Here are the new Victorys: Victory HT (1 Viewer)

elkcub said:

Ah, yes, faith looms eternal. Since all current FLs are spec'd at 16mm, do current owners agree with that statement? For me they didn't work very well with my glasses. (Last time someone told me a BA from MIT was equal to everyone else's MA, I had a similar pause for thought. )

Swaro's 8x42 SLC HD, incidentally, is spec'd at 18.5mm, which might better meet your needs. Also, having no field flattener, they might be a better comparison with the new Zeiss than the SV — except for price.

Ed

Click to expand...

It's not a question of faith. It's 3+ years of use. Really, you don't hear many complaints about eye relief on the FL's do you? Yours may be the first I can recall. The SV ocular is recessed much more than the FL ocular--that's what more or less equalizes them. I would say the SV still has more usable ER, though.

Stanford man I suppose?

Mark

Ed,
The Swarovision's claimed ER is 20mm, while the FL's is 16mm. But in practice, for the glasses wearer they are no different.

Now in some deep way I don't know what that means either! But I hope it's clear what I'm saying anyhow.
Ron

It probably means the Swarovski spec is based on the ER measured the eye lens glass. That was the case for my old Swarovski EL. The ER of my 8x42 FL is about 16mm measured from the rim of the collapsed eyecup, but around 19mm measured from the glass.

henry link said:

It probably means the Swarovski spec is based on the ER measured the eye lens glass. That was the case for my old Swarovski EL. The ER of my 8x42 FL is about 16mm measured from the rim of the collapsed eyecup, but around 19mm measured from the glass.

Click to expand...

Henry,

The Swarovision does indeed sacrifice some potential eye relief due to the raised eyecups. However, these are really necessary to protect the enormous 25 mm dia. eye lens from glass to glass contact. I would estimate that the rim is raised by about 4-5 mm but didn't want to lower a caliper on to the eye lens!
Nevertheless, the eye relief on the 10x42 SV is for me as a glasses wearer significantly more comfortable than on my old 10x42 FL.
Like Ron, I am also a little grumpy about the introduction of the HT. My dealer has my old FL up for sale on a commission basis and told me it wasn't due to be replaced until next year.:C

Btw, would BK7 at least be suitable for the front element of an AK prism? The total internal reflection is at such an oblique angle that a high refractive index would not be required.

John

Measured from the rim of the eyecup the 42mm SVs have about 17mm. There are other cases where the lost of ER due to eyecup design is even more astonishing. An example is the Fujinon 7x50 FMT-SX. It loses almost 10mm due to its odd eyecup design! Similar with Steiner Wildlife Pro I (old type). This might work as protection against stray light and scratches as well, but does it make sense to waste that much ER?

Steve

i find them not so nice as the victory fl's,.....

I just got a 8x32 FL for my wife. The eye relief spec is 15.5mm according to Zeiss (B&H and Eagle Optics both have 16mm on there websites), and I have to push it hard against my glasses to see the whole field. On the other hand, the 18.5mm eye relief on the 8x32 Nikon EDG allows me to see the whole field without having to push hard. The most comfortable bin to use for me is the 8x32 Nikon SE, which has 17.4mm eye relief. So from my experience, I believe at least Nikon and Zeiss measure the real eye relief in a similar way. As for the useable eye relief, the EDG, which has an average eye cup for today's binoculars, lose ~3mm of eye relief. The SE, with its old style rubber eye cup, may loose 1.5mm. The FL, with the really shallow recess, maybe 1mm. In the end, the FL has more useable eye relief than the 15.5mm spec may lead you to believe, but might still be a little bit short for at least some eyeglass wearers. To say the 16mm Zeiss eye relief is as good as 18mm on other binoculars across the board doesn't agree with my experience.

[email protected] said:

From appearance and specifications they don't look like anything to get excited about from a birders point of view but we will have to wait to look through them. The twin bridge with the big focus wheel between it is reminiscent of some of the older porro designs. That design quirk definitely makes me think they are going after the hunters with their gloved hands. Even they say that "The ergonomic Comfort-Focus allows a precise and relaxed usage - even with gloves". I don't think a fair weather birder needs a focus wheel that big with the extra weight that comes with it. I think I will stay with the Nikon EDG's which seem to be more focused on the birding market.

Click to expand...

I never realized that the "even with gloves" bit was meant for a hunting audience. When I read it, I felt like it was speaking directly to me as winter birding can be the most rewarding. I don't know how many fair weather birders there are as a percentage of all the active outdoor birders, but the winter field trips of my local Audubon society usually attract as large a crowd as the spring and fall ones. They all could use a pair a binoculars that focus easily with gloves, if they don't already own one.

Umm ! The new HT. Why is it called HT ? High transmission or for Hunting ? I prefer the aesthetics compared to the previous FL. Would also hope the image is a bit warmer. I've also heard that the HT are aimed at the hunting market and not a replacement for the Victory FL. Does this mean we should expect another new alpha Zeiss for birders ?

The 10x32 FL has a 69 degree AFOV and shortish eye relief of 15.2 mm. But the ocular lens is not much recessed, maybe 1 mm.

Despite the very wide AFOV I can make out the field stop when I wear spectacles. But if I try to move the eyes, blackouts occurs, so I have to turn my head and bins together.
Still better than my previous Minox with same eye relief and 60 degree AFOV, that had more recessed ocular lenses, where I barely could make out the field stop.

HT, I like it! Everyone now has HD, ED and all this, but only Zeiss has HT

I don't want to speculate about the optics, but for the ergonomics the pics are promising. It has been said above, the narrow hinge between the barrel and the focus wheel probably allow for a more comfortable grip than the Swaro SLC HD or Nikon EDG, perhaps even the Swaro EL. And as the focus wheel has bearings on both sides, it runs probably quite smoothly.

I also don't really see why this bin should target hunters more than birders. High transmission is certainly of interest for both, and for ergonomics I also don't see any difference between both's demands.

ticl2184 said:

Umm ! The new HT. Why is it called HT ? High transmission or for Hunting ? I prefer the aesthetics compared to the previous FL. Would also hope the image is a bit warmer. I've also heard that the HT are aimed at the hunting market and not a replacement for the Victory FL. Does this mean we should expect another new alpha Zeiss for birders ?

Click to expand...

Maybe HT means Hunting Type. Possibly they will bring out a BT or Birding Type.

Now that right there was funny.

John Russell said:

Btw, would BK7 at least be suitable for the front element of an AK prism? The total internal reflection is at such an oblique angle that a high refractive index would not be required.

John

Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of it before, but I believe you're probably right.

Henry

Sorry for this long post, but this is one case where I believe a single observer can provide reliable and useful evaluations using a single pair of eyeglasses and reasonable performance criteria. Physical measurement requires a lab setup with calibrated equipment.

In this case the observer is me and the performance criteria are: (1) ability to see a crisp circular field stop, and (2) ability to maintain acceptable (uniform, constant) pressure on my spectacles. The second criterion is necessary because there is a range of eyeglass movements that can produce marginally useful views when applying enough pressure, but this is hard to maintain and very annoying on a prolonged basis. In such cases I would declare that the glass is unsuitable for use with spectacles, or marginal at best.

I have done this evaluation with several of my own binoculars. Some were acquired when I didn't use spectacles, others only later when the need arose. I will post only the manufacturers' advertised eye relief and eyeglass suitability (for me!). The AFOVs of these five glasses are very similar (61-63 deg) so that is not a critical variable in meeting the two criteria. The eyeglasses and viewing situation were identical in all cases.

Swaro 10x42 SLC. 15mm. Unsuitable

Swaro 8x30 SLC 15mm. Unsuitable

Swaro 8x42 SLC HD 18.5mm. Suitable

Zeiss 7x42 BGATP 18mm. Suitable

Nikon 8x32 LX L 17mm. Marginally suitable

The 10x42 and 8x30 SLC are unsuitable because I can't produce a crisp circular field without applying considerable pressure. The SLC HD and Zeiss BGATP are virtually identical and easy to use. The Nikon LX L (note the 32 has a shorter ER than the 42) is marginally suitable using somewhat more pressure and alignment effort. (I've also done this with several Porros, none of which are suitable for eyeglass use, so I haven't mentioned them.)

Comments/Conclusions:

1. The physical meaning of eye relief is well know in the industry, i.e., the distance between the eye lens and the eyepoint (or Ramsden disk).
2. It strains credulity that Zeiss would uniformly underestimate advertised ER by using a non-technical meaning. See: http://www.zeiss.com/C1256BCF0020BE5F/Contents-Frame/C2F7D329F790A3188525756900599FEC
3. Personal observation is consistent with advertised ER across three manufacturers, including Zeiss. (More, actually, including Swift and Bushnell.)
4. Personal opinions may differ about eye relief adequacy for several reasons that come to mind:
Anyway, ... when there is a chance to evaluate a new Zeiss with 16mm ER I'll see if this holds up. As mentioned earlier, my brief exposure to FLs in the past was that they were marginal at best (er, for me).|>|

Ed

If this is any indication, there should be hundreds of pages of discussion after someone has a chance to actually use them.....

BTW -as mentioned, is there any actual information from Zeiss that this is an FL replacement, or just another model? My 10 FL is good enough that any new bin would have to be revolutionary for me to consider changing, and that seems unlikely.

A small bird whispered in my ear that these new 'HT' bins are mostly designed with hunters' requirements in mind. They could e.g. market the 8x42 to the hunter market being as good (but less weight) in twilight than any 8x56... I don't know if there would be any 'BT' coming out any time soon. Looking at the zeissexperience site, it seems that the only thing that will come out soon is a new rifle scope.
The new ergonomics are well-thought. The focus wheel is a little lower, and because it is between two hinges, it has the potential to be a very smooth focusser that resembles Nikon focus wheels. (like the new Conquest is already focussing a lot better than the old one)

denco will have a new greatest binocular in the world thread soon.

I must admit that much of this speculation is quite entertaining.

jgraider said:

denco will have a new greatest binocular in the world thread soon.

Click to expand...

after he sells his EDG...