Yesterday I had the pleasure to look through a pair of Zeiss Victory TFL 10x56 binoculars, owned by a neighbour. I´d never seen a pair of the Victory 56mm, but I was absolutely gobsmacked. They were very easy to hold steady, at least for a few minutes, and very light, and the view was like nothing I´ve experienced before. I know these are used mostly by hunters, but I was just wondering....are any BF birders using 8x56 or 10x56 FL´s for birding?
-
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.
56mm Zeiss FL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sancho
- Start date
henry link
Well-known member
Sancho,
I use the 8x56 FL for birding because of the optical quality. I agree that they are very easy to hold steady, but I can assure you they are not light, 1220g. I wrote a review here when I first bought them in which I tried to explain why their daylight image looks so good compared to smaller binoculars.
Henry
Henry
I use the 8x56 FL for birding because of the optical quality. I agree that they are very easy to hold steady, but I can assure you they are not light, 1220g. I wrote a review here when I first bought them in which I tried to explain why their daylight image looks so good compared to smaller binoculars.
Henry
Henry
kristoffer
Used Register
A famous Swedish birder use them. I bet they are impressive, but my neck would die from a day in the field with a pair. So Il just make sure to never look through a pair, easier to not know what I miss out.
John Russell
Well-known member
Sancho,
I can understand your reaction. I guess they have to be the best CF bins currently available and they're only marginally more expensive than the 42mm Victory FLs.
Shame that the ease of view is not matched by ease of carrying :-(
John
Hmmm....thanks guys....if I could find a way to carry them, I could really, really get used to that view........
Edit: I just checked the specs and the 56mm models are over 1.2 kilos. That´s heavy....they didn´t feel that heavy in my hands, but I only held them for a few minutes. And apologies, Henry, for simply posting a question about these binos instead of actually searching the forums and finding your excellent review (which I´ve just read). Lethargy will kill me (if the weight of Zeiss 56mm bins doesn´t get me first.....)
Edit: I just checked the specs and the 56mm models are over 1.2 kilos. That´s heavy....they didn´t feel that heavy in my hands, but I only held them for a few minutes. And apologies, Henry, for simply posting a question about these binos instead of actually searching the forums and finding your excellent review (which I´ve just read). Lethargy will kill me (if the weight of Zeiss 56mm bins doesn´t get me first.....)
Last edited:
edwincjones
Well-known member
bino harness?
my duovids (about the same weight) are as comfortable with a bino harness
as lighter binos with the neck straps
edj
my duovids (about the same weight) are as comfortable with a bino harness
as lighter binos with the neck straps
edj
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
The FOV doesn't affect the brightness (i.e. the amount of light per degree), Nessus.
You can change the FOV (by varying the size of the aperture stop) but it won't change the brightness.
The toilet roll analogy works here: pick up a cardboard tube and look through it. You have reduced your FOV but the scene is just as bright as before.
Changing the size of the field affect the total intensity entering the eye but that's not perceived as brightness.
You can change the FOV (by varying the size of the aperture stop) but it won't change the brightness.
The toilet roll analogy works here: pick up a cardboard tube and look through it. You have reduced your FOV but the scene is just as bright as before.
Changing the size of the field affect the total intensity entering the eye but that's not perceived as brightness.
I got one finally, after seesawing back & forth between that and the Neu SLC 10x50. It was close, but the Z had that slight edge in resolution, brightness, contrast....but more than that, just a more pleasing view. That's become my main comparo criterion....is the use of the glass satisfying? I've sold all my "arsenal" now except the "most satisfying". I'm sure the 9 I have left might not be everyone's choice in a given power/aperature category but I'm quite content. (Well actually it's 10, counting my vintage/nostalgia - but still very usable and satisfying - Canon 8x30 B Body).
But the big Z is even a standout among my keepers....and for me, the 44oz weight is a plus, like the 42oz of the Canon 15x50....it really makes for a little bit steadier hold. The supplied straps for both of these I find completely adequate and have carried both on day-long tromps thru open country hunts for raptors, longspurs, prairie chix, etc and really felt fine at the end. (Don't carry the Canon that way anymore 'cause the thing swings back & forth....really annoying....and don't wanna fiddle with a harness. Some of the none-too-athletic folks in our birding klatch have them for 8x42's and the like, and watching them trying to get the straps straight and everything just right seemed to me more bother than it was worth).
But back to the 56....it took 3 months discretionary spending allowance and forgoing a trip to Sturgis to get it, but was worth it. Tho' I don't use it a lot, each time I do, the first view elicits an automatic "Oh, yeah!...."
But the big Z is even a standout among my keepers....and for me, the 44oz weight is a plus, like the 42oz of the Canon 15x50....it really makes for a little bit steadier hold. The supplied straps for both of these I find completely adequate and have carried both on day-long tromps thru open country hunts for raptors, longspurs, prairie chix, etc and really felt fine at the end. (Don't carry the Canon that way anymore 'cause the thing swings back & forth....really annoying....and don't wanna fiddle with a harness. Some of the none-too-athletic folks in our birding klatch have them for 8x42's and the like, and watching them trying to get the straps straight and everything just right seemed to me more bother than it was worth).
But back to the 56....it took 3 months discretionary spending allowance and forgoing a trip to Sturgis to get it, but was worth it. Tho' I don't use it a lot, each time I do, the first view elicits an automatic "Oh, yeah!...."
The 10. As an aside, I hafta admit I needed it like I needed an additional orifice in the cranium. A few months ago, I pondered just what I would NEED to cover all optical bases, whether birding, plane spotting (a 50 yr obsession and what first kindled my interest in binos), sightseeing, sports events, airshows, et al. I reluctantly, and with some discomfort, realized 99.256% of those needs could be met with 2 binos & my little scope. Those 3 instruments I've come to refer to as tools....the rest of the repertoire would hafta be considered toys.....and the Z isn't one of the tools (could be, with some other substitutions, but it's not....).
That's tough, 'cause you liketa consider yrself practical, pragmatic, etc...but then ya realize that being an admitted binoholic (or optiholic, same thing), yr instead, obsessive/compulsive (or nearly so)....what a bite. Can such a thing be overcome? You tell me...
That's tough, 'cause you liketa consider yrself practical, pragmatic, etc...but then ya realize that being an admitted binoholic (or optiholic, same thing), yr instead, obsessive/compulsive (or nearly so)....what a bite. Can such a thing be overcome? You tell me...
Well, there´s a long answer, and a short answer. The short answer is "No".
(I am in the same boat. I´ve just bought the Swarovisions, and I´m trying to sell off everything else. So why am I reading opinions of the Zeiss 56mm? Huh? Huh?)
The problem with my menu is that, at the moment, it´s looking something like this:
Entrée: 1 pair Canon IS 18x50
Main Course: Kowa TSN 883 Prominar scope or Higlander :eek!:
Dessert: 1 pair Zeiss FL 8x56
(And no thanks, waiter, I´ll pass on the coffees and brandies...)
None of this is going to happen, of course....
Looks like a tasty spread....just tell the waiter (or in this case the dealer) you'd liketa wait a bit before ordering.....(after all, ya might win the Irish Sweep or some such). But ya might wanna change the dessert....you've got the 8x range well covered now. When (or if) the 12x version comes out......that may be a must-have. (I dread it....I'm on the wagon now and don't wanna fall off....too dam 'spensive)
John Dracon
John Dracon
The Zeiss 10x56 FL is unquestionably an outstanding binocular. But it has one aspect (FOV 330 feet) that raises a question with me. Perhaps my question has been addressed in other threads. My question. Why does the 10x32 FL have almost a 10%
greater field (360 feet)? The disparity between the FOV of the 8x32 FL and 8x56 FL is also found - 420 feet to 390 feet respectively. (numbers from Zeiss literature)
The FOV is so often commented on as being important to many users. I understand that the eye piece design and power are two important variables that control FOV. Does the kind of roof prism, AK versus SP, also enter into the equation? One would think
Zeiss would want to make the FOV on the 56 mm models at least equal to the 32 mm models.
Anyone out there in BF land with an explanation?
John
greater field (360 feet)? The disparity between the FOV of the 8x32 FL and 8x56 FL is also found - 420 feet to 390 feet respectively. (numbers from Zeiss literature)
The FOV is so often commented on as being important to many users. I understand that the eye piece design and power are two important variables that control FOV. Does the kind of roof prism, AK versus SP, also enter into the equation? One would think
Zeiss would want to make the FOV on the 56 mm models at least equal to the 32 mm models.
Anyone out there in BF land with an explanation?
John
wanderer55
Well-known member
Hmmm....thanks guys....if I could find a way to carry them, I could really, really get used to that view........
Here's your answer for the weight problem, so to speak. Also the stabilizing problem, which I need.
SIMA SVP-3
I use one for the shakes. I've had a mild case of the shakes since the stroke and this thing helps. Actually it's more that I can't hold my arms up more than a minute or two.
I am going to try combining this with a bino harness, to see if the harness will put some of the weight on the shoulders. The SIMA attaches to the tripod mount (via a tripod adapter), on the bins and the bino harness can attach to the strap mounts on the bin. I haven't tried it yet, but I will. I have a bino harness lying around.
Attachments
Last edited:
Kevin Purcell
Well-known member
I have speculated before that bin designers restrict the FOV of larger bins to reduce prism sizes to reduce bin weight. The smaller the light cone the smaller the prism needs to be (and the prism will got up as the cube of the objective diameter unlike the lenses being roughly "2D" which will get heavier as the square of the diameter).
Just speculation.
