Let's hear it for Zeiss!!! (1 Viewer)

I have to say that the recent Bird Watching scope test left me feeling that recent magazine reviews of optical equipment are more than a little wanting. So far as I can see, most people now buy a new scope complete with a zoom eyepiece, so... surely it would have been far more useful to comment in particular on the different qualities of just these eyepieces?

I have re-read that article a number of times and, being generous, it seems to me that what it offers is at best a generalised commentary from which it is impossible to discern very much that is truly certain or useful (except that one of the reviewers "just wanted more...!" of the Swarovski!).

It seems to me that if we are going to choose a zoom eyepiece (and I think that most people do), it needs to be sharp and clear; but it surely also needs to give a wide field of view? This is where I think that we have perhaps lost the plot: a wide field of view must logically offer a higher chance of locating a bird; and mean much less reverting to binoculars or the naked eye to relocate a bird (and thus increase the chance of missing it altogether). I have calculated the actual area that can be seeen through each scope fitted with a zoom eyepiece:

Zeiss (20x): 1452 sq.m.
Swarovski (20x): 1018 sq.m.
Kowa (20x): 962 sq.m.
Leica (20x): 908 sq. m.
Nikon (25x): 615 sq.m.

Now tell me if I am wrong, but if a manufacturer tried to sell a pair of binoculars with 50% less FOV than its nearest competitor, wouldn't the magazine reviewers have a field day. Yet not with scopes? How very odd... Am I missing something, I wonder?

It seems to me that from the above list, we don't need a magazine to tell us what conclusions to draw. It's also interesting to consider now how some manufacturers might well be able to offer an apparently sharper and flatter image at the extreme edges of the view (however unimportant such a thing in practice really is!).

Perhaps that particular reviewer who wanted "more" should have realised that what he really wanted "more" of - at least more of what would help his birdwatching - was the view he could see through the scope?

Food for thought. And, I wonder, why Zeiss have not been shouting this aspect of their amazing zoom eyepiece from the rooftops. It's surely a unique selling point if ever there was one!

Steve: I agree with the points you make. I saw the wider FOV as a bonus, and the fact that the edges were quite soft did not bother me at all. As you say, locating a bird is often half the task. However, I was not keen on the considerable distortion, which made panning an odd experience. Of course the only way to determine whether or not this distortion matters is to use the thing for a few weeks.

BTW I think you attribute too much weight to the BW magazine reviews. Some of the statements they made were plain wrong, as Swarovski recently confirmed to me: I am still waiting for a response from Leica.

I think all the serious reviews I've read have made clear that the Zeiss zoom has the widest field of view. (I'm talking Alula and Better View Desired here) But they also make what is probably a not unrelated point; the outer area of the Zeiss zoom on low magnifications is not sharp, which some birders (including me) find rather offputting. Not sure how big this area is (10-20 per cent?), I think the figures may differ among the reviews.
The Swarovski is sharp edge to edge. Alula decided that the fuzzy surround of the Zeiss wasn't a problem; BVD was more critical.

I could certainly have lived with the Zeiss zoom because it was the easiest on the eye of those I tested and probably the best at highest magnification. But that big field of view at 20x does come at a price. Perhaps Zeiss's rivals could have produced bigger FoVs with the same effect, but thought it would be criticised.

Incidentally, the BVD website still seems to be operating; a review of Pentax bins was posted a few days ago.

Sean

On rereading Scampo's post he did actually make the point about edge sharpness..... I must read more slowly

Leif said:

Steve: I agree with the points you make. I saw the wider FOV as a bonus, and the fact that the edges were quite soft did not bother me at all. As you say, locating a bird is often half the task. However, I was not keen on the considerable distortion, which made panning an odd experience. Of course the only way to determine whether or not this distortion matters is to use the thing for a few weeks.

BTW I think you attribute too much weight to the BW magazine reviews. Some of the statements they made were plain wrong, as Swarovski recently confirmed to me: I am still waiting for a response from Leica.

Click to expand...

I think you're close to exaggerating the Zeiss effect here (especially as it only occurs at 20x). I should tyhink Zeiss were trying to give the birder the very widest view at this magnification as it is often the one we start viewing with.

Concerning the magazine reviews, I do think people looking for a new scope place great weight on such "expert" comments, and lack faith in their own ability to judge. I would be furious if I were Zeiss or Nikon with some of what was said.

dogfish said:

I think all the serious reviews I've read have made clear that the Zeiss zoom has the widest field of view. (I'm talking Alula and Better View Desired here) But they also make what is probably a not unrelated point; the outer area of the Zeiss zoom on low magnifications is not sharp, which some birders (including me) find rather offputting. Not sure how big this area is (10-20 per cent?), I think the figures may differ among the reviews.
The Swarovski is sharp edge to edge. Alula decided that the fuzzy surround of the Zeiss wasn't a problem; BVD was more critical.

Sean

Click to expand...

Hi Sean - I was referring to the magazine reviews in the UK. The periphery of the Zeiss view is "soft" only at 20x and sharpens quickly after that to an edge-to-edge sharpness at 40 and above, I reckon.

Also, the percentage that is less than perfectly sharp is minimal - although a good positioning of the eye is needed to provide this (I can't think why). Your estimate of 10-20% is an exaggeration by any standards. A sharp twig in the centre of the field in the Zeiss is matched by very sharp twigs near the edge when I look through it. Only at the extreme edges is it possible to use a description such as "slightly soft" in my view.

I am coming to the opinion that the extra FOV the Zeiss offers is a much ignored aspect of this scope and a very useful thing to have - after all, the ultimate in sharpness at the periphery of such a wide view is pretty near useless if it means forsaking the view altogether to gain sharpness (which other manufacturers seem to have done). Seeing that peripheral view with a slight lack of focus is surely better than not seeing at all? And the extra FOV is not merely peripheral with the Zeiss - it is quite extraordinary.

I have adapted the Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikon zooms for use on the same telescope, an Astro-Physics 92mm Stowaway. The Stowaway is an F:6.7 Triplet APO considered tiny by amateur astronomers but monstruosly large by birders. The view through it is stupefyingly bright and sharp.
Believe it or not both the Zeiss and Swarovski zooms are capable of better performance than can be achieved when they are used on the Zeiss and Swarovski scopes. At 60x both can produce higher contrast, higher resolution images than the scopes will allow.
In my scope the Zeiss is very slightly sharper in the center at any magnification, but the Swarovski has noticeably higher contrast and brightness (there is sample variation. I tested 4 Swarovskis, the dimmest was no brighter than the Zeiss.) I don't object much to the field curvature and distortion in the Zeiss at 20x since it occurs 20-25 degrees off axis, beyond the field edge of other zooms. At 20 degees off axis its sharpness is not much different from the Swarovski which is at its field edge.
BTW since the Zeiss edge problem at 20x is mostly due to field curvature it will not look the same to different people. Young eyes with lots of focus accomodation will see less of a problem, older eyes that need reading glasses will see more. Perhaps that explains the disagreement over its severity.

The figure of 10 or 20 per cent I gave for the 'soft' edges to the Zeiss zoom came from a review, but I can't find it on Alula or BVD. It might have been from Graham Catley's rather critical review in Birdwatching. It certainly didn't look at the upper end of that scale to me on an admittedly brief test

Sean

henry link said:

I have adapted the Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikon zooms for use on the same telescope, an Astro-Physics 92mm Stowaway. The Stowaway is an F:6.7 Triplet APO considered tiny by amateur astronomers but monstruosly large by birders. The view through it is stupefyingly bright and sharp.
Believe it or not both the Zeiss and Swarovski zooms are capable of better performance than can be achieved when they are used on the Zeiss and Swarovski scopes. At 60x both can produce higher contrast, higher resolution images than the scopes will allow.
In my scope the Zeiss is very slightly sharper in the center at any magnification, but the Swarovski has noticeably higher contrast and brightness (there is sample variation. I tested 4 Swarovskis, the dimmest was no brighter than the Zeiss.) I don't object much to the field curvature and distortion in the Zeiss at 20x since it occurs 20-25 degrees off axis, beyond the field edge of other zooms. At 20 degees off axis its sharpness is not much different from the Swarovski which is at its field edge.

Click to expand...

Fascinating, Henry. What is even more so is how a good scope such as the Diascope 85 can be rather damned in the detail of this recent review, despite an attempt at praising it in the headline comment (you won't have read this, I know). Your tests show a level of objectivity we sorely miss over here in our magazine reviews. Very disappointing, I can tell you to have to read a review that is often made confusing by its broad generalisations and left weak by its reluctance to be specific.

dogfish said:

The figure of 10 or 20 per cent I gave for the 'soft' edges to the Zeiss zoom came from a review, but I can't find it on Alula or BVD. It might have been from Graham Catley's rather critical review in Birdwatching. It certainly didn't look at the upper end of that scale to me on an admittedly brief test

Sean

Click to expand...

I've read it elsewhere, Sean. It's patent nonsense inasmuch as the small amount that is "soft" is irrelevant when put in context of the overall view provided - it also ignores the very real practical birding advantages of such a dramatically larger overall FOV.

Henry: Interesting stuff. It is worrying that you see such large sample variation. It does though perhaps explain why some people are very impressed with the Swaro scope, whereas the one I tried was no better than the Leica APO 77 next to it?

Do you have any feel as to whether this is also true of fixed eyepieces, or whether it is a function of zooms only? (As zooms have moving parts, I would have thought that it was easier to get misalignment of optical elements.) Presumably it is also true of objectives?

It does rather sound as if buying a scope and eyepiece is a case of "Do you feel lucky punk? Well, do you?"

Perhaps we should not bother to argue about which scope is best, but instead head down to the dealer, line up 5 samples of body and eyepiece, and select the best performers? (Which is what Alula did was it not?)

Leif, I wouldn't know about the sample variation in the Swarovski zoom except that I borrowed a friend's to compare to the Zeiss. It was brighter so I bought one. It was not brighter, so I returned it to the store and tested the two others they had in stock, one of which was as bright as my friend's. Like everyone else I usually don't have the luxury of looking at alot of samples before I buy so I'm not sure about other Swarovski eyepieces or other brands.

I am a bit suspicous of the two Zeiss eyepieses I have. The zoom is brighter and has more natural color than the 30x. Makes me suspect I have a good zoom and a bad 30x. Henry

Steve

Andy Bright makes interesting comments on the Zeiss zoom here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=3823

Go to the last posting.

Leif said:

Perhaps we should not bother to argue about which scope is best, but instead head down to the dealer, line up 5 samples of body and eyepiece, and select the best performers? (Which is what Alula did was it not?)

Click to expand...

How many dealers stock more than one or two of each product (if at all)? Or if they do, are they willing to unpack them all?

Leif said:

Steve

Andy Bright makes interesting comments on the Zeiss zoom here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=3823

Go to the last posting.

Click to expand...

Sounds fair enough! I can't wait now to meet up with a local birder who has the Swaro 80. I'd like to look through that alongside the Nikon and Zeiss. Tonight, looking at distant gulls in the gloaming, the Zeiss was quite excellent at 60x - I would think the Swaro and Leica at least its equal, though.

Swissboy said:

How many dealers stock more than one or two of each product (if at all)? Or if they do, are they willing to unpack them all?

Click to expand...

I found In Focus at Rutland Water more than happy to unpack their entire stock to let you compare. They did that when I was having trouble with the Opticron ES80 zoom eyepieces and scopes.

scampo said:

I found In Focus at Rutland Water more than happy to unpack their entire stock to let you compare. They did that when I was having trouble with the Opticron ES80 zoom eyepieces and scopes.

Click to expand...

I have also found InFocus to be very accommodating. They are not the cheapest, do not stock Leica, but otherwise are pretty good.

I think though that Swissboy is right: most UK dealers would not allow you to compare two or more samples of the same scope model. Most would not even allow you to check the one you buy before you hand over the mazooma.