Zeiss HT wins Binocular review shootout (1 Viewer)

opticjunkie · Sep 17, 2015

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/shootouts/shootoutpremier8x42s/8x42shootout.html

a good article, very informative

cheers
Peter

Vespobuteo · Sep 17, 2015

opticjunkie said:
http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/shootouts/shootoutpremier8x42s/8x42shootout.html

a good article, very informative

cheers
Peter

Well, I didn't come to that conclusion,

it's nice article with personal views on binoculars,
but the article completely lacks any
objective measurements,

and obviously he owns a pair of HT:s
so not that surprising that he will continue to use them as his reference....

It's a nice read though,
as good as any if you read it with a critical eye.

And the last line says it all:

"Anyway, you always need to trust your own eyes and decide for yourself. "

Hermann · Sep 17, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
it's nice article with personal views on binoculars,but the article completely lacks any objective measurements,

The resolution measurements aren't objective? Interesting.

Vespobuteo said:
and obviously he owns a pair of HT:s
so not that surprising that he will continue to use them as his reference....

He doesn't own one in fact. And he doesn't say so on the site. So that statement is, errr, obviously wrong.

Vespobuteo said:
It's a nice read though,as good as any if you read it with a critical eye.

That goes for almost any review you're likely to find anywhere. What's it called? A truism?

Vespobuteo said:
And the last line says it all:

"Anyway, you always need to trust your own eyes and decide for yourself."

Quite right.

Hermann

wondering why there are so many
threads on Tobias's review

Vespobuteo · Sep 17, 2015

Hermann said:
The resolution measurements aren't objective? Interesting.

No, they can't be objective, by definition.
not even science is, thats why you have to look at
many different reports,

he said he would keep the HT:s so I assumed that
he now owns them.

HighNorth · Sep 17, 2015

I'm not going to bash Tobias' great review, but he said himself he personally doesn't like the yellowish (?) view through the SF. As an SF owner, this does not bother me at all (I'm not even sure I see it the way he does). Also, he acknowledged that the lower resolution score of the one he got might be down to sample variation. I agree with him on the build quality and armouring though!

HN

Vespobuteo · Sep 17, 2015

HighNorth said:
I'm not going to bash Tobias' great review, but he said himself he personally doesn't like the yellowish (?) view through the SF. As an SF owner, this does not bother me at all (I'm not even sure I see it the way he does). Also, he acknowledged that the lower resolution score of the one he got might be down to sample variation. I agree with him on the build quality and armouring though!

HN

nope, I didn't see any disturbing color cast in the SF:s either,
a bit stronger reds/browns than my FL:s though,
as in swaro SV:s,
not a bad thing,
but it could be due to better contrast,

I think colors are a rather subjective issue,
and relative, the only good way is probably blind testing,
under controlled light...

GLOBETROTTER · Sep 17, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
nope, I didn't see any disturbing color cast in the SF:s either,
a bit stronger reds/browns than my FL:s though,
as in swaro SV:s,
not a bad thing,
but it could be due to better contrast,

I think colors are a rather subjective issue,
and relative, the only good way is probably blind testing,
under controlled light...

When i hold side by side my SV and SF is so clear that SF has warmer cast as clear as day is day and night is night.

This is bad.....not at all yellow cast enhances contrast and SF needs it.......

I love the warm rendering of my plus 10x50 HD :t:

Troubador · Sep 17, 2015

GLOBETROTTER said:
When i hold side by side my SV and SF is so clear that SF has warmer cast as clear as day is day and night is night.

This is bad.....not at all yellow cast enhances contrast and SF needs it.......

I love the warm rendering of my plus 10x50 HD :t:

I have two SFs with me on holiday and behind our cottage, moored just a few metres off-shore in the sea loch is a large yacht painted a brilliant white.

I looked at this yacht through both SFs and.............. it was still brilliant white. No colour cast to my eyes, but as VB says, individual eyes see different things.

Lee

Hermann · Sep 17, 2015

Troubador said:
I looked at this yacht through both SFs and.............. it was still brilliant white. No colour cast to my eyes, but as VB says, individual eyes see different things.

The last time I had a chance to use the SF 8x42, we were watching a fine male Pallid Harrier in bright sunlight. I didn't like the colours I saw one bit. Too warm, too green.

Hermann

james holdsworth · Sep 17, 2015

Troubador said:
I have two SFs with me on holiday and behind our cottage, moored just a few metres off-shore in the sea loch is a large yacht painted a brilliant white.

I looked at this yacht through both SFs and.............. it was still brilliant white. No colour cast to my eyes, but as VB says, individual eyes see different things.

Lee

How does the SF compare *directly* to the HT - regarding colour cast and whiteness?

PS - how did you score two SF's?

opticjunkie · Sep 18, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
Well, I didn't come to that conclusion,

it's nice article with personal views on binoculars,
but the article completely lacks any
objective measurements,

and obviously he owns a pair of HT:s
so not that surprising that he will continue to use them as his reference....

It's a nice read though,
as good as any if you read it with a critical eye.

And the last line says it all:

"Anyway, you always need to trust your own eyes and decide for yourself. "

That wasn't my conclusion, it is what the reviewer said...see this article

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/zeiss/zeissvictoryht8x42/zeissvictoryht8x42.html

He says at the end of his review:

"The HT is an outstanding glass and optically the reference binocular in the 8x42 class. It´s images have a freshness and clarity the others cannot quite match. Think of peppermint sweets that let you suddenly feel your breath cool and hot at the same time. The Ultravid has maybe even more beautiful almost beautified images and handles even better due to compactness, but cannot beat the HT if best and most natural image quality is paramount, especially when it comes to flare suppression. Comparing to the SF again think of burning cooling peppermint freshness which the SF with its darker, greener and a bit softer images is lacking despite its impressively wide field of view. The Swarovision is spectacular even at first glance with its extreme sharpness across the whole field and probably overshadowed the HT´s qualities quite a bit, although it lacks the high transmission sparkle, perfect colours and great threedimensionality of the Zeiss.

Has the 8x42 HT really gotten the attention it deserves yet? It is probably the best classic 8x42 design and in my opinion the best of all five 8x42s on review."

HighNorth · Sep 18, 2015

I never liked peppermint.

HN

Tobias Mennle · Sep 18, 2015

Troubador said:
I have two SFs with me on holiday and behind our cottage, moored just a few metres off-shore in the sea loch is a large yacht painted a brilliant white.

I looked at this yacht through both SFs and.............. it was still brilliant white. No colour cast to my eyes, but as VB says, individual eyes see different things.

Lee

Lee, I have to agree with Globetrotter. As Hermann gives the harrier example, a middle grey is maybe even a better test than a white. I even get nervous about my apple tree when I see the grey bark through the SF.

I admit as filmmaker I spent fortunes and days in colour correction suites squeezing out the best from my work with the help of brillant people, so colour issues have interested me for years.

We will see how persistent Zeiss will be with these coatings. I started my binocular passion with a Habicht 1961, so I know my yellowgreen, and just don´t think it´s a good move in 2015, at least not in an alpha birding bin, and not in terms of delivering a really great view.

SivaL · Sep 19, 2015

Tobias, You have put in a lot of time reviewing the 5 bins. It is a great read and I an happy to see Leica still holding its own.

I also noticed Leica is missing in this section about 3D. How did you find the 3D DOV in the UV HD+?

Threedimensionality

1. Swarovski Habicht - good old porro. You´ll want to touch what you see.

2. Zeiss HT - halfway between roof and porro, awesome 3D for a roof.

3. Swarovski SLC, Zeiss SF - good 3D for roofs.

4. Swarovski Swarovision - flat field, flat images, extreme sharpness hides this quite a bit.

Tobias Mennle · Sep 19, 2015

Subzero888 said:
Tobias, You have put in a lot of time reviewing the 5 bins. It is a great read and I an happy to see Leica still holding its own.

I also noticed Leica is missing in this section about 3D. How did you find the 3D DOV in the UV HD+?

Yeah, this got lost, I will correct it. The Leica is a typical roof and in the league of the SLC and SF.

Troubador · Sep 19, 2015

james holdsworth said:
How does the SF compare *directly* to the HT - regarding colour cast and whiteness?

PS - how did you score two SF's?

J
One SF is my own, the other is a borrowed 10x.
Haven't got HT with me and we are currently packing to leave on todays afternoon ferry. I'll get back to you next week when we are back home.

One thing for sure is that HT is fine instrument in its own right.

Lee

Troubador · Sep 19, 2015

Tobias Mennle said:
Lee, I have to agree with Globetrotter. As Hermann gives the harrier example, a middle grey is maybe even a better test than a white. I even get nervous about my apple tree when I see the grey bark through the SF.

/QUOTE]

Hi Tobias

I seem to remember the same criticism about FL too and I couldn't see it in that either.

Anyway its a great review Tobias and a great result for HT.

Lee

henry link · Sep 19, 2015

I haven't evaluated an SF, but I've seen and photographed the same green/yellow color bias in other Zeiss binoculars that Tobias found, including the an 8x54 HT which can be seen in the first link below.

The image in the second link was done the same way, but then I used Powerpoint to assemble crops of the binocular transmissions and pasted them over the background reference color. Curiously, I found that early FLs (2004-2005) have a more neutral color transmission than later FLs.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3014180&postcount=5

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1391340&postcount=30

Inquisitor · Sep 19, 2015

I really enjoyed the article, especially since it seemed to confirm my own inclinations. I will be in the market for this level of bin by Christmas and I have recently been mostly interested in the HT and HD+.

I know Swaros are super fantastic but I have trouble with the concept of the SLC being downgraded to where it is not much different than the Razor,MeoStar HD, Conquest level and I prefer depth of field and more 3d over edge sharpness. Also the local Swaro fan club in my particular area is like a snotty college fraternity so I would shy away just so I wouldn't fit the stereotype.

My Question is: Has it been determined (or become popular opinion )which is a sweeter optical package in the HT, the 8x42 or the 10x42? I am thinking of the SLC when I ask this. It is easy to see that generally the 10x42 SLC is preferred over the 8x42 SLC. Has any such distinction yet been formed for the HT?

Sandy Leng · Sep 19, 2015

Really enjoyed reading the excellent review from Tobias. He wrote:-

"Field of view (of the HT) is 136 meters in 1000 meters distance and feels surprisingly wide and very immersive"

That backs up what I see with my 8x42 HT. If I compare it back to back with my 8x30 Nikon E11, the FOV doesn't seem that much less, even though on paper the difference should be really obvious.

Sandy

Zeiss HT wins Binocular review shootout (1 Viewer)

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Consulting Biologist

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread