• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

So....SF 8X42 has arrived... (2 Viewers)

I've rather been enjoying the cut-and-thrust of the various opinions on testing methods, quality control, lighting environment and sample variation etc. above. From the perspective of the guy in the 4th row with his hand up wanting to ask a question or two, these are what would occur to me (taking as a given that the testing conditions for transmission are constant for the models to be compared and that the chosen light doesn't skew results for particular approaches to lens design):
1. At what level of difference in measurement across the colour transmission range would this become a noticeable factor for the user?
2. To what extent is what could be seen as a 'flaw' actually be a product of design? (the famous 'Zeiss vs Swarovski' approach to blue wavelengths, for example)
3. Would the world's perfect binocular (should it exist) be flat across the whole colour range, or would - given the difference in colour temperature in which we bird across the globe and the number of different eyes we collectively possess - only lead to other problems?

From my own point of view, i see a difference in my two main bins (Zeiss FL 8x32 and Vanguard EDII 8x42) in regard to colour reproduction, but can't fault either when it comes to birding.
Just a few thoughts, based on the interface of exact science's interface with a very inconsistent species and the environment in which it disports itself!
 
paddy7 said:
I've rather been enjoying the cut-and-thrust of the various opinions on testing methods, quality control, lighting environment and sample variation etc. above. From the perspective of the guy in the 4th row with his hand up wanting to ask a question or two, these are what would occur to me (taking as a given that the testing conditions for transmission are constant for the models to be compared and that the chosen light doesn't skew results for particular approaches to lens design):
1. At what level of difference in measurement across the colour transmission range would this become a noticeable factor for the user?
2. To what extent is what could be seen as a 'flaw' actually be a product of design? (the famous 'Zeiss vs Swarovski' approach to blue wavelengths, for example)
3. Would the world's perfect binocular (should it exist) be flat across the whole colour range, or would - given the difference in colour temperature in which we bird across the globe and the number of different eyes we collectively possess - only lead to other problems?

From my own point of view, i see a difference in my two main bins (Zeiss FL 8x32 and Vanguard EDII 8x42) in regard to colour reproduction, but can't fault either when it comes to birding.
Just a few thoughts, based on the interface of exact science's interface with a very inconsistent species and the environment in which it disports itself!
Click to expand...

All good thoughts P7, thanks for bringing this up. I've been pondering similar questions to ask, but now I'll hush and let the experienced BF members comment\answer with their colorful expectations! :t:

Ted
 
Paddy,

Rather than refer to disputed transmission plots, perhaps I can illustrate something another way. I have a swatch of lighting filters that come with a transmission profile for a number of the samples. One called Straw has about a 20% reduction in transmission from about 520nm in the green down to 450nm in the blue and on into the violet. If you close your eyes for a few seconds and open them with the filter in front, then you probably wouldn't notice anything amiss. However with a sudden change it's obvious the sky looks more gloomy and the shade of green of the grass yellows significantly. I can't think of a modern binocular with a comparable shift though perhaps my Chinese porro is probably the closest.

They also do a half, quater and eighth strength straw. No separate plot are provided but they appear to weaken in roughly those proportions, so they might approximate to 10%, 5%, and 2.5% reduction. I would say 10% should be very obvious. I think 5% you might need favourable light. It's very obvious this overcast afternoon. With 2.5% I can spot the difference but, but that might be because I know what I'm looking for.

I'd suggest that a binocular with a 10% deviation from flat is going to pretty obvious if you look for it in most light conditions. Depending on the part of the spectrum involved and the ambient lighting, 5% might be readily seen as well. I've done the comparison with other colours in the range and it appears to hold up quite well. Not very scientific I know but not everyone has a dual beam spectometer to play with.

David
 
Once I set the brightness of my iMac screen to max, I got 31 on the test. When I had down to more comfortable viewing levels, I was struggling to get over 15. So, the test is fun but not necessarily very precise. Fun to do, though.

On the color fidelity of various binoculars, if one just uses the binoculars for what they were made for, i.e. viewing birds, stars, wildlife or other distant objects, all of the premium binoculars these days are in my view "good enough." There are minor, and sometimes not quite so minor, differences between their transmission characteristics and hence their subjectively sensed color balance, but unless you do side-by-side testing, they really are minor. Now, if you have a lot of experience and a lot of reference binoculars available, like Globetrotter has, the difference that I call minor and many viewers will not see can become a deal breaker. If that is the case, that is the case, and each viewer will have to make up their own mind about what is visible, what is invisible and what is both visible and annoying. Until we arrive at the point of perfection in technology and production standards where all of the major contenders offer a basically flat transmission curve, it makes little sense to argue about what someone else should or should not be able to see.

Kimmo
 
typo said:
Paddy,

Rather than refer to disputed transmission plots, perhaps I can illustrate something another way. I have a swatch of lighting filters that come with a transmission profile for a number of the samples. One called Straw has about a 20% reduction in transmission from about 520nm in the green down to 450nm in the blue and on into the violet. If you close your eyes for a few seconds and open them with the filter in front, then you probably wouldn't notice anything amiss. However with a sudden change it's obvious the sky looks more gloomy and the shade of green of the grass yellows significantly. I can't think of a modern binocular with a comparable shift though perhaps my Chinese porro is probably the closest.

They also do a half, quater and eighth strength straw. No separate plot are provided but they appear to weaken in roughly those proportions, so they might approximate to 10%, 5%, and 2.5% reduction. I would say 10% should be very obvious. I think 5% you might need favourable light. It's very obvious this overcast afternoon. With 2.5% I can spot the difference but, but that might be because I know what I'm looking for.

I'd suggest that a binocular with a 10% deviation from flat is going to pretty obvious if you look for it in most light conditions. Depending on the part of the spectrum involved and the ambient lighting, 5% might be readily seen as well. I've done the comparison with other colours in the range and it appears to hold up quite well. Not very scientific I know but not everyone has a dual beam spectometer to play with.

David
Click to expand...

David,

Do I understand correctly that your procedure is to flick the filters on/off the objective and judge the instantaneous change in perceived color? Or, do you place a filter over one of the objectives and alternate viewing through each tube? Please elaborate on the procedure.

Thanks,
Ed
 
kabsetz said:
Once I set the brightness of my iMac screen to max, I got 31 on the test. When I had down to more comfortable viewing levels, I was struggling to get over 15. So, the test is fun but not necessarily very precise. Fun to do, though.

On the color fidelity of various binoculars, if one just uses the binoculars for what they were made for, i.e. viewing birds, stars, wildlife or other distant objects, all of the premium binoculars these days are in my view "good enough." There are minor, and sometimes not quite so minor, differences between their transmission characteristics and hence their subjectively sensed color balance, but unless you do side-by-side testing, they really are minor. Now, if you have a lot of experience and a lot of reference binoculars available, like Globetrotter has, the difference that I call minor and many viewers will not see can become a deal breaker. If that is the case, that is the case, and each viewer will have to make up their own mind about what is visible, what is invisible and what is both visible and annoying. Until we arrive at the point of perfection in technology and production standards where all of the major contenders offer a basically flat transmission curve, it makes little sense to argue about what someone else should or should not be able to see.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

Finally someone who understands me and perhaps appreciate subtle differences among the very best binoculars view.....not a surprise you are a top reviewer and since time ago i follow your trusty reviews.

You are right, a very trained eye in photography and a lot of experience with binoculars makes me very easy to pick up subtle differences in color bias, as i have different binoculars side by side to compare also helps.

But as so many people with experience as well who already check with care the SF and They have not seen any color cast or tint i will try by myself again, i will go to a couple of stores and try the SF once more.

All optics has a color bias.....

Cheers Kimmo.
 
Kimmo,

For me at least, different colour biases have strengths and weaknesses in different light conditions. A warmer balance appears to give me better colour rendition and contast under bluer skies in the middle of the day and and a cooler balance is better for the redder light later in the day. It seems to play a part in sharpness perception as well, but it's much harder to figure out the rules that apply, and seems to vary with the nature of the target. I really don't know how it works more generally but when I've done side comparison with a couple of others we seem to get agreement.

I prefer to match a binocular to the light conditions as best I understand it rather than stick to the same one all the time, but that may not be the answer for everyone.

David
 
Back to the sf 8x42... Does anybody else see the red "halo" on the left edge of the left lens when looking through them against a dark background, and with light coming from the front?

It is quite annoying. I took it back today to the shop and we were able to replicate the problem with other units of the same model.

I was offered a full refund that I am now considering. But regardless that I really love these binocs and I don't think I would change them for a pair of Swarovision.
 
Paddy, post 121,
On your question how to decide about color cast from transmission spectra, I will try to insert an example from 3 8x30 binoculars with exactly the same construction, but the only difference is in the type of coating. They are the (now not longer in production) 8x30 SLC binoculars from Swarovski (I am sorry Typo-David, no hospitality here, we bought them ourselves to show students the effects of coatings on color cast of binoculars).
The one without Swarobright coating(the lowest spectrum) does have a yellow color cast since it has a relatively high transmission in the yellow part of the spectrum. The middel one with Swarobright coating has a better color reproduction and has only a small color change. The top one has Swarobright coatings and improved multilayer coatings. The transmission spectrum is flat over a broad specral range, which means that the transmission over that spectral area is almost constant and color reproduction is very good.
I hope that this helps a bit,
Gijs van Ginkel
 

Attachments

  • Transmission spectra Swarovski SLC 8x30 minus SB plus SB and SLC New.docx
    51.8 KB · Views: 75
Gzoladz74 said:
Back to the sf 8x42... Does anybody else see the red "halo" on the left edge of the left lens when looking through them against a dark background, and with light coming from the front?

It is quite annoying. I took it back today to the shop and we were able to replicate the problem with other units of the same model.

I was offered a full refund that I am now considering. But regardless that I really love these binocs and I don't think I would change them for a pair of Swarovision.
Click to expand...

crescent glare

My ex SF has it take a look to this pictures

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=301412
 
Thanks David, Kimmo and Gijs for the explanations (and the attachment Gijs).
Of course, answers create further questions and other musings, some of which wander between science and psychology.
For instance, one relies on a self-generated opinion on what 'neutral' colour actually is, created by the physical characteristics of the individual eye and subjective perception. If the eye is indeed more responsive to certain wavelengths (and if this varies between individuals - even a little) then the only benchmark can be the testing data of the optics, and how close to 'flat' the colour transmission is.
So, if not professionally engaged in the testing of the micro-detail of binocular properties, or not regularly carrying out comparison tests, would the 'average Joe' user notice these 5% or so differences in colour response, if deprived of the test data they may have researched prior to the purchase? Could an element of 'auto-suggestion' creep in?
I have definitely experienced this in the equivalent work in audio in recording studios over a period of 15 years or so, being asked for 'more reverb' on a vocal, and actually turning it down (as any more and they would have been singing it yesterday) to be greeted with 'Thanks mate - loads better!';)
 
Paddy, post 131,
In addition to my former post: if you are looking for a new binocular and you want to judge yourself how the color reproduction of the binocular is, without having to interpret transmission spectra, there are some simple, useful tests.
-1- look with the binocular to a perfect white object and check how this white turns out in the binocular. It may be simpler to use one eye looking through the binocular and the other eye looking to the same white object. Changes in color of the image by the binocular will be directly visible. There only is a problem when there is a difference in color vision between both eyes (can occur certainly with ageing eyes).
-2- Take a perfect illuminated piece of paper (daylight works allright) and direct the binocular eyepieces to the paper and look at the image through the objectives. That will give you an impression of the image color generated by the binocular optics.
Despite these simple tests, I will also give you an example of transmission spectra of different 7x42 binoculars: two new ones and two "historic"ones. The top one is from a brand new Swarovski Habicht 7x42. The very high transmission spectra is almost flat over the investigated wavelength range yielding a perfect color reproduction.
The solid line is from the Leica Ultravid HD-plus 7x42. That spectrum is not completely flat, but it gives the binocular the following color reproduction: light transmission at 450 nm (blue) is with 82% about 6% lower then in the red (650 nm=88%). As a result whites turn out to be, as photographers call it: a warmer color reproduction. So not a real color cast but slightly warmer and some users like that others do not, but that is a matter of taste and there is a Dutch proverb that says: one can not quarrel about taste.
I hope to have given you an answer on some of your questions in previous posts. Lots of success with your choice.
Gijs van Ginkel
 

Attachments

  • Transmission spectra of different 7x42 mm binoculars, gecompr jan 2016.jpg
    Transmission spectra of different 7x42 mm binoculars, gecompr jan 2016.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 93
Not disputing what your testing has found Gijs, but how is it possible for the new Leica with HT glass to have transmission lower than the [relatively] antique Zeiss Classic?
 
Thanks again Gijs. I feel a bit of a cheat here as i'm not actually in the market for bins at the moment (if that can ever be said!). As i think was referred to in a previous post, it is quite possible to get so used to your own optics that they become the benchmark others are judged by. For different reasons, the Zeiss FL 8x32, Vanguard EDII 8x42 and Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 seem to have covered the range i need!
However, i'd like to see the SF 8x32 when it emerges - provided it isn't the size some thing it might be.....
Appreciate the extended knowledge though, and - if we ever get any decent light this winter - will try the white balance, front-and-back tests.
cheers
Paddy
 
Last edited:
James, post 133,
Yes, I was surprised too, but we have also measured the spectra of the Leica Ultravid HD 8x42 compared with the Leica Ultravid HD-plus 8x42 and we have repeated them to be absolutely sure, but here the same picture: compared with the standard HD the HD-plus spectra are lifted in the wavelengt range 450-500 nm with about 3% and from 500-700 nm around 1,5-2%. The maximum transmission for both is around 600-650 nm with transmission values of around 86,5% for the standard HD and a little more than 88% for the HD-plus. The result for the HD-plus is that it has a slight increase in brightness compared with the old Ultravid HD. We noticed the same effect for the 8x32 Ultravid HD-plus compared with the 8x32 Ultravid HD.
So I think that a conclusion can be that the HT glass (probably in combination with better coatings) causes this small transmission increase, while the HT glass has its largest effect in the blue.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
James in addition to my post 135:
The transmission increase between the Zeiss HT 8x42 and the Victory FL 8x42 is also not dramatic as far as the numbers are concerned (it increased image brighness certainly): it amounts to 4-3% in the wavelength range 450-550 nm and it is a lot less if we compare the HT 8x42 with the Victory FL 7x42. There we observed a transmission increase for the HT of about 10% at 450nm, which then at 500 nm goes back to practically zero and 1,5% at 550 nm.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
james holdsworth said:
Not disputing what your testing has found Gijs, but how is it possible for the new Leica with HT glass to have transmission lower than the [relatively] antique Zeiss Classic?
Click to expand...

Zeiss: AK prisms. Leica: SP prisms.

What's not surprising is that the Habicht runs circles around all of the roofs. At least when it comes to transmission.

Hermann
 
Gijs van Ginkel said:
James in addition to my post 135:
The transmission increase between the Zeiss HT 8x42 and the Victory FL 8x42 is also not dramatic as far as the numbers are concerned (it increased image brighness certainly): it amounts to 4-3% in the wavelength range 450-550 nm and it is a lot less if we compare the HT 8x42 with the Victory FL 7x42. There we observed a transmission increase for the HT of about 10% at 450nm, which then at 500 nm goes back to practically zero and 1,5% at 550 nm.
Gijs van Ginkel
Click to expand...

Noted before that the 7x42 FL curve looks a bit nervous and uneven, compared to the 8x42, why would it be any worse than the 8x42 FL (7.5% below) at 450nm when it's better at longer wavelengths? Different versions of T*? Pre- or after LotuTec? Some say color renditions/coatings color have changed in the FL:s over the years.

Think the improvement for the HD plus seems reasonable for what is possible with HT-glass, not many SP-prism bins exceeds 90% in transmission.
And the SF:s at 92% I guess is only a peak value att 550 nm:ish.

Very curious on the SF-curves...any release date for that one yet?
 
Last edited:
Hermann said:
Zeiss: AK prisms. Leica: SP prisms.

What's not surprising is that the Habicht runs circles around all of the roofs. At least when it comes to transmission.

Hermann
Click to expand...
You just buy a 50mm roof like the 10x50 SV and it will make up for any transmission advantage the Habicht has because it is a porro. Then you don't have to put up with a focus that takes gorilla fingers to turn.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

N
SF 42 & 32 Brief Comparisons
Replies
8
Views
2K
Scott98
S
O
Zeiss Victory HT 8x42 vs. Victory SF 8x42
Replies
4
Views
585
Scott98
S
Pauhana
Zeiss storefront says Victory SF 8x42 discontinued?????
Replies
4
Views
1K
Conndomat
Conndomat
S
Who is still viewing through Victory HT 42s?
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Nivado
N
J
Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Declan Joseph Deasy
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top