-
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 HT doesn't win shootout with... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Vespobuteo
- Start date
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
henry link
Well-known member
I just got back from a birding trip where I was finally able to try both the 8x42 HT and 8x42 SF. It was possible for me to spend more time with the HT, so for it I improvised some of the usual stuff I do at home (star-test, color bias photos, etc.). It will take a day or two for me to write up the results. I'll probably start a new thread.
For now I will say that I found the 8x42 SF to have very pronounced "mustache" distortion.
Henry
For now I will say that I found the 8x42 SF to have very pronounced "mustache" distortion.
Henry
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
henry link
Well-known member
The "mustache" distortion in the SF is the reverse of the Wikipedia example. Pincushion is on the inside and barrel is at the field edge.
kkokkolis
Περίεργο&#
Oh, thanks, now I remember that. It doesn't sound very good for an alpha class binocular. Not at that price. I am used at pincushion in telescope optics but no binocular I used so far has objectionable (by me) amounts, except that little Steiner 8x22 which is forgiven as a cheap compact.
henry link
Well-known member
Konstantinos,
There's always some form of distortion. If there's lower pincushion distortion that will cause angular magnification distortion to be higher. It's more of a design choice than a sign of quality. That said, I do find the design choice of the SF distortion to be odd. There is a wide swing from strong pincushion to very mild barrel over a space of about about 8º of apparent field. That almost certainly explains the reports of stronger "rolling ball" in the SF compared to the Swarovski SV, which has the same mustache distortion, but shifts the distortion over a narrower range from moderate pincushion to approximately zero rectilinear distortion.
FWIW, the 8x42 HT follows the traditional Zeiss distortion pattern. It has approximately the same or the very same amount of straight pincushion as the 8x42 FL, which increases all the way to the field edge. It's about the right amount to correct angular magnification distortion so that the shapes of objects remain mostly unchanged from the center to the edge.
Henry
There's always some form of distortion. If there's lower pincushion distortion that will cause angular magnification distortion to be higher. It's more of a design choice than a sign of quality. That said, I do find the design choice of the SF distortion to be odd. There is a wide swing from strong pincushion to very mild barrel over a space of about about 8º of apparent field. That almost certainly explains the reports of stronger "rolling ball" in the SF compared to the Swarovski SV, which has the same mustache distortion, but shifts the distortion over a narrower range from moderate pincushion to approximately zero rectilinear distortion.
FWIW, the 8x42 HT follows the traditional Zeiss distortion pattern. It has approximately the same or the very same amount of straight pincushion as the 8x42 FL, which increases all the way to the field edge. It's about the right amount to correct angular magnification distortion so that the shapes of objects remain mostly unchanged from the center to the edge.
Henry
Last edited:
kkokkolis
Περίεργο&#
I am a traditionalist follower of the scheme:
Minimal angular distortion for night sky optics
Minimal pincushion (or barrel) distortion for terrestrial optics.
Stars don't bend and lines don't separate.
However good and expensive my Ethos, Nagler, Delos and Radian eyepieces are, I use Hyperions for terrestrial.
Minimal angular distortion for night sky optics
Minimal pincushion (or barrel) distortion for terrestrial optics.
Stars don't bend and lines don't separate.
However good and expensive my Ethos, Nagler, Delos and Radian eyepieces are, I use Hyperions for terrestrial.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Henry:
I am looking forward to trying out the new SF. I do use the 8.5x42 SV
as my main binocular, and have owned the 8x42 FL.
I like the flat field designs, as I find with several Nikons, including the
EDG, the SE's and the HG.
I suppose this relates to everyday viewing, and as you mention, every
binocular has some distortion. I do hope that nobody is put off by your
mustache comments on the new SF.
I have never seen rolling ball, so I am in the vast majority of users, who
will not ever be bothered.
I am wondering if you are going to move on with another choice, and
which binocular would it be?
I should not put you on the spot.
Jerry
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Henry,
Your inbox is full....
Your inbox is full....
Tobias Mennle
Well-known member
Vespobuteo, I totally agree on the tricky eye placement in the 8x42 HT, this is the one serious HT fault IMO. Yes the SF is much more tolerant, and the SV even more so. But I doubt that the AK prisms would prevent Zeiss from improving the HT in this regard.
The 8x Trinovid I shortly used was optically disappointing, and for European buyers the Ultravids have probably come way too close in price to make the Trinovid an attractive alternative.
I had out of sync focusing both in a 10x32 Conquest HD and an 8x42 Conquest I handled briefly.
The 8x Trinovid I shortly used was optically disappointing, and for European buyers the Ultravids have probably come way too close in price to make the Trinovid an attractive alternative.
I had out of sync focusing both in a 10x32 Conquest HD and an 8x42 Conquest I handled briefly.
Hi Tobias and Henry,
Having had a Leica BA 10x42, a FL 10x42 and now a HT 10x42, I agree in:
The optical differences between the FL and the HT are minnimals. The center resolution or sharpness in both is trully AMAZING.
The critical eye placement required in both is a fact!
Thank you for your evaluations and report!
PHA
Having had a Leica BA 10x42, a FL 10x42 and now a HT 10x42, I agree in:
The optical differences between the FL and the HT are minnimals. The center resolution or sharpness in both is trully AMAZING.
The critical eye placement required in both is a fact!
Thank you for your evaluations and report!
PHA
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
that would probably mean bigger prisms, more weight and larger size of the bins,
for a flat field and obtaining edge sharpness
you probably need more "room" than you could get in
AK-prims of reasonable size and weight,
also the extension in length of AK-prisms might make it
more difficult.
but the optical gurus here might
want to explain that further,
what surprises me is the 92% transmission in the SF (even with SP prisms),
the amount of glass might be a factor,
(thinner/less objective lenses and an integrated focusing lens)
Attachments
Last edited:
