern". So my next priority would be a Perger porro which would at least allow the manufacturers to stick to their beloved slim designs while having all the major technical advantages of a porro: No need for phase coatings and dielectric coatings at all, less stringent conditions on the production of the prisms, no need for fancy glass types to achieve high transmission.

I'll only buy a new roof if there are no modern porros on the market by the end of the year *and* if the roof offers some significant advantages over the roofs already on the market, namely a larger field of view than 135m/1000m.

Not sure what will happen this year, but if there are no bins that come close to what I want I'll stick to my combination of two (outdated) roofs and two (also outdated) porros (Nikon 8x32 SE and 10x42 SE). Having had a chance to try out the new Swarovski ATX scopes recently I may well decide to sell my Nikon scopes and go for a new scope instead ... o:D

Hermann
 
Last edited:
Definitely worth it!

I treated myself to a pair of Zeiss Victory HT 8x42 bins for my birthday, needing something to balance out the narrower field of view and depth of field of my Trinovid 10x42s which I've had for nearly 30 years. I'm very pleased with the HTs and can also readily appreciate the improved colour and clarity in poor light conditions eg. heavy winter overcasts and twilight conditions. So no buyers remorse!
One point though, my wife has a pair of Zeiss Dialyt 7x42s, again about 30 years old and I was surprised at how well these stood up against their modern counterpart. Obviously the differences are there and the nearer focussing distance of the HTs is much better and I always found the focus wheel of the Dialyt a bit on the stiff side, but some of the differences in viewing although real, are marginal and would make me think twice before dismissing the older Zeiss as say, not being up to it. I'm not trying to be controversial here it's just how I see it (no pun intended).

Cheers,
Roger
 
make me think twice before dismissing the older Zeiss as say, not being up to it. I'm not trying to be controversial here it's just how I see it (no pun intended).

Cheers,
Roger

Hi fellow Rosbif

Couldn't agree more but a couple of attributes of HT stand out when being compared to oldie goldies:

Chromatic aberration (colour fringing) is, to my eyes, vastly reduced in HT to non-existence in normal viewing.

The other is in how well flare / veiling glare / non-imaging-forming 'milky' light is dealt with. Again thats an area that I think HT greatly surpasses the oldies.

However that by no means reduces the fact that those Dialyts are still lovely instruments.

Lee
 
I'm another new owner of a pair of Zeiss Victory HT 8 x 42's, bought largely due to the positive reviews about them on here - although I have tried them out at the last two bird-fairs. I have been using a pair of Leica 8 x 32 for the past 8 years or so and before them Zeiss 10x40 Dialyts that I used for years.

I have been quite pleased with the view from the little Leica's (once the initial focus wheel play had been sorted out by Leica) but on viewing through the new HT's I am surprised and very pleased with the bright view and especially the wide FOV they have compared with my previous bins - they seem really wide-angle.

As every previous user has said the balance and feel of the HT's is superb and has a nice smooth focus wheel. If I want to be really anal (and I can be when bins are concerned) I can hear a faint clicking noise within the focus mechanism at the point when you change focus direction. I don't think it is a problem and doesn't affect the actual focussing itself - just a minor irritation if I am determined to find one.

All in all I'm pleased with them and to answer the question that started this thread - I think they are worth the price.

Just a comment on those old Dialys. I had them for over 20 years and they had some hard use during that time - I was much more careless about my bins then than I am nowadays - but I never had a single problem with them throughout my time with them (I sold them on on ebay when I got my new Leicas). The focusser was a smooth as butter throughout that time, they stayed in perfect alignment despite some rough treatment and I never gave their ruggedness a second thought (these were the pre-rubber armour jobs too). Mind I mustn't get too sentimental and forget the black-outs, the very far-away closest focus, the misshapen rubber eyecups, etc.

Are these new generation bins like modern cars - very finely tuned to get the last bit of performance out of them but ever so slightly more delicate?.

best

Peter
 
I'm another new owner of a pair of Zeiss Victory HT 8 x 42's, bought largely due to the positive reviews about them on here - although I have tried them out at the last two bird-fairs. I have been using a pair of Leica 8 x 32 for the past 8 years or so and before them Zeiss 10x40 Dialyts that I used for years.

I have been quite pleased with the view from the little Leica's (once the initial focus wheel play had been sorted out by Leica) but on viewing through the new HT's I am surprised and very pleased with the bright view and especially the wide FOV they have compared with my previous bins - they seem really wide-angle.

As every previous user has said the balance and feel of the HT's is superb and has a nice smooth focus wheel. If I want to be really anal (and I can be when bins are concerned) I can hear a faint clicking noise within the focus mechanism at the point when you change focus direction. I don't think it is a problem and doesn't affect the actual focussing itself - just a minor irritation if I am determined to find one.

All in all I'm pleased with them and to answer the question that started this thread - I think they are worth the price.

Just a comment on those old Dialys. I had them for over 20 years and they had some hard use during that time - I was much more careless about my bins then than I am nowadays - but I never had a single problem with them throughout my time with them (I sold them on on ebay when I got my new Leicas). The focusser was a smooth as butter throughout that time, they stayed in perfect alignment despite some rough treatment and I never gave their ruggedness a second thought (these were the pre-rubber armour jobs too). Mind I mustn't get too sentimental and forget the black-outs, the very far-away closest focus, the misshapen rubber eyecups, etc.

Are these new generation bins like modern cars - very finely tuned to get the last bit of performance out of them but ever so slightly more delicate?.

best

Peter

Hi Pennine Pete

As a former 10x40BGA Dialyt owner I can only agree with your every word. For 18 years they were my constant nature observation companions and after them I had an FL for 9 years, and now an HT.

I'm not entirely sure the HTs are more delicate. The Dialyt's moving objective lens always struck me as a potential weak point but actually gave no trouble.

The clicking noise you can hear when you change focus direction on the HTs might be due to the sticky grease as one metal surface departs from another with the grease in between making a 'kissing' or 'tack' noise.

Enjoy your HTs. Do you ever get to visit Old Moor?

Lee
 
This is a tad unfair, but the price of the HT 8x42 here in the US is very few dollars apart from both Zeiss FL 8x32 (new, refurbished) plus Zeiss FL 7x42 (used in the mint condition). Would the two 8x32 and 7x42 FLs combo provide better service in both birding and hiking than the "superb" HT 8x42? I do not know and would be appreciative of your comments. Regards.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top