• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

7x42 FL feedback (1 Viewer)

Rico

Well-known member
After three weeks of use, I have decided the 7x42 FL is the cat's meow. It's a testament to BF Binocular denizens that my expectations were fully realized - no unpleasant surprises. The quality of some reports here are better than handling the item in person, I swear!

My report follows, but be aware that my experience with bins and birds is approximately zero (my optical knowledge is limited to photography). I don't own the benchmark Nikon SE for A/B comparison, so the 8x20 Victory Compact had to serve.

Reason for the purchase included getting a wider FOV, more eye relief, more light gathering, and (I confess) a new toy. Main concerns were weight, focus action, and longitudinal CA. Contenders were Swaro EL, Leica Ultravid BL, Nikon LXL, and Zeiss FL, all in the 40mm class with 7 or 8 power. Decision was based on a balance of the factors. Rather than handle models in the store, I just downloaded the spec sheets, gleaned insights from users on BF, and kept using my 8x20. After a year, I plunked down the plastic.

My brief (virtual) assessments. ELs were expensive, lower contrast, had finger grooves, but offered a relaxed view and best service. Ultravid BL were lightest and most sexy, but had trouble off-axis, focus ailments, black spots, and shaky corporate future. LXL had best focus mechanism, but major LCA and worst USA service. FL had brightest view, no LCA, but small sweet-spot.

My usage is a mix of short walks, viewing out the window, evening and night lighting, and some critical testing on tripod.

Okay, the armor smells vaguely of rubber, but nothing serious! Handling with that rubber is secure and comfortable such that I haven't attached the straps (am just using the pouch with its strap). Size, weight and balance are fine, although a big step up from the 8x20. Focus wheel is large, rubber coated, and quite smooth. While free of backlash or play, the focus position lies in a zone with lower friction: perhaps a manufacturing flaw, but I decided to classify it as a feature because I can find critical focus without drifting. I have no complaints about the diopter mechanism.

Appearance is business-like, but lacking in comparison to the gorgeous Ultravid BL. At least Zeiss dumped the "Batman" style of the old Victory! Build is of the finest plastic, with a purported magnesium superstructure: under a layer of rubber armor, all-metal construction seems irrelevant. Eye cups are twist-lock with three detent positions, but park firmly at any position.

Optics are spectacular, but not perfect. The light-gathering is simply awesome, both in comparison to 8x20 and to the unaided eye: it is a bone fide night-vision device. LCA and TCA are amazingly under control in all circumstances: of course, correct eye position and IPD setting is required. Black-out occurs if eye cups are incorrectly set (no eye-wear here). The sweetspot is very sweet, but limited to the central zone: beyond that, there is coma but no TCA. I detect no field curvature. Lack of linearity, in the form of barrel distortion, is quite severe: especially in urban settings with the long lines of a building, you many encounter some queasy moments, although nature scenes are fine.

At some point, I might attempt to quantify two aspects of this bin versus the 8x20. First is off-axis decay of resolution, as conducted by Henry Link in the past. Second is the light-gathering aspect. In my suburban setting, the nocturnal critters can be observed all night with the 7x42 FL, while the 8x20 is completely worthless. This is a neat benefit of the not insignificant price. For daytime use, I continue to enjoy the compacts because of the weight.

You may recall from Homer that birds on the wing were interpreted as omens. The highlight of my first walkaround with 7x42 FL was a first sighting of the local peregrine falcon, one of a few in Chicagoland. I call that a good omen for the FL!
 
Greetings, Rico!

Omens aside, you wrote one of the finest reviews I've ever read on BF. I say this not only because of the excellent writing and grammar, but also because of the accurate overall content and excellent descriptions of the very fine FL binoculars.

A few things I'd like to bring up... both in terms of the 7x42 FL and the 8x20 Victory Compacts. I own the 8x20 Victory Compacts, and I agree that they are some of the most worthless optics, if not THE worst I have ever used in terms of low light performance. For what they are (a lightweight and compact daytime binocular) they truly excel... but definitely at the cost of light-gathering ability under dim conditions. The 7x42 FL (and also the 7x42 Ultravid), on the otherhand, are truly excellent light gathering machines. When I evaluated the 7x42 FL, I remember being VERY impressed with its low light performance. It is one of only two 42mm binoculars that I considered to be approaching acceptable dusk performance (the 7x42 Ultravid being the other). I've almost always considered 10x50 to be the minimum for good low-light performance, but the latest offerings from top manufacturers are starting to make me reconsider this as a "hard and fast" rule. Given a few more years of advances in lens coatings and glass formulation, who knows what will be possible!

