Zeiss 10x42 FL T* - first birding field trip (1 Viewer)

This morning I took my new Zeiss 10x42 FL T* binocular on its first birding field trip. I don't know what more I could ask for in a birding binocular. It was just outstanding. The images were bright, clear, sharp, and high contrast. It was a pleasure scanning the hills and marsh areas. We had rain showers off and on, enough that the group decided to cut the morning trip short by about 45 minutes. We saw quite a few wet birds. It was interesting to see them trying to dry out. We were at Coyote Hills Regional Park, near Newark, California.
http://www.ebparks.org/parks/coyote.htm

I also had my Leica APO 77 Televid with 20-60 Zoom. It perforned just fine as always. I got a brief look through a Zeiss 85mm spotting scope. It was very nice but didn't have my Leica out at the time for a comparison.

I found I could easily hold and focus the Zeiss 10x42 FL with my right hand while I was holding my spotting scope and tripod on left shoulder with my left hand. I thought at 10x it would be really difficult but with a little practice it was easy.

Thank you Zeiss!

Rich

Thanks for that Rich.
Just out of interest,is this model tripod adaptable?
Im seriously thinking of buying the 7x42 model as the larger field and easier hand held image would be an advantage for me.
Thanks,
Steve.

Steve Napier said:

Thanks for that Rich.
Just out of interest,is this model tripod adaptable?
Im seriously thinking of buying the 7x42 model as the larger field and easier hand held image would be an advantage for me.
Thanks,
Steve.

Click to expand...

Thank you Steve.

AFAIK, my Zeiss 10x42 FL doesn't have a tripod lug. Does Zeiss offer their FLs with tripod lugs?

There have been several devices on the market to hold non lugged binoculars to tripods.

I didn't buy this Zeiss 10x42 FL with the idea of using it on a tripod.

I have tried to like 7x binoculars but keep finding them just not enough. I much prefer 8x binoculars. Look at the object rather than looking at the field. Like looking at an object on the shore when standing in a rocking boat.

Rich

Rich N said:

Thank you Steve.

AFAIK, my Zeiss 10x42 FL doesn't have a tripod lug. Does Zeiss offer their FLs with tripod lugs?

There have been several devices on the market to hold non lugged binoculars to tripods.

I didn't buy this Zeiss 10x42 FL with the idea of using it on a tripod.

I have tried to like 7x binoculars but keep finding them just not enough. I much prefer 8x binoculars. Look at the object rather than looking at the field. Like looking at an object on the shore when standing in a rocking boat.

Rich

Click to expand...

I have seen in the online Zeiss info for the FL a picture of a clamp to hold an FL on a tripod. It is just like the Leica one, whereby the binocular rests on a shaped seat, and is held in place by a strap, presumably fastened with Velcro. The idea is good but I haven't tried one so cannot comment on the realisation.

In the instructions for use booklet that came with the FL's, it states;
"The binoculars of the Victory FL series can be mounted on any commercial camera tripod using the Zeiss universal tripod adaptor for binoculars"

Have just recieved the new Zeiss brouchre today with the 8x30 and 10x30 FL models.
There is a type of thick strip/seat that can be purchased as an tripod adapter,the binocular seems to be held in place with a thick looking strap.
The new brouchres can be ordered directly from Zeiss via their website.
Steve.

Steve Napier said:

Have just recieved the new Zeiss brouchre today with the 8x30 and 10x30 FL models.
There is a type of thick strip/seat that can be purchased as an tripod adapter,the binocular seems to be held in place with a thick looking strap.
The new brouchres can be ordered directly from Zeiss via their website.
Steve.

Click to expand...

I once chose the Leica tripod adapter because it works with almost every roof prism binocular not only the Leicas so I can use it with most of my binoculars from pocket bino to the big ones. It works also with little porro binos. The advertised Zeiss tripod adapter looks like as if it could perform even better in respect of universal use than the Leica adapter. The (rubber?) strap seems adjustable by length and the platform is rounded so it should be possible to put even a big porro bino on it. It would be interesting to try this when the adapter is available.

Steve

I made a mistake above,I should have said 8x32 FL and 10x32FL.
Steve.

Zeiss FLs

Steve Napier said:

I made a mistake above,I should have said 8x32 FL and 10x32FL.
Steve.

Click to expand...

Over the weekend I had my first chance to use the new FLs (8x40). Although I was not able to use them under adverse weather conditions and I had them in my hands for only a short time, they impressed me as being very nice glasses. Sharp in the center, bright, and contrasty. They certainly hold their own with the competition. However, would I scrape up my pennies to replace my current binocs (Leica 8x30 and Victory 2 10x40)? Probably not - I don't consider them a significant advance over their rivals.

Regarding build quality - it seemed pretty good to me. The fall-off in sharpness away from the center of the field of view was way more noticeable than in my Victory 2s and I guess that I might have a hard time getting used to that.

They are compared to a Ferrari in a Skoda body kit in bird watching mag to-day.

Have not read the aforementioned article in bird watching mag but do you realise just how good Skodas are these days! Not sure this would make much sense to our N. American members!

elgin5050.fsnet said:

They are compared to a Ferrari in a Skoda body kit in bird watching mag to-day.

Click to expand...

I read that review as well today and my conclusion was that Mr Winter should stick to writing in the tabloid newspapers. Just what was all that rubbish about Jeremy Clarkson and car reviews? It was a big review small on what was important to someone like myself who is looking to buy a pair of top end binos, in fact awaiting delivery of 8x42FL. Bring back Dudley, all is forgiven!!
Having handled the binos I can vouch that body is superb for practical birding and that's exactly what I will use them for, not some birding fashion show.
Cheers,
Ben

If you actually read the review, you will see that the writer mentions how good they feel (meaty is the word) and how snugly they fit in the hand, he then contradicts himself with the last two paragraphs. He is very enthusiastic about the optics and the performance.

mak said:

If you actually read the review, you will see that the writer mentions how good they feel (meaty is the word) and how snugly they fit in the hand, he then contradicts himself with the last two paragraphs. He is very enthusiastic about the optics and the performance. The anti FL brigade will no doubt pick up on the negative parts.

Click to expand...

I guess we can all give up on the notion of world peace.

We're discussing a stupid binocular, whose cost exceeds the annual income of most people on planet earth, and we can't agree to disagree with dignity. How shameful.

John Traynor

John Traynor said:

We're discussing a stupid binocular, whose cost exceeds the annual income of most people on planet earth, and we can't agree to disagree with dignity. How shameful.

John Traynor

Click to expand...

I agree with you John... very sad indeed.

Don

Blincodave said:

Have not read the aforementioned article in bird watching mag but do you realise just how good Skodas are these days! Not sure this would make much sense to our N. American members!

Click to expand...

Blincodave,

Was not the Skoda a Czech automobile, marked by the absence of many comforts, like a fuel gague, found in western vehicles? I believe that an appearance of one in the USA would start a twitch.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

I have to agree with both Don and John. Look's to me like a Zeiss FL religion is born. It (the religion) has arguments of it's own: barely any CA, light weigth, etc., but one Achiles heel: soft edge = small "sweet spot". Or should I say "alleged small sweet spot" (for the religion tends to dismiss it as a plot from American operatives working on behalf of any company but Zeiss). This "sweet spot" is really the only "real" negative (or questionable) point emerging from all I've read on this forum about the Zeiss FL (with one exception: John's comment about the FL robustness and dioptre adjustment, both off which have been contradicted by basicaly every other posts). Sorry to put you in the "Lime Light" John, but you do stand out on these two specific aspects (minor aspects should I say). But then again subjective impressions are exactly that: subjective impressions. And what's wrong with that? If you don't agree with it you just say otherwise (that's the point). People will sort it out. NOW, my scoop: most if not every one of those talking about a small "sweet spot" in the FL are also ASTRONOMERS. Can it be that astronomers are trained to look at the entire field of view (after all, a star at the very edge of the field of view is as much a star as any other). In birding it's different, we tend to focuss on the bird's features. Well first the bird, but then the eye, the beak the claws, etc. Just food for talk...

Photography is my main diversion and uniform performance across the field is a desirable property for most subjects. More than overall sharpness, the relative lack of sharpness off-center is quite noticeable in a static image like a print or projected slide.

I find the FL performance disconcerting, firstly because I'm a CZ fan and secondly because I like to tripod-mount my camera or bins and scan a scene by eye. The Victory 8x20 has limited FOV and significant field curvature, hence my interest in something better.

jmjutras said:

I have to agree with both Don and John. Look's to me like a Zeiss FL religion is born. It (the religion) has arguments of it's own: barely any CA, light weigth, etc., but one Achiles heel: soft edge = small "sweet spot". Or should I say "alleged small sweet spot" (for the religion tends to dismiss it as a plot from American operatives working on behalf of any company but Zeiss). This "sweet spot" is really the only "real" negative (or questionable) point emerging from all I've read on this forum about the Zeiss FL (with one exception: John's comment about the FL robustness and dioptre adjustment, both off which have been contradicted by basicaly every other posts). Sorry to put you in the "Lime Light" John, but you do stand out on these two specific aspects (minor aspects should I say). But then again subjective impressions are exactly that: subjective impressions. And what's wrong with that? If you don't agree with it you just say otherwise (that's the point). People will sort it out. NOW, my scoop: most if not every one of those talking about a small "sweet spot" in the FL are also ASTRONOMERS. Can it be that astronomers are trained to look at the entire field of view (after all, a star at the very edge of the field of view is as much a star as any other). In birding it's different, we tend to focuss on the bird's features. Well first the bird, but then the eye, the beak the claws, etc. Just food for talk...

Click to expand...

The night sky is all at infinity and you have a relatively dark background with many small points of light. Unless looking for a particular object, I do tend to look at the whole field. I know those virtual point sources of light should look like little pin points.

When I'm on a birding walk the view through the binocular changes greatly. Things are not always so far that they are at infinity (for the focuser of the binocular).
I'm usually looking for a bird and looking pretty much in the center of the field. When I see a bird of interest, I put it in the center of the field.

I'm surprised that there is so much of a dust up over the edge sharpness of the FL. Most binoculars have soft edges. It isn't anything new with Zeiss. It certainly isn't anything new with Leica. I found the 10x42 FL had better edge sharpness than the Leica 10x42 Ultravid.

The Nikon SEs have surprisingly good edge sharpness but they have problems in other areas that make it not so much fun to use in the birding field. Sometimes the view through the SE seems a little "dead", like looking at a TV screen. However, I like them for astronomy.

The Fujinon 10x70 FMT-SX has good edge sharpness but it is, IMHO, an astro binocular and not much use for birding unless it is on a mount. It is better on a mount for astro viewing too.

One feature of the FL that is a little strange is the way the image of something like a near by building spreads outward at the top. This effect may be seen in other binoculars. I don't notice it when birding.

Have people complained about the sweet spot in the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL? It has soft edges. I don't have my Zeiss FL with me at the moment to compare them, but I don't think there is a real differnece in the size of the ELs sweet spot vs. the FLs.

I find the Zeiss 10x42 FL a real pleasure to use. I don't think it has an overly small sweet spot. The image is very sharp and high contrast. Other good things about the FL, it's relatively light weight, has a very nice focuser, nice shape, nice eyecups, very good eye relief for 10x42, etc.

Rich

edge sharpness

Rich N said:

The night sky is all at infinity and you have a relatively dark background with many small points of light. Unless looking for a particular object, I do tend to look at the whole field. I know those virtual point sources of light should look like little pin points.

When I'm on a birding walk the view through the binocular changes greatly. Things are not always so far that they are at infinity (for the focuser of the binocular).
I'm usually looking for a bird and looking pretty much in the center of the field. When I see a bird of interest, I put it in the center of the field.

I'm surprised that there is so much of a dust up over the edge sharpness of the FL. Most binoculars have soft edges. It isn't anything new with Zeiss. It certainly isn't anything new with Leica. I found the 10x42 FL had better edge sharpness than the Leica 10x42 Ultravid.

I don't have any axes to grind in this debate about the FL edge sharpness. I am happy with the bins that I have and am not thinking of trading up. So, I consider my view of the FL to be disinterested. So, for what it is worth here goes - I was not particularly happy with the edge sharpness when I tried the new FLs last weekend. I guess that it depends on what you are used to: I currently own a pair Zeiss Victory 2s and they have phenomenal edge sharpness - noticeably better than the FLs (In my opinion). Using the Victory 2s I have come to really appreciate this feature. The other advantages of the new FLs (and there are some) don't seem to me to outweigh this disadvantage. Not enough, anyway, for me to rush out and buy them. I will say, however, that if the edge sharpness in the FL was as good as the previous Zeiss model, then they would, I think, be pretty much the perfect glass.

Click to expand...