Victory HT 10x42 or Victory SF 10x42 any thoughts? (2 Viewers)

Lord Muck said:

Hey Jerry,

Have you had anything to do with the Zeiss Victory 10x54 HT binoculars,..?

I see that they are half a pound heavier than the 10x42 Victory HT's,

And wonder if with the 12mm wider objective lens, (they would let in more light), and give brighter overall views than the 10x42's.

I also notice that there does'nt seem to be any mention on the web of a 10x54 in the Victory SF, available at the moment.

Neil M

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

Since HT is touted by Zeiss as their low light model I don't see them bringing out a 54 or 56 SF.

For super sharp performance I would stick with SF.

Lee

Click to expand...

NDhunter said:

James:

Yes, I do own the SF, and it is a very good binocular.

I posted about that, on the Zeiss thread, "My thoughts of the Zeiss
10x42 SF". Post #45.

Jerry

Click to expand...

BruceH said:

Before Jerry's comments get lost in the abyss of the Forum, here is a link to his informative post.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3316264&postcount=45

Jerry's references the eye cup material of the SF as plastic, but I would use the term composite. That is my personal preference over metal because if dropped on the eye cup, the composite material is likely to to just fracture and can easily be replaced with a call to Zeiss. A drop on a metal eye cup is more likely to damage the threads in the eye piece housing, thus requiring a more extensive repair by the manufacturer. The softer thread material of the composite eye cup sacrifies the inexpensive and easily replaced eye cup but saves the housing.

Click to expand...

NDhunter said:

One thing about both the SV and the EDG is that the eyecups are of metal
construction, that seems better built than the SF plastic.
The SF has only 1 detent from full out, the EDG and SV have more
positions, and I can get all 3 to work just right, as I do no wear glasses.
The rearward balance of the SF is very good, as it makes them seem lighter.


Jerry

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

Since HT is touted by Zeiss as their low light model I don't see them bringing out a 54 or 56 SF.

Some keen eyed folks have remarked that HT 54s are not as sharp as they expected but Zeiss maintain it is a low light specialist instrument and don't recommend it for regular birding. I've looked through them a fair bit and found them to be OK rather than wonderful. Whether you would benefit from the extra light grasp depends whether your pupils open up enough but some say (with some justification) that looking through bigger diameter lenses brings other benefits.

For super sharp performance I would stick with SF.

Lee

Click to expand...

Bwana1 said:

I'm a bit confused, in Jerry's thorough review he said:


The dealers spec lists it as having "4 position eye piece", have the SF's had small model changes/upgrades since first introduced ?

I wear glasses 100% of the time, and all of my bins have the eye-cups fully down,,,but I do regularly share with non-eyeglass wears.

Click to expand...

Troubador said:

My SF 8x and borrowed 10x have three positions (like Jerry's): down/glasses, mid, up/non-glasses. Haven't heard about any new eyecups with 4 positions and since I have badgered Zeiss about eyecups I would have expected to have heard something. I am guessing its a dealer error.

Lee

Click to expand...

Lord Muck said:

Lee,

There is a fairly comprehensive review in the link below of the Zeiss Victory HT 10x54 against Swarovski's SLC 15x56 Binoculars.

But I notice the Swarovski SLC's 15x56 appear to be the previous model.

http://scopeviews.co.uk/Zeiss10x54HT.htm

Neil M

Click to expand...

james holdsworth said:

Thanks for that. Well, I guess that some 54 mm HT's are not the optical duds that both Kimmo and Henry tested. That is, if we trust the review....

Click to expand...