ScopeViews reviews the 10x42 Noctivids (1 Viewer)

[email protected] said:

Meanwhile, I would choose the Noctivids over the Zeiss SFs purely on build quality, even though I actually prefer the Zeiss."

Click to expand...

When you pick up an SF, because the weight is concentrated within your hand and not down at the objectives, it feels really lightweight. Zeiss did a great job with this thanks to team leader Gerold Dobler, but some folks misinterpret the lightweight feeling as lacking heft therefore lacking build solidity. There is no pleasing some folks! And the functional but wonky eyecups don't help build quality perception, but for goodness sake check out the weight of SF compared with the Swaro EL and you will see that while it is a bit lighter its not that much lighter. I have no worries about build quality of current SFs at all.

Lee

Lee. I don't think it was just the apparent light weight of the SF's that Roger Vine had a problem with. He has had quality issues with several Zeiss samples. Here is a quote below from his review of the Zeiss 10x42 SF's. He actually preferred the SF over the SV though. I just bought a pair of Zeiss Victories 8x25 and although I had to return them for too much eye relief I was very disappointed in the build quality for an $800.00 pair of binoculars. In fact they looked like they were made in China.:king: I then bought a pair of Swarovski 8x25 CL-P's and honestly the quality was much higher. I had an older pair of Zeiss Victory's 8x20 a few years back that were much higher quality than the new model. Makes me think Zeiss quality is going down.

"Given that these SFs have among the best view and handling of any 42mm binoculars I’ve tested, you might imagine I’ll be rushing out to buy a pair. But I won’t be. And I’m not sure I’d recommend you to either. Why? In a word: quality.

You could dismiss the loose armour as a simple QA fail. But then there is all that dust in the left barrel. Even ignoring that, there is evidence of poor build-quality elsewhere: the loose eye cups, the uneven finish on the bridge, the loose and wobbly dioptre knob. Overall, these minor issues add up to a level of quality that just isn’t good enough in binoculars costing this much. I would put this down to a Friday afternoon example, but for the fact that several Zeiss binoculars I’ve reviewed recently have had less than perfect build-quality too.

I really loved using the Zeiss SFs. Based on their performance – view and handling – alone, these might well be the best binoculars I have ever reviewed. But their build quality just isn’t good enough and so I’d struggle to recommend them (at least based on this pair, anonymously bought new)."

http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissVictory10x42SF.htm

Hi Dennis

I can't argue with his conclusion after that experience. Except to say his SF was one of the grey ones and the later black SFs have been reliable.

Lee

It's good to hear that Zeiss may have improved the quality of the recent/black SF model. But I think they're still neglecting the importance of first impressions in inspiring confidence. Being accustomed to a Leica now (though I do still have my old 15x60 GAT), I have to say that Zeiss binos today just tend to look a bit crude. Take something as simple as white lettering on a black ring below the ocular. When Leica does that it's elegant; on a Zeiss, whether a $2900 SF (which I've only seen photos of) or a Victory 8x25 (which I also had to return for defects, twice), it just looks cheap. The finish on the ring is too shiny, the paint too stark white, even the font too plain. And then there's the busy overdesign of the armor edges, etc. You start looking for something wrong. I don't mean to sound prissy here, but it's like putting a Kia grille on a BMW, which I'm sure the SF is, optically.

Why didn't Leica make the Noctivids a flat field design without field curvature ? Their cinematography primes are not bettered by anyone in any department. Other optical companies with innovative optical histories like Nikon and Canon can do it.

The Canon 10x42 L first came out in 2003 and the point of focus is the same at the edge as at the centre. Astigmatism is very low. Rolling ball is eliminated with traditional levels of pincushion distortion off-axis.

Using the Allbinos scoring methodology the Noctivid is not going to topple the Nikon EDG 10x42 off the first place ranking !

https://www.allbinos.com/215-binoculars_review-Nikon_10x42_EDG.html

Looking at the low element count the EDG must be using expensive glass aspherical elements to control spherical aberration. Imagine what would happen if Nikon updated the design with fluorite glass which their Akita plant (Hikari Glass Co.Ltd.) now make for the lens division. You would have an instrument with perfect baffling, sparkling view, no aberrations, distortions or focus anomalies. Game over.

BTW. Does Roger Vine post in this forum ?

[email protected] said:

Lee. I don't think it was just the apparent light weight of the SF's that Roger Vine had a problem with. He has had quality issues with several Zeiss samples. Here is a quote below from his review of the Zeiss 10x42 SF's. He actually preferred the SF over the SV though. I just bought a pair of Zeiss Victories 8x25 and although I had to return them for too much eye relief I was very disappointed in the build quality for an $800.00 pair of binoculars. In fact they looked like they were made in China.:king: I then bought a pair of Swarovski 8x25 CL-P's and honestly the quality was much higher. I had an older pair of Zeiss Victory's 8x20 a few years back that were much higher quality than the new model. Makes me think Zeiss quality is going down.

"Given that these SFs have among the best view and handling of any 42mm binoculars I’ve tested, you might imagine I’ll be rushing out to buy a pair. But I won’t be. And I’m not sure I’d recommend you to either. Why? In a word: quality.

You could dismiss the loose armour as a simple QA fail. But then there is all that dust in the left barrel. Even ignoring that, there is evidence of poor build-quality elsewhere: the loose eye cups, the uneven finish on the bridge, the loose and wobbly dioptre knob. Overall, these minor issues add up to a level of quality that just isn’t good enough in binoculars costing this much. I would put this down to a Friday afternoon example, but for the fact that several Zeiss binoculars I’ve reviewed recently have had less than perfect build-quality too.

I really loved using the Zeiss SFs. Based on their performance – view and handling – alone, these might well be the best binoculars I have ever reviewed. But their build quality just isn’t good enough and so I’d struggle to recommend them (at least based on this pair, anonymously bought new)."

http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissVictory10x42SF.htm

Click to expand...

You forgot to mention the inverse moustache distortion. I've never looked

through a SF but just reading about it made me sea sick :bounce:

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/zeiss/zeissvictorysf8x42/zeissvictorysf8x42.html

I agree that Zeiss are very functional and they have superb optics but when you pay $2500.00 for a binocular you expect it too be high quality in appearance and function. I agree with Tenex in that a lot of Zeiss products are looking cheap compared to the other alpha's. The Zeiss Victory 8x25 I received looked like a $200.00 binocular. I almost think the Zeiss Terra 8x25 I had was higher quality if it wasn't for the loose IPD hinge. Maico has a good point in why didn't Leica copy the Canon 10x42 IS-L optical design. No RB and sharp edges. He is also correct if Nikon put fluorite glass in their EDG it would be one heck of a binocular. It would solve it's low transmission problem in one swipe.

I really enjoyed that review! Pretty obvious to me he is unbiased in his reviews. Hard to find that these days...

maico said:

Looking at the low element count the EDG must be using expensive glass aspherical elements to control spherical aberration. Imagine what would happen if Nikon updated the design with fluorite glass which their Akita plant (Hikari Glass Co.Ltd.) now make for the lens division. You would have an instrument with perfect baffling, sparkling view, no aberrations, distortions or focus anomalies. Game over.

Click to expand...

And the price would be ............ ?

[email protected] said:

I agree that Zeiss are very functional and they have superb optics but when you pay $2500.00 for a binocular you expect it too be high quality in appearance and function. I agree with Tenex in that a lot of Zeiss products are looking cheap compared to the other alpha's. The Zeiss Victory 8x25 I received looked like a $200.00 binocular. I almost think the Zeiss Terra 8x25 I had was higher quality if it wasn't for the loose IPD hinge. Maico has a good point in why didn't Leica copy the Canon 10x42 IS-L optical design. No RB and sharp edges. He is also correct if Nikon put fluorite glass in their EDG it would be one heck of a binocular. It would solve it's low transmission problem in one swipe.

Click to expand...

Fluorite glass solves low transmission problems..........(?)

Jan

I am wondering if some of these binos which are very bright suffer from providing good resolution and contrast in varying conditions. In comparing my 8X32 EDGs to the Zeiss FL 8X32, the EDG provides better resolution on fine detail such as tree-bark for example. Even my Nikon 8X32 Hg competes with the FL in this regard. There is no question the FL shows a brighter image, and it is a very good glass. Perhaps there is a trade-off here and that Nikon seems to also show better light transference in the reds than blue for a reason?

A.W.

dries1 said:

I am wondering if some of these binos which are very bright suffer from providing good resolution and contrast in varying conditions. In comparing my 8X32 EDGs to the Zeiss FL 8X32, the EDG provides better resolution on fine detail such as tree-bark for example. Even my Nikon 8X32 Hg competes with the FL in this regard. There is no question the FL shows a brighter image, and it is a very good glass. Perhaps there is a trade-off here and that Nikon seems to also show better light transference in the reds than blue for a reason?

A.W.

Click to expand...

In my considerable experience with the FL, it is a tricky glass. In casual/sloppy use, tossed to the eyes, the view with respect to resolution is easily bested by other binoculars. When used very carefully, with one's eyes perfectly aligned with the centers of its oculars, I've not found its equal in the center of the view, owing to low chromatic aberration. Unfortunately, when one's eyes are not perfectly aligned to the FL oculars, it exhibits a lot of astigmatic degradation of the view. Other bins are more forgiving. Even when used perfectly, the 8x32 FL and other FL bins exhibit more astigmatism off-axis than some other bins, which undermines the quality of their admirably flat field.

--AP

dries1 said:

In comparing my 8X32 EDGs to the Zeiss FL 8X32, the EDG provides better resolution on fine detail such as tree-bark for example. Even my Nikon 8X32 Hg competes with the FL in this regard. There is no question the FL shows a brighter image, and it is a very good glass. Perhaps there is a trade-off here and that Nikon seems to also show better light transference in the reds than blue for a reason?

A.W.

Click to expand...

I bought an 8x32 FL about 7 years ago... I had a Leica 8x32 BR at the time and compared the two over several days, in a variety of lighting and conditions, but specifically on the USAF chart. Hand's down the Leica had better resolution on the USAF chart, had a larger sweet spot, and had an overall richer image (red, blues, greens).

I sent the FL back...

dries1 said:

I am wondering if some of these binos which are very bright suffer from providing good resolution and contrast in varying conditions. In comparing my 8X32 EDGs to the Zeiss FL 8X32, the EDG provides better resolution on fine detail such as tree-bark for example. Even my Nikon 8X32 Hg competes with the FL in this regard. There is no question the FL shows a brighter image, and it is a very good glass. Perhaps there is a trade-off here and that Nikon seems to also show better light transference in the reds than blue for a reason?

A.W.

Click to expand...

Allbinos Transmission Graphs consistently show that Nikon binoculars transmission is highest in the red section of the light spectrum. For example see the graph of the Nikon EDG 10x42.

https://www.allbinos.com/215-binoculars_review-Nikon_10x42_EDG.html

Bob

jan van daalen said:

Fluorite glass solves low transmission problems..........(?)

Jan

Click to expand...

Fluorite crystal glass is one of the highest performing glasses used in optics with very high transmission and CA control. It is also lighter than standard glass another advantage. Canon uses it in their L-series lenses meaning the Canon 10x42 IS-L binoculars has it.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/l-lens/technology/fluorite.html

Alexis Powell said:

In my considerable experience with the FL, it is a tricky glass. In casual/sloppy use, tossed to the eyes, the view with respect to resolution is easily bested by other binoculars. When used very carefully, with one's eyes perfectly aligned with the centers of its oculars, I've not found its equal in the center of the view, owing to low chromatic aberration. Unfortunately, when one's eyes are not perfectly aligned to the FL oculars, it exhibits a lot of astigmatic degradation of the view. Other bins are more forgiving. Even when used perfectly, the 8x32 FL and other FL bins exhibit more astigmatism off-axis than some other bins, which undermines the quality of their admirably flat field.

--AP

Click to expand...

Alexis,

You just took the words out from my thoughts. spot on. The focus is a bit stiff and I believe this will get better with use and could be the reason I am not able to lock in quickly on viewing an object. From an ergonomic perspective it is the best 8X32, and my choice when out in the field as a geologist.
Subsequent responses to this will be posted in the Zeiss subforum..My apologies.
A.W.

[email protected] said:

Fluorite crystal glass is one of the highest performing glasses used in optics with very high transmission and CA control. It is also lighter than standard glass another advantage. Canon uses it in their L-series lenses meaning the Canon 10x42 IS-L binoculars has it.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/l-lens/technology/fluorite.html

Click to expand...

Dennis,

You are jumping to conclusions here. The 10x42, according to Canon's own literature, has two "UD" elements in each optical tube, one as the middle element of the three-element objective lens, and the second in the eyepiece. To my knowledge, fluorite crystal is not mentioned anywhere in context with the binocular. UD is a bit ambiguous designation, but typically whenever fluorite crystal is being used, it is pronounced so loudly that you cannot miss it - not hidden between the lines.

Also, as has been implied in some of the posts in this thread, HD or Fluorite does not increase light transmission. Yes, it is typically only used in some of the most sophisticated optical designs, which typically also have premium multi coatings and therefore high transmission, but there are exceptions such as Kowa, which does use true fluorite in some of their optics but does not have as high transmission as some other optics such as Swarovski that don't use fluorite crystal lenses.

Kimmo

dries1 said:

Alexis,

You just took the words out from my thoughts. spot on. The focus is a bit stiff and I believe this will get better with use and could be the reason I am not able to lock in quickly on viewing an object. From an ergonomic perspective it is the best 8X32, and my choice when out in the field as a geologist.
Subsequent responses to this will be posted in the Zeiss subforum..My apologies.
A.W.

Click to expand...

Focus stiffness can be adjusted on your FL so if it doesn't loosen up to your liking you could ask Zeiss to adjust it.

Lee

kabsetz said:

Dennis,

You are jumping to conclusions here. The 10x42, according to Canon's own literature, has two "UD" elements in each optical tube, one as the middle element of the three-element objective lens, and the second in the eyepiece. To my knowledge, fluorite crystal is not mentioned anywhere in context with the binocular. UD is a bit ambiguous designation, but typically whenever fluorite crystal is being used, it is pronounced so loudly that you cannot miss it - not hidden between the lines.

Also, as has been implied in some of the posts in this thread, HD or Fluorite does not increase light transmission. Yes, it is typically only used in some of the most sophisticated optical designs, which typically also have premium multi coatings and therefore high transmission, but there are exceptions such as Kowa, which does use true fluorite in some of their optics but does not have as high transmission as some other optics such as Swarovski that don't use fluorite crystal lenses.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

There are a lot of astronomers over at Cloudy Night's that disagree with you. They could be wrong but they are pretty knowledgeable when it comes to optical glass. I challenge you to find some facts that says Fluorite Crystal does not have higher transmission than other glasses used in optics. From Cloudy Night's.

"The use of CalciumFluorite crystal in optics is based on the fact that caracteristics like refractive index (<1.435), low disperiosn (~95.24) and light transmission of this material are at extreme ends which cannot be achived with commercial available modern abnormal index glass compositions.
Whilst fluoro crown glass like FK 54 (Schott), FCD 10 (Hoya) oder FPL 53 (Ohara) has properties which are closer to Calciumfluorite, it is still falling short.

To call lenses made of fluoro crown glass fluorite lenses is misleading and is a marketing attempt to sell on the back of the outstanding performance/ reputation of telescopes which used Calciumfluorit elements such as the Takahashi FS-102, FS-128, FS-150, the Vixen 102 and Calciumfluorit doublets of current production.

Doublets with one Calciumfluorite lens and a glass will still (if properly deisgned) outperform glass doublets based on the best commercial available glas compositions.

Calciumfluoride is still widely used in photographic, microscopic, lithograpy and other high performance optics, including latest HD TV camera lenses as well as in some current telescope designs. Latest might be the new 90/500 Borg which is said to have a CaF2 lens in the doublet (a new Sky90 type of scope?).

To my knowledge the biggest pieces of commercially available Calciumfluorite manufactured right now are about 400mm diameter.
There are quite a number of suppliers worldwide, amongst others the Canon subsidiary Canon Optron in Japan, Hellma in Germany and SCHOTT LITHOTEC in Jena/ Germany.

It must be said that on laboratory scale companys like Schott, Hoya, Ohara and Corning have glass based compositions which approach Calciumfluorite caracteristics, but these are not available on the market today due to prohibitive cost.
bratislav"



Canon says this about their UD lenses used in the Canon 10x42 IS-L. So they are not specifically fluorite crystal but close in performance.

"UD glass is similar to fluorite in that it features a low refractive index and low dispersion. Although it is not quite as good as fluorite, its performance is significantly better than ordinary optical glass. So by using UD glass Canon has been able to manufacture a range of lenses with superior performance and at a lower cost than before."

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do

Dennis,

Dennis says (post#35):

"Fluorite crystal glass is one of the highest performing glasses used in optics with very high transmission and CA control. It is also lighter than standard glass another advantage. Canon uses it in their L-series lenses meaning the Canon 10x42 IS-L binoculars has it."

Canon says:
"UD glass is similar to fluorite in that it features a low refractive index and low dispersion. Although it is not quite as good as fluorite, its performance is significantly better than ordinary optical glass. So by using UD glass Canon has been able to manufacture a range of lenses with superior performance and at a lower cost than before."

Close, but not the same thing. In order not to mislead readers, it is better not make exaggerated claims or draw false conclusions.

As far as the light transmission question: if calcium fluorite elements are used in a birding binocular or a telescope, thus far there has been one lens element made of it in the optical train. The thickness of said element is about one tenth or less compared to the length of the light path in the erecting prisms. The contribution to the total light loss of changing that one lens from fluoro crown glass or similar to true calcium fluorite is practically zero. The value of CaF2 comes from reduced CA, and this improvement is very real and desirable.

Kimmo