Like you, I also found the center "sweet spot" of the FL to be somewhat small, and also found the off-center sharpness of the 7x42 Ultravid to be somewhat less than what I expected. For truly sharp edge-to-edge performance, I've only found 2 real contenders - the Nikon HG and Leica Trinovid models. The Nikons are a tiny bit better than the Trinovids in this respect, but at the cost of increased CA and (at least to my eyes) slightly lower light transmission.

Any of the binoculars discussed will make excellent birding glasses, and deciding which is the "best" is an exercise best left to the individual who will be using the optics day-in and day-out. Objectively speaking, there really is no "best" binocular that will fill everyone's needs.. although I believe the top manufacturers are converging their new offerings toward a set of common "desireable features" that will hopefully one day result in a whole range of "perfect" binoculars sold by competing companies.

My own needs are probably different than yours... although we both agree that low power is one of our personal preferences. I recently found myself in the same high-end 7x42 "buying mode" like yourself, and went through a similar evaluation process that you recently experienced. I compared offerings from Swarovski (SLC), Zeiss (FL), and Leica (Trinovid and Ultravid). I excluded Swarovski EL's from the list of contenders because they don't offer a 7x (although if they eventually do I'm expecting great things!). I also excluded Nikon HG and HGL for the same reason, and also because I already own a pair of HG 8x32's.

At the end of all this, I chose the Leica Trinovid BN 7x42. I decided that the extra weight and slightly lower brightness was more than compensated for with the excellent edge-to-edge sharpness (which the Ultravid and FL couldn't compete with), and the more "natural" overall appearance of the image when compared to the Ultravid and FL. Perhaps part of this is the "sweet spot" effect, but I also suspect that the newer lens coatings have something to do with it as well. In any case, this was the result of my own testing based on my own needs and preferences, and weight alone would be enough to exclude the Trinovids from many people's selection list.

You are happy with your Zeiss FLs, I am happy with my Leica Trinovids, and they both bring us closer to the birds... and after all isn't that what this is all about anyway? ;)

Best wishes, and thanks for the review!
Bawko
 
Last edited:
Bawko,

Thanks for the kind word. Only by your store-to-store legwork and usage reports is armchair evaluation possible for others. I revisited an entertaining Bawko post from a few month's back: http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=24876 and I still laugh about the brand "Rugged Exposure" - sounds like a B movie!

I did get to Point Lobos (CA) last fall, with 8x20 and SLR in hand. I sighted the birds, and my naturalist sister called them: a fine system that I recommend to all! Late in the day, the sun's angle caused serious flare in the 8x20. Despite much teeth-gnashing on BF, such flare strikes me as inevitable unless you design a binocular-lens hood.

dwalton,

Reading field reports give additional insight beyond a store visit: fluorescent lighting and moose heads across the room isn't my idea of an optical testbed. Fogging, armor falling off, eye fatigue, objectionable CA, and strap design are some problems that may require time before they reveal themselves.

Addendum to my initial post:

The linear distortion is, of course, pincushion, not barrel. At the eye-piece, rocking your head can cause the top of straight edges to sway like palm trees. This property is entirely absent in the 8x20 (a good thing).
 
Ive been using the 7x42FL for about 6 months now and,the more I use them the more I like them and,I liked them from the start.
The edge performance is a NON ISSUE for me as when you have an 8.6 degree FOV who on earth is looking at the edge?
Ive also heard people say about a rubber smell,again a NON ISSUE for me.
At the end of the day a VERY slight rubber smell is to be expected from RUBBER...Now if they smelled of coconut or pineapple It would be an issue.
Colour correction is truly outstanding and the centre field view is nothing short of breathtaking.
Also Ive heard people complain about the 4 ribs down the sides of each barrel,guess what,yep,a NON ISSUE for yours truly.
If you want the very best 7x42 roofs on offer,get these.
Steve.
 
I have had a pair of original 7x42 bgat for over 20 years - cost me £400 then - they hav'nt missed a beat and are a pleasure every time i use them - which is daily - i must look thru a pair of the new ones to compare
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top