Zeiss SF - 10x is the new 8.5x (1 Viewer)

Pileatus · Jul 29, 2015

Hermann said:
Actually, I would have preferred them to go back to the traditional sizes, i.e. 8x40 and 10x40.

Hermann

And lose more market share as a result.

C. Which is bigger 40mm or 42mm?
S. The 42mm.
C. Which brings the bird closer?
S. The 8.5X
C. Which one is the better seller?
S. The 8.5X42
C. How much is it?
S. $2300 on sale.
C. How much is the other one?
S. $2600 but...it's the big 42mm model, not a 40mm like some want.
C. So, $2300 for 8.5X42 and $2600 for 8X42?
S. Correct.
C. Sold.
C. Honey, guess what, I just purchased a new binocular and it comes with a bonus. Included in the purchase, free of charge, is a shiny new ring. It's made of absam, or something like that. Trust me, you'll love it when you see it. I know I do! :bounce:

JabaliHunter · Jul 29, 2015

Pileatus said:
The 8.5X magnification is right in the middle of the popular 7X/10X models ((7+10)/2).
IMO, Zeiss should have followed suit.

Which makes precious little sense if you don't actually offer a 7x42 though...
I you are right that it was more the "extra power" argument which won over, given that the original EL was breaking new ground at the time and they wanted to capture market share from all other 8x competitors in every which way possible...

Troubador · Jul 29, 2015

Pileatus said:
The 8.5X magnification is right in the middle of the popular 7X/10X models ((7+10)/2).
/QUOTE]

Only one thing wrong with your concept Pileatus and that is that 7x isn't actually popular. At all.

At the UK Bird Fair, having liked the view through Leica's and Nikon's 7x models I asked about 7x at the stands/booths as I walked round. In one way or another everybody said '7x? Everybody loves them but nobody buys them'.

Lee

Vespobuteo · Jul 29, 2015

JabaliHunter said:
Which makes precious little sense if you don't actually offer a 7x42 though...
I you are right that it was more the "extra power" argument which won over, given that the original EL was breaking new ground at the time and they wanted to capture market share from all other 8x competitors in every which way possible...

BVD was not impressed by the EL:s at the time,
Too Slow Focuser! Maybe swaro should have called them SF instead..
:eek!:

http://betterviewdesired.com/Swarovski-EL-8-5x42.php

I love this quote from BVD:

"Swarovski’s stated goal was to make the binoculars easy enough to grip so that they could be held up and focused with one hand (apparently a common birding stance in Europe). "

Troubador · Jul 29, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
BVD was not impressed by the EL:s at the time,
Too Slow Focuser! Maybe swaro should have called them SF instead..
:eek!:

http://betterviewdesired.com/Swarovski-EL-8-5x42.php

I love this quote from BVD:

"Swarovski’s stated goal was to make the binoculars easy enough to grip so that they could be held up and focused with one hand (apparently a common birding stance in Europe). "

Photos of smiling happy people using binoculars with the one-handed grip abound in some binocular brochures where the manufacturer wants to convince you how light their bins are. :-O

Lee

ceasar · Jul 29, 2015

JabaliHunter said:
Which makes precious little sense if you don't actually offer a 7x42 though...
I you are right that it was more the "extra power" argument which won over, given that the original EL was breaking new ground at the time and they wanted to capture market share from all other 8x competitors in every which way possible...

Competitively the original ELs did not make the waves with its competition that the new SVs did. It was Swarovski upgrading the ELs to give the 8.5x SV a competitive FOV along with especially the Flat Field on top of that on all the other ELs which made the difference.

Here is an early review of the 10x42EL and the 10x32EL the in "Alula." Take out the non water proof Nikon 10x42 SE and both EL's rated scored lowest in the comparison.

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_8_Leicaultravid_GB.shtml

Bob

Vespobuteo · Jul 29, 2015

ceasar said:
Competitively the original ELs did not make the waves with its competition that the new SVs did. It was Swarovski upgrading the ELs to give the 8.5x SV a competitive FOV along with especially the Flat Field on top of that on all the other ELs which made the difference.

Here is an early review of the 10x42EL and the 10x32EL the in "Alula." Take out the non water proof Nikon 10x42 SE and both EL's rated scored lowest in the comparison.

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_8_Leicaultravid_GB.shtml

Bob

The first version of the Zeiss Victory was a real pain in the eye also:

"There are companies out there that are still producing a seriously flawed optic simply because they are already selling all they can make. To their credit, Zeiss listened to birders and other critics and significantly redesigned the Victories. Hence the Victory IIs."

"the Victories still feel and smell like car tires, and collect every bit of lint and dust they come in contact with—though I am getting used to the feel and the smell fades over time."

http://betterviewdesired.com/Zeiss-Tries-Again-for-Victory.php

Wasn't until the FL:s and SV:s I thought it was worth upgrading from my Zeiss Dialyt and Leica BN.
That was significant step, the step from FL to SF is not a step, it's a leap, at least I try to
convince myself that it is. Seems that I tend to skip every other bino-generation,
the HT:s were not enough to make me upgrade from FL:s.

Hermann · Jul 29, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
The first version of the Zeiss Victory was a real pain in the eye also:

"There are companies out there that are still producing a seriously flawed optic simply because they are already selling all they can make. To their credit, Zeiss listened to birders and other critics and significantly redesigned the Victories. Hence the Victory IIs."

"the Victories still feel and smell like car tires, and collect every bit of lint and dust they come in contact with—though I am getting used to the feel and the smell fades over time."

http://betterviewdesired.com/Zeiss-Tries-Again-for-Victory.php

But then that wasn't really a review. It was something else entirely. Maybe Ingraham was so scathing because he thought Zeiss might offer him a job to make him shut up. Which they did.

Kimmo's review of the Victory 10x40 was much closer to the mark, I think. And I say that as someone who got the Victory fairly soon after it came onto the market, so I know it pretty well.

Hermann

Vespobuteo · Jul 29, 2015

Hermann said:
But then that wasn't really a review. It was something else entirely. Maybe Ingraham was so scathing because he thought Zeiss might offer him a job to make him shut up. Which they did.

Kimmo's review of the Victory 10x40 was much closer to the mark, I think. And I say that as someone who got the Victory fairly soon after it came onto the market, so I know it pretty well.

Hermann

perhaps, kimmo tend to be quite balanced, but still he wrote:

"The final ranking of the tested binoculars is thus 1) Swarovski, 2) Nikon, 3) Leica and 4) Zeiss. The test team felt that the top two are both excellent and the Leica is very good. However, the unevenness of the Zeiss' optical performance and the bothersome nature of the flaws it exhibited caused a little wonder in the test team, as we have traditionally considered Zeiss binoculars to be of very high quality. Perhaps Zeiss has brought this model to market too quickly. "

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_1_topbinoculars_GB.shtml

no gold medal to the Z-team in the binocular olympics that year for sure,
o

ceasar · Jul 30, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
perhaps, kimmo tend to be quite balanced, but still he wrote:

"The final ranking of the tested binoculars is thus 1) Swarovski, 2) Nikon, 3) Leica and 4) Zeiss. The test team felt that the top two are both excellent and the Leica is very good. However, the unevenness of the Zeiss' optical performance and the bothersome nature of the flaws it exhibited caused a little wonder in the test team, as we have traditionally considered Zeiss binoculars to be of very high quality. Perhaps Zeiss has brought this model to market too quickly. "

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_1_topbinoculars_GB.shtml

no gold medal to the Z-team in the binocular olympics that year for sure,
o

That was an "Alula" review from the year 2000. The review I put up in Post #26 was from 2004, 4 years later, and it ranked the Zeiss and Nikons higher than the ELs.

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_8_Leicaultravid_GB.shtml

Bob

brocknroller · Jul 30, 2015

james holdsworth said:
sarcasm much, Brock? I suspect you would be the only one to not get it......

Oh, I got it, though I'm not sure others would w/out a smilie, but I owed you a return volley from your earlier post. Consider yourself served.

<B>

ceasar · Jul 30, 2015

Vespobuteo said:
The first version of the Zeiss Victory was a real pain in the eye also:

"There are companies out there that are still producing a seriously flawed optic simply because they are already selling all they can make. To their credit, Zeiss listened to birders and other critics and significantly redesigned the Victories. Hence the Victory IIs."

"the Victories still feel and smell like car tires, and collect every bit of lint and dust they come in contact with—though I am getting used to the feel and the smell fades over time."

http://betterviewdesired.com/Zeiss-Tries-Again-for-Victory.php

Wasn't until the FL:s and SV:s I thought it was worth upgrading from my Zeiss Dialyt and Leica BN.
That was significant step, the step from FL to SF is not a step, it's a leap, at least I try to
convince myself that it is. Seems that I tend to skip every other bino-generation,
the HT:s were not enough to make me upgrade from FL:s.

The problem with the BVD reviews we have available to us now is one can never be sure when the binocular reviewed was manufactured. The Zeiss binocular reviewed in your link above was reviewed on 9/05. When Zeiss made it I cannot tell you. And in this case we are not sure who reviewed it either.

Scroll back 3 binoculars on the index page below and you will see that Tom Lester also reviewed a much newer Zeiss 8x42 T* Victory FL on 11/05. What ever problems the Zeiss Victory reviewed on 9/05 had they were solved by the time Tom Lester reviewed the Zeiss 8x42 T* Victory FL on 11/05, two months later.

http://betterviewdesired.com/reviews.php

Bob

Vespobuteo · Jul 30, 2015

ceasar said:
That was an "Alula" review from the year 2000. The review I put up in Post #26 was from 2004, 4 years later, and it ranked the Zeiss and Nikons higher than the ELs.

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_8_Leicaultravid_GB.shtml

Bob

yes, the Victory MK II was clearly better,

from kimmo's review:

"/../ After our binocular test in 2000, the Victories have been improved further, and now the carrying strap lugs no longer chafe your hands, intermediate settings of the eyecups can be utilised and internal baffling has been markedly improved to prevent flare. /../"

(BVD made about the same conclusions),

Vespobuteo · Jul 30, 2015

ceasar said:
The problem with the BVD reviews we have available to us now is one can never be sure when the binocular reviewed was manufactured. The Zeiss binocular reviewed in your link above was reviewed on 9/05. When Zeiss made it I cannot tell you. And in this case we are not sure who reviewed it either.

Scroll back 3 binoculars on the index page below and you will see that Tom Lester also reviewed a much newer Zeiss 8x42 T* Victory FL on 11/05. What ever problems the Zeiss Victory reviewed on 9/05 had they were solved by the time Tom Lester reviewed the Zeiss 8x42 T* Victory FL on 11/05, two months later.

http://betterviewdesired.com/reviews.php

Bob

I'm not talking about the FL:s, but the original Victory that occurred 2000-2004, that came in two clearly distinguishable versions, optically and externally (MKII had better strap lugs, eye cups),
The FL:s never had any major updates, just the new eye cups and Lotu-tec,
I think Zeiss did learn something from their mistakes with the original Victories, don't rush it…and they took their time with the FL:s and SF:s.

Pileatus · Jul 30, 2015

Nein, nein, nein.

The fact that 8.5X is halfway between 7 and 10 has nothing to do with current availability of 7X binoculars. It was a comment I heard, from a few reps, about "WHY" it was 8.5X and not 8X.

Zeiss is in competition. The competition has 8.5X; Zeiss 8X. Which one do you think most consumers will think is bigger? I'm guessing 8.5X but then I used a Pickett for many years so what do I know.

Zeiss SF - 10x is the new 8.5x (1 Viewer)

More options

Pileatus

"Experientia Docet”

JabaliHunter

Well-known member

Troubador

Moderator

Vespobuteo

Well-known member

Troubador

Moderator

ceasar

Well-known member

Vespobuteo

Well-known member

Hermann

Well-known member

Vespobuteo

Well-known member

ceasar

Well-known member

brocknroller

porromaniac

ceasar

Well-known member

Vespobuteo

Well-known member

Vespobuteo

Well-known member

Pileatus

"Experientia Docet”

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread