New Zeiss Victory FL binoculars (1 Viewer)

kabsetz said:

... I did a simple tripod-mounted test where I viewed a resolution target at ten meters through one eyepiece only (to avoid parallax-induced effects). I focused the binocular to maximum resolution at dead center, and then without touching the focus or the binocular, moved the target 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 centimeters off to the side and recorded what I could resolve WITHOUT MOVING MY HEAD, ONLY MY EYE.

Overall, and in case this has not become clear yet, I consider the Victory FL's to be great binoculars. It is nice that Zeiss had the courage to do things differently and that they have succeeded this well.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

Kimmo,

Thanks for the kind words about my review. I'm looking foward to reading the Alula report.

I set up a similar test to try to measure the fall-off in sharpness of the bins I tested. I used a 4' ruler at 30'; focused on the center of the ruler with one eye; noted how far to the right and left of center I could read numbers on the ruler, then converted that distance to degrees of apparent field. In the end I got interested and wound up testing about a dozen pairs, from a c.1930 Leitz Binuxit to a Nikon Prostar (which held it's central sharpness over a larger area than any other). I tested only two bins with a smaller "sweet spot" than the Zeiss FL; a Kern Swiss Army 8X30 and an old Swarovski 8X30 porro, both of which had tiny sweet spots about half the width of the Zeiss. I agree with you that the FL is a great binocular, the best in several important performance categories, with IMO only one significant weakness.

I suppose I need to join with others and affirm that I really am a "true birder" who actually prefers looking at birds to numbers on rulers or Dollar bills tacked to trees, and I'm not an employee of an optics firm. Not that I wouldn't know how to behave discreetly if a reasonable offer came along for my "endorsement services", mind you . Right now, for instance I believe I could write some very nice things about the optics of the new 8X32 Ultravid, especially a pair with the leather covering.

Henry

henry link said:

Kimmo,

Thanks for the kind words about my review. I'm looking foward to reading the Alula report.

I set up a similar test to try to measure the fall-off in sharpness of the bins I tested. I used a 4' ruler at 30'; focused on the center of the ruler with one eye; noted how far to the right and left of center I could read numbers on the ruler, then converted that distance to degrees of apparent field. In the end I got interested and wound up testing about a dozen pairs, from a c.1930 Leitz Binuxit to a Nikon Prostar (which held it's central sharpness over a larger area than any other). I tested only two bins with a smaller "sweet spot" than the Zeiss FL; a Kern Swiss Army 8X30 and an old Swarovski 8X30 porro, both of which had tiny sweet spots about half the width of the Zeiss. I agree with you that the FL is a great binocular, the best in several important performance categories, with IMO only one significant weakness.

I suppose I need to join with others and affirm that I really am a "true birder" who actually prefers looking at birds to numbers on rulers or Dollar bills tacked to trees, and I'm not an employee of an optics firm. Not that I wouldn't know how to behave discreetly if a reasonable offer came along for my "endorsement services", mind you . Right now, for instance I believe I could write some very nice things about the optics of the new 8X32 Ultravid, especially a pair with the leather covering.

Henry

Click to expand...

Gee, Henry, flattery gets you almost anything. Look at Bill Oddie, for example. Maybe you could become the American equivalent of our Bill.

Clive

I was hoping that the FL was the 'perfect' bin, but somehow knew it would have its own set of compromises. It seems that they are very few, and by all accounts the FL is an excellent design.
My question is : can the off-centre sharpness be improved while still maintaining all the other excellent qualities of the view at the centre, or is it a design trade off?

"Can" and "will" are different issues. I can't imagine that they would reformulate the design just because a few people in birdforum don't like it (most of whom have never looked through an FL). And the critics will still be telling us how much better the Nikon SE is. Why bother?

helenol said:

I apologise in advance....but do any of you actually go out into the field and look "through" you bins and appreciate a bird or whatever, without being "blinded" by the small imperfections that may exist between one pair of bins and another?

After all, couldn't these differences be down to individual eyesight? And don't you ever lose sight of what these bins are for at the end of the day?

Regards
From a complete layman.

Click to expand...

I find this post rather disingenuous, given its placement in an EQUIPMENT forum, and the ZEISS BINOCULAR subsection at that. We are perfectly on-topic, and having a jolly good time, thank you very much. And whether we actually look at birds, or just like to speak loudly in an American accent and spray money on over-priced German optics, well, that's off-topic and none of your business.



Returning to important matters, can fondlers... I mean, owners of the FL and the Ultravid describe their respective tripod-mounting procedures. My current bins don't offer any means to attach, and my tricks with masking tape are getting a bit old. Thanks!

Keep it steady

Rico said:

Returning to important matters, can fondlers... I mean, owners of the FL and the Ultravid describe their respective tripod-mounting procedures. My current bins don't offer any means to attach, and my tricks with masking tape are getting a bit old. Thanks!

Click to expand...

My dear Rico,

I have the adapter for Leica BA/BN binoculars. It's a platform, with a little cradle for one tube and a pad for the other tube. The binocular is held in place by a strap like a heavy band or the rubber strap we once used to hold our school books together. C'est brutale ma ca marche. which I think is French for it's ugly but it works. Leica called it "practical."
Siimilar adapters, using velcro straps, are made by Cardoza for either Porro or roof prism binoculars. However I think that your Zeiss 8x20 would be too small for such a device. Also the Cardoza is so small that it does not always hold the binocular under the binocular's center of balance. The Leica adapter allows the glass to sit firmly on the platform unlike some other adapters, which have vibration problems. It also works with the Zeiss Victory 8x40 and might welll work with the FL's.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood

Curtis Croulet said:

"Can" and "will" are different issues. I can't imagine that they would reformulate the design just because a few people in birdforum don't like it (most of whom have never looked through an FL). And the critics will still be telling us how much better the Nikon SE is. Why bother?

Click to expand...

Curtis,

The 2 main reviewers, Henry and Kimmo did look through the FL. Both candidly observed the same loss of FOV sharpness, documented it, and gave their opinion in a professional manner. Additionally, the two of them used the SE's (8X32 and 10X42 models) in their analysis, along with other models.

michaelboustead made a similar observation in post #407

Personally, I was hoping the reviews would come in on the FL and everyone would jump up and say this is the best binocular ever made on planet earth. Obviously, that did not happen. What I heard both Henry and Kimmo say is that the FL is great in many areas, but when it comes to a flat, uniformly sharp FOV it falls short of the mark. Henry also thought the DOF was a bit shallow. Their observations, not mine.

I have one serious question based on what I've read. What good is a wide FOV if much of that field is not reasonably sharp? Would someone please go out to a pond, fill your FOV with ducks/geese and tell me what you see? What I see in my dinky little porro is a bunch of sharp looking birds. I don't have to move my bin to clearly see each member of the group; I just move my eyes around a tad. I think it's a pretty simple test and I don't think it's too much to ask of a top-of-the-line bin. If someone could run that test on an FL and report back, I'd appreciate it.

Sadly, it's obvious some want the FL discussion to summarily end. The veiled accusations that people are non-birders, company hacks, or both are insulting and inappropriate. I consider this venue to be vastly superior to usenet precisely because people do not normally engage in those kinds of tactics.

The FL costs $1200 USD and for that level of investment the product deserves critical evaluation. I suggest that all new owners evaluate their FL's in the field and, if so inclined, share their observations with the group.

Let's all enjoy the migration!!

John

mike60 said:

I was hoping that the FL was the 'perfect' bin, but somehow knew it would have its own set of compromises. It seems that they are very few, and by all accounts the FL is an excellent design.
My question is : can the off-centre sharpness be improved while still maintaining all the other excellent qualities of the view at the centre, or is it a design trade off?

Click to expand...

The problem is very simple. How much do you want to pay. If any of you understood what went into the design of optical instruments then many of these observations would not be perceived as negative.

As someone who works in the optical industry. I have data which shows a competitor in a very good light in some performance criteria, but very poor in others, no optical instrument dominates in every optical performance parameter, although some have higher performance figures appearing more often than others.
Apart from feel and handling which are subjective, optical performance is measureable. All binoculars have trade offs, this is not always a fault, but down to the designers and their optical preferences.
I wonder how much depends on the badging. As one of my optical professors once said "you think it is good, when did you last have your eyes tested", maybe that is the difference from actually knowing and thinking one knows.
As someone has already said, why not just use your binoculars for observing birds.

Hi all!

Some additional info on the 7x FL and on brightness in general.

I re-checked some of the edge resolution measures and tested the 7x as well. Up to about 30% from center, the 7x parallels the 8x FL almost exactly. Both are better (have a somewhat larger sweet spot) than the 10x FL. From 30% outwards, the 7x is actually better than the other two, with 70% resolution coming at 52% and 50% resolution at 68% (approximate figures, since the testing is not particularly scientific or highly accurate). Spot re-checking of the 8x and 10x FL and the 10x SE pretty much duplicated the earlier results. Thus, the 7x FL does pretty well here, although further towards the edges, where my resolution target no longer shows anything, its image seems to soften up more than in the higher mag models. I concetrated less on the 7x largely because these low-magnification models are not popular around here, because there was no suitable high-quality reference available, and, lastly, because I do not personally like low magnification binoculars except when sailing.

Concerning brightness, I would start by saying that brightness differences are, in my view, not very meaningfull. True, you can always tell which is brighter in an A/B comparison, but whenever I have tested several binoculars of like magnifications, I have been unable to find just about any conditions or targets where the brighter binocular actually showed me anything I could not see with the less bright one. Steve Ingraham wrote an excellent piece to BVD about this some years back, and I highly recommend reading it. Mind you, I am talking about high-quality binoculars to begin with. What does matter a great deal in low light is contrast. Better contrast shows you more even if the image is not as bright. Then to actual brightness. Although I do not have actual measuring devices, I would say that the FL's are as bright or brighter than anything else out there. In direct comparison, the FL 10x appeared a bit brighter than the SE 10x, but the difference was minimal and not significant.

Lastly, I am not saying that either the Nikon SE's or the Zeiss FL's would be better overall than the other. I am still not sure which image I prefer - both give excellent images. However, I can say that I far prefer the handling of the Zeiss, and although my SE's have never suffered from weather or rough handling, proper weatherproofing is a big issue for many.

People should also not read too much into what reviewers themselves own and use. Contrary to what some might think, I personally buy all the optics I own (which is not very much), and stuff I test is only on loan for a brief period of time. I buy stuff I think I'd use and enjoy, and price was one important factor when I bought the SE many years ago (also, back then, the competition was not as strong). If I were to switch to the FL's (or any other top-class roof), I'd have to shell out around a thousand euros in balance. I (hopefully) do not let these issues affect my judgement of the various products, but they seriously influence what I own and how often I consider "upgrading" my own gear. Also, since I do not own a top-line 8x binocular, I always borrow one when I need a reference. Lastly, a reference does not have to be the best in any or all respects, as long as it is close enough, you know it thoroughly and have kept records of how it stacks against x, y or z. Switching references often would therefore be a bad idea.

Kimmo

Rico said:

I find this post rather disingenuous, given its placement in an EQUIPMENT forum, and the ZEISS BINOCULAR subsection at that. We are perfectly on-topic, and having a jolly good time, thank you very much. And whether we actually look at birds, or just like to speak loudly in an American accent and spray money on over-priced German optics, well, that's off-topic and none of your business.

Click to expand...

Frankly, it's as much my business as anyone elses if you choose to "speak loudly in an American accent and spray money on over-priced German optics" and you choose to do it on a public forum. If not, fair point, I agree with you.

Why do you think my post was "disingenuous"? I was asking a question whether some "things" - forgive my technical term - could be put down to individual eyesight. Fair point, it was a general question rather than one pertaining specifically to Zeiss, but if you take the time to read various threads you will find that on occasion, these general comments pop up. If the comment is inappropriate the moderators will remove it.

Given the price of these top range binoculars, I am entitled to ask as many questions as I like. But it's attitudes like yours that put the layman off asking questions in threads like these, especially if one is in the market for purchasing a new pair of bins - as I am at the moment.

Finally, yes I agree it's an equipment thread, but isn't the forum about birds too? I would have thought the vast majority of people reading this thread would be looking at it with a view to using the binoculars primarily to view birds. I could, of course, be wrong.

I'm pleased to see you're having a "jolly good time" on Birdforum. Oh, and there's no need to thank me.

Regards

Rico said:

I find this post rather disingenuous, given its placement in an EQUIPMENT forum, and the ZEISS BINOCULAR subsection at that. We are perfectly on-topic, and having a jolly good time, thank you very much. And whether we actually look at birds, or just like to speak loudly in an American accent and spray money on over-priced German optics, well, that's off-topic and none of your business.

Click to expand...

well I find this post rather pompous but what the heck . I think H was pointing out that the whole point of bins, in the context of BF, is to look at birds. Oddly no one criticised Grousemore's dollar bill post - can't think why (great post Grousey).

As an aside the Zeiss' zoom has comparatively poor edge quality but this is a design feature to ensure that it has a class leading field of view. This will irritate some and please others.

I don't have easy access to an FL to test so I am glad people are keen to take a lot of time and effort over this for me, whether because they are birdwatchers or because they just like testing optics. What I often find when I am bird-watching is that I can't quite see enough to identify a particular bird - perhaps silhouetted, perhaps just too far away. At that point I think "maybe if I just had slightly better binoculars..." For that reason I am looking closely at the FL and other reviews (and actually hoping for an 8x40 porro SE-beater with proper adjustable eyepeices).

helenol said:

I apologise in advance....but do any of you actually go out into the field and look "through" you bins and appreciate a bird or whatever, without being "blinded" by the small imperfections that may exist between one pair of bins and another?

Click to expand...

Last year I spent most summer evenings out walking in the countryside with a binocular round my neck. I'm not a particularly good birder, but I do enjoy the pastime.

I simply don't agree about 'small imperfections'. I get real pleasure by watching wildlife from a distance: birds, deer, foxes, mice, rats and recently a ferret-polecat. I own cheap and top notch binoculars. There really is a huge difference between the two. Even at the top end each binocular has its own traits. I once owned a rather nice and expensive binocular. In low light it had marked flare that made it useless for my purposes. People who bird in daylight would not notice that 'small imperfection'. Another expensive binocular was able to clone birds. I remember watching a Red Kite soaring overhead, accompanied by a red clone, as prominant as the real bird, that was created by severe chromatic aberration. I can never understand how some people do not notice this 'small imperfection' but it drives me spare.

helenol said:

After all, couldn't these differences be down to individual eyesight?

Click to expand...

Yes psychology does play an important role. That is why I find it interesting to read other peoples experiences so as to get a balanced view.

helenol said:

And don't you ever lose sight of what these bins are for at the end of the day?

Regards
From a complete layman.

Click to expand...

I think the whole point of a really good binocular is to get as close to nature as possible. I want to watch wildlife and not examine obvious optical aberrations.

Thanks Leif for your civilised reponse to my post. I appreciate it. I will certainly be trying out these bins at the birdfair.

Regards

Leif said:

I think we do not mention CA anymore because there is general agreement that the FL controls it extremely well. That to me is a real plus point. IMO slight edge softness is not such a big deal. Of course some people might disagree. I would be much more worried by pronounced CA or flare.

FWIW I have no connection with any optics company.

Click to expand...

Thank you Leif.
What I find curious is that CA is patently more of a concern when trying to identify or enjoy watching a bird yet everyone is banging on about the irrelevancies of edge resolution. When typical birders such as myself discuss binoculars, it seems CA is the first point of discussion.
It does seem clear that no one disputes that the FL is the best binocular in this respect.

FWIW My daughter works at Specsavers
Wine Man

Rico said:

I find this post rather disingenuous, given its placement in an EQUIPMENT forum, and the ZEISS BINOCULAR subsection at that. We are perfectly on-topic, and having a jolly good time, thank you very much. And whether we actually look at birds, or just like to speak loudly in an American accent and spray money on over-priced German optics, well, that's off-topic and none of your business.



Returning to important matters, can fondlers... I mean, owners of the FL and the Ultravid describe their respective tripod-mounting procedures. My current bins don't offer any means to attach, and my tricks with masking tape are getting a bit old. Thanks!

Click to expand...

I'm glad you're having a good time, Rico. However, there is no need for a reply like that. You speak as loudly as you want in whatever accent you want - I'd certainly be glad to say it is none of my business either.

Returning to important matters? Yeah right. Can't you start a new thread?

I don't mind people talking about equipment in great depth, but there is no need to act like a snob when someone offers an opinion different to your own.

Rich.

Rico said:

And whether we actually look at birds, or just like to speak loudly in an American accent and spray money on over-priced German optics, well, that's off-topic and none of your business.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, another setback for America's image in the world. Hopefully an apology will be coming soon.

Personally I like to speak softly in an American accent and spray money all over Austrian optics.

To each his own.

Bill A

henry link said:

Oh dear, another setback for America's image in the world. Hopefully an apology will be coming soon.

Click to expand...

No worries Henry :t:

Hopefully the thread can get back on track, so we may continue to read about the pros and cons of the new Zeiss bins.

Regards

I agree with john Traynor sharpness near edge of field is important for me.I don't care about CA because i don't notice it.
Last year i bought a Leica Ultravid 10x42 BR and i like it very much except for two things. Sharpness at the edge of field is not very good .It only got 2.5/5 points in Alula's test av 10x binoculars. The second "problem"is the focusing wheel,but compared to the edge of field this is only a minor "problem".

I like Nikon because of their sharp and flat field view. I have never looked in a Swarovski 8x32EL ,but in their 8x30 SLC i found an edge sharpness i liked very much,if my memory serves me right.

When comparing Zeiss FL 8x42 and 10x42 why not compare them to their predecessors 8x40 Victory II and 10x40 Victory II that would perhaps be the best way to see improvements. And of course to compare the 7x42FL to the older 7x42 Classic.