-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Carl Zeiss Victory 10x56 T* FL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SuperDuty
- Start date
I have one. I have not had the opportunity to compare it with the 8x56FL, nor any 10x HT nor SV so you might want to quit reading, but I will try to make a useful comparison with the rest of my collection. I have 8.5x42 SV, 8x42 FL, and Fujinon FMT-SX in 7x50 and 8x30, all which beat the 10x56FL in pure what I'd call apparent image quality. The 10x56 FL, however, beats quite badly, image quality wise, my12x50 Trinovid BN which reveals only equal detail (but is arguably too much magnification to profitably hand hold), and narrowly but certainly beats a 10x50 Ultravid BR. It also beats a 10x50 FMT-SX I once had. And my 15x60 Docter Nobilem, which in turn murders the 10x back in detail revealed, given sufficiently steady holding.
My take is that high powers beat low powers in detail rendered easily visible, provided conditions allow for calm and steady holding. But, low powers beat high in apparent image quality. In fact it seems to me that magnification is the greatest single determinant of "apparent image quality". For example, highly experienced binocular folks RAVE about the image quality of the cheap and flimsy 6x30 Leupold Yosemite and its various clones, not much the 8x.
That said, the 10x56 is a "superb 10x", with high transmission, excellent mechanics, and extremely precise optical adjustment, as I see in its performance in stargazing, especially on marginally splittable double stars, an acid test for sure, of it and me.
I guess the choice between 8 and 10x FL depends on whether your applications would allow the high power to shine, and whether you are more an object detail or image quality buff.
Ron
My take is that high powers beat low powers in detail rendered easily visible, provided conditions allow for calm and steady holding. But, low powers beat high in apparent image quality. In fact it seems to me that magnification is the greatest single determinant of "apparent image quality". For example, highly experienced binocular folks RAVE about the image quality of the cheap and flimsy 6x30 Leupold Yosemite and its various clones, not much the 8x.
That said, the 10x56 is a "superb 10x", with high transmission, excellent mechanics, and extremely precise optical adjustment, as I see in its performance in stargazing, especially on marginally splittable double stars, an acid test for sure, of it and me.
I guess the choice between 8 and 10x FL depends on whether your applications would allow the high power to shine, and whether you are more an object detail or image quality buff.
Ron
SuperDuty
Well-known member
Hi Ron
Looks like you may be the only person in the whole world to ever buy a pair.:king: I've owned the 8.5X42 SV and 10X50 SV, and your observations about higher magnification showing more detail while less magnification appears sharper was always readily apparent while directly comparing the two. As an extreme example, I could compare my 20X80 skymaster to the 10X50 SV and easily see more detail with the extra (horsepower), but which one has the more pleasing to the eye image, I'll let everyone take a guess.
Thanks for the comments, I still think the 8.5X SV has the sharpest image I've yet seen.
Robert
Looks like you may be the only person in the whole world to ever buy a pair.:king: I've owned the 8.5X42 SV and 10X50 SV, and your observations about higher magnification showing more detail while less magnification appears sharper was always readily apparent while directly comparing the two. As an extreme example, I could compare my 20X80 skymaster to the 10X50 SV and easily see more detail with the extra (horsepower), but which one has the more pleasing to the eye image, I'll let everyone take a guess.
Thanks for the comments, I still think the 8.5X SV has the sharpest image I've yet seen.Robert
Robert,
If I Could Choose But One, it would be the 8.5SV, rolling ball, scattered light and all. Unfortunately, in real life it's my wife's daily birder (one of my wiser moves) , leaving me to cycle through my collection, keeping my edge, as a binocularist, sharp, ha!
Given your two SVs already, I doubt upgrading to either 56mm FL would be worth the trouble.
Ron
If I Could Choose But One, it would be the 8.5SV, rolling ball, scattered light and all. Unfortunately, in real life it's my wife's daily birder (one of my wiser moves) , leaving me to cycle through my collection, keeping my edge, as a binocularist, sharp, ha!
Given your two SVs already, I doubt upgrading to either 56mm FL would be worth the trouble.
Ron
JabaliHunter
Well-known member
I compared the 10x56 FL with the 10x50 EL some time ago and I remember finding it extremely difficult to choose between the two views. Both were a stunning improvement over my original non-SV 10x42 EL.
I did eventually choose the 10x50 EL as for my main use (which can't be discussed on BF) the dimensions were a bit easier to deal with, the FL was just being phased out whereas the EL was a fairly new model, and ultimately I found a good used pair for an equivalent price to the FLs. I have never gotten used to the rolling globe effect, try as I might, and I don't personally like the combination focus/diopter adjustment knob as I find that it is constantly getting knocked and adjusted inadvertently, but those are my only long-term user niggles.
One thing I do genuinely believe is that I would have been happy with the view from either and sometimes I wonder if I made the right choice - they are both excellent.
I did eventually choose the 10x50 EL as for my main use (which can't be discussed on BF) the dimensions were a bit easier to deal with, the FL was just being phased out whereas the EL was a fairly new model, and ultimately I found a good used pair for an equivalent price to the FLs. I have never gotten used to the rolling globe effect, try as I might, and I don't personally like the combination focus/diopter adjustment knob as I find that it is constantly getting knocked and adjusted inadvertently, but those are my only long-term user niggles.
One thing I do genuinely believe is that I would have been happy with the view from either and sometimes I wonder if I made the right choice - they are both excellent.
Last edited:
JabaliHunter
Well-known member
One thing I would like to compare again if given the opportunity is the image sharpness - it is probably just my memory playing tricks, but I do wonder whether the FL didn't come to a sharper focus than the EL. I just have an abiding memory of watching a swan on the water and being mesmerised by the stunningly detailed sharp image that I was seeing...
