Safari Swaziland & S. Africa - Which Zeiss Vic.? (1 Viewer)

First post, so sorry if I get anything wrong.

July 19 I will leave for Southern Africa. After being there in October, I realized the particular Steiner's I bought for law enforcement some years back while great, were not the best for nature / birding on safari.

Narrowed it down to one of two Zeiss Victories, either the 10x42 HT (about $2,200), or the 10x56 FL. Most safari rides or walks in African national parks take place at dawn and dusk, and you will see the most in low light.

First, I understand the HT's have a few percentage points above the FL's for light gathering, but then the FL's at big 56mm are going to gather more light for superior low light - is that correct?

Second, I need rugged and sealed. Is one line more shock proof than the other? Stuff can get knocked around and drenched, and the safaris I have been on in East Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) the dust penetration is just unbelievable. I've opened luggage with no earthly idea how the dust possibly penetrated in the areas I have discovered it.

Third, being an optics novice, there are likely important issues I'm not aware of, so any additional guidance is greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much for your guidance.

Dwever,
I have used 7x42, 8x42, 8x56, 10x56 and 8x32 in Southern Africa and its mountain and dessert areas. My experience is, that a good choice is an 8 or 8,5x42 binocular of high quality (high light transmission and perfect color reproduction), which is waterproof and shock resistant. Because of the dust problem I had a flexible nylon bag, which could quickly be closed with a draw cord, to protect the binocular in dusty circumstances. Of course a high quality 56 mm binocular is also useful especially in low light conditions, but the handling properties in a narrow safari car are not always optimal. Up to now I never missed the 10x magnification, since the 8x magnification did yield such nice rocksteady images. A high quality glass will cost you, however, a few pennies.
Gijs

The closer you will be to the equator the shorter the twilight period will be.

For this reason you could be perfectly OK with a lighter weight 10 x 42mm binocular rather than with a heavy 10 x 56mm one. And you could always compromise and get an 8.5 x 42.

Bob

ceasar has made a valuable point, better check out how long you will experience any twilight at your destination. But having been there, you will probably know anyway.
The question is also, will you use the binocular when back home again?
8/10x42 is good for nearly everything, 10x56 will be sold at a loss upon return. Only a dedicated hunter is willing to carry that load.

dwever said:

Narrowed it down to one of two Zeiss Victories, either the 10x42 HT (about $2,200), or the 10x56 FL. Most safari rides or walks in African national parks take place at dawn and dusk, and you will see the most in low light.

Click to expand...

What about 8x42s? The 10x56 is a monster, rather large and heavy. The 8x42 is easier to hold and much lighter, and you don't lose too much light gathering ability compared to the 10x56.

dwever said:

First, I understand the HT's have a few percentage points above the FL's for light gathering, but then the FL's at big 56mm are going to gather more light for superior low light - is that correct?

Click to expand...

Yes, definitely. In low light the 10x56 will kill any 10x42.

dwever said:

Second, I need rugged and sealed. Is one line more shock proof than the other? Stuff can get knocked around and drenched, and the safaris I have been on in East Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) the dust penetration is just unbelievable. I've opened luggage with no earthly idea how the dust possibly penetrated in the areas I have discovered it.

Click to expand...

The thing is, the Victory FL has been around for a good number of years. It's a well-proven product line, with very few reports of things going wrong. The HT is still quite new, and while I trust Zeiss (just like the other makers of alpha bins), I would *never* take a brand new pair on an important trip without a backup. Suppose you get a lemon, a pair that leaks when you wash the dust off in the evening - you wouldn't be very happy, would you?

In fact, I always take a backup on important trips, nowadays usually a military grade 8x30. These aren't optically quite as good as the alphas, but nearly indestructible.

Hermann

Thanks, I guess I hadn't worried about size with my Steiners being around 2.3 lbs. 7x50 armored. The Zeiss 10x42 HT being 1.7 lbs. and the 10x56 FL being 2.7 lbs. But yes, I am leaning towards the 10x42 HT from midwayusa.com.

So, the HT's body is made of a polycarbonate compound? What about the the big FL's?

BTW: Cape Town South Africa (33°55′31″S 18°25′26″E) and Atlanta, GA (33°45′18″N 84°23′24″W) are roughly equal distance from the Equator, while Kenya and Tanzania are extremely close (Equator passing across Mount Kenya).

dwever said:

So, the HT's body is made of a polycarbonate compound? What about the the big FL's?

Click to expand...

The HT has a metal body, the FL a polycarbonate compound body. Not that that matters much, the bodies of both are plenty tough. All that talk about metal bodies being "better" than compound materials is hogwash in my opinion. What matters is whether the maker knows what they're doing, not the material used.

Hermann

Hey I found my answer on this forum, below are the last two paragraphs of the lengthy and technical review (http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=81438&highlight=henry+link+8x56):

In daylight he 8x56 FL produces the sharpest, cleanest and most transparent image I’ve yet seen in a binocular. It’s very obvious comparing it to other binoculars tripod mounted, but even hand holding I’m always aware that the image is unusually fine by binocular standards. I wouldn’t have expected any binocular to make the 8x42FL, Nikon 7x50 Prostar and 8x32SE look mushy and dull in sunlight, but the 8x56 FL does it. Besides the reduced longitudinal CA and SA seen in star testing there is also a reduction in lateral color that is quite obvious in daylight. Lateral color is probably almost always what people are seeing when they complain about “color fringing” in binoculars. There is also a modest but welcome increase in the size of the “sweet spot” compared to the 8x42FL. Less lateral color and a bigger sweet spot are two more benefits that come from the higher objective focal ratio, because the less steep light cone allows the eyepiece to perform better off-axis. But, alas, edge of the field astigmatism is still this binocular’s weakest performance characteristic, just like the 8x42FL. The 7mm exit pupil also has a benefit in daylight. There is virtually complete freedom from “flare”. When bright reflections from the edge of the objective reach the eye they are out at the edge of a 7mm circle of light, so the flare tends to fall invisibly on the iris rather than entering the eye.

After experiencing the outstanding daylight image quality of this binocular for the last two weeks there is simply no turning back for me. Even if I look like a 5 year old struggling with his daddy’s big binoculars, the 8x56FL is what I will be using for birding until something better comes along. In spite of the optical quality I doubt that I will ever run into another birder using a pair. I can’t help but think that Zeiss missed an opportunity for making the 42mm FL’s just as optically superior in daylight, if only they had been willing to allow the 42’s to be about 1” longer and a little heavier. I understand that birders want their binoculars short and light, and that drives design decisions, but it also takes a toll on the optical quality.

Yes, I believe Henry uses an 8 x 56 FL for birding also, doesn't he? I believe he even has a favorite harness to help carry it around too. He also called it "The world's best 8 x 42" and he also gave the reasons for doing so.

All you need now is the harness.:t:

Oops! You need the binocular too!:eek!:

Bob

I've never been on safari but no harm in hazarding a guess at what I might take if money was not a problem. I imagine for 95% of the time the light levels will be high and the animals/birds may be at distance and so something small and fairly light like the Swarovski EL SV might be 10x32 be perfect. However I would also take a modestly priced 7x42 or 8x56 if I was young enough to take advantage of the EP or a 10x56 if older for those dawn/dusk situations. Our eyesight is poor in low light and so I find quality is less important. Having a backup pair could be useful.

David

Swaro 10x50 SV. It is the only SV series that gets my :t:. Could even just "test" it on safari from a store with a liberal 30-day return policy.8-P

Greetings. Very nice read indeed. The only issue I would like to discuss is related to my inability (60 years old) to benefit from the 7mm exit of the Zeiss 8x56. If not, would a 10x42 would be a better choice? Please let me know of your thoughts. Have a wonderful trip Dwever.

I would go with the 10x42, enjoy and please becareful and safe on your trip.

Mike