Reviews: premium 8x42s - Zeiss SF vs HT vs Leica Ultravid Plus vs Swarovision vs SLC (1 Viewer)

Tobias Mennle · Sep 16, 2015

Last spring I had to opportunity to compare those five bins for 6 weeks in parallel. The comparative review as well as the new reviews of Zeiss SF, Zeiss HT and the Ultravid HD Plus are now online:

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/index.html

Tobias

james holdsworth · Sep 16, 2015

Just.......wow, what an incredibly thorough and well constructed review. Outstanding! :t:

This is what makes this forum worth visiting, IMO.

It doesn't hurt that your findings back up my views of my favourite bin, too.

Tobias Mennle · Sep 16, 2015

james holdsworth said:
Just.......wow, what an incredibly thorough and well constructed review. Outstanding! :t:

This is what makes this forum worth visiting, IMO.

It doesn't hurt that your findings back up my views of my favourite bin, too.

Yeah, James, you had a great short description of the HTs virtues somewhere - where was it?

Kammerdiner · Sep 16, 2015

james holdsworth said:
Just.......wow, what an incredibly thorough and well constructed review. Outstanding! :t:

This is what makes this forum worth visiting, IMO.

It doesn't hurt that your findings back up my views of my favourite bin, too.

I.e. when it reinforces your own views it's worth visiting. :-O

Mark

typo · Sep 16, 2015

Tobias,

Many thanks for such an extensive comparison. A lot of work!

I'm particularly pleased to see the resolution results. The full aperture values are very much in line with what I would expect from the DIN ISO standard and my own results. The consistacy of the stopped down values is a bit of a surprise though. It is evident by eye that that a degree of variation occurs even amongst these exhalted models. Interesting.

I think you could make arguements in favour of any of those on your list, but I must say I'm currently charmed by the Ultravid HD Plus.

David

james holdsworth · Sep 16, 2015

Tobias Mennle said:
Yeah, James, you had a great short description of the HTs virtues somewhere - where was it?

:-O

About a thousand times in the big HT thread.....some people [Mark for sure] really tired of it.

Anyway, it is refreshing for me to read your findings regarding transparency / sparkle and contrast as I often seemed to be a lone voice in the howling wind on this issue. Looks like I need to check out and Ultravid HD Plus someday soon too, sounds superb.

PhilR. · Sep 16, 2015

I found your review to be very interesting. Thank you for posting it.

I have no need for an 8x42, but if the day ever comes that I need one, I will immediately go back to your article.

kabsetz · Sep 16, 2015

Tobias,

Thanks for doing this and sharing the results. Excellent work and a nice read too. Beautiful photos as well.

Kimmo

chill6x6 · Sep 17, 2015

I enjoyed your review! LOTS of good glass there!

All are so close in optical performance. Really good read!

stephen b · Sep 17, 2015

Tobias-

Excellent review- loved it! Great pictures along with easy to read information and clearly understood personal insight. Well done! I really like reading and seeing your website.

Not trying to high jack your review, but I wanted to put in a couple thoughts of what I found when testing the 8x42 Swaro SLC HD. Regarding the 8x42 SLC WB HD- your info and conclusions are very close to what I thought. I had one of the recent incarnations of the 8x42 SLC WB HD, and I also was slightly underwhelmed. I just had preconceived notions that it was going to be much better than I found it to be. I compared it to my 8x30 Habicht porro ( new one); and a 8x32 Nikon SE; a Swaro 8.5x42 SV; a 8x42 Ultravid HD; and a 8x32 Leupold Mojave. And I did not think the SLC HD really stood out and excelled. I expected to be about as good in the center field as the 8.5 SV, and I found that was not the case in my samples. I also expected the SLC HD to be a bit better to my eyes than the Habicht and the SE; and I did not find that to be the case. The 8x42 Ultravid HD was on par and maybe a bit better to me when compared to the 8x42 SLC. I no longer own the 8x42 SLC.

Interestingly, I have found quite different results with the sample of a 10x42 SLC WB HD that I have. I found that it does wow me, and it really holds up very, very well when comparing it to a 10x42 SV; a 10x42 Ultravid HD; and to the previous version of the 10x42 SLC HD. I was a bit stumped as to why the 8x42 SLC did not wow me as much as the 10x42 SLC WB HD does. Especially when compared to basically the same 10x versions of binoculars as the ones I compared the 8x SLC to. For instance I found the center field of the 10x SLC that I have to be just as good as the 10x SV, and that was not the case with the 8x ( well 8.5). And I really like the 10x SLC better than the Ultravid HD.

I tested all of the above both hand held and on tripods.

Keep up the outstanding work.

Chosun Juan · Sep 17, 2015

Nice review Tobias :t: and well done on assembling such a cast all at once.

When doing the resolution testing, did you move the SV back by by an extra factor of 6.25% (8.5/8) to account for its greater magnification compared to the other 8x ? :cat: Thanks.

Chosun :gh:

Vespobuteo · Sep 17, 2015

nice review, though it's always problematic only testing one sample.
and drawing conclusions from that.

SF-focusers (in the 9-10 units I have tested) generally work very well, but there is some variation in the feel and degree of resistance. (Don't know if this is due to a breaking in period or not.)

Just wondering, how did you come to the conclusion that SF don't use HT glass?
The HT have 95%+ transmission but have AK-prisms (perhaps 5% extra transmission vs SP?),
the SF have 92% trasmission but have SP-prisms,
The FL:s have about 92-94% trasmission (depending on who measured and model) without HT glass but with AK-prisms.

The SF seems extremely good transmission-wise if not using HT-glass and for SP-prisms. Don't know if thinner glass and fewer lens elements or better coatings could be the reason.
Perhaps sone optical experts here could explain it?

Brightness can be tricky to estimate with the eye, since perceived brightness is dependent of contrast and color rendition.
Just wondering, you write "Colour reproduction in the Swarovision could be improved from slightly cold to a neutral look as in the Zeiss HT"
Do you find the HT:s neutral in color reproduction?

temmie · Sep 17, 2015

Hi Tobias,
I read your review yesterday - really pleased with reading it: pictures are great and your opinions are very understandable and easy to read.

I hope you plan to do more comparisons and e.g. the same for 10x42 (as a start), and maybe 8x32 and 7x42.
I will bookmark your site.

Kammerdiner · Sep 17, 2015

From Tobias' review:

"Ease of view
1. Swarovski Swarovision - awesome, how do they do that?
2. Leica Ultravid, Swarovski SLC, Zeiss SF
3. Zeiss HT, Swarovski Habicht - need more accurate interpupillary distance and eyecup length adjustment."

I'm pretty well convinced that this "ease of view" is related to the way the bino is baffled. The Swarovision is kind of "wide open" while the HT (I'm assuming it's something like my FL) is tightly baffled.

Swaro SV gets a lot of flack for its (lack) of baffling but if you look at Allbinos eyepiece pics of the SV and SLC you can see that Swaro knows all about baffling. The SLC "looks" a lot better, with far less "flares" as they call them. But my hunch is Swaro chose to loosen up the SV to get at that ease of view which is quite impressive. The difference in ease of view between my 8x32 SV and 8x32 FL is dramatic. The FL exit pupil vignettes with the slightest misalignment between exit pupil and eye position. The SV is just a big and easy view. I've called it the "slap 'em on your face" view. No fiddling.

So that's my theory anyway. As Tobias mentioned, Swaro must have some reason for doing things this way. Does this make sense to others?

Mark

Tobias Mennle · Sep 17, 2015

Kammerdiner said:
From Tobias' review:

"Ease of view
1. Swarovski Swarovision - awesome, how do they do that?
2. Leica Ultravid, Swarovski SLC, Zeiss SF
3. Zeiss HT, Swarovski Habicht - need more accurate interpupillary distance and eyecup length adjustment."

I'm pretty well convinced that this "ease of view" is related to the way the bino is baffled. The Swarovision is kind of "wide open" while the HT (I'm assuming it's something like my FL) is tightly baffled.

Swaro SV gets a lot of flack for its (lack) of baffling but if you look at Allbinos eyepiece pics of the SV and SLC you can see that Swaro knows all about baffling. The SLC "looks" a lot better, with far less "flares" as they call them. But my hunch is Swaro chose to loosen up the SV to get at that ease of view which is quite impressive. The difference in ease of view between my 8x32 SV and 8x32 FL is dramatic. The FL exit pupil vignettes with the slightest misalignment between exit pupil and eye position. The SV is just a big and easy view. I've called it the "slap 'em on your face" view. No fiddling.

So that's my theory anyway. As Tobias mentioned, Swaro must have some reason for doing things this way. Does this make sense to others?

Mark

Mark, I agree 100% and will try to do more research on this. I´m pretty sure Swarovski will not be keen to talk about it though, but you nailed it. With the Swarovision you can almost focus from infinity to very close without adjusting IPD, impossible with an HT or Ultravid or my Habicht - so I originally thought its only a problem of the porros. Of course Swarovski is doing this with a good reason.

Tobias Mennle · Sep 17, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
nice review, though it's always problematic only testing one sample.
and drawing conclusions from that.

- that´s why I ask the manufacturers for representative samples. Same chance for all of them.

SF-focusers (in the 9-10 units I have tested) generally work very well, but there is some variation in the feel and degree of resistance. (Don't know if this is due to a breaking in period or not.)

-I get too many reports both on the forums and privately to feel entitled to discuss this at least as a potential problem.

Just wondering, how did you come to the conclusion that SF don't use HT glass?
The HT have 95%+ transmission but have AK-prisms (perhaps 5% extra transmission vs SP?),
the SF have 92% trasmission but have SP-prisms,
The FL:s have about 92-94% trasmission (depending on who measured and model) without HT glass but with AK-prisms.

- Be sure Zeiss would not be silent about it. The SLC has 92%, too, with SP prisms and no HT.

The SF seems extremely good transmission-wise if not using HT-glass and for SP-prisms. Don't know if thinner glass and fewer lens elements or better coatings could be the reason.
Perhaps sone optical experts here could explain it?

Brightness can be tricky to estimate with the eye, since perceived brightness is dependent of contrast and color rendition.

Yes, tricky, and yes, color rendition. Zeiss is using a green tint to perceptually increase contrast, and as I wrote, my feeling and experience is that such a high contrast look also makes the images look darker, as if the blacks are crushed. Swarovski has a similar approach with the warm tint in the SLC, but in the Swarovision they don´t play that game and go for sheer power of MTF performance and a cold tinge to not perceptually darken the image too much probably. I was shocked the first time I looked through the SLC, especially because the 8x32 SV looked so much less contrasty in comparison, but both ways make sense, depending on your customers´needs and tastes. To much green is not good though.

Try to directly compare HT and SF and you might be shocked, although it´s only 3% difference in transmission on paper.

Just wondering, you write "Colour reproduction in the Swarovision could be improved from slightly cold to a neutral look as in the Zeiss HT"
Do you find the HT:s neutral in color reproduction?

Yes, I find the HT and the Habicht neutral, SV cold, the other three warm.

Tobias Mennle · Sep 17, 2015

Chosun Juan said:
Nice review Tobias :t: and well done on assembling such a cast all at once.

When doing the resolution testing, did you move the SV back by by an extra factor of 6.25% (8.5/8) to account for its greater magnification compared to the other 8x ? :cat: Thanks.

Chosun :gh:

Chosun, no I didn´t, on purpose though. What we really need to know in my opinion is the MTF/contrast of the bin at the resolution limit of our eyes...

Tobias Mennle · Sep 17, 2015

typo said:
Tobias,

Many thanks for such an extensive comparison. A lot of work!

I'm particularly pleased to see the resolution results. The full aperture values are very much in line with what I would expect from the DIN ISO standard and my own results. The consistacy of the stopped down values is a bit of a surprise though. It is evident by eye that that a degree of variation occurs even amongst these exhalted models. Interesting.

I think you could make arguements in favour of any of those on your list, but I must say I'm currently charmed by the Ultravid HD Plus.

David

David, thanks, and thanks for your advice again. I still don´t know what to do with the stopped down values, let me know if you have any ideas. Of course there is a lot of variation with naked eye in daylight, otherwise no need for reviews...

Are you charmed by my description of the Ultravid or by the one in your cupboard???

Tobias Mennle · Sep 17, 2015

stephen b said:
Tobias-

Excellent review- loved it! Great pictures along with easy to read information and clearly understood personal insight. Well done! I really like reading and seeing your website.

Not trying to high jack your review, but I wanted to put in a couple thoughts of what I found when testing the 8x42 Swaro SLC HD. Regarding the 8x42 SLC WB HD- your info and conclusions are very close to what I thought. I had one of the recent incarnations of the 8x42 SLC WB HD, and I also was slightly underwhelmed. I just had preconceived notions that it was going to be much better than I found it to be. I compared it to my 8x30 Habicht porro ( new one); and a 8x32 Nikon SE; a Swaro 8.5x42 SV; a 8x42 Ultravid HD; and a 8x32 Leupold Mojave. And I did not think the SLC HD really stood out and excelled. I expected to be about as good in the center field as the 8.5 SV, and I found that was not the case in my samples. I also expected the SLC HD to be a bit better to my eyes than the Habicht and the SE; and I did not find that to be the case. The 8x42 Ultravid HD was on par and maybe a bit better to me when compared to the 8x42 SLC. I no longer own the 8x42 SLC.

Interestingly, I have found quite different results with the sample of a 10x42 SLC WB HD that I have. I found that it does wow me, and it really holds up very, very well when comparing it to a 10x42 SV; a 10x42 Ultravid HD; and to the previous version of the 10x42 SLC HD. I was a bit stumped as to why the 8x42 SLC did not wow me as much as the 10x42 SLC WB HD does. Especially when compared to basically the same 10x versions of binoculars as the ones I compared the 8x SLC to. For instance I found the center field of the 10x SLC that I have to be just as good as the 10x SV, and that was not the case with the 8x ( well 8.5). And I really like the 10x SLC better than the Ultravid HD.

I tested all of the above both hand held and on tripods.

Keep up the outstanding work.

Stephen, thanks, and actually I find your comment on the SLC very interesting. It´s no secret that cherry samples do exist, if you got one with the 10x SLC, enjoy it. I think the latest version does not have the HD logo anymore, just W B.

Torview · Sep 17, 2015

Kammerdiner said:
From Tobias' review:

"Ease of view
1. Swarovski Swarovision - awesome, how do they do that?
2. Leica Ultravid, Swarovski SLC, Zeiss SF
3. Zeiss HT, Swarovski Habicht - need more accurate interpupillary distance and eyecup length adjustment."

I'm pretty well convinced that this "ease of view" is related to the way the bino is baffled. The Swarovision is kind of "wide open" while the HT (I'm assuming it's something like my FL) is tightly baffled.

Swaro SV gets a lot of flack for its (lack) of baffling but if you look at Allbinos eyepiece pics of the SV and SLC you can see that Swaro knows all about baffling. The SLC "looks" a lot better, with far less "flares" as they call them. But my hunch is Swaro chose to loosen up the SV to get at that ease of view which is quite impressive. The difference in ease of view between my 8x32 SV and 8x32 FL is dramatic. The FL exit pupil vignettes with the slightest misalignment between exit pupil and eye position. The SV is just a big and easy view. I've called it the "slap 'em on your face" view. No fiddling.

So that's my theory anyway. As Tobias mentioned, Swaro must have some reason for doing things this way. Does this make sense to others?

Mark

I really notice how easy the SV is with eye placement when switching to something else, when I had my SE it always felt more particular than the EII, which felt very easy, however picking up the EII now it feels fussy about eye placement after hours using the SV.

I still love the EII.

Thoroughly enjoyable read Tobias.

Reviews: premium 8x42s - Zeiss SF vs HT vs Leica Ultravid Plus vs Swarovision vs SLC (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Consulting Biologist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Consulting Biologist

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread