Zeiss FL review (1 Viewer)

Hi BF

After 2 serious days with 3 bins around my neck I came to some great conclusions about the Zeiss FL 8x42 as well Nikon SE 8x32 and Nikon LXL 8x42.

First, the view of the Zeiss Fl is very bright. Immediately on the FL I noticed that there was a slight blurry halo about 1/3 of the way in from the edge (FOV)- narrow sweet spot. That was annoying but I got use to it suprisingly quickly. While I focused on many things I said to myself the FLs are so bright and sharp.

Later, I took out the SE and said these are not as bright or contrasting but sharp maybe even sharper than the FL, then the LXL came out and I noticed they were not as bright or had as much contrast as the FL either, but still a hair sharper on finer details. The FL has a very neutral but vibrant color. Both Nikons have a more yellow almost amber cast.

I went indoors and tested them all inside as well by standing about 20 feet and reading some of the spines of the books I have on my book case. I noticed in the dim areas I was able to extract more detail from the books with the SE and the LXL every time BUT it didn't make sense because the view of the FL was so bright and contrasting. I called my wife into the room and asked her to do the same; she had the same results. She found she could see the words clearer with the SE and with the LXL better than with the FL.

Interesting!- she did say she liked the FL view the best, but the FL is not as sharp and eye placement was critical with the FL bins. My wife does not wear glasses and I do.

We both did several tests outside with birds in the yard and the same results came to both of us. The SE has the sharpest clearest view up to the edge then the LXL and last was the Zeiss FL.

Ergonomically I love the SE in my hands. But the Zeiss focus knob was one of the sweetest- smooth and lite. I like the FL focus better than the LXL and better than the SE (of course). I did not like the ribs of the Zeiss but the weight for a full size bin is a dream. Close focus goes to the FL of course.

Zeiss of course had no CA and the SE is almost none to unnoticeable CA. And the LXL has a smidgen of CA. CA is not bothersome to me.

In conclusion the FL is brighter and has more contrast than the SE or LXL. But it is not sharper and on every occasion I was able ot extract more detail in dim lighting with the SE and LXL. And for dim lighting the LXL performed better than all as far extracting detail from a bird in heavy cover. The narrow sweet spot of the FL is not that annoying but noticeable. For the money I still think Zeiss has some things to work out and I would not recommend the FL to a friend.

Still to me the Nikon LXL is the best roof bin out there (I still don't love it) and the SE is still the best all around. Zeiss FL can be 3rd or 4th place, but NOT 1st or 2nd on my list. If Nikon went with dielectric coatings and Abbe Koenig prisms now that would be something to rival the SE. But still the winner over all optical quality goes to the SE. As usual.

One last thing the LXL is a definitely bit brighter than the old HG.


Carlos

Carlos,

Thanks for an interesting and thorough report. Now you can brace yourself to face the onslaught of Zeiss fans, and of course, also expect some pats on the back from the SE faithfulls.

It is, of course, hard to say how representative the particular Zeiss you had was. However, each and every one we see, test and/or buy has presumably passed the factory quality control, so in a sense even the lemons are "representative" of the real quality of the product.

Your findings of the Nikons surpassing the "brighter and contrastier" Zeiss in shade are interesting, but I believe you. It has been my impression that many Nikon models excell with natural, deep black and contrasts in the darker end of the brightness spectrum, whereas many binoculars or scopes that appear brighter (and perhaps therefore more contrasty too) wash out black and very dark areas. This makes a difference for seeing fine detail in the image, but it might take very careful observing and comparing to notice what is going on.

Incidentally, if you still have the Zeiss, could you do a crude test to see how it behaves with glitter points (or real stars, if you have the conditions for it)? Basically, is there astigmatism in one/both of the barrels, and ditto for obvious eccentricity (miscollimation) of the out-of-focus diffraction ring patterns. If you need a reference for what things should look like in a binocular, your SE probably will serve you fine since there is much less of a chance for things being misaligned in a precision porro.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

Carlos,

Thanks for an interesting and thorough report. Now you can brace yourself to face the onslaught of Zeiss fans, and of course, also expect some pats on the back from the SE faithfulls.

Click to expand...

It reads like a balanced and honest review to me. In any case there's no compulsion to think alike on BF. I like the comments in the Nikon HGL. Nikon do seem to have good coatings despite the use of silver on the prisms. I own a Zeiss 8x42 FL and Nikon 8x32 SE and when reading text from a distance I cannot distinguish between them, but I have only done very casual testing. I might try a more careful test sometime.

Leif

This evening I will try the star/ astro test don't know how good it will work living in a big city but I'll give it a shot. I'll post my findings. Some people may like contrast and brightness vs. detail and sharpness? I prefer sharpness vs. brightness and contrast, if not I am always refocusing to get to that level of resolution in my mind's eye. Now, with Swaro EL it is definitely not bright enough or contrasting enough for the price they are asking.

Carlos

That was very interesting Carlos,Im considering a 10x or 12x power binocular for Astronomy,the Nikon 12x50 SE is very high on my list,I have the 7x42FL for Terrestrial use,I love it.
Thanks
Steve.

Leif and Carlos,

I definitely thought it was an honest and balanced review also. I hope my post did not read otherwise. I also agree with nearly everything Carlos says in post #5, except that I'm not sure that superb contrast is possible without superb resolution as well. Contrast can be difficult to differentiate from brightness on one hand and sharpness on the other. However, I'm also not sure whether it is usefull to split hair trying to do that, since what really counts is how satisfied one is with the image overall.

Kimmo

Good job, Carlos! What could be better than finding that the binocular you prefer is the one you've already paid for. The 8X32 SE is definitely a keeper for me. Much as I like the Zeiss 8X42 FL I think of it more as a "rental" binocular; something I'll keep only until a better example of the same type comes along.

Your impression of sharpness differences between the two was interesting to me. I have experiences that both agree with yours and differ from them. When I measured the resolution and compared the sharpness of these binoculars last summer most of my observations were made with tripod mounting at distances of 100 to 200 feet, often using one eye only. My resolution chart requires that much distance, but I also wanted to eliminate the parallax effects that result from the different objective spacings, especially at short distances. I don't think any more actual detail can be seen through one of these compared to the other because both have much higher measured resolution than the eye can see. It requires a magnification booster to see all the detail available through either. Yet, today I was able to duplicate your impression of greater sharpness through the Nikon looking at book spines at 20 feet, hand holding and using both eyes. To make things more interesting I tried a third binocular, a Zeiss/Jena 8X50 Octarem, and found it gave an impression of even better sharpness than the Nikon, even though its actual resolution is no better than the 8X42 FL.

I have an idea about why these different impressions of sharpness occur. There have been a few threads on the subject of objective spacing influencing apparent image size, particularly at close focus. The wider the spacing of the objectives the smaller the image size appears to be, so roof prism binoculars seem to have higher magnification than porros. I believe there is also an influence on apparent sharpness, so that the smaller appearing image seems to contain finer, sharper details. The three binoculars I compared today have objective spacings at my 60mm IPD of 67mm (FL), 120mm (SE) and 135mm (Octarem). The apparent image size at 20' with both eyes is largest in the FL and smallest in the Octarem, and the impression of sharpness follows the same order. However, if I close one eye the gap in sharpness dissappears along with the illusion of different magnifications. Certainly this is not the only factor in sharpness differences, but I think this is just one more way that objective spacing shapes different peoples' reactions to porro vs roof. Where some see and prefer the larger apparent size and better overlap of fields in roof others will see and prefer the higher apparent sharpness of porro.

I wonder what the results would be if binoculars were reviewed like wines; blind. Uh, blind to the brand, of course.

Wouldn't that be more........objective?

henry link said:

Yet, today I was able to duplicate your impression of greater sharpness through the Nikon looking at book spines at 20 feet, hand holding and using both eyes. To make things more interesting I tried a third binocular, a Zeiss/Jena 8X50 Octarem, and found it gave an impression of even better sharpness than the Nikon, even though its actual resolution is no better than the 8X42 FL.

I have an idea about why these different impressions of sharpness occur. There have been a few threads on the subject of objective spacing influencing apparent image size, particularly at close focus. The wider the spacing of the objectives the smaller the image size appears to be, so roof prism binoculars seem to have higher magnification than porros. I believe there is also an influence on apparent sharpness, so that the smaller appearing image seems to contain finer, sharper details. The three binoculars I compared today have objective spacings at my 60mm IPD of 67mm (FL), 120mm (SE) and 135mm (Octarem). The apparent image size at 20" with both eyes is largest in the FL and smallest in the Octarem, and the impression of sharpness follows the same order. However, if I close one eye the gap in sharpness dissappears along with the illusion of different magnifications. Certainly this is not the only factor in sharpness differences, but I think this is just one more way that objective spacing shapes different peoples' reactions to porro vs roof. Where some see and prefer the larger apparent size and better overlap of fields in roof others will see and prefer the higher apparent sharpness of porro.

Click to expand...

Hi Henry,

I agree with what you wrote and thought about this- I "believe" I can resolve more detail with the porro SE and roof LXL than with the FL. Objective spacing does play a part because the largest image is seen through the LXL but the SE image is much smaller but SEEMS to outresolve the LXL unless heavy dim cover is applied to the object viewed. If so, there is another problem is the LXL outresolving the SE or is it the larger image size contributuing to the ability to see more detail? The LXL image is larger than the FL and the SE. In the case of the SE vs. the LXL it can be said that objective spacing produces an illusion of better sharpness with the SE; but in the LXL vs. the FL it seems less of an illusion because of their similar objective spacing and size. It is a bit baffling we may never know unless through rigid and specific objective testing. Anyone could argue that the true test is out in the field and how comfortable the view "SEEMS". I still felt I had to work to get what I wanted out of the FL. The illusion of the SE may be the most pleasing illusion. Astro- test tonight may reveal other things I may have missed.

Thank you for your insightful input. I will think about this some more and see if I can come to any other conclusions.

I thank everyone for their compliments and feedback.
Carlos

Carlos,

If you can truly see smaller details through your Nikons, and I would suggest tripod mounting to verify this, there is almost certainly some problem with this particular pair of FL's.

Henry

henry link said:

Carlos,

If you can truly see smaller details through your Nikons, and I would suggest tripod mounting to verify this, there is almost certainly some problem with this particular pair of FL's.

Henry

Click to expand...

Hi Henry

Please read what I posted above I edited it, added some coments. I will use a tripod and do some more tests. You are saying that I should see more detail with the FL, right? If not the FL could be defective? Which Nikons are we talking about?

Thanks,
carlos

henry link said:

Carlos,

If you can truly see smaller details through your Nikons, and I would suggest tripod mounting to verify this, there is almost certainly some problem with this particular pair of FL's.

Henry

Click to expand...

Did you read post #9?

Carlos, Yes, but I don't think there should be any difference in actual visible detail (as opposed to appearance of sharpness) between the two Nikons or between either of the Nikons and the FL. Tripod mounting should allow you to see smaller details with all three, and using one eye will allow you to check to make sure both barrels are performing the same and eliminate whatever influence is coming from objective spacing. Doing that and the star test that Kimmo suggested should establish whether all the bins are equally defect free.

Tripod test Zeiss FL

Hi BF,

Just did a test of Zeiss FL 8x42 vs. Nikon LXL 8x42 on a tripod both indoors and outdoors with bright lights and dim lighting. The HGL did better over all than the FL, escpecially the HGL was much sharper outresolved detail better in dim or heavy indoor cover or outdoor dark cover lighting. That is a fact and as plain as day.

The fine focusing was better with the HGL focus knob as far as getting it to snap into focus on fine lettering or details. The FL was a constant search for it to snap onto fine details.

The FL and HGL under bright sunlight were almost exactly the same almost no difference. Occassionally the FL showed a very small difference in contrast and neutral color. I believe Henry Link maybe right about the SE it may be an illusion of sharpness over the FL and HGL. I have no way of proving that but the SE on a tripod "SEEMS" sharper than both the FL or HGL but in actuality due to the smaller image size details seems more compacted but not as visible- I hope that makes sense.

With one eye closed checking each barrel individually the SE out performed the LXL by the smallest hair and the FL did not resolve as much fine detail as either the SE or the LXL.
Carlos

Carlos,

As Henry, I suspect you might have a faulty FL. The sample I tested for ALULA equalled or bettered any and all 8x binoculars I have seen, tripod mounted with one eye, two eyes or with booster.

Concerning the apparent image size issue and objective spacing, I believe that If you measure the objective spacing of the LX L vs the FL, you'll see that the Zeiss has objectives further apart. The prism structures are different, and neither is a perfect straight-through.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

Carlos,

As Henry, I suspect you might have a faulty FL. The sample I tested for ALULA equalled or bettered any and all 8x binoculars I have seen, tripod mounted with one eye, two eyes or with booster.

Concerning the apparent image size issue and objective spacing, I believe that If you measure the objective spacing of the LX L vs the FL, you'll see that the Zeiss has objectives further apart. The prism structures are different, and neither is a perfect straight-through.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

They don't seem faulty but I guess they must be. What luck. I wasted a lot of time... On some faulty bins. It makes me mad.
Carlos
:storm:

CAN ANYONE PLEASE CHECK TO SEE IF I AM WRONG ABOUT THE ZEISS FL? DOES ANYONE HAVE AN HG OR LXL OR AN SE TO COMPARE TO THE ZEISS FL?

Please help,
Carlos

Zolarcon said:

They don't seem faulty but I guess they must be. What luck. I wasted a lot of time... On some faulty bins. It makes me mad.
Carlos
:storm:

Click to expand...

Hi Carlos
Testing the Zeiss on bright stars and Jupiter will soon show if they're faulty. It's still possible they are ok and what you're experiencing is perceived image quality (brain processing of vision is very complex) and that's influenced by colour balance, contrast, actual resolution and depth of field (as well as others I'm sure). I also remember a camera test many years ago when they compared a series of identical photos taken with different lenses. The picture that appeared the sharpest was actually the one with the most contrast and not the one with the highest resolution. Endlessly fascinating isn't it ? That's why we're all on this forum I guess !
Good luck
John

Carlos,

I know that a test on 8x42's does not necessary translate to the same results in 8x32's, but I recently tested the top 4 8x32 bins and found that the Zeiss FL was clearly sharper than the Nikon HGL and Leica Ultravid, which were both clearly sharper than the Swarovski EL. Unfortunately, it was a un-scientific test of one sample of each.

Rich.

Zolarcon said:

They don't seem faulty but I guess they must be. What luck. I wasted a lot of time... On some faulty bins. It makes me mad.
Carlos
:storm:

Click to expand...

Carlos: How are you testing sharpness? Simply looking at something and concluding that A is sharper than B will give very subjective results. (That is the origin of one or two strange comments I have seen on BF. A binocular can seem subjectively sharper and more pleasing than another, but careful testing can show the converse.) You need to use a resolution chart, or a target with writing on such as a bank note. I find that writing is a good target. Work out how far away you can move the binocular while still being able to read the text, or separate the lines on the resolution chart. Apologies if this is what you already do!

Leif