• 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.

How do new, high-end binoculars compare to older Zeiss Jena bins? (2 Viewers)

sammyboy

Well-known member
I own a couple of pairs of multi-coated Carl Zeiss Jena binoculars (Jenoptem 8x30 and 10x50) and have been wondering how they would compare to current high end binoculars, like the roofs from Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss, or high-end porros from the likes of Nikon, Swift et al.

Sadly I cannot afford any of these high end binoculars, and have never had the chance to look through them (if anyone wants to send me a pair for 'evaluation', I won't complain! :cool: :'D ) as I don't know anyone who has a pair and there's nowhere near me that sells them. Anyone got/had a pair of CZJ bins and got a high end pair - what kinds of differences are there in optical performance? Are the newer ones miles better, or is there only a fairly marginal difference?
 
Any thoughts anyone?

Perhaps one of these days I'll be able to afford a pair of Leicas, if the wife doesn't throttle me for getting them! :p
 
Why don't you try the Swift 8.5 x 44 and compare them to your Zeiss Jena's. You can get them in porro versions with or without ED objective lenses, or in a roof prism version. The price of these binoculars is hardly "high end" but the performance, especially of the porro versions, certainly is! They will go head to head with the big 3 any day! If your Zeiss Jena's can match them, you will have your answer. They cost from $350.00 to $450.00 (ED's) USfunds.
Bob
 
Last edited:
Bit pricey for me that, especially just for comparisons. I'm just wondering really how much difference there is really, as I don't think I'll even be able to afford those Swifts anytime soon!

Though I do see the odd pair of 8.5x44s that seem to be quite a few years old come up on ebay, seem to go for a similar amount to a lot of Jenoptems, might try getting a pair of those when I feel a little more flush!
 
Go to the Swift thread in this forum and read the historical review of the 804 Audubon 8.5 x 44 binoculars. (It will take a week or so of your spare time!) You will find everything you need to know about them to buy a used one with confidence from e-Bay!
Bob
 
sammyboy said:
I own a couple of pairs of multi-coated Carl Zeiss Jena binoculars (Jenoptem 8x30 and 10x50) and have been wondering how they would compare to current high end binoculars, like the roofs from Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss, or high-end porros from the likes of Nikon, Swift et al.

- what kinds of differences are there in optical performance? Are the newer ones miles better, or is there only a fairly marginal difference?

Hi

I own and use Nikon E11 (8 x 30) Nikon SE (10 x 42) and Carl Zeiss Jenoptem MC 10 x 50
The E11 seem the widest angle and overall probably the easiest to actually use also pretty well built
The SE Nikon's are very well constructed fabulously sharp and true to almost the edge but are a little awkward for eye placement and black outs can occur also slightly limited fov at 6 degrees
The Carl Zeiss Jena's are my favourite overall both for airshows and low light viewing they are the brightest but both Nikon's seem to offer more contrast also the Jena's have limited eye relief and are a little less sharp to edge (though imho this is negligible in quite a lot of terrestrial viewing)

In summary i think for aome folk the Jenoptem's are fantastic value and produce an image that is relaxing and wide in use
I personally find the view very similar to Swarovski 8.5 x 42 EL and felt it was a close thing over several hours of comparison with a kind fellow birder

The Swarovski El's and other top marques do offer many other non image based attributes of course and demonstrate i believe what can count in addition with the high end binoculars
Waterproofing for one in the UK is often a help and added safety factor to allow more varied useage
Guarantees/warranties are also part of the overall picture as are weight and handling with the expensive well known models
Most folk given the chance to choose between two binoculars providing similar images at similar cost would i think opt for the one with the high durability,lighter weight and better overall build quality backed by the manufacturer
But when we are talking about £100-£125 for a decent condition East German wide angle porro and say £800 + to achieve the extra factors previously mentioned then the decision becomes somewhat "foggy" for an awful lot of folk

Basically if you observe in the dry and take care not to bump the old porro's too much a Carl Zeiss Jena in top condition can be a steal but they are bulky heavy leaky and lack eye relief for eyeglass wearers bear in mind also if you drop them badly its likely the end of the road

I have had my 10 x 50's for a couple of years now and thoroughly enjoyed them in dry conditions i still find them relaxing to pick up and use and so far so good i havent bumped or dropped them

The fact that there is still a thriving trade in 8x 30 and 10 x 50 Jena's Deltrintems etc would seem to suggest these bins are very high image quality per pound and to be fair many "modern" bins around the £100 mark though possibly more robust/better sealed may well struggle to offer the "image" quality of these "golden oldies"

Regards
Rich
 
Thanks for that Richt, very informative post!

By the sounds of things then, the CZJ is probably fairly close to the image quality of a lof of the modern high-end bins, although they have more 'value added' benefits like being waterproof, lighter and more rugged.

I do find the image quality of both the 10x50 and 8x30 bins excellent, I took the 10x50 Jenoptems with me to Kingsbury Water Park and was amazed by the image clarity and contrast, and being porros there was a little bit of a '3D' effect in the image also.

I've unwittingly got round the field of view problems with the CZJs and wearing glasses (as I do) as the 10x50s I've got I bought secondhand off Ebay, and didn't realise that it's eyecups were missing (though looking at the listing's pictures again it was actually fairly obvious!). To stop the metal rims scratching my glasses' lenses, I've put masking tape over the metal parts, though it looks awful and is only really a temporary solution till I can find a better way of doing it!
 
sammyboy said:
Any thoughts anyone?

Perhaps one of these days I'll be able to afford a pair of Leicas, if the wife doesn't throttle me for getting them! :p

Hello. I own Jenoptem 10X50 as well as Nikon HG 8X42. My wife uses Swarovski 8.5X42 EL and my son uses Leica 10x50 BA.
Purely from the optical quality angle, the Zeiss do not match the others for colour accuracy, edge to edge sharpness, colour fringing, depth of field, resolving capabilities, eye relief and presentation of a relaxing image, although some of the modern ones mentioned perform better than others in some respects.
The Zeiss are quite a fair performer however and you would probably have to pay around £200-£250 to better the image quality.
One word of advice, your eyes get used to better quality optics if used regularly and this then seems to become the norm. Switching back to the old model will then seem to present a very poor quality image.
I would add that the above is a personal opinion and you could get other differing but very well informed ones.
Although the performance can be measured and quantified, with optics: beauty, or in this case its apparent presentation, is in the eye of the beholder
Whatever works, works OK.

Tony.
 
Thanks for your opinion Tony, this was what I was wondering - having never looked through any of the current line of top-line optics, the Zeiss are the best quality binoculars I've ever owned. I therefore end up thinking they are brilliant, but that is compared to the array of cheap and nasty binoculars I've had in the past, like the 'ruby' coated cheapo ones that promise a lot, a small cheap pair of pocket roofs, and department store ones!

I have noticed that both pairs do suffer from some edge blurring, the 10x50 Jenoptems being the worst offenders for that, and some CA.

I can relate to what you say about getting used to quality optics, I couldn't go back to any cheap optics after looking through a set of 'fair-good' optics like the CZJ in the grand scheme of things.

If I ever get my hands on a pair of Leicas, Swaros or moder Zeisses I'd probably feel the same way you do! :)
 
Anthony Martin said:
Hello. I own Jenoptem 10X50 as well as Nikon HG 8X42. My wife uses Swarovski 8.5X42 EL and my son uses Leica 10x50 BA.
Purely from the optical quality angle, the Zeiss do not match the others for colour accuracy, edge to edge sharpness, colour fringing, depth of field, resolving capabilities, eye relief and presentation of a relaxing image, although some of the modern ones mentioned perform better than others in some respects.

Hi Tony

Interesting comments and i can see you have some high quality roofs to compare the CZJ with including the Swaro 8.5
In fairness i was a little surprised with some of your comparison comments however as to my eyes i still tend to find the centrefield CZJ image very clear and high resolved (the outer third to edge is as you know a very different story) also to my eyes the depth of field seems very good for a 10 x binocular
Strangely i find the CZJ image more relaxing than my Nikon SE porro 10 x 42 which though noticeably sharper and much better to the edges requires careful eye placement
I am unsure as to whether a slightly softer but high clarity image is actually sometimes "easier" to look at long term than a very contrasted and precision view
It only goes to show how different peoples vision perception can be and tends to back up the famous adage of always "try before you buy"
In hindsight i would agree with the £200 + figure to gain much better image than the old DDR porro's and perhaps one definite option at this price point with very high quality optics is the Swift Audubon
I wonder as i am mainly a porro fan if this preference slightly affects any roof comparisons for me from the outset
That said i would willingly have Swaro EL, Leica Ultravid and Trin ,Zeiss FL , Nikon HGL etc if only for the construction,weather proofing and warranty safety nets

Regards
Rich
 
I own the CZJ 8x30 Deltrintem and I used to own the CZJ 10x50 Dekarem.
I have the Zeiss 7x42FL the biggest difference I noticed is the brightness of the Image and the complete neutral colour.
If you were to compare the older CZJ to the new Zeiss FLs the CZJ will appear to have a strong yellowish cast to them.
Image sharpness is not so noticeable.
Also the ergonomics of the new top of the range binoculars are superb.
I took me a good few years of hard saving up to buy the 7x42 FLs but,worth every second and,every penny.
Steve.
 
richt said:
Interesting comments and i can see you have some high quality roofs to compare the CZJ with including the Swaro 8.5
In fairness i was a little surprised with some of your comparison comments however as to my eyes i still tend to find the centrefield CZJ image very clear and high resolved (the outer third to edge is as you know a very different story) also to my eyes the depth of field seems very good for a 10 x binocular
Strangely i find the CZJ image more relaxing than my Nikon SE porro 10 x 42 which though noticeably sharper and much better to the edges requires careful eye placement
I am unsure as to whether a slightly softer but high clarity image is actually sometimes "easier" to look at long term than a very contrasted and precision view
It only goes to show how different peoples vision perception can be and tends to back up the famous adage of always "try before you buy"
In hindsight i would agree with the £200 + figure to gain much better image than the old DDR porro's and perhaps one definite option at this price point with very high quality optics is the Swift Audubon
I wonder as i am mainly a porro fan if this preference slightly affects any roof comparisons for me from the outset
That said i would willingly have Swaro EL, Leica Ultravid and Trin ,Zeiss FL , Nikon HGL etc if only for the construction,weather proofing and warranty safety nets

Regards
Rich
If the Jenoptems are working well, stick to them. Eye relief is a problem as is brightness in the non-multicoated versions but, despite the yellow cast, the multicoated versions were much better than most comparable glasses of the time. I notice people pan the build quality of the CZJ glasses. This must pertain to the period just before production closed. The CZJ porros at least till the mid-eighties were durable - not so the Notarem roofs - and the leather case reminds one of a lost world. I second your finding that the Jenoptem provides a very relaxing image compared to the sharpest porros and roofs of today: in my case the comparison was between a non-multicoated Jenoptem 10x50w and a Nikon HG 10x42 older version.
Chhayanat
 
sammyboy said:
I own a couple of pairs of multi-coated Carl Zeiss Jena binoculars (Jenoptem 8x30 and 10x50) and have been wondering how they would compare to current high end binoculars, like the roofs from Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss, or high-end porros from the likes of Nikon, Swift et al.

Sadly I cannot afford any of these high end binoculars, and have never had the chance to look through them (if anyone wants to send me a pair for 'evaluation', I won't complain! :cool: :'D ) as I don't know anyone who has a pair and there's nowhere near me that sells them. Anyone got/had a pair of CZJ bins and got a high end pair - what kinds of differences are there in optical performance? Are the newer ones miles better, or is there only a fairly marginal difference?

The 8x30 Jenoptems are optically very sharp in the centre of the field. They are porro's and have quite good brightness,resolution and contrast in the centre of the field. Mechanically and overal optically they are inferior to a high end binocular like say a Classic 8X30 T* P* Zeiss. They do not handle as well and are likely to suffer miscollimation if used repeatedly in the field. Flaking is common between the elements in the objectives as the balsam cement seperates. This has little effect on images. Eye relief is tight and field curvature and other seidal aberrations are quite noticeable perhaps 50 % off axis.

The 10X50 Zeiss Jena Jenoptem has quite a nice view and appears to have better corrections over a wider field. Similar comments mechanically when compared to say the Zeiss Nobilem which has a whole new level of build quality. eye relief is also quite tight.

For their price however the Jenoptems are excellent binoculars. They do not have the build quality of say the Zeiss Classic binoculars. They are much better value for money though.

Kevin
 
New Jena 8x42 binocs.

Hi Rich,

How do the new Jena 8x42 binocs compare to the Carl Zeiss models? These have recently been offered for sale on e-Bay.

Thanks,
Mike


I own and use Nikon E11 (8 x 30) Nikon SE (10 x 42) and Carl Zeiss Jenoptem MC 10 x 50
The E11 seem the widest angle and overall probably the easiest to actually use also pretty well built
The SE Nikon's are very well constructed fabulously sharp and true to almost the edge but are a little awkward for eye placement and black outs can occur also slightly limited fov at 6 degrees
The Carl Zeiss Jena's are my favourite overall both for airshows and low light viewing they are the brightest but both Nikon's seem to offer more contrast also the Jena's have limited eye relief and are a little less sharp to edge (though imho this is negligible in quite a lot of terrestrial viewing)

In summary i think for aome folk the Jenoptem's are fantastic value and produce an image that is relaxing and wide in use
I personally find the view very similar to Swarovski 8.5 x 42 EL and felt it was a close thing over several hours of comparison with a kind fellow birder

The Swarovski El's and other top marques do offer many other non image based attributes of course and demonstrate i believe what can count in addition with the high end binoculars
Waterproofing for one in the UK is often a help and added safety factor to allow more varied useage
Guarantees/warranties are also part of the overall picture as are weight and handling with the expensive well known models
Most folk given the chance to choose between two binoculars providing similar images at similar cost would i think opt for the one with the high durability,lighter weight and better overall build quality backed by the manufacturer
But when we are talking about £100-£125 for a decent condition East German wide angle porro and say £800 + to achieve the extra factors previously mentioned then the decision becomes somewhat "foggy" for an awful lot of folk

Basically if you observe in the dry and take care not to bump the old porro's too much a Carl Zeiss Jena in top condition can be a steal but they are bulky heavy leaky and lack eye relief for eyeglass wearers bear in mind also if you drop them badly its likely the end of the road

I have had my 10 x 50's for a couple of years now and thoroughly enjoyed them in dry conditions i still find them relaxing to pick up and use and so far so good i havent bumped or dropped them

The fact that there is still a thriving trade in 8x 30 and 10 x 50 Jena's Deltrintems etc would seem to suggest these bins are very high image quality per pound and to be fair many "modern" bins around the £100 mark though possibly more robust/better sealed may well struggle to offer the "image" quality of these "golden oldies"

Regards
Rich[/QUOTE]
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 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