An Open Letter To Stephen Ingraham (1 Viewer)

Pileatus · Apr 23, 2007

I spent the day with some top-notch bins that were actually used to find birds! One was an FL 7X42. Here's my reaction to this thread.

The FL housing is probably as good modern science can make it and I'll bet it can endure one hell of a beating.

The FL bridge is smooth and solid...as it should be.

The eyecups seemed to work fine, but I don't use them much with my eyeglasses.

The FL focus knob mechanism and integrated diopter should be reevaluated. The one we had today changed resistance in response to heat and it was not pleasant to see it get stiffer as it warmed up. Others have reported diopter problems, so a design review may be in order.

The FL image is as good as it gets...in the centerfield. But, then, my SE and Ultravid are as good as it gets in their respective centerfields. Every side-by-side comparison I've done in the past two years bears this out. The FL does show less off-axis CA and that's a DEFINITE plus. BUT...the FL gets soft off-center and, unless you concentrate on the center it can be a real distraction. I'll bet people who love FL's simply adapt and "forget" about this characteristic. The FL centerfield is addicting, especially to anyone who has never seen this level of quality.

I saw a bit of flare in the FL and none in the other models under identical conditions. It's been reported and I believe the reports. Truthfully, it wasn't serious and probably would be easily ignored with regular use.

I'd bet the FL is brighter than most, if not all, the competition.

Are FL optics the best available, as some have claimed? Absolutely not. The best optic is the one that fits your face, your eyes, and your preferences. If an FL does the trick, then it's the best optic available. If not, spend your money elsewhere and find one that suits you and your tastes. That will be the best optic available...for you.

John

Ian Latham · Apr 23, 2007

John Traynor said:
I spent the day with some top-notch bins that were actually used to find birds! One was an FL 7X42. Here's my reaction to this thread.

The FL housing is probably as good modern science can make it and I'll bet it can endure one hell of a beating.

The FL bridge is smooth and solid...as it should be.

The eyecups seemed to work fine, but I don't use them much with my eyeglasses.

The FL focus knob mechanism and integrated diopter should be reevaluated. The one we had today changed resistance in response to heat and it was not pleasant to see it get stiffer as it warmed up. Others have reported diopter problems, so a design review may be in order.

The FL image is as good as it gets...in the centerfield. But, then, my SE and Ultravid are as good as it gets in their respective centerfields. Every side-by-side comparison I've done in the past two years bears this out. The FL does show less off-axis CA and that's a DEFINITE plus. BUT...the FL gets soft off-center and, unless you concentrate on the center it can be a real distraction. I'll bet people who love FL's simply adapt and "forget" about this characteristic. The FL centerfield is addicting, especially to anyone who has never seen this level of quality.

I saw a bit of flare in the FL and none in the other models under identical conditions. It's been reported and I believe the reports. Truthfully, it wasn't serious and probably would be easily ignored with regular use.

I'd bet the FL is brighter than most, if not all, the competition.

Are FL optics the best available, as some have claimed? Absolutely not. The best optic is the one that fits your face, your eyes, and your preferences. If an FL does the trick, then it's the best optic available. If not, spend your money elsewhere and find one that suits you and your tastes. That will be the best optic available...for you.

John

Nicely put John, I tip my hat to you!

I can now retire to my bed in the knowledge that this subject has been explained in a fair and objective manner for all to make sense of.

Goodnight and god bless.

Robert / Seattle · Apr 23, 2007

Ian Latham said:
Nicely put John, I tip my hat to you!

I can now retire to my bed in the knowledge that this subject has been explained in a fair and objective manner for all to make sense of.

Goodnight and god bless.

NOT QUITE: The Rubber armor peels off readily on mine. Sent back for repair, only to repeat upon return from Zeiss Service Center.

Is this housing "as good as modern science can make it"?

I think not. It won't even accept objective lens covers without the minor twisting of the rubber armor resulting in a lower lens barrel peel-off.

Try it. Grab the end of your lens barrels and give them a good and hardy twist. The rubber will fail, I promise. Then again, maybe you shouldn't set yourself up for the "perfect housing" problems I've experienced from day one.

Edited to specify: 42 FL models (can't say "yey" or "ney" re: 32 FLs)

usedtobe · Apr 23, 2007

the same happened on mine!!! is it because of the early production of FL 8X42 model?(bought it in 2005). by the way, I noticed that this model number has been keeping changing. I have no doubt that Zeiss has been improving the finish of the armor besides the pure optical merits. but to me, if I have to buy another top binocular, I would think twice about Zeiss

Robert / Seattle said:
NOT QUITE: The Rubber armor peels off readily on mine. Sent back for repair, only to repeat upon return from Zeiss Service Center.

Is this housing "as good as modern science can make it"?

I think not. It won't even accept objective lens covers without the minor twisting of the rubber armor resulting in a lower lens barrel peel-off.

Try it. Grab the end of your lens barrels and give them a good and hardy twist. The rubber will fail, I promise. Then again, maybe you shouldn't set yourself up for the "perfect housing" problems I've experienced from day one.

Edited to specify: 42 FL models (can say yey or ney re: 32 FLs)

Leif · Apr 25, 2007

angelo225544 said:
Now I'm confused. Should the anecdotal opinions of others be used as an indicator of likely performance, or not?

You made lots of sweeping statements along the lines of "we all agree that". Well, actually we don't. You were posting your own views, and experience, which is fine.

If you check BF you will see lots of gripes and praise for various brands of equipment. The one manufacturer that never seems to illicit a gripe about its service - only praise - is Swarovski. I have seen plenty of gripes about Zeiss, Leica and Nikon. However, I have not read all threads and posts, and that is not a careful statistical analysis, so feel free to disregard my comments, or denounce them as of little value.

pduxon · Apr 25, 2007

my own view on buying bins has always been
1) go to optics shop
2) try out all I can,
3) buy the pair I like best

BradMT · Apr 25, 2007

pduxon said:
my own view on buying bins has always been
1) go to optics shop
2) try out all I can,
3) buy the pair I like best

That's too simple...

Tero · Apr 25, 2007

The correct place for the diopter adjustment is in the right eye piece area. There is nothing wrong with this traditional diopter setup, as long as it stays put. It does not have to be locked, but too loose is bad.

Leif · Apr 25, 2007

BradMT said:
That's too simple...

Yes. There must be a catch.

angelo225544 · Apr 25, 2007

Leif said:
You made lots of sweeping statements along the lines of "we all agree that". Well, actually we don't. You were posting your own views, and experience, which is fine.

If you check BF you will see lots of gripes and praise for various brands of equipment. The one manufacturer that never seems to illicit a gripe about its service - only praise - is Swarovski. I have seen plenty of gripes about Zeiss, Leica and Nikon. However, I have not read all threads and posts, and that is not a careful statistical analysis, so feel free to disregard my comments, or denounce them as of little value.

I agree with the conclusion you have reached regarding Swarovski's excellent service. If one reads the various posts in this thread, a fair minded person may be able to reach a similar conclusion regarding quality control issues at Zeiss. I have chosen my words very carefully. The ONLY time I used the words "we all agree that" was in praising the superb optics of the FL. So far, there does seem to be unanimous praise for the optics - but - as I state in my original post, there is ample testimony in this thread to support my criticism of Zeiss' choice of materials and execution of construction.

I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means.
Scopes trial, Dayton, Tennessee, July 13, 1925

KorHaan · Apr 25, 2007

Tero said:
The correct place for the diopter adjustment is in the right eye piece area. There is nothing wrong with this traditional diopter setup, as long as it stays put. It does not have to be locked, but too loose is bad.

RIGHT. Exactly what I think, good one.

Leif · Apr 26, 2007

angelo225544 said:
I have never had to return any Swarovski or Leica binocular due to quality control issues. Like you, I have had to return several Zeiss binoculars.

I suggest that you search the binocular and scope forums here. This is certainly not a scientific statistically rigorous approach (satisfied users often do not post) but you will clearly by surprised by what you find.

Leif · Apr 26, 2007

angelo225544 said:
The ONLY time I used the words "we all agree that" was in praising the superb optics of the FL.

Quote:

"So, it is incumbent upon us, as a community, to express our collective displeasure with this current design. "

That I disagree with. Anyway, enough from me.

lightshedder · Apr 27, 2007

Leif said:
Quote:

"So, it is incumbent upon us, as a community, to express our collective displeasure with this current design. "

That I disagree with. Anyway, enough from me.

Once again I'd like to thank all who have contributed to this thread. Your concerns are my concerns, or, even if they are not, I will treat them as such in discussions at Zeiss.

Stephen Ingraham

jaymoynihan · Apr 27, 2007

Interesting thread. I do not own one of the FL series, yet. I have looked through one of them, briefly, too briefly to be able to state an opinion, other than fine color correction, similar to that in my Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED's.

I do use two Zeiss classics (8x30 and 7x42, both T*P*) which i dearly love, and inter alia, a Leica 10x42 BA.

I think the :-C heat that generated during this thread results from the large sum of money that the tool costs, relatively speaking.

I know that when i pay a top end price for a tool, i tend to expect top end performance and durability.

I further think that if one has invested alot in a tool, and it works fine, and others have problems, it makes one worry about future problems with ones own sample.

I would like to, someday, assuming i can afford it, get a 7x42FL. But i will wait a tad before thinking about it (after reading this thread, and similar material at Cloudynights), and definitely try them out before purchase. I would like something that does combine the ease of use, durability, and optical quality of my 7x42 classics with the optical quality and color correction of my Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED's.

jay

Robert / Seattle · Apr 28, 2007

lightshedder said:
Once again I'd like to thank all who have contributed to this thread. Your concerns are my concerns, or, even if they are not, I will treat them as such in discussions at Zeiss.

Stephen Ingraham

There has been surprisingly little commentary addressing the peeling armor issue. All but one or two above seem to be talking around it. I have no problem whatsoever with Zeiss optics - as a professional photographer relying heavily on Zeiss optics with my Hasselblad cameras I'm well aware of the optical quality that Zeiss affords. Will you take the issue of "envelope and surface quality" to Zeiss corporate? In the meantime, I've resorted to tape to hold the lower objective rubber coverings on the barrels. And I know I'm not alone. Is this too much to ask?

Edward woodwood · Apr 28, 2007

i still have my 7*42 classics from 17 years ago. They've been all over the world, including an extended stay of two years in the tropics, - deserts, mountains etc and have never misted, grown mould, seized up or had the rubber lift. A delight to use and hold, very bright and sharp.

I wouldnt swap them for anything. New FLs are fine but i don't care for the looks (I'm shallow, okay?) I don't think there was ever a need to change them. Aside from the commercial need to keep flogging birders 'new and improved' bins.

Tim

ThoLa · Apr 28, 2007

lightshedder said:
Once again I'd like to thank all who have contributed to this thread. Your concerns are my concerns, or, even if they are not, I will treat them as such in discussions at Zeiss.

Stephen Ingraham

Dear Mr. Ingraham!

A lot has been said on this thread.
As a dedicated Diascoper I feel unable to subscribe to any criticism of the optical properties of the T*FL line, which in my eyes is second to none and which has won me over.

I do subscribe, though, to the criticism with respect to the housing, the armouring in particular.
The last time I tried a Victory FL (which is on my very short list of things to have) the external rubber armouring was peeling off from the brand-new exhibition model in the shop. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Another issue is the overall "appeal". Form must follow function and it is certainly a second-rate problem. Nevertheless something as technically advanced as a Victory FL would deserve an external "showcase" that appropriately reflects its momentous inner virtues.

At this moment the Victory line appears like a Porsche 911 (arguably the best sports car around) with the external appeal of a Hummer off-road car (the ugliest vehicle ever made).

My suggestion: Why not have at least an alternative edition in a sleaker, classier styling?
A major competitor of the Victory line offers such an alternative edition of some of its top line models (the most handsome binoculars in production).

Even if such a move increased the price by, say, 50 Euros a piece no-one would mind at this price level. Personally I would descend on such a "Victory BL" the day it was released.
Maybe you could have a little census amongst Zeiss customers to find out if this idea would be welcomed.
Given the wide-spread dissatisfaction with the current "Off road" looks I am inclined to think it definitely would be a winner.

In short: give the Victories the "feel" of the Diascopes and customers will be bathed in eternal bliss.

Sincerely,
Thomas Lazar

Robert / Seattle · Apr 28, 2007

ThoLa said:
Dear Mr. Ingraham!

A lot has been said on this thread.
As a dedicated Diascoper I feel unable to subscribe to any criticism of the optical properties of the T*FL line, which in my eyes is second to none and which has won me over.

I do subscribe, though, to the criticism with respect to the housing, the armouring in particular.
The last time I tried a Victory FL (which is on my very short list of things to have) the external rubber armouring was peeling off from the brand-new exhibition model in the shop. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Another issue is the overall "appeal". Form must follow function and it is certainly a second-rate problem. Nevertheless something as technically advanced as a Victory FL would deserve an external "showcase" that appropriately reflects its momentous inner virtues.

At this moment the Victory line appears like a Porsche 911 (arguably the best sports car around) with the external appeal of a Hummer off-road car (the ugliest vehicle ever made).

My suggestion: Why not have at least an alternative edition in a sleaker, classier styling?
A major competitor of the Victory line offers such an alternative edition of some of its top line models (the most handsome binoculars in production).

Even if such a move increased the price by, say, 50 Euros a piece no-one would mind at this price level. Personally I would descend on such a "Victory BL" the day it was released.
Maybe you could have a little census amongst Zeiss customers to find out if this idea would be welcomed.
Given the wide-spread dissatisfaction with the current "Off road" looks I am inclined to think it definitely would be a winner.

In short: give the Victories the "feel" of the Diascopes and customers will be bathed in eternal bliss.

Sincerely,
Thomas Lazar

Thank you, Thomas. So well phrased. And I think you took us all back to the original intent of the post.

ceasar · Apr 29, 2007

Tim Allwood said:
i still have my 7*42 classics from 17 years ago. They've been all over the world, including an extended stay of two years in the tropics, - deserts, mountains etc and have never misted, grown mould, seized up or had the rubber lift. A delight to use and hold, very bright and sharp.

I wouldnt swap them for anything. New FLs are fine but i don't care for the looks (I'm shallow, okay?) I don't think there was ever a need to change them. Aside from the commercial need to keep flogging birders 'new and improved' bins.

Tim

Hi Tim,
I was wondering when you would make your appearance on this. 17 years ago or so I bought the Leica 7 x 42 BA Trinovid instead of the Zeiss. Last year I upgraded to the recently discontinued 7 x 42 BN Trinovid which is much better. Maybe I should have bought the Zeiss in 1990 instead? As I recall, they both cost the same.
Bob

An Open Letter To Stephen Ingraham (1 Viewer)

"Experientia Docet”

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Quacked up Member

Guest

Retired

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Corvus brachyrhynchos watcher

Well-known member

Member

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread