Another good Victory SF hands on review with pre-order instructions (1 Viewer)

ibirdeverywhere · Aug 22, 2014

I noticed a good hands on review from Diane Porter at Birdwatching.com

She includes pre-ordering instructions on their website for the New SF as well

Enjoy :t:

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/zeiss/zeiss_victory_sf.html

lmans66 · Aug 22, 2014

Interesting read...thanks....

Did they say when the release day would be?

Also...I have an HT....have you tried an HT and if so, where does it differ from the SF? jim

ibirdeverywhere · Aug 22, 2014

I am not sure an exact release date has been determined. Zeiss is starting a pre-order list as supplies may be limited at the time of release

brocknroller · Aug 23, 2014

What's interesting to me about the SF is that even with the focuser INSIDE the open space, there still seems to be enough room to get three fingers from each hand in there. If I'm not mistaken, there is another company that has a similar design with the focuser on the inside of the space rather than in the usual EP position. So it maybe "smart," but it's not unique.

Also, look at how BIG the bins look in Diane's hands. They are light, but they are not compact. They'd probably work fine for my large hands, but maybe not for the dainty-handed. Hopefully, Zeiss will follow with a 8x32 SF since they can't make an 8x32 HT, or at least that's what one expert said because only the prisms can be made of HT glass, nicht wahr?

I also like the WFs in the 8x and 10x models. I agree with Diane when she wrote: "I personally feel that a wide field of view is one of the most important components of a good binocular experience. With a wide field of view, all I see is the scene, and I feel immersed in it. With a binocular that has a narrow field of view, I would be conscious of the dark edge of the scene, as if I were looking through a tube."

Too bad Zeiss couldn't bring the SF in for $1,200 or under. Probably could if they made them in China. I think $1,200 is already a lot of money to pay for a pair of binoculars, but pushing the $3K barrier (which is what European birders will pay with taxes) is beyond the pale (particularly in Ireland).

I have to agree with Tim said -- The price of Alphas has gone mental.

I bet a ChinBin company can come up with something almost as good for less than half the price. The gauntlet has been thrown down, who will pick it up?

Brock

lmans66 · Aug 23, 2014

I don't want a China bin for they are not for the longhaul. They might look good on the outside but a reduced price comes at a huge cost 'inside' ...the things yon can't see. And frankly, whatever China might state about the product in their advertising and literature, is not overly trustworthy.

I like my HT's..... The placement of the focal wheel is in a similar spot as in the SF... ad an equal number of fingers can be placed on the HT 's focus. I think the size of the focal wheel has quite a bit to do with the ease of use.

My question is... Other than obvious design differences... Where does SF have it over the HT? Field if view is larger on SF and that is granted, but brightness a bit better in HT. Both are extremely ergonomic and both are Alpha design and concept. So for me , I am thinking there is little benefit to trade in... But I would sure like to know what others 'take' on the differences are and especially if they have used them 'side by side'..Jim

Binastro · Aug 23, 2014

. On the link above it praises the 8×42 Zeiss SF binocular for having a 444 feet Field of view at 1000 yards.
There are also other comments at how amazingly wide the field of view is.
I think that this may be because the field is apparently very flat and maybe star images at the edge of the field of view are nearly as sharp as those in the centre without refocusing.

I don't have the Minolta Standard 8×40 binocular, but I do have the 7×35 and 10x50.
From measuring the fields of view, I would think that the 8×40 has a genuine 9.5° field.
This is about 497 feet as 1000 yards.
Admittedly, the edge of the field in the Minolta Standard binoculars is not very good, but the whole field is usable, even though the eyerelief is small. But if one doesn't wear glasses the whole field is available.

In addition, the Leica Ultravid 12×50, Canon 18×50, 1950s Hensoldt 16×56 and quite a few other binoculars have apparent fields of view of 69° in simple measure.
So what is so special about the same apparent field of view in the Zeiss SF?
I think the problem is that binocular designers nowadays get away with miserable fields of view, where wide fields of view should be the norm.
Hopefully, more binocular makers will provide this wide field of view.
Personally, I would like even wider fields of view, which were available 50 years ago on quite a large number of binoculars.

Troubador · Aug 23, 2014

Binastro said:
. On the link above it praises the 8×42 Zeiss SF binocular for having a 444 feet Field of view at 1000 yards.
There are also other comments at how amazingly wide the field of view is.
I think that this may be because the field is apparently very flat and maybe star images at the edge of the field of view are nearly as sharp as those in the centre without refocusing.

In addition, the Leica Ultravid 12×50, Canon 18×50, 1950s Hensoldt 16×56 and quite a few other binoculars have apparent fields of view of 69° in simple measure.
So what is so special about the same apparent field of view in the Zeiss SF?

Personally, I would like even wider fields of view, which were available 50 years ago on quite a large number of binoculars.

Binastro

Zeiss set out to beat the market leader: Swaro EL SV and they have: 148m vs 133m although you have to take the Swaro's slightly higher mag into account.

Would it be nice to have even wider FOVs than now? Yes it would.
Have wider FOVs been done before? Yep.

Lee

Troubador · Aug 23, 2014

lmans66 said:
I like my HT's..... The placement of the focal wheel is in a similar spot as in the SF... ad an equal number of fingers can be placed on the HT 's focus. I think the size of the focal wheel has quite a bit to do with the ease of use.

My question is... Other than obvious design differences... Where does SF have it over the HT? Field if view is larger on SF and that is granted, but brightness a bit better in HT. Both are extremely ergonomic and both are Alpha design and concept. So for me , I am thinking there is little benefit to trade in... But I would sure like to know what others 'take' on the differences are and especially if they have used them 'side by side'..Jim

Hi Jim

I have compared SFs directly with my own HT (which I love too) and here is what stood out to me.

The FOV of SF makes looking through HT like looking through a ship's porthole, its a simple as that. But as you point out the HT will be usable for longer in the twilight. Both handle really nicely and in fact I thought the improvement of HT over FL in handling was one of its best steps forward. I haven't used an SF for hours at a time yet, but with the weight situated more in your hand and with less in the objective end of the tubes I think observing comfortably for longer without lowering your arms for a rest will be possible with SF.

For me the half metre closer focus is a bonus as well.

But you are right, HT and SF are both cracking bins and not everyone will want to swap their HT for an SF.

Another point in SFs favour is the flat field and there will be many wetting their shorts with laughter at me mentioning this because I have not been a fan of field flatteners simply because I always centre the image. However about a month before I tried out SF I was whale / dolphin / porpoise watching and came to realise that with whales surfacing for only 3 seconds at a time I could really have used sharpness closer to the edge of the FOV to detect whether that shadow I could just make out was the beginning of a whale surfacing or not.

So I am eating my past words now and realising that flat fields can benefit me too.

SFs and HTs are different flavours and only you can decide whether one is more to your taste than the other.

Lee

kabsetz · Aug 23, 2014

Lee, Binastro, lmans

I really doubt anyone will actually notice a difference between the SF and the 42 mm HT in how many minutes into the twilight one can see with either. 2-3% difference in theoretical transmission is going to be that small.

As to the other aspects of the SF (which I haven't seen or handled yet), I think it is a step in the right direction. If I thought otherwise, I would be inconsistent with my past preferences. I long have been waiting for the first premium binocular to arrive that would combine a 70+ degree of subjective field (mag x true field formula) and excellent edge to edge sharpness with top-of-the-line brightness, contrast, color rendition and stray light control. Wide FoV has been the ingredient that has been conspicuously absent from the best attempts thus far.

So, if the overall image quality turns out to deliver, the SF could well be a winner.

However, I will almost certainly not get one for myself, since it lacks IS, the one feature I no longer wish to be without.

Kimmo

Kammerdiner · Aug 23, 2014

Troubador said:
...
Another point in SFs favour is the flat field and there will be many wetting their shorts with laughter at me mentioning this because I have not been a fan of field flatteners simply because I always centre the image. However about a month before I tried out SF I was whale / dolphin / porpoise watching and came to realise that with whales surfacing for only 3 seconds at a time I could really have used sharpness closer to the edge of the FOV to detect whether that shadow I could just make out was the beginning of a whale surfacing or not.

So I am eating my past words now and realising that flat fields can benefit me too.

SFs and HTs are different flavours and only you can decide whether one is more to your taste than the other.

Lee

Dang it all, Lee, now I have to change my shorts! :-O

I have long suspected that those who dismiss flat fields probably haven't lived with them too much. Flat fields can be great assets when, as you say, whale watching. They are also great for scanning flocks of peeps for something unusual. And I won't soon forget looking over flocks of Common Terns on Cape Cod in search of Roseate Terns (as it "terned" out the Roseates were pretty easy to find since most of them were banded, and there was a researcher there with a big scope recording the numbers...but you get my point).

Flat fields are also great for just looking over the distant terrain. I was reminded of that recently, out in the Rockies, while trying to catch up with a far-distant Prairie Falcon that might have gone unnoticed without a flat field. If it had been a brown blur out at the edge, forget it.

The key though is that the field has to be "usable." I mean you have to be able to look at it. This is where the SE fell short, for me anyway. Nice and sharp all the way out, but you couldn't get close to the edge without the whole thing blacking out. For me, this was the revelation of the SV. You can USE it, or at least a lot of it. I once described it as a "roam around" view, and although big exit pupils help in that department there's something about the SV eyepiece that takes it to the next level. As evidence of that I can say that the Zen Prime eyepiece is not quite as good in this regard.

So when you compare the SF and SV, do us a favor and see how much of the field is usable. Let your eyeballs wander. I suspect Zeiss has done their homework in this department and that the results are really nice.

Mark

Troubador · Aug 23, 2014

Kammerdiner said:
Dang it all, Lee, now I have to change my shorts! :-O

I have long suspected that those who dismiss flat fields probably haven't lived with them too much. Flat fields can be great assets when, as you say, whale watching. They are also great for scanning flocks of peeps for something unusual. And I won't soon forget looking over flocks of Common Terns on Cape Cod in search of Roseate Terns (as it "terned" out the Roseates were pretty easy to find since most of them were banded, and there was a researcher there with a big scope recording the numbers...but you get my point).

Flat fields are also great for just looking over the distant terrain. I was reminded of that recently, out in the Rockies, while trying to catch up with a far-distant Prairie Falcon that might have gone unnoticed without a flat field. If it had been a brown blur out at the edge, forget it.

The key though is that the field has to be "usable." I mean you have to be able to look at it. This is where the SE fell short, for me anyway. Nice and sharp all the way out, but you couldn't get close to the edge without the whole thing blacking out. For me, this was the revelation of the SV. You can USE it, or at least a lot of it. I once described it as a "roam around" view, and although big exit pupils help in that department there's something about the SV eyepiece that takes it to the next level. As evidence of that I can say that the Zen Prime eyepiece is not quite as good in this regard.

So when you compare the SF and SV, do us a favor and see how much of the field is usable. Let your eyeballs wander. I suspect Zeiss has done their homework in this department and that the results are really nice.

Mark

Are you back from drying your shorts yet?

OK I will take care to roam around the views and report back. From what I have seen so far I think the result will be good but I'll refrain from guessing and wait for the shootout.

Lee

Kammerdiner · Aug 23, 2014

Troubador said:
Are you back from drying your shorts yet?

OK I will take care to roam around the views and report back. From what I have seen so far I think the result will be good but I'll refrain from guessing and wait for the shootout.

Lee

Well, I thought about letting them "air dry," but since it's the weekend, and gloomy as heck outside, I'll do a load of laundry.

Thanks, Lee!

PS: Even though I think I'd wait for the 32mm version, I definitely intend to compare the 42mm SV and SF. You are right that Zeiss aimed the SF squarely at at the SV.

Holger Merlitz · Aug 23, 2014

ibirdeverywhere said:
I noticed a good hands on review from Diane Porter at Birdwatching.com

She includes pre-ordering instructions on their website for the New SF as well

Enjoy :t:

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/zeiss/zeiss_victory_sf.html

Wow, Zeiss has done a great thing here: Suddenly, people are getting amazed about wide fields!

I feel as if I have been preaching since more than 10 years that today's top binoculars were lacking field, but found comparably little resonance, particularly from representatives of the alpha-makers. There were binoculars around like the Nikon EII, but they were not alpha and hence not relevant. Now that an alpha 8x binocular is scratching the 150m mark, the race is on, and in this case I like its direction: Wider fields instead of 2% extra transmission (which hardly nobody can actually see).

Cheers,
Holger

Holger Merlitz · Aug 23, 2014

brocknroller said:
...

Too bad Zeiss couldn't bring the SF in for $1,200 or under. Probably could if they made them in China. I think $1,200 is already a lot of money to pay for a pair of binoculars, but pushing the $3K barrier (which is what European birders will pay with taxes) is beyond the pale (particularly in Ireland).

I have to agree with Tim said -- The price of Alphas has gone mental.

I bet a ChinBin company can come up with something almost as good for less than half the price. The gauntlet has been thrown down, who will pick it up?

Brock

Brock, for this money you could get a used Swaro 8.5x42 EL (the pre-SV version): Almost sharp to the edge, no globe effect, quite a respectable field of view. I still regard it an amazing binocular. You bridge the next few years with that glass, and then you get a used Zeiss SF once everybody is jumping on Swaro's response to that. Big deal

Cheers,
Holger

Kammerdiner · Aug 23, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
Wow, Zeiss has done a great thing here: Suddenly, people are getting amazed about wide fields!

I feel as if I have been preaching since more than 10 years that today's top binoculars were lacking field, but found comparably little resonance, particularly from representatives of the alpha-makers. There were binoculars around like the Nikon EII, but they were not alpha and hence not relevant. Now that an alpha 8x binocular is scratching the 150m mark, the race is on, and in this case I like its direction: Wider fields instead of 2% extra transmission (which hardly nobody can actually see).

Cheers,
Holger

I think the problem was that designers have aimed at more eye relief and sacrificed wider fields to get it. Makes sense considering how many of us "four-eyes" grew up with stupid widefields that weren't wide at all because we couldn't even see it with our glasses on. And please note how many birders wear glasses!

To this day, I have a perhaps irrational demand to see the field stop!

But maybe now the designs have caught up so that you can have both wide fields and reliable eye relief. If so: :t:

Mark

8x60deckmount · Aug 23, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
Wow, Zeiss has done a great thing here: Suddenly, people are getting amazed about wide fields!

I feel as if I have been preaching since more than 10 years that today's top binoculars were lacking field, but found comparably little resonance, particularly from representatives of the alpha-makers. There were binoculars around like the Nikon EII, but they were not alpha and hence not relevant. Now that an alpha 8x binocular is scratching the 150m mark, the race is on, and in this case I like its direction: Wider fields instead of 2% extra transmission (which hardly nobody can actually see).

Cheers,
Holger

:t::t::t:

Chosun Juan · Aug 24, 2014

Troubador said:
.....The FOV of SF makes looking through HT like looking through a ship's porthole, its a simple as that. But as you point out the HT will be usable for longer in the twilight. Both handle really nicely and in fact I thought the improvement of HT over FL in handling was one of its best steps forward. I haven't used an SF for hours at a time yet, but with the weight situated more in your hand and with less in the objective end of the tubes I think observing comfortably for longer without lowering your arms for a rest will be possible with SF......

Lee

Lee,

From the photo of Diane holding the SF, it's as I said in the SF thread, it's more a case of the "hand being situated more around the weight" ..... ie. the hand is forced to move forward toward the c of g. Notwithstanding the objective lens reduction (did any of you guys at the Birdfair confirm this, and whether the focus group was one or two lenses?), This in concert creates the illusion that the weight has shifted back, but at the expense of further shoulder - hand separation, and thus stress on the shoulders.

Chosun :gh:

ceasar · Aug 24, 2014

The FOV of the Zeiss 8x42 SF approaches the FOV of the old Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL which admittedly did not have a flat field. But in practical applications, except for the increase in magnification with its loss of close up DOF; does this flat field make much difference?

While using binoculars when one sees a bird at the edge of the view one's instinct is to center it in the view to identify it. This involves moving the binocular a fraction of an inch in most cases and following the bird if necessary; especially in hawk watching.

If you read Jerry Liguori's "HAWKS At A Distance" you will find out he used a Zeiss 7x45 Night Owl and later a Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL binocular when watching hawks because these binoculars had very wide FOVs. Perhaps he will decide to switch to the new 8x42 SF because of its increased magnification in that wide FOV but I wonder how much difference getting a flat field with it will help in identifying raptors?

Bob

NDhunter · Aug 24, 2014

Troubador said:
Are you back from drying your shorts yet?

OK I will take care to roam around the views and report back. From what I have seen so far I think the result will be good but I'll refrain from guessing and wait for the shootout.

Lee

Lee:

I had asked for a comment on another thread about the Victory HT, about how you use which finger when focusing ?

I found the focuser lower than other binoculars and I was using my middle finger, rather than my index finger when I tried the HT recently.

How do you focus your HT, with what finger, and how does the new SF focuser compare in this regard to the HT ?

Jerry

brocknroller · Aug 24, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
Brock, for this money you could get a used Swaro 8.5x42 EL (the pre-SV version): Almost sharp to the edge, no globe effect, quite a respectable field of view. I still regard it an amazing binocular. You bridge the next few years with that glass, and then you get a used Zeiss SF once everybody is jumping on Swaro's response to that. Big deal

Cheers,
Holger

Holger,

I tried one a few years ago, it was made in 2001. The coatings were way behind my 8x32 LX and 8x30 EII, which were made around the same time. The focuser was also very hard to turn in one direction (took two fingers). I have tried later model Swaros -8x30 SLC and 8x32 EL - and the coatings were much improved.

If I bought a pre-SV EL, it would be late model 8x32. It fit my hands more comfortably than its bigger sibling and is much lighter so it would be easier to carry for hours. I also prefer the wider FOV of the 8x32 model.

Even used, I think the SF is going to be well out of my range until about 2025 by which time all bins will be digital and birders will be selling their "old technology" mechanical binoculars to buy the latest digital model.

Brock

Another good Victory SF hands on review with pre-order instructions (1 Viewer)

Swarovski 8x32EL Swarovision Swarovski CL8x30 Comp

Out Birding....

Swarovski 8x32EL Swarovision Swarovski CL8x30 Comp

porromaniac

Out Birding....

Well-known member

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Experienced observer

porromaniac

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread