My thoughts on the Zeiss 10X42SF (2 Viewers)

SuperDuty said:

I'm thinking that I'll keep the 10X50SV, will try to give my thoughts this evening. Bet you're all waiting with bated breath on this information. 3 Please forgive the old pillows, thats the old couch I sleep on so I can afford binoculars.:-O

Click to expand...

You don't need a large exit pupil to get an immersive view, but you do need a extra wide FOV and a palpable 3-D effect that only a porro can provide.

If you truly want a relaxing and immersive view, I haven't seen any better than the Nikon 10x35 EII with its 7* TFOV and 70* AFOV. Contrast is excellent, blacks are black, not charcoal, and the edges are very good even without a field flattener, and the colors are "saturated" the way you like them. And it weighs only 22 oz.

If the view were any more immersive, you would fall into the picture like Reese Witherspoon and Tobey Maguire in the film Pleasantville.

The 10x EII only costs about $499, so you'd have $2,000 leftover to spend on a La-Z-Boy Kennedy sectional sofa. Then you can invite Brooke Shields over for tea (and Maria Shriver).

la-z-boy.com/p/kennedy-sectional

For a paltry 500 bucks or less, you could get the better view desired and eliminate the shoulder pain from lifting those heavy roofs and back pain from sleeping on that old couch. What more could you ask for except perhaps for Brooke to finally pluck her eyebrows? :smoke:

Brock

I had a chance to do more side by side this afternoon in bright backlit conditions with pristine air, the SF in those conditions had a pronounced yellow cast that I find very unpleasant. Time for them to go away.

james holdsworth said:

Your opinion of the colour balance of both bins seems to be the exact opposite of some of the expert reviews on here lately. And, this is not to say that I don't believe what you write but to illustrate how different people see different things. I think binocular preference is mostly a hard-wired, brain - eye thing that either we like [something] or we don't.

Click to expand...

Ted

The SF has a rather flat view, the SV very Porro like. When bringing the aforementioned oak tree into perfect focus, the house, trees, swingset, all at different yardages behind it, were also more in focus with the SV. I haven't specifically done a low light comparison, but with 50mm objectives, I'm fairly sure I know the answer. Rather than buy an SF I would personally just buy a ZenRay. Definitely keep your 10X50SV, they are an absolute jewel of a binocular, the only one I've seen so far with a true $2500 view. As always, IMO. The only other thing I can think of trying is the Maven.

Theo98 said:

Robert,

Thanks for your interesting initial assessment and findings! Maybe if you have more trial period time with the 10x42SF \ 10x50SV comparison, might you be able to add differences in:

Stereopsis (3D effects)
FOV In-focus DOF
Very low light (deep dusk-first light) transmission capabilities

A comparison between the 10x50SV and a 10x50SF (if\when available) would certainly even up differences you see, but for now, have to glass with what's available! :t:

BTW, when you do return it, consider converting those funds to a "new bed"! 3

Stay thirsty my friend, B

Ted

Click to expand...

Just My 2 Cents

brocknroller said:

You don't need a large exit pupil to get an immersive view, but you do need a extra wide FOV and a palpable 3-D effect that only a porro can provide. Brock

Click to expand...

I find the 5mm exit pupil of the 10x50SV allows for a very relaxing, easy on the eyes, ease of view that I haven't experienced in any other roof, or porro, yet! Yes, the sometimes double the the mm width of the objectives from their IPD settings allows the porros a more enhanced 3-D effect and as HL states and I quote, "if you consider that more pleasing and natural"!

I think the wonderful stereopsis and 3-D effect that I see in the roof SP 10x50 SV is due to their 15mm objective baseline increase over the IPD setting (IPD=60, Obj=75 \ IPD=70, Obj=84.5)! Their 3-D effect is not quite at the level of my Habicht 10x40 WGA or 8x30 W porros, but Very Close and for me, more pleasing!

Of course not everyone sees it like I do (or Robert), we all have unique optical DNA! But, I believe that the combination of the 5mm EP, the 50mm objectives, the wider baseline increase, the wide FF sharpness-to-edge FOV and the in-focus deep DOF All contribute to their immersive and extreme ease of FOV that many who have glassed with, comment very positively about!

As per the OP, They Are a really great optical instrument. Only you can decide if weight and cost are obstacles, and if they are, I'd suggest to never experience them perpendicular to your eye sockets! :eek!:

Ted

SuperDuty said:

Natural is what I was going for, but probably not the best descriptive. The SF is pretty much neutral in color, the SV a little on the Technicolor side of things, so maybe the SF is more natural in color. The SV just looks more dynamic, more dimensional, more alive to me. If I had the SF they would probably not get that much use, the SV on the other hand is always calling out to me.

Click to expand...

I note above that you find the SF is "pretty much neutral in color" but later in the day "in bright backlit conditions with pristine air" you note in post #22 that it has a "pronounced yellow cast."

Do you know of any reason why this should be?

Bob

I haven't a clue, that yellow cast was not there in more overcast conditions. The sun being near the horizon gave the atmosphere a slightly yellow look, but the SF took made it look extremely yellow. Some have mentioned a yellow push, I hadn't seen it until today.

ceasar said:

I note above that you find the SF is "pretty much neutral in color" but later in the day "in bright backlit conditions with pristine air" you note in post #22 that it has a "pronounced yellow cast."

Do you know of any reason why this should be?

Bob

Click to expand...

You can see from charts shown in the binocular reviews at Allbinos that binocular companies emphasize different colors of the spectrum in their products. Swarovski emphasizes the violet end of the spectrum and Nikon the red end of the spectrum.

Check out the graphs at the ends of the reviews for the Nikon 10x42 EDG and the Swarovision 10x42 EDG.

http://www.allbinos.com/allbinos_ranking-binoculars_ranking-10x42.html

Bob

Just come home from 2 weeks on the Ardnamurchan peninsula and at this time of the year the sun is getting pretty low in the sky.

During the main part of the day my SF's were neutral to my eyes.
Later in the day as the sun got nearer the horizon the light became more yellow-red, an effect emphasised by the hillsides with their autumn-red grass and patches of light brown bracken. The SFs picked up this warm glow in the light and so did Troubadoris's Leicas.

Lee

Concerning the color casts.

I've compared the SF to SV pretty extensively in the 8x and 8.5x versions, and now the SF to a Canon in 10x. Based on these, my experience is that the color cast of the SF is only very slightly on the yellow-green side, certainly not anything I'd call pronounced, but of course these are just words and we all use them differently.

In the SV comparison, the 8.5x42 SV has in my view a slight blue cast, and taken on their own, both the SV and the SF are plenty neutral enough. However, since their color biases are on the opposite sides of neutral, when switching back and forth the difference between the two is surprisingly large, and this difference I would call pronounced. So, if I'd been used to the color cast of the SF I'd say the SV had a pronounced blue cast and if I were used to the SV I'd say the SF had a pronounced yellow cast.

The Canon I have has a color cast that is more neutral than either, although very slightly less bright. Comparing the SF to the Canon, my eyes see both as neutral, with the SF ever so slightly less so.

As has been noted often on other threads, a slightly yellow cast comes from coatings that filter out a tiny (or sometimes not so tiny) amount of the blue-violet-ultraviolet end of the spectrum, and as this is the end of the visible spectrum that scatters most, contrast over large distances is enhanced with this type of filtration. At short distances, there is so much less scatter that it doesn't matter, and a stronger blue end gives a stronger experience of contrast.

I agree with SD on the sharper edges of the 10x50 SV (which I have tested earlier but do not have at hand to compare to the SF now). The 10x50 has the sharpest edges and least sharpness drop-off outside of the center field of any binocular I have ever tested. The Canon and the 10x42 SV come second, and the 10x42 SF, although quite good, is some ways behind these two.

The 10x42 SF does exhibit a rather large amount of AMD in the outer edges of the field, and consequently I see fairly pronounced rolling ball in it. But as I have said before, this does not bother me much and if I were to use these binoculars regularly I would get used to it and pretty much ignore it.

Kimmo

kabsetz said:

Concerning the color casts.

I've compared the SF to SV pretty extensively in the 8x and 8.5x versions, and now the SF to a Canon in 10x. Based on these, my experience is that the color cast of the SF is only very slightly on the yellow-green side, certainly not anything I'd call pronounced, but of course these are just words and we all use them differently.

In the SV comparison, the 8.5x42 SV has in my view a slight blue cast, and taken on their own, both the SV and the SF are plenty neutral enough. However, since their color biases are on the opposite sides of neutral, when switching back and forth the difference between the two is surprisingly large, and this difference I would call pronounced. So, if I'd been used to the color cast of the SF I'd say the SV had a pronounced blue cast and if I were used to the SV I'd say the SF had a pronounced yellow cast.

The Canon I have has a color cast that is more neutral than either, although very slightly less bright. Comparing the SF to the Canon, my eyes see both as neutral, with the SF ever so slightly less so.

As has been noted often on other threads, a slightly yellow cast comes from coatings that filter out a tiny (or sometimes not so tiny) amount of the blue-violet-ultraviolet end of the spectrum, and as this is the end of the visible spectrum that scatters most, contrast over large distances is enhanced with this type of filtration. At short distances, there is so much less scatter that it doesn't matter, and a stronger blue end gives a stronger experience of contrast.

I agree with SD on the sharper edges of the 10x50 SV (which I have tested earlier but do not have at hand to compare to the SF now). The 10x50 has the sharpest edges and least sharpness drop-off outside of the center field of any binocular I have ever tested. The Canon and the 10x42 SV come second, and the 10x42 SF, although quite good, is some ways behind these two.

The 10x42 SF does exhibit a rather large amount of AMD in the outer edges of the field, and consequently I see fairly pronounced rolling ball in it. But as I have said before, this does not bother me much and if I were to use these binoculars regularly I would get used to it and pretty much ignore it.

Kimmo

Click to expand...

A nice summing-up Kimmo.

Lee

Theo98 said:

I find the 5mm exit pupil of the 10x50SV allows for a very relaxing, easy on the eyes, ease of view that I haven't experienced in any other roof, or porro, yet! Yes, the sometimes double the the mm width of the objectives from their IPD settings allows the porros a more enhanced 3-D effect and as HL states and I quote, "if you consider that more pleasing and natural"!

I think the wonderful stereopsis and 3-D effect that I see in the roof SP 10x50 SV is due to their 15mm objective baseline increase over the IPD setting (IPD=60, Obj=75 \ IPD=70, Obj=84.5)! Their 3-D effect is not quite at the level of my Habicht 10x40 WGA or 8x30 W porros, but Very Close and for me, more pleasing!

Of course not everyone sees it like I do (or Robert), we all have unique optical DNA! But, I believe that the combination of the 5mm EP, the 50mm objectives, the wider baseline increase, the wide FF sharpness-to-edge FOV and the in-focus deep DOF All contribute to their immersive and extreme ease of FOV that many who have glassed with, comment very positively about!

As per the OP, They Are a really great optical instrument. Only you can decide if weight and cost are obstacles, and if they are, I'd suggest to never experience them perpendicular to your eye sockets! :eek!:

Ted

Click to expand...

Ted,

If Nikon would make a 10x50 EII, I would prefer it over the 10x35 EII because of the more enhanced 3-D effect with the wider set barrels. The larger exit pupil might help somewhat in the winter months on dim overcast days, though even on a cloudy day I doubt if my entrance pupils open to 5mm, I'd have to be in the dark to take advantage of the full exit pupil (i.e., stargazing from a dark site).

As to the 15mm larger baseline of the 10x50 SV EL, I wouldn't think that would matter with a S/P prism roof since you are looking straight through from the middle of the EPs to the middle of the objectives. A/K prisms are offset slightly, as are Pergers, but S/Ps have a light path that goes straight through.

wiki/SchmidPechan_prism

Still, if you experience a difference a more immersive view going from 42mm to 50mm, I believe it. The 10x50 SV EL is unusual in that its FOV is actually larger (nearly 6.7*) than the 10x42 (6.4*). As my great grandfather, the French tight rope walker, used to say: Wider is Bedder

Brock

The biggest positive about the SF for me is the incredibly light weight and excellent balance. They are for sure better than an SV for achieving a stable hold.

kabsetz said:

Concerning the color casts...

Click to expand...

As Lee said, very nice summation...Thanks Kimmo!

brocknroller said:

Still, if you experience a difference a more immersive view going from 42mm to 50mm, I believe it. The 10x50 SV EL is unusual in that its FOV is actually larger (nearly 6.7*) than the 10x42 (6.4*). As my great grandfather, the French tight rope walker used to say: Wider is Bedder

Click to expand...

Brock,

Seems with my pupillary responses, I need the 5mm EP in my optics as anything less (3.125 to 4.2) in very low light conditions (as you described) induce kidney beaming or blackouts in FOV. Your GGF may have something there, because for me, Aperture (and Objective) Rules! :t:

SuperDuty said:

The biggest positive about the SF for me is the incredibly light weight and excellent balance. They are for sure better than an SV for achieving a stable hold.

Click to expand...

Robert,

Ergonomics are certainly a positive factor with a well though out design success...a big plus for the SF's! When I can locate a dealer closer than 500 miles that stock the 10x42's for me to try out, I will be glassing with em'!

Thanks...Ted

With the sun in the western horizon the SV picked up about as much glow as I saw with my naked eye, the SF added to that considerably. In overhead sunlight the SF looked outstanding with what I consider very close to neutral or maybe slightly understated color overall, to me a little dull, to others perfect.

Troubador said:

Just come home from 2 weeks on the Ardnamurchan peninsula and at this time of the year the sun is getting pretty low in the sky.

During the main part of the day my SF's were neutral to my eyes.
Later in the day as the sun got nearer the horizon the light became more yellow-red, an effect emphasised by the hillsides with their autumn-red grass and patches of light brown bracken. The SFs picked up this warm glow in the light and so did Troubadoris's Leicas.

Lee

Click to expand...

Robert:

This is a very good thread, and it should be placed up on the Zeiss subforum.

Maybe you could ask a moderator to move it.

Jerry

Thanks Jerry

I agree, that's where I should have posted it, moderators please move the thread. We had bright sunshine today, so I took them back out for a short time with the sun overhead, in those conditions the image was very bright and clear. A woodpecker was at work in one of my sugar maples, and the SF acquitted itself in spectacular fashion while watching it, the limbs showing very little CA and the colors of the bird really popping. I can see where serious bird watchers would really enjoy the SF especially considering the light weight. Certain colors seem a little understated, but something that has brilliance really stands out in bold relief and looks almost shockingly bright and lifelike when the lighting suits the binocular. In some lighting scenarios I'm finding the SF a thrill to look through, in others not as much. A person just needs to see them for themselves.

NDhunter said:

Robert:

This is a very good thread, and it should be placed up on the Zeiss subforum.

Maybe you could ask a moderator to move it.

Jerry

Click to expand...

In hindsight that was a silly statement. I do prefer the SV, but other than the yellow emphasis in the backlit condition, they really were very good. The fact that they weren't my optical cup of tea shouldn't keep anyone looking for the best from trying them.

Robert

SuperDuty said:

Rather than buy an SF I would personally just buy a ZenRay. /QUOTE]

Click to expand...

Robert:
Because you already have the SV your comparison with the SF might suffer from "confirmation bias". I have compared the SV and SF and found the SF to be superior in 10 out of 15 categories---but of course that might also be a form of bias, but not a confirmation bias as I own both.

Kimmo:
I agree with you that the SF 10x42 has a complex distortion: pincushion followed by barrel distortion. However why would that induce a RB effect? Maybe a minor "rolling wave" effect?? Btw, I see no such effects in my SF 10x42.

Best,
Peter.

Peter,

i'm not Kimmo, but you might find your answer in this thread in which the distortions of the SF and SV are discussed:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=313034

I think the short answer is that angular magnification distortion, rather than rectilinear distortion, is the source of "rolling ball" for those who notice it. AMD causes objects to change shape as they near the field edge in a way that mimics the foreshortening of flat shapes painted on a ball as they move around the edge when the ball is rolling. In optical devices AMD begins when pincushion distortion is too weak to correct it, becomes quite strong at zero rectilinear distortion (perfectly straight lines) and stronger still with increasing barrel distortion. Try moving a small circle or square toward the field edge of your SF and notice how its shape changes. You may not personally experience an RB effect from that shape change, but that's the condition of distortion that causes other people to experience it.

My Direct Observations!

Theo98 said:

Robert,

Ergonomics are certainly a positive factor with a well though out design success...a big plus for the SF's! When I can locate a dealer closer than 500 miles that stock the 10x42's for me to try out, I will be glassing with em'!

Click to expand...

I've been searching the past 4 months, awaiting a Zeiss dealership to obtain the SF 10x42. Finally found an optical specialty retailer within an hour drive who had the 10x42 SF's in stock. I brought my EL 10x50 SV's (his were sold-out) to compare and although not actual apples to apples, these are the Best offered by these top tier optical manufactures! Was able to glass in clear bright mid day conditions (not optimum, but what was available), but clearly able to focus on dark shadow areas and very high contrast FOVs.

Ergonomics - As mentioned here and with many other reviewers, the 10x42 SF's trump the 10x50 SV's in less weight and a more reward balance that feels great in the hands...Excellent ergonomic performance overall! Barrel textures are smooth but grippy and I personally enjoyed the more forward setting of the smooth, large and precise focus control of the SF...very nice. Yes, this physical design allows me to easily hand hold the SF 10x image. But, I was surprised that my SV, along with its' added body heft, installed ocular and objective caps and full neck strap additional weights (at least +16 ounces total over bare SF) was Also as stable with its 10x image! Guess I'm use to handling the 10x50 SV ergonomics and within the 2 hours of comparative glassing, didn't really feel an advantage for me with the lighter SF (a full day of birding might change that opinion...). I'm sure as a first timer, I'd take note of the extra robust nature of the SV, but could easily prefer the finest feel and handling of the SF!

Optically - SF=Very Nice! Extremely clear FOV!
*I immediately noticed a relaxed and easy on the eyes FOV that presents the BEST I've ever looked through in any 42mm Zeiss (conquest or HT)! I didn't think the +15ft FOV would make a difference, but in general relaxed glassing, I did sense a somewhat more lateral open presentation with the SF. When I looked hard at the peripheral edges, the SV had the edge in sharpness, with the SF giving me a somewhat slight kidney beaning effect, but it is still excellent.
*The SF color bias, to my eyes, were ever so slightly hinting on the cool side, with a blue \ green emphasis...something I noted before with the Victory HT's. Shadow resolution was as good as the 50mm SV, hinting at excellent coatings and great spectrum balance for lower light transmission. Overall, I still see an absolute neutral color balance in the SV, with as accurate color optical renditions as I've ever experienced in comparison to my direct eyesight.
*DOF are excellent in both. However, at a 100m sharp focal point, I did notice a deeper foreground\background in-focus FOV with the SV that seemed to enhance the overall immersive and impressive 10X scene. The SF is Superb in this regard, but I seemed to get lost easier with the SV, sort of a slightly better stereopsis...as if the 10X powered image was like looking through a panorama picture window, an "if you were there" effect! The difference wasn't much, but to my eyes, just a slightly better relaxing view of the SV.
*CA and Flare are both Well Controlled. I believe the differences might be due to the larger 50mm aperture, but the SF seemed to present better, but very slight, flare control. The SV appears ever so slightly brighter, but certainly not washed out and with the larger EP, definitely contributes to my experience as a superb low light optical instrument. I seem to be insensitive to CA and couldn't induce any on a center focus or edge FOV scenes, even in an open-to-dense forest foreground against an extremely bright blue sky background.
*Resolution and Sharpness are Both Superb and Stunning. IF you had my arm behind my back real hard, I might have to state the SV (due to its bigger objectives) was Slightly sharper under certain challenging high contrast situations. I feel Any differences here would never be noticeable without side-by-side viewing
*RB as reported by some users, was non-existent in this SF. I can still see it ever so slightly in my SV, but the more I use it, the less of an effect it appears to have on my glassing enjoyment!

Considering the same budget I had and basic knowledge I've obtained, I could easily see myself choosing the SF 10x42's over the SV and being perfectly content. As per Peter above, I might just be verbalizing a confirmation bias for what I already own and use. Thus, as per my real world usages, experiences and exposures to many great optics over the past year (roofs and porros alike), I'll just keep an eye out for maybe a future SF 10x50. Now That could make overall top Alpha glass choices Real Interesting! As Always, YMMV :t:

Ted