• 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.

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (2 Viewers)

I, for one, actually think the questions Globetrotter asks are entirely justified.

And I would also like to add that I have found Zeiss's response to the HT 54 debacle to be completely unsatisfactory, by providing no technical data at all but asserting that they were selling well.|>|

Look, Zeiss used to be all about great optics and great quality - demonstrably better than almost anything else out there. Now it seems as though the brand represents marginal quality [or actually lacking] in an expensive and well advertised package.

I have said it over and over - for Zeiss to sell a $3000.00 binoc. that cannot produce a sharp image [something the average Zen-Ray has no problem with] is a complete abandonment of the Zeiss model of the past. To not acknowledge that problem, or [worse] to pretend that it doesn't exist, leads me to believe the people now in charge have no interest in keeping Zeiss at the leading edge of optical quality.

Yes, Zeiss have done well with some recent models - I still think the 42 HT's produce the most pleasing image I have seen and the Conquests are very good overall. But, to produce an entire line of binoculars that [apparently] don't work [54 HT] and to produce a new model [SF] riddled with defects and poor sharpness [again!] will not get a pass from me.

PS - I would challenge Zeiss to produce some meaningful data on both the HT 54's and the SF's - production tolerances, boosted resolution data, spherical aberration measurements. Zeiss has over 100 years of experience with optics - I'm sure they could manage something like this........
 
Last edited:
HighNorth said:
Is this the reason why many astronomers prefer porros? I suppose porros cost less too, which is always a consideration for cheapo astronomers with perennial aperture fever! ;)
Click to expand...

I think that's the case. And I think the reason almost all boating binoculars are porros is the same: when looking against lighthouses and other bright light sources in pitch dark night spikes are not desirable.
I actually discussed this matter in Cloudy Nights forum several years ago.
 
Last edited:
james holdsworth said:
I, for one, actually think the questions Globetrotter asks are entirely justified.

And I would also like to add that I have found Zeiss's response to the HT 54 debacle to be completely unsatisfactory, by providing no technical data at all but asserting that they were selling well.|>|

Look, Zeiss used to be all about great optics and great quality - demonstrably better than almost anything else out there. Now it seems as though the brand represents marginal quality [or actually lacking] in an expensive and well advertised package.

I have said it over and over - for Zeiss to sell a $3000.00 binoc. that cannot produce a sharp image [something the average Zen-Ray has no problem with] is a complete abandonment of the Zeiss model of the past. To not acknowledge that problem, or [worse] to pretend that it doesn't exist, leads me to believe the people now in charge have no interest in keeping Zeiss at the leading edge of optical quality.

Yes, Zeiss have done well with some recent models - I still think the 42 HT's produce the most pleasing image I have seen and the Conquests are very good overall. But, to produce an entire line of binoculars that [apparently] don't work [54 HT] and to produce a new model [SF] riddled with defects and poor sharpness [again!] will not get a pass from me.

PS - I would challenge Zeiss to produce some meaningful data on both the HT 54's and the SF's - production tolerances, boosted resolution data, spherical aberration measurements. Zeiss has over 100 years of experience with optics - I'm sure they could manage something like this........
Click to expand...

Wow James, when I used this kind of language two years ago, you would have burned me to the ground;)

But; SF's not sharp? Come on.

Jan
 
The image in my 10x42 SF is certainly sharp and I've lived with mine for almost 2 months now! So I'm not sure where this notion of poor sharpness is derived from.
 
jan van daalen said:
Wow James, when I used this kind of language two years ago, you would have burned me to the ground;)

But; SF's not sharp? Come on.

Jan
Click to expand...


This is not true - I have been critical of Zeiss where warranted, look it up.

And, the notion of ''unsharpness'' in the SF comes from Globetrotter, who has tried 7 samples and still can't get a tight star image.

Maybe it's just bad QA - whatever it is, completely unacceptable for Zeiss, especially at this price point.
 
james holdsworth said:
This is not true - I have been critical of Zeiss where warranted, look it up.

And, the notion of ''unsharpness'' in the SF comes from Globetrotter, who has tried 7 samples and still can't get a tight star image.

Maybe it's just bad QA - whatever it is, completely unacceptable for Zeiss, especially at this price point.
Click to expand...

James,

Speak for yourself and not for others.

I checked more than a dozen SF's and they were ALL sharp.
I have read several reports of users on BF and one thing is for sure: this bin is sharp.
Only one guy claims he tried 7 SF's and still can't find a satisfactory one as it seems, and you use his story to back up yours.
Again James, speak for yourself and from own experience.

Jan
 
james holdsworth said:
This is not true - I have been critical of Zeiss where warranted, look it up.

And, the notion of ''unsharpness'' in the SF comes from Globetrotter, who has tried 7 samples and still can't get a tight star image.

Maybe it's just bad QA - whatever it is, completely unacceptable for Zeiss, especially at this price point.
Click to expand...

My SF is also sharp, and I haven't noted any "star spikes" (I use mine for stargazing too), pinched image or astigmatism. I do occasionally notice some slight rolling ball and minor crescent glare in difficult light conditions though.
 
jan van daalen said:
James,

Speak for yourself and not for others.

I checked more than a dozen SF's and they were ALL sharp.
I have read several reports of users on BF and one thing is for sure: this bin is sharp.
Only one guy claims he tried 7 SF's and still can't find a satisfactory one as it seems, and you use his story to back up yours.
Again James, speak for yourself and from own experience.

Jan
Click to expand...


We must be in Seinfeld's bizarro world.........me bashing Zeiss and Jan defending.....:-O
 
Swedpat said:
I think that's the case. And I think the reason almost all boating binoculars are porros is the same: when looking against lighthouses and other bright light sources in pitch dark night spikes are not desirable.
I actually discussed this matter in Cloudy Nights forum several years ago.
Click to expand...

It's also because stars and DSOs are quite faint compared to daytime terrestrial objects, so amateur astronomers need BIG aperture binoculars to capture that faint light. Roofs go up to 65mm, and there aren't too many of those, and any good ones cost an arm and a leg compared to a General Hi-T or Oberwerk 80mm or 100mm Porro binoculars.

Large roofs also tend to be heavier. I have a Japanese 9x63 roof with A/K prisms (very similar to Optolyth Royals), and it's hefty compared to the Chinese-made 20x80 LW I had.

So when you put it altogether - price, aperture and weight - Porros are the way to go for dedicated astronomy bins.

Brock
 
james holdsworth said:
We must be in Seinfeld's bizarro world.........me bashing Zeiss and Jan defending.....:-O
Click to expand...

No, when Jan praises a pair of Nikon binoculars, THEN we'll be in Bizarro World.

Jan praises whatever he sells. When he wasn't selling Zeiss, he dissed them, now that he's a Zeiss dealer again, he praises them. It's about all about sales.

<B>
 
Last edited:
brocknroller said:
No, when Jan praises a pair of Nikon binoculars, THEN we'll be in Bizarro World.

Jan praises whatever he sells. When he wasn't selling Zeiss, he dissed them, now that he's a Zeiss dealer again, he praises them. It's about all about sales.

<B>
Click to expand...

If JAN is a Zeiss dealer of curse all Zeiss bins a ultra sharp even with front lens cover with vaseline..........

But for HT X 54 models vaseline is not needed they can be unsharp enough without help as serious testers report, and saving money in vaseline because they have a big front lenses :t:

Astronomical targets are a hard test for any optic and i found that bringing pointing stars the swaros success.......

A combination of low dispersion optics wery well controlled astigmatism and pinpoint stars view comes into play when you look at night skies, or i am lucky enough with my units and they are almost perfect.

I say this because i already check the links posted above about spikes and other defects coming from roof prism.

But for sure only one think......i will keep my finally sharp sample of SF for terrestrial observation during overcast and low light days mainly due to his huge FOV and brightness, but during the day for sure i will go out with my utravids.

I can not deal with SF overwhelm brightness during a sunny day.....its whiten the view.

In 4 or 5 years Swarosvki answer to SF will be on market so then ULTRAVID and SF for sure will be on sale to get cash back for SV 3.
 
Last edited:
brocknroller said:
No, when Jan praises a pair of Nikon binoculars, THEN we'll be in Bizarro World.

Jan praises whatever he sells. When he wasn't selling Zeiss, he dissed them, now that he's a Zeiss dealer again, he praises them. It's about all about sales.

<B>
Click to expand...

Well, the EDG line is as good as it gets, but for the rest they're nothing more than Katsuma/Kamakura/Kenko clones, just like the rest.
What Nikon as a brand differs from the rest is their lack of aftersales in this part of the world and their bizar salesstructures.
But that is something you don't know Jack S.. about, do you Brock.

Keep yepping!

Jan
 
james holdsworth said:
This is not true - I have been critical of Zeiss where warranted, look it up.

And, the notion of ''unsharpness'' in the SF comes from Globetrotter, who has tried 7 samples and still can't get a tight star image.

Maybe it's just bad QA - whatever it is, completely unacceptable for Zeiss, especially at this price point.
Click to expand...

Results that can't be reproduced elsewhere by others,
have no significance in the scientific world.
No matter what the poster's name is or not.

Until some VALID proof is presented on any type of "unsharpness",
I would rest my case…
 
Last edited:
GLOBETROTTER said:
If JAN is a Zeiss dealer of curse all Zeiss bins a ultra sharp even with front lens cover with vaseline..........

But for HT X 54 models vaseline is not needed they can be unsharp enough without help as serious testers report, and saving money in vaseline because they have a big front lenses :t:

Astronomical targets are a hard test for any optic and i found that bringing pointing stars the swaros success.......

A combination of low dispersion optics wery well controlled astigmatism and pinpoint stars view comes into play when you look at night skies, or i am lucky enough with my units and they are almost perfect.

I say this because i already check the links posted above about spikes and other defects coming from roof prism.

But for sure only one think......i will keep my finally sharp sample of SF for terrestrial observation during overcast and low light days mainly due to his huge FOV and brightness, but during the day for sure i will go out with my utravids.

I can not deal with SF overwhelm brightness during a sunny day.....its whiten the view.

In 4 or 5 years Swarosvki answer to SF will be on market so then ULTRAVID and SF for sure will be on sale to get cash back for SV 3.
Click to expand...

Oh my God,

In Europe we have a Dennis clone:-O
 
For someone with very sharp eyes, it is not at all a given that even a premium binocular would give tight star images. I don't think Globetrotter has tried out as many samples as he did for the fun of it, but likely because he genuinely did wish for a sharper unit. Light is a fickle force, and production tolerances that are acceptable to the industry and probably perfectly adequate for the majority of viewers are nevertheless not high enough for a minority.

I haven't had enough of a chance to evaluate multiple samples of the SF, but the one I had most time with had a prism edge aberration very much like what Globetrotter describes, in both tubes, and the effects were visible to my eyes both when viewing stars at night and an artificial star during the day, with my eye pupil smaller than in the night viewing. Also, in viewing city lights at distance I could see that the shape of light points was slightly astigmatic. However, in daytime viewing this same unit presented a very sharp and well-defined image, and only in direct comparison with another binocular that was able to bring stars to a tight focus did this SF seem a little less sharp. I'm pretty sure that Globetrotter would have found this unit lacking but that most viewers would have been very happy with it, especially for non-astronomical uses.

My very tentative opinion at present is that the SF optical design is very good and certainly capable of producing extremely sharp images (something I could not say about the HT's, although of course it is possible that I would still see a very sharp HT also), but I cannot say anything yet about wether the production tolerances are high enough to provide this level in a sizable percentage of the sold units.

Kimmo
 
I had most time with had a prism edge aberration very much like what Globetrotter describes, in both tubes, and the effects were visible to my eyes both when viewing stars at night and an artificial star during the day, with my eye pupil smaller than in the night viewing. Also, in viewing city lights at distance I could see that the shape of light points was slightly astigmatic. However, in daytime viewing this same unit presented a very sharp and well-defined image, and only in direct comparison with another binocular that was able to bring stars to a tight focus did this SF seem a little less sharp. I'm pretty sure that Globetrotter would have found this unit lacking but that most viewers would have been very happy with it, especially for non-astronomical uses.

Kimmo.

Hi Kimmo thanks for your post.

I already thought that i was the only one who was able to see the optical defects like spikes or not pinpoint stars.

Swaros are also mainly birding binos and they are stunning during night no excuses at this price tag for any i mean Z, L , or S brands.

Some people still amazed that i already tried several units until i found the proper one, YES !!!!!!! other units where not sharp for a 2260 euros binocular but ok maybe they where enough sharp if you compare it with a chinese 100 euros roof, if people is happy whith such kind of performance paying up to 2000 euros......what can i say.

Better for Zeiss.
 
GLOBETROTTER said:
I had most time with had a prism edge aberration very much like what Globetrotter describes, in both tubes, and the effects were visible to my eyes both when viewing stars at night and an artificial star during the day, with my eye pupil smaller than in the night viewing. Also, in viewing city lights at distance I could see that the shape of light points was slightly astigmatic. However, in daytime viewing this same unit presented a very sharp and well-defined image, and only in direct comparison with another binocular that was able to bring stars to a tight focus did this SF seem a little less sharp. I'm pretty sure that Globetrotter would have found this unit lacking but that most viewers would have been very happy with it, especially for non-astronomical uses.

Kimmo.

Hi Kimmo thanks for your post.

I already thought that i was the only one who was able to see the optical defects like spikes or not pinpoint stars.

Swaros are also mainly birding binos and they are stunning during night no excuses at this price tag for any i mean Z, L , or S brands.

Some people still amazed that i already tried several units until i found the proper one, YES !!!!!!! other units where not sharp for a 2260 euros binocular but ok maybe they where enough sharp if you compare it with a chinese 100 euros roof, if people is happy whith such kind of performance paying up to 2000 euros......what can i say.

Better for Zeiss.
Click to expand...

Faces off, isn't it?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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

Pauhana
Zeiss storefront says Victory SF 8x42 discontinued?????
Replies
4
Views
1K
Conndomat
Conndomat
mgp13
Zeiss Victory SF - damaged or is this normal?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Troubador
Troubador
C
Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 ages?
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
mgp13
mgp13
J
Focus Problem: Zeiss Victory SF 10x42
Replies
6
Views
2K
John-W
J
S
Swarovski EL vs Zeiss Victory SF
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
norway
norway

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top