Zeiss lineup Reviews in the Field (1 Viewer)

I have a Victory HT (10x42) and picked these up in 2013. At that time I ordered a pair and compared them side by side with the SLC's and posted my review of these on this site. But it appears that as of late, the Zeiss SF's have garnered more attention as the 'go to' birding binocular from Zeiss. But I am not too sure, at least to my discerning eyes.

Recently I was in Alaska and managed to compare my HT's with the Zeiss SF's as well as the new Leica Geovid. All of these are quality bins and it is up to your discerning eye which is unique to you, to determine which optics best fits your view. But the HT still rules in my mind, not only in image quality but in overall intangible feel, looks etc.

Now that these two Zeiss performers have been around awhile, perhaps it is time to re-revisit these two and see just how they compare now that the 'newness and hype' have worn off of both and both have had their time in the field. How do others now feel about these for birding? One can even toss in the FL series as they are equally as great although a earlier technology. Thoughts?

Zeiss HT
Zeiss SF
Zeiss FL

I would love for my FL to be neck and neck with the SF. It isn't. One is great, the other stands alone. I'm thoroughly familiar with the FL and I had a chance recently to compare the SVELFP, Noctivid, and SF side-by-side. While the big three offer different versions of "perfect" all things come together with the SF as in no other binocular.

I had the chance some months back to use a 10x42 FL alongside my brother's 8.5x42 SV Fieldpro and a 10x40 T*P* Dialyt on a typical dull, cold grey English winter day, the kind that sucks all colour out of sky and surroundings. I was able to spend about 30-40 minutes looking at close and far targets. As I moved from the oldest to the newest I could literally see the image get a little - but noticeably - brighter and a tiny bit (that you had to really look out for) sharper. It was like watching evolution. The slight improvements in performance however have to be paid for with very significant increases in price.

Patudo said:

I had the chance some months back to use a 10x42 FL alongside my brother's 8.5x42 SV Fieldpro and a 10x40 T*P* Dialyt on a typical dull, cold grey English winter day, the kind that sucks all colour out of sky and surroundings. I was able to spend about 30-40 minutes looking at close and far targets. As I moved from the oldest to the newest I could literally see the image get a little - but noticeably - brighter and a tiny bit (that you had to really look out for) sharper. It was like watching evolution. The slight improvements in performance however have to be paid for with very significant increases in price.

Click to expand...

It would have been interesting to see the HT or the SF in that mix....I think the noticeable difference would have been stepped up.

If the light transmission of the HT is 95% +...what is it in the SF? ...The FL is 90% from what I gather, and any difference greater than 3% is discernible to the human eye, so you should see a nice difference from the FL to the HT or SF....

Imans, post 4,
Light transmission of the SF 8x42 is roughly 5% lower than that of the 8x42 HT, see my test report on the WEB site of House of Outdoor under "Verrekijkers testen en vergelijken".
Gijs van Ginkel

lmans66 said:

It would have been interesting to see the HT or the SF in that mix....I think the noticeable difference would have been stepped up.

If the light transmission of the HT is 95% +...what is it in the SF? ...The FL is 90% from what I gather, and any difference greater than 3% is discernible to the human eye, so you should see a nice difference from the FL to the HT or SF....

Click to expand...

HT have the highest transmission in the blue spectrum of the three. Will most likely be noticeable in low light. HT is primarily made for hunters and SF for birders. Both are very solid bins. But the huge FOV of the SF is very nice to have IMO. You can't get everything in the same bin it seems.

light

Gijs van Ginkel said:

Imans, post 4,
Light transmission of the SF 8x42 is roughly 5% lower than that of the 8x42 HT, see my test report on the WEB site of House of Outdoor under "Verrekijkers testen en vergelijken".
Gijs van Ginkel

Click to expand...

I am assuming the same % difference in the 10's?...

If so, that would mean that the SF is about the same as the FL....making those two bins a bit closer although other refinements with glass etc go into the SF as it is a newer model. Is then the SF worth the extra dollars to spend if one has an FL? I have never had the opportunity to compare those.

I realize that the HT was meant for hunters and the SF for birders but frankly, I would prefer the light the HT has to birding in cloudy conditions and backdrop. There are more times than not where the light is low (dawn and dusk), cloudy days, rainy.....etc , let along looking at birds against the harsh cloudy backdrop when birds are in trees. I suppose my question is, why did Zeiss come out with the SF? I know that there has been some rumors that one of them (HT) would 'go' but that appears to be just rumors at best. But I do have to question as others have on this birding forum, the decision to have two Alphas...but that is not my problem, but that of Zeiss

Exactly what I was thinking! The 8X54 HT looks a winner and with nothing in the current Leica line-up to compete so what are you getting in the SF for the extra $ and less light gathering to make them a better set of bins for the low light birder??

LGM

lmans66 said:

I am assuming the same % difference in the 10's?...

If so, that would mean that the SF is about the same as the FL....making those two bins a bit closer although other refinements with glass etc go into the SF as it is a newer model. Is then the SF worth the extra dollars to spend if one has an FL? I have never had the opportunity to compare those.

I realize that the HT was meant for hunters and the SF for birders but frankly, I would prefer the light the HT has to birding in cloudy conditions and backdrop. There are more times than not where the light is low (dawn and dusk), cloudy days, rainy.....etc , let along looking at birds against the harsh cloudy backdrop when birds are in trees. I suppose my question is, why did Zeiss come out with the SF? I know that there has been some rumors that one of them (HT) would 'go' but that appears to be just rumors at best. But I do have to question as others have on this birding forum, the decision to have two Alphas...but that is not my problem, but that of Zeiss

Click to expand...

Swaro has its SLC and EL, Leica has Noctivid and Ultravid, and Zeiss its HT and SF, so the notion of having different flavour top models within the same brand isn't confined to Zeiss.

I have both HT and SF and they have different personalities and appeal in different ways. Yes SF was meant for birders and HT for hunters, isn't that clear enough about Zeiss's intended markets?

For me SF is the better all-rounder due to its wider FOV and handling. But HT has a great transparancy of view and is my choice under dark cloudy skies and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if some folks prefer HT.

I have owned an FL 8x42 for about 7 years and still own an FL 8x32 and yes it is worthwhile changing to SF. I am thinking particularly of SF 8x42 but also the 10x. The field of view is just terrific and the handling is sublime. If all you use your bins for is a quick look and then you get on your scope, then the handling may not impress you (although the wide FOV makes it a great scope finder). But if you use your bins for watching behaviour then the ability to hold steady for longer makes SF just brilliant. Talking about handling maybe doesn't impress some folks as they will say its all about the optics. But hey, I want good handling as well as great optics and SF excells at this.

Lee



Lee

I personally prefer the FL to the SF (shoot me now, I know). In the end I decided I wasn't the biggest fan of color reproduction in either and couldn't get the 32s to get along with my glasses and eventually sold my FLs (7x42, 8x32) but to me they were brighter and reduced CA better than the SF; I also found the distortion pattern of the SF unpleasant. I've not tried the 8x42 or 10x42 FL and have heard through the grapevine they do not provide as pleasing views as the two models I've owned.

Justin

I have an FL 8X32, 7X42, 8X42, 10X42... HT 10X42.....SF 8X42.

The FL 7X42 and 10X42 are simply superb. Nothing not to like really. Lightweight, among the brightest binoculars around, proper central diopter adjustment, excellent workmanship. Built to last and they DO! A classic that gives up VERY little to current SOTA.

10X42 HT. A step up in design albeit a SMALL one. If I had a FL 10X42 FIRST, no real need to move to the HT. I did it backwards.... But it IS currently probably the brightest roof prism binocular there is. That's saying a lot. Feels great in the hands...great focus adjustment..

8X42 SF... A worthy move up from the FL. Lightweight but really large in stature. Same basic size as an SV 50mm. Largest FOV in it's class. THAT'S saying something....WITH a flat FIELD. I've really warmed up to mine.