I have compared the SF,HT and SV and too my eyes the SV has the best 3D view of all three ,as well as, the best DOF. What makes a binocular immersive to me is edge to edge sharpness because it feels as if the FOV surrounds you and is sharp right to the edge. If a binocular has less sharp edges like the HT it feels more tunnel like to me and not as immersive. I just was not impressed at all with the HT. SF yes HT nope.
-
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.
Why would you buy a Zeiss HT over an SF? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Can't agree, my HT seems to have more 3D than the porro's in my collection, far more than any of my roofs.
Whatever, though, as has been mentioned all this stuff is personal.
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
Indeed the Hts Have a great 3D view and as you say better than other roof prism bins and as good as porro's, some at least.
If you desire a flat image the Canon 10x42 L takes some beating ,but, a 3D image it is not.
Maybe Dennis is finding it hard to accept the Swarovision does not have it all:C
suppressor.
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Simply put, but a truth to be realized by all...thanks James!
"Try Before You Buy", "To My Eyes", "IMHO", "What I See", and other similar comments about optics as they come and go, are Reality to That Person!
I agree that an offset AK or porro prism design presents a better 3D view. However, seeing stereopsis views in roofs is easier, more relaxing and appealing for me than even the HT, or all the porros I have or used. As our physiology is unique for each individual, our perceived senses are also unique.
Yes, optical generalizations can be made and passed on to newbie's, but the fact is...All This Stuff Is Personal!
Ted
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
What do you want from me? The most important element for you seems to be the outer 10% of the field of view, so why even bother with an HT?
I get it, you were not impressed - the brightness, sharpness, colour neutrality, great contrast and nice 3d effect - all are ignored if the outer 10% isn't sharp.
So that's what you like - not me - but that's why we have so many choices. My opinion of most current flat-field designs is a dull, flat and relatively lifeless image with weak contrast - but that's very personal and I realize many don't see it this way at all.
Last edited:
My point is I have never seen a roof that had better 3D than a porro. What porro's do you have? Where's Brock at?
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Just forget it - I see what I see and you see what you see [this month until something new comes along] - and we likely would never agree.
I totally agree with this, with the exception of the Swaro 10x50 SV. My 8x42 HT is also the sharpest bin I've ever owned. It's a shame (from a hunter's perspective) that Zeiss haven't upgraded their range finding model with HT optics.
IAN JAMES THOMPSON
Well-known member
I'm also very happy with my 8x42 HT and it is also very very sharp, but I can't comment on the SF as I haven't tried or used them. But in my opinion my Zeiss 8x42 HT Binoculars are supperb.
Ian
SuperDuty
Well-known member
I own a 2014 10X50SV, 2010 and 2015 8.5X42 SV, and had a 2014 10X42 SV last year. Both 8.5's are clearly sharper than the two 10X's.
I've heard that. How do your 8.5's compare to the 10x50SV in terms of a 3D view? I've tried both although at different times. Thought the 10x50SV was quite impressive.
The 8.5x42SV I examined at a store had some RB which I had only ever seen in the 10x32SV, therefore was not purchased.
SuperDuty
Well-known member
The 8.5X is reported to have a rather flat view, but to my eye it has very decent depth and 3D, especially when viewing conditions are favorable. I do believe though that the 10X50 have them beat in the 3D department, as well as ease of view. Binocular connoisseurs looking for the absolute cutting edge would be lucky to have either one. It sounds like the 8X HT has a very impressive view, I hope to see one some day.
Hi Henry and Dennis and VB and others...
I have been able to establish, with the help of contacts at Zeiss, Wetzlar, that SF does contain elements (plural) made from both FL and HT glass and supplied by Schott.
This was the question at the forefront of my mind and I confess I forgot to ask whether the FL glass was different from the grades previously use, but I hope to get a chance to ask about this in April.
Lee
henry link
Well-known member
Thanks for the effort, Lee.
You can find out more than you want to know about the low dispersion glass types in the Schott catalogue here:
http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/download/schott-fluoro-phosphate-glasses-may-2014.pdf
I don't think anything new has been developed since N-FK58 XLD in 2014. Only one or possibly two types in the catalogue are reasonable candidates for the original marketing term "FL". FK51A and PK52A were the only truly extra low dispersion types in the catalogue when the original Victory FL appeared in 2004 and only FK51A is a fluoro-crown, the stuff that is sometimes called Fluoride glass.
N-FK58 XLD, with an Abbe# above 90, falls into a category of glass types that is sometimes called UD (ultra low dispersion) to distinguish them from ordinary ED (extra low dispersion). That's why I wondered whether "Ultra-FL" might be marketing code for FK58.
Certainly makes sense for HT glass types to be used in the SF where they're appropriate.
Henry
You can find out more than you want to know about the low dispersion glass types in the Schott catalogue here:
http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/download/schott-fluoro-phosphate-glasses-may-2014.pdf
I don't think anything new has been developed since N-FK58 XLD in 2014. Only one or possibly two types in the catalogue are reasonable candidates for the original marketing term "FL". FK51A and PK52A were the only truly extra low dispersion types in the catalogue when the original Victory FL appeared in 2004 and only FK51A is a fluoro-crown, the stuff that is sometimes called Fluoride glass.
N-FK58 XLD, with an Abbe# above 90, falls into a category of glass types that is sometimes called UD (ultra low dispersion) to distinguish them from ordinary ED (extra low dispersion). That's why I wondered whether "Ultra-FL" might be marketing code for FK58.
Certainly makes sense for HT glass types to be used in the SF where they're appropriate.
Henry
Last edited:
It is weird that the 10x50 SV would be the exception. Does your 8x42 HT show better 3D than porro's? I may have missed something here. I have never noticed flat field designs to be dull, lifeless and having weak contrast. I have never noticed the Swarovski SV or the Zeiss SF line being dull, lifeless and having weak contrast. IMO they have excellent contrast and to the contrary quite bright and full of life. In fact when I tried the Zeiss 10x42 SF the excellent contrast and lifelike image is what impressed me. It was electric and very vivid. Zeiss must put some awesome coatings on those.
Last edited:
That's interesting. Although those 8.5 SV's are a very sharp binocular. My 8x32 SV appears sharper than my 10x50 SV but I can see more detail with the 10x50.
Thanks for that Lee. That is good to know. That is impressive both FL and HT glass probably in combination in the eyepiece to complement each other and create that superb image in the SF. I think the SV's also have a combination of those types of glass in the eyepiece. That is why they are both high dollar.
IAN JAMES THOMPSON
Well-known member
Well I've just tried a friends Zeiss SF pair of Binoculars and all I can say is my Zeiss 8x42 Binoculars are sharper and brighter than the SF pair of Binoculars. So in my opinion the Zeiss HT Binoculars are far superior than the Zeiss SF Binoculars.
Ian.
