New Zeiss APO Binoculars (1 Viewer)

CJW · Jan 27, 2004

Jonathan B. said:
In what way do you think?

I was comparing the V2s to the Trinovids, Jonathan, not the ridiculously overpriced, equivalent mag. Ultravids.
They focus closer, are lighter (boy, are the Trinovids heavy!), the contrast and resolution is better and they generally 'feel' better.
But at the end of the day it's a personal choice. My choice was the V2s.
At £700-ish they represent a damn good buy compared to the extra £100 for the Trinovids and a whopping £300+ for the Ultravids.

Chris

gorank · Jan 27, 2004

the Zeiss homepage states:
"New four-element Superachromat lenses to prevent color fringes caused by secondary spectrum and to achieve a short overall length"

What is Superachromat vs APO ??

A norwegian review states that the victory 8x56's ”chromatic aberration is larger than the competition”, but still it is rated as one of the best binos in low light conditions.

Or perhaps someone mixed up the Zeiss AOS (advanced optics system) abbrevation with APO....??

BTW. is it correct that the Victory body is made of some kind of plastic/composite material??

it's a pitty that it's so difficult to do blind-testing of binoculars...until then; your own eyes and opinion rules...=)

Leif · Jan 27, 2004

gorank said:
it's a pitty that it's so difficult to do blind-testing of binoculars...until then; your own eyes and opinion rules...=)

Sometimes I think I would be better off wearing a blindfold while using binoculars. Some of my ids would be more reliable that way.

Jonathan B. · Jan 27, 2004

Leif said:
Hi Jonathon. I have used the Nikon 8x32 HG in the field and I do agree with you that there is a lot of chromatic aberration. The Swaro 8x30 SLC is better corrected, but it is not as bright, does not focus so close, and the focus wheel is in an odd position. Maybe someone who owns one can give you a more informed opinion that I can.

BTW I think you mean 'roof-prism', not 'porro-prism'?

Leif:

Oops. Yes, I mean roof-prism. Don't know what I was thinking when I wrote. I agree with you about the Swarovski 8x30, though the position of the focusing wheel does not work for me. It is a great little glass, with some limitations.

CJW:

The Victory II indeed blows the Leica Trinovid out of the water. I'm not sure that the Ultravid is any more ridiculously overpriced than other binoculars, including the Victory II. The Ultravid's performance is far beyond that of the Trinovid, and it easily matches the Swarovski EL, which is even more expensive. I do think the Victory II represents good value. But in the U.S., the difference in price between the Victory II and the Ultravid is not as great at in the U.K. ($300, as opposed to £300+)

As for chromatic aberration, I see as little in the Ultravid as in the Nikon SE. I see considerably more chromatic aberration in the Nikon VLX/HG.

pduxon · Jan 27, 2004

CJW said:
At £700-ish they represent a damn good buy compared to the extra £100 for the Trinovids and a whopping £300+ for the Ultravids.

Chris

You what ? More like £170 - although I agree that is still alot of dosh!

Andy Bright · Jan 27, 2004

gorank said:
BTW. is it correct that the Victory body is made of some kind of plastic/composite material??
QUOTE]

fibre re-inforced polymer is the official line, ...bit of a discussion on a newsgroup about that a while ago.

Edward woodwood · Jan 27, 2004

Leif said:
Hi Tim: I presume your reply was intended as sarcasm though I'm not sure why. My post was not intended to be rude. I simply think that magazines tend to go overboard when reviewing certain instruments. It is as if they are the flavour of the month. The Swaro 8x42 EL was one such example when it first appeared. They seem to lose all sense of objectivity.

Hiya Leif.....I think you misunderstood me a little. There was no sarcasm at all intended in my reply and I didn't think you were rude either. Something got lost in the translation I think!

simontucker · Jan 27, 2004

Wow - super anorak zone. All I know is that my Zeiss 10 x 40 have lasted for 17 years - despite having been bounced across the M4 on one occcasion - give great clarity of view and superb resolution without fogging and the only thing that has ever been a problem was that I had to replace the rubber eye-cups last year. They should do me for another 15 years now.

scampo · Jan 27, 2004

As for chromatic aberration, I see as little in the Ultravid as in the Nikon SE. I see considerably more chromatic aberration in the Nikon VLX/HG.

Is there confusion here, I wonder? In the UK, the SE is a mid-priced porroprism design, whereas the HG are top-range roof prisms - and these latter have received uniformly favourable reviews on the web and in magazines. Versus the Swaro, I would say the Nikon HGs are pretty near optical equals except the Swaro offers a bit more FOV and quite different ergonomics; also they are somewhat heavier than the equivalent Swarovskis.

Andy Bright · Jan 27, 2004

simontucker said:
Wow - super anorak zone. All I know is that my Zeiss 10 x 40 have lasted for 17 years - despite having been bounced across the M4 on one occcasion - give great clarity of view and superb resolution without fogging and the only thing that has ever been a problem was that I had to replace the rubber eye-cups last year. They should do me for another 15 years now.

Sounds like a typical pair of Zeiss binos....If only some of these old Zeiss binos could talk

Reminds me of the pair that were recently retrieved from a scuttled WWII German sub, still working fine with a bit of a clean-up....that's what I call rugged!

scampo · Jan 27, 2004

Now look, Andy, If you had the Fuehrer to answer to, wouldn't you make sure the da*n things would last!

(-:

Leif · Jan 27, 2004

scampo said:
Is there confusion here, I wonder? In the UK, the SE is a mid-priced porroprism design, whereas the HG are top-range roof prisms - and these latter have received uniformly favourable reviews on the web and in magazines. Versus the Swaro, I would say the Nikon HGs are pretty near optical equals except the Swaro offers a bit more FOV and quite different ergonomics; also they are somewhat heavier than the equivalent Swarovskis.

Steve: In the opinion of many people the Nikon 8x32 SE is the best 8xN binocular available where N < 50mm. When I compare it with my Swaro 8.5x42 EL, the little Nikon gives - in my opinion - the better image, especially in tricky lighting. It is a little gem. Don't get me wrong: the Swaros are lovely. It's just that the Nikons are that little bit better. Very sad people (hohum) could found a religion around the Nikon 8x32 SE. It's a pity that I don't live near you (or more likely it's your good fortune) as I could have let you try the Nikons.

In general roof prisms cost more to make than porro prisms due to:

1) Greater manufacturing tolerances are required: the roof angles are critical.
2) Phase (P) coatings must be applied. (Invented by Zeiss in ~1990!. I think Zeiss also invented multi-coating. 'Four sprung duck technique' as they say.)
3) On Pechan roof prisms a reflective layer must be applied to each surface where light is to reflect, as the angles are too steep for total internal reflection (TIR) to occur. The coatings are usually either silver, or dielectric (whatever that is). Note that Zeiss sell some instruments with Abbe Koenig roof prisms: these use TIR rather than coatings.

In addition, roof prism bins are usually waterproof and gas filled, which further adds to the manufacturing cost.

That's why the Nikon 8x30 EII (~£270) can match the optics of the Leica 8x32 BN (~£600) despite being cheaper. Of course it is not as rugged or compact.

Mind you, the clever Japanese are continually reducing the cost of roof prism bins due to clever Japanese manufacturing magic (errmm, or whatever).

Apologies for the hard core anorak content, assuming anyone is still awake ... ermm hello ... is anyone there ... damn ... they've run off again ...

scampo · Jan 27, 2004

Ah well, at least the anorak keeps us warm, eh?

My son will be looking for a new pair of binos soon and he has no probs with roof prisms (he has an aging pair of Optolyths at present with a somewhat damaged coating) so I think I am going to be investigating those Nikon glasses - no way I could buy him Swaros, even though he has their 65ED scope.

Aren't they the ones the owner of Ace Optics swears by, too?

Leif · Jan 27, 2004

scampo said:
Aren't they the ones the owner of Ace Optics swears by, too?

Yes. Used examples can often be found at low prices: porros are seriously untrendy.

scampo · Jan 27, 2004

He likes to be different - those Optolyths are seriously good binos, too!

PS I'm intrigued by your name, Leif - it sounds very Anglo-Saxon (in language terms, I mean - I have to teach language change to my A-level students).

Leif · Jan 27, 2004

scampo said:
He likes to be different - those Optolyths are seriously good binos, too!

PS I'm intrigued by your name, Leif - it sounds very Anglo-Saxon (in language terms, I mean - I have to teach language change to my A-level students).

It's Norwegian and very common, in Norway. I'm not sure if there is an English derivative.

Aren't we all going to speak 'estuary-English' in 100 years time?

scampo · Jan 27, 2004

Your surname (Godwin - or have I got it wrong?) is also Norse, then?

I sound my t's - hate Estuary!

Leif · Jan 27, 2004

scampo said:
Your surname (Godwin - or have I got it wrong?) is also Norse, then?

I sound my t's - hate Estuary!

It is Goodwin, is related to Godwin, and means God's friend, according to the internet. It must be true then.

Sleeper · Jan 27, 2004

Leif

I for one enjoy reading tech bits. I am sure more would not mind the ins and outs of glasses. As for me i do not have much experience of porros except a pair of old opticron handed down. If i had to make a comment about porros it would be to say that they have a more natural position in the hand.

More tech maestro!

Art Thorn · Jan 28, 2004

It may be hard to swallow, but the seemingly high cost of the top binocs is not very high when compared to true APO scopes. The scopes have only one objective, and often no eyepieces (or cheap eyepieces as standard). So why the fuss about the cost of binocs? In fact, if they were true APOs, they would have to cost a lot more! So is that the answer? Maybe the chromatic aberration is because they cannot afford to put true APO objectives into two tubes...

New Zeiss APO Binoculars (1 Viewer)

Hit-and-run WUM

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Administrator

Member

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Administrator

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Steve Campsall

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread