Zeiss 10x42 FL buying advice. (1 Viewer)

Zeiss 10x42 FL review.

Hello all,

I already own a Zeiss Dialyt 8x56 BGA T* binocular and use them for nightsky observation.

I'm now after a smaller pair for more general use and a beginning in birdwatching. I've decided on a pair of 10x to make them sufficiently different from the 8x I already have and think the 42mm objective would suit me better than the 32mm to maintain some semblance of twilight ability I absolutely love in the 7mm exit pupils of my existing Dialyt.

I was able to review the following pairs of binos at a local retailer.

1. Zeiss 10x42 FL - $2199 AUD
2. Leica 10x42 Ultravid - $2499 AUD
3. Leica 8-12x42 Duovid - $2259
4. Swarovski 8.5x42 EL - $2399 AUD
5. Nikon 10x42 HG (High Grade) $2199 AUD

Here was my impressions.

The Zeiss FL was clearly the brightest of the lot, followed by the Nikon, Leica Ultravid, Swarovski, Leica Duovid (in 12x mode) in that order. The Zeiss was also the winner for contrast. It had a neutral colour compared to the Swarovski and Leica which had yellowish casts. The Nikon was close to neutral but was also very slighty yellow.

Sharpness was good across the board. The only one that had any issues here was the Leica that seemed to require convergence effort on my part to see clearly (diopter adjustments were all set to zero).

The only other big disappointment was the Nikon when panned. A slowish movement revealed a wave like distortion of straight lines which I think was due to field flattening. I noticed this effect with the Nikon and checked it in the others which did not show the same effect. Very disconcerting and it disqualified the Nikon from further consideration. The display model Nikon also had white/aged rubber which one sees if one scuffs rubber - I've seen it on other things but it's not a great look.

I had expected the Swarovski to be much better than what I observed, for the money. Its image was nothing special, had a colour cast and its field of view was really no better in practical terms than the FL. Its feel and handling were inferior to the rubberised models in my hands.


Overall the Zeiss FL was the bino that won me over. I was able to get a price of $2100 AUD which is probably higher than USD prices but I'm concerned about warranty so want to buy locally. The discount was for the display model which appeared to have perfect glass etc.

Is there any other thing I should be looking out for, features I'm missing by commiting to the Zeiss FL? I'm on the verge of getting them.


Looking forward to any advice.

Regards.

Got mine yesterday and there awsome. Just get them . Everyday you wait is another day without them. So pony up the cash and be done with it.

If you tried it, liked it over all the others and get to buy the display model (meaning that you'll get the very specimen you formed your favorable impression upon) the best advice by far is: buy it!

Kimmo

Well the deed is done.

I compared the FL against the Ultravid again, just to be sure. I noticed the slight dropoff in sharpness at the very periphery with the FL's but this was more than acceptable - a high quality bright photographic lens (small f number) also has the same dropoff characteristics. The dropoff is nowhere near the centre - from some of the reports I read last night it seemed like it was major; but this is not the case - the dropoff is in the far periphery of the field.

The Leica showed dropoff also but to a smaller degree, but it was correspondingly darker and brightness is a high priority for me.

This dropoff effect would only be relevant if you tripod mount your binos and scan with your eyes, which is not the way I'd use these. These would always be handheld.

If I was going to go to the trouble of carrying a tripod also with me then I'd probably take the 8x56 Dialyt or buy a spotting scope.

I've had a play with them at home and to say that I'm impressed is an understatement. The Conquest and later series from Zeiss had never impressed me and I had been very content with my ClassiC Dialyt. The new FL's styling is reminiscent of the ClassiC's barrel pattern.

I told the salesperson that I wanted to star test these before making a final decision to keep them. They agreed.

I know to look for pin point stars at infinity focus; are there any other tests that I can do to test for common defects?

Looking forward to any help there.

Best wishes.
Ben

WOW.

Night fell and I had to wait till early evening before the cloud cover lifted so that I could perform a star test.

I aimed the binos at Canopus a large bright star in the Southern sky.

Circular blurs transformed into pinpoint light sources. There were very small radial lines - about 2 or 3 which are normal at the circumference of the pinpoint discs.

I wasn't able to fully steady the binoculars having only a small portion of cloud free sky and no suitable supports for it, so there was some shake in the assessment. Nevertheless I rolled into and out of focus many times to test the uniformity of the discs and there was no astigmatism on axis. Even at the peripheries there was only a very slight ovalisation of the disc.

I'm really looking forward to using these more extensively and they could even supplant my 8x56's.


I also took them up to the local lookout earlier today and was again thoroughly impressed with these. Despite the overcast conditions - I could see the distant airport ~20km away and the planes on the runway taxiing off. The detail that was resolved was amazing.

I was able to see several bird species while there, and a pied butcherbird landed on my side rear view mirror momentarily before retreating to the barrier in front of the parking area. I lifted the binos and focussing to ~2.5m I could easily see the bird's pupils and very fine plumage around the beak as well as the colour striping in the beak.

To say that I am thoroughly blown away by these is an understatement.

About the only thing I didn't like was the cheapish neck strap that is a clear step down from the one Zeiss used to provide and that I have on my 8x56. A hard case would also have been nice.

One other small design feature that could have been added is small holes pierced through the edge of the rubber objective caps so that pushing them on isn't as difficult as it is. It would allow the air caught in the space to escape rather than balloon out.

Apart from those things this binocular is an absolute peach. Full marks and a very worthy addition to the excellent 8x56 I had.

If you are considering one of these then go for it after satisfying yourself of its merits. The optical performance is second to none.

Take care.

zuiko said:

WOW.

About the only thing I didn't like was the cheapish neck strap that is a clear step down from the one Zeiss used to provide and that I have on my 8x56. A hard case would also have been nice.

One other small design feature that could have been added is small holes pierced through the edge of the rubber objective caps ..

Click to expand...

Glad you like your new bins. I have the 8x and I'm also very pleased.

As for your remarks on side topics: That small hole in the objective cover can be a diy job, but it also allows for dust to get in.
Personally, I very much like the neck strap; thanks to the fact that it is contoured, I think it is very comfortable. Don't know how the one of the 8x56 looked like, however.
What do you need a hard case for? I even don't use the soft one that came with the binoculars. I think these cases are way too bulky, and the binoculars are sufficiently sturdy as to be safe without a case. So I have a double layered cloth bag instead which provides sufficient protection in my opinion. But then, as I said in another thread: to each his /her own. That's what makes it so difficult for the manufacturers. I'm glad Zeiss have concentrated their efforts on the binoculars themselves for the moment.

Swissboy said:

Glad you like your new bins. I have the 8x and I'm also very pleased.

As for your remarks on side topics: That small hole in the objective cover can be a diy job, but it also allows for dust to get in.
Personally, I very much like the neck strap; thanks to the fact that it is contoured, I think it is very comfortable. Don't know how the one of the 8x56 looked like, however.
What do you need a hard case for? I even don't use the soft one that came with the binoculars. I think these cases are way too bulky, and the binoculars are sufficiently sturdy as to be safe without a case. So I have a double layered cloth bag instead which provides sufficient protection in my opinion. But then, as I said in another thread: to each his /her own. That's what makes it so difficult for the manufacturers. I'm glad Zeiss have concentrated their efforts on the binoculars themselves for the moment.

Click to expand...

Hi SwissBoy,

I actually considered the DIY job for the holes, but thought about it a little more and have decided that for the type of rubber supplied Zeiss was right not to put the holes in.

The reason is that the rims of the barrels are shallow in relation to the objective glass. I prised a side of the cap to allow air to escape and the rubber becomes lax enough to I think touch the glass though I didn't push hard enough to test this.

The balloon like cushion of air may be a protective mechanism in itself, so for the ones supplied Zeiss has made the right decision there. If the caps were of a stiffer rubber (that wouldn't touch the glass) then it would benefit from the holes.

As for the hard case, I agree it's completely secondary - and reflects the fact I'm a little old fashioned and like the hard cases of previous binos. In a short time I have become very used to the supplied cordura bag and agree that with the ruggedness of the bino it would be more than adequate.

I considered the 8x42 also, but wanted something a little different than my already 8x larger binocular; These FL's I think have really reached a peak of binocular technology. The choice of 10x means that I can also in the future justify a 7x42 to the chief financial officer (the wife)


Regards.

The only complaint I have is the fit of the rain guard or lack of it .It`s so loose only thing holding it on is gravity. It`s so loose it comes off from the friction of my shirt or jacket. I sent an e mail to get a proper fitting one.And I`m hop ing it does`nt take to long. Other than that there totally fantastic.

In the main binocular section is a thread entitled: "My quest for the 'perfect' bin: Trinovid BN over FL's" and I noted that the thread starter and Swissboy have detected a fingerprint on their prism assemblies.

I would suggest that most here who are happy with their FL's should not try to examine them.

I did and actually found that there was a fingerprint in the left tube's prism assembly that is quite noticeable.

Perhaps it's the done thing in the Zeiss assembly line - a personalisation of the binoculars - or maybe it's a joker. Who knows for sure.

Anyhow that makes at least three pairs that have the fingerprint on prism issue. Maybe it's not a huge optical problem but when you know it's there...

Will return these but am disappointed since they were so good otherwise. I think that the fingerprint oils can be a source of nutrient for fungus.

Maybe I'll exchange it for the second best option - the Leica Ultravid 10x42.

Regards.

Zuiko,

Have it cleaned under warranty. If you have a pair of bins which image-wise, after comparing with the best competion, leave you desiring nothing, I would strongly advice against swapping it only because of a fingerprint which can (and should) be taken care of by the warranty and apparently does not influence the image anyway. Optical defects which do influence image quality are common enough that once you have something your eyes like a lot it is better to keep it.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

Zuiko,

Have it cleaned under warranty. If you have a pair of bins which image-wise, after comparing with the best competion, leave you desiring nothing, I would strongly advice against swapping it only because of a fingerprint which can (and should) be taken care of by the warranty and apparently does not influence the image anyway. Optical defects which do influence image quality are common enough that once you have something your eyes like a lot it is better to keep it.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Kimmo I thought about this but there's a few things that make me not want to do this.

1. Speed of service - it may be weeks and months before I get them back and in the meantime my $2100 is with the retailer and I have nothing.

2. Opening up a binocular tube:
a. destroys the environmental seal.
b. no guarantee that something else will not get into the system - ie dust lint etc.
c. collimation/centration of lenses can be affected in re-assembly.


I could just keep the existing pair but really it's not reasonable to have a large fingerprint on an optical surface for something you pay so much for.

I think I'll get a refund and get them to order the next pair in which I'll examine carefully before accepting. That way the credit card won't have the interest free period counting down while they exchange it.

Regards.

robert s said:

The only complaint I have is the fit of the rain guard or lack of it .It`s so loose only thing holding it on is gravity. It`s so loose it comes off from the friction of my shirt or jacket. I sent an e mail to get a proper fitting one.And I`m hop ing it does`nt take to long. Other than that there totally fantastic.

Click to expand...

In another thread it was suggested to replace those rain guards by the ones by Eagle Optics. I have since done just that. And they are a perfect fit. Actually, at first a bit too tight until one cuts out those little rubber ridges on the inside. (I had ordered a second pair for my wife's Victory I at the same time. Same fit.)

www.eagleoptics.com/index.asp?dept=1&type=19&purch=1&pid=3394

I removed the open strap lug with a knife. There is no real need for that one as my long experience with the Leica Trinovid rain guard has shown.

I'm sitting here asking myself how Zeiss, a renowned optical company, could introduce fingerprints onto precision optical surfaces multiple times. That’s inexcusable.

John Traynor said:

I'm sitting here asking myself how Zeiss, a renowned optical company, could introduce fingerprints onto precision optical surfaces multiple times. That’s inexcusable.

Click to expand...

Definitely inexcusable, you're entitled to gloat.

Grousemore said:

Definitely inexcusable, you're entitled to gloat.

Click to expand...

Gloating is not something I do.

John Traynor said:

Gloating is not something I do.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you don't. I was merely pointing out that you are entitled to; you've been telling us all for months how bad the Zeiss FL's are.

Zuiko,

Your reason number 1 is definitely valid. As far as 2 a, b and c, it is my understanding that when the makers get a warranty repair like this, they would be likely to work very carefully. Replacing the nitrogen filling is standard procedure in repairs of sealed and purged binoculars, and when they get your instrument and your complaint, they know for a fact that this particular buyer is not going to accept dirt or poor assembly - they don't want you to send the binocular back twice and will probably do a better job with testing and collimation than the original assembly line and QC people did.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

Zuiko,

Your reason number 1 is definitely valid. As far as 2 a, b and c, it is my understanding that when the makers get a warranty repair like this, they would be likely to work very carefully. Replacing the nitrogen filling is standard procedure in repairs of sealed and purged binoculars, and when they get your instrument and your complaint, they know for a fact that this particular buyer is not going to accept dirt or poor assembly - they don't want you to send the binocular back twice and will probably do a better job with testing and collimation than the original assembly line and QC people did.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Dear Kimmo,

I went outside with them again for a star test and am still very impressed with the optics of this pair. Outstanding image from both tubes. There was a thunderstorm in the distance and an aeroplane that was lighted up by the flashes was clearly visible as a Qantas jet etc. Very nice optically.

I am almost loathe to put them in but I'm concerned regarding fungus growth on nutrients in the fingerprint oil. I could always put it in at a later time also if the warranty covers it.

The problem is that the shop doesn't have another pair to exchange it for. So I'd have to wait for one to come in anyway - which would probably be quicker than the servicing.

This pair is a definite cherry except for the fingerprint which is such a shame. I'm in two minds still, but I think that taking them back is probably the best idea, and hoping the next pair will be just as good or better.

Thank you for the explanation regarding point 2 and I tend to agree with you, but I've read threads involving other prestige brands where binoculars put in for dust and specks come back unchanged and sometimes dirtier!

So I think I'll just return these for a refund, or if they offer the Leica Ultravid as a no cost exchange (they are a couple of hundred more expensive) I may be tempted to get those provided they are dirt/problem free.

Otherwise I'll just have them order a new pair in and I'll take my chances again - this time examining the tubes carefully and asking for a testing/return period of a week or so.

Regards and thank you for your help.

Grousemore said:

I'm sure you don't. I was merely pointing out that you are entitled to; you've been telling us all for months how bad the Zeiss FL's are.

Click to expand...

Actually, I've recommended the FL as a superb optical instrument.

Owners have reported problems with the diopter mechanism and the presence of fingerprints. I'm not an owner.

John

Zuiko,

The risk of fungus growth in a dry-nitrogen purged binocular interior does not seem very great to me. In case fungus would grow there, warranty would certainly cover it. I'll stop arguing my case after this post, but personally I feel that true cherries are less common than we would like to think, and I would not wish for you to find this out the hard way.

Kimmo