james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
To preface - I don't pretend to understand the technical minutia of these two optics, so my observations presented are just my personal understanding of what is going on, and I'm sure that some of what I am assuming / proposing is not technically accurate. Apologies in advance.
As it has been woefully gray and rainy in my parts lately, I have been left a bit antsy and looking for a distraction. So, the last few days I've been doing some more A-Bing of the HT and the FL. Now, it's not entirely apples to apples as the comparison is a 10x42 FL and an 8x42 HT, but I tried to keep conditions bright enough [daylight only] that exit pupil didn't make too much difference.
1st off, comparing exit pupils against a bright background - white, overcast sky, I was struck by how much whiter, and brighter, the HT EP looked compared to the FL. The FL EP [in comparison] was slightly yellow, with obviously less luminosity.
Looking at this same sky, going back and forth with both binoculars, the FL imparts a slight but discernible yellowish / dingynish to the image. Without the HT to compare, I would not have believed my old reference standard could look even a tiny bit yellow or dull. Mark mentioned the same when comparing his SV to the FL. The HT, on the other hand, presents a bright and clean sky view, without any of the muting seen in the FL. Doing a quick back and forth, the difference in brightness is easy to discern - as judged by the relative brightness of the sky and horizon.
Part of the improved view in the HT, especially in this scenario - viewing a horizon / treeline with an overcast sky - is the reduction of CA, especially lateral CA, within the central half of the FOV. With both mounted, CA in the FL [just a bit off centre] becomes pretty obvious. Some lateral CA is present in the HT, but it appears farther out, is paler in shade and thinner. This CA in the FL gives the view a slightly yellow-orange appearance between and around back-lit branches and tree trunks.
Looking at whites, again the FL looks slightly muted, with a bit of cream-gray. The HT shows clean white, as near as I can tell, perfectly true white. On white objects, the HT again looks brighter, with whites having that extra bit of punch, enough that your eye registers the difference between the two.
Looking at darker objects, like tree trunks, leaf-less forest edges, stone surfaces etc., the FL consistently imparted a more brown tone, sometimes looking quite warm in colour bias. The HT was cooler/brighter, but [to my eye] the more accurate of the two, largely due to the truer whites and pale hues. Bright colours were harder to judge. The FL seemed to produce deeper hues on reds and greens, but the HT colours are more luminous, and more realistic.
Another big difference in the view is the difference in the way the two handle stray light. In this instance, I'm not talking about conditions that produce flare or pronounced veiling glare, but more benign conditions [flat/overcast] where we would consider the lighting ''settled'' and non-intrusive. Looking deep into a woodlot or other darkened area, I see [in direct comparison] that the FL produces just the tiniest bit of veiling glare, it appears as just a very light misting. The HT has none and contrast is markedly better. Without a very direct comparison, I would never see this and would think most would never notice in the field. This FL veiling glare shows up far more than you would think, like almost all the time, it is just so slight you need something better to see it.
For me, the biggest difference, is contrast. Here the HT just kills the FL. Doing the A/B, the HT image causes birds to jump out from the background, gives separation to clumps of vegetation and tree branches and imparts what Lee coined ''liveliness'' to the view. The FL, sadly, in this category looks dated, dull and rather listless. In low light, the contrast differences become glaring. A leafless forest, seen from a distance, is a block of gray/brown with the FL, with very little in the way of contrast or surface detail. The HT starkly separates tree from tree and maintains a much higher contrast level.
None of the above could be detected without directly comparing the two binoculars. I have been more and more blown away with the differences the more I do direct comparisons and realize that any ''review'' from memory is useless, if trying to compare two binos. I have found that, even a few moments is too long, as the image in your mind fades rapidly and cannot be trusted.
As Mark pointed out, coatings have come along way, and maybe that's most of it but it is quite amazing comparing the two, and realizing just how far the HT has come, and how dated the FL now appears. Please don't take this as an insult to the FL, I am still a proud owner and fan, but if you get the chance to try both of these binos, see what I mean. I'm also not declaring the HT the ''best ever'', as my experience with several binos, especially the SLC-HD suggest there is some seriously good stuff out there, Zeiss or not.
As it has been woefully gray and rainy in my parts lately, I have been left a bit antsy and looking for a distraction. So, the last few days I've been doing some more A-Bing of the HT and the FL. Now, it's not entirely apples to apples as the comparison is a 10x42 FL and an 8x42 HT, but I tried to keep conditions bright enough [daylight only] that exit pupil didn't make too much difference.
1st off, comparing exit pupils against a bright background - white, overcast sky, I was struck by how much whiter, and brighter, the HT EP looked compared to the FL. The FL EP [in comparison] was slightly yellow, with obviously less luminosity.
Looking at this same sky, going back and forth with both binoculars, the FL imparts a slight but discernible yellowish / dingynish to the image. Without the HT to compare, I would not have believed my old reference standard could look even a tiny bit yellow or dull. Mark mentioned the same when comparing his SV to the FL. The HT, on the other hand, presents a bright and clean sky view, without any of the muting seen in the FL. Doing a quick back and forth, the difference in brightness is easy to discern - as judged by the relative brightness of the sky and horizon.
Part of the improved view in the HT, especially in this scenario - viewing a horizon / treeline with an overcast sky - is the reduction of CA, especially lateral CA, within the central half of the FOV. With both mounted, CA in the FL [just a bit off centre] becomes pretty obvious. Some lateral CA is present in the HT, but it appears farther out, is paler in shade and thinner. This CA in the FL gives the view a slightly yellow-orange appearance between and around back-lit branches and tree trunks.
Looking at whites, again the FL looks slightly muted, with a bit of cream-gray. The HT shows clean white, as near as I can tell, perfectly true white. On white objects, the HT again looks brighter, with whites having that extra bit of punch, enough that your eye registers the difference between the two.
Looking at darker objects, like tree trunks, leaf-less forest edges, stone surfaces etc., the FL consistently imparted a more brown tone, sometimes looking quite warm in colour bias. The HT was cooler/brighter, but [to my eye] the more accurate of the two, largely due to the truer whites and pale hues. Bright colours were harder to judge. The FL seemed to produce deeper hues on reds and greens, but the HT colours are more luminous, and more realistic.
Another big difference in the view is the difference in the way the two handle stray light. In this instance, I'm not talking about conditions that produce flare or pronounced veiling glare, but more benign conditions [flat/overcast] where we would consider the lighting ''settled'' and non-intrusive. Looking deep into a woodlot or other darkened area, I see [in direct comparison] that the FL produces just the tiniest bit of veiling glare, it appears as just a very light misting. The HT has none and contrast is markedly better. Without a very direct comparison, I would never see this and would think most would never notice in the field. This FL veiling glare shows up far more than you would think, like almost all the time, it is just so slight you need something better to see it.
For me, the biggest difference, is contrast. Here the HT just kills the FL. Doing the A/B, the HT image causes birds to jump out from the background, gives separation to clumps of vegetation and tree branches and imparts what Lee coined ''liveliness'' to the view. The FL, sadly, in this category looks dated, dull and rather listless. In low light, the contrast differences become glaring. A leafless forest, seen from a distance, is a block of gray/brown with the FL, with very little in the way of contrast or surface detail. The HT starkly separates tree from tree and maintains a much higher contrast level.
None of the above could be detected without directly comparing the two binoculars. I have been more and more blown away with the differences the more I do direct comparisons and realize that any ''review'' from memory is useless, if trying to compare two binos. I have found that, even a few moments is too long, as the image in your mind fades rapidly and cannot be trusted.
As Mark pointed out, coatings have come along way, and maybe that's most of it but it is quite amazing comparing the two, and realizing just how far the HT has come, and how dated the FL now appears. Please don't take this as an insult to the FL, I am still a proud owner and fan, but if you get the chance to try both of these binos, see what I mean. I'm also not declaring the HT the ''best ever'', as my experience with several binos, especially the SLC-HD suggest there is some seriously good stuff out there, Zeiss or not.
Last edited:
