• 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.

Why would you buy a Zeiss HT over an SF? (1 Viewer)

Although not an owner of either, i'm regularly in the company of those that have both the SF and the HT. The owner of the HT bought it because he is a gull specialist, and is often 'going through the gulls' at twilight. He reckons the HT is the best 42mm twilight bin he's ever come across, and gets about 20 mins extra.
I would think if dawn/dusk birding is your bag, the HT is worth considering.
 
I don't know of any modern binocular that has the 82 to 84 deg fields of Nagler eyepieces, which are sharp to the edge.
As I have said before I think that we are being undersold regarding EWA binoculars.
I wish they were made in 10x42 or 12x50, but where are they?
I don't care if the eye relief is not large as I don't need glasses, and I suppose many others don't either.
For me many modern binoculars have too much eye relief.
 
Binastro said:
I don't know of any modern binocular that has the 82 to 84 deg fields of Nagler eyepieces, which are sharp to the edge.
As I have said before I think that we are being undersold regarding EWA binoculars.
I wish they were made in 10x42 or 12x50, but where are they?
I don't care if the eye relief is not large as I don't need glasses, and I suppose many others don't either.
For me many modern binoculars have too much eye relief.
Click to expand...


Gee, and here I was getting ready to say too many binoculars dont have enough eye relief. :-O
 
Vespobuteo said:
Zeiss marketing...:C

But HT and HT-ultra glass do exist, so I'm not completely delusional.

http://www.schott.com/advanced_opti...ott-ht-and-htultra-glasses-april-2015-eng.pdf
Click to expand...

I totally agree about Zeiss marketing. They seem to supply ever less useful information.

I've looked through everything I could find and still don't know what "Ultra-FL" means, but I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the HTultra glass types, which are just more recent HT glasses with even higher transmission (I think mainly in the UV). None of the HT or HTultras are FL types.

Ultra-FL lenses might mean, as Lee suggested, nothing more than the use of two FL lenses of the same type as the one FL lens in the HT or it might refer to the use of Schott's recently developed N-FK58 XLD, which has a higher Abbe number than the other two FL type glasses in the Schott catalogue. In either case, since the designs of the SF and HT binoculars are so different, it's impossible to know whether "Ultra-FL" affects an improvement or is just needed to prevent the CA performance of the simpler SF objective from being worse than the HT.

Henry
 
Last edited:
Vespobuteo said:
Zeiss marketing...:C

But HT and HT-ultra glass do exist, so I'm not completely delusional.

http://www.schott.com/advanced_opti...ott-ht-and-htultra-glasses-april-2015-eng.pdf
Click to expand...

VB
You are never completely delusional, only partly, like all of us on here.

I always assumed that the following meant Ultra = several FL-glass lenses because FL and HT only have one:

"highly innovative Ultra-FL lens system also provides outstanding image quality. Multiple fluoride lenses made from the highest quality SCHOTT glass ensure even better colour reproduction"

But if I get the chance I will ask about this.

VB, you don't really come from Norway do you? :eek!:

Lee
 
Troubador said:
VB

"highly innovative Ultra-FL lens system also provides outstanding image quality. Multiple fluoride lenses made from the highest quality SCHOTT glass ensure even better colour reproduction"

But if I get the chance I will ask about this.


Lee
Click to expand...

Lee,

I did see that quote. "Multiple fluoride lenses" still doesn't tell us whether a new lower dispersion FL glass type is used or where the extra FL lenses are used in the design. The focusing lens might be one or the field lens of the eyepiece. Presumably they mean "colour correction" rather than "colour reproduction".

Good luck with extracting any real information.

Henry
 
chill6x6 said:
Dennis,

I for sure can't tell you! Flip a coin!

I admit I like them all. Great comments from the replies above. I honestly don't think there is a wrong decision between those two. Each has its own expertise IMO.

I CAN say that if someone told me I could only have ONE BIRDING BINOCULAR...it wouldn't be either. Why? Both are too big. Too big to backpack and too big to stick in luggage. The HT is big and the SF is bigger still. I'd probably go the SV 8X32 route or maybe a Leica 8X42. I'm not really sure one loses ANYTHING with the SV 8X32.

Exactly what are you looking for in a binocular?
Click to expand...
I am not sure I need any new binoculars now. I have the SV 8x32 and the SV 10x50 and I am like you in that I think the SV 8x32 can do just about everything. I was impressed with the Zeiss 10x42 SF though. I think Zeiss has made some considerable improvements over the older FL's. When I looked at the Zeiss 10x42 HT though I honestly wasn't impressed but my evaluation was just cursory so I was looking for opinions of people that have had and used them both what advantages the HT had over the SF. If I was to buy one of the two I would definitely buy the SF.
 
Troubador said:
Dennis

Both SF and HT have Schott fluoride glass but only HT has Schott High Transmission glass. HT is designed to be Zeiss's high transmission twilight instrument so fitting this to SF would muddy the water as to what each instrument was designed to do, and the Germans don't like muddy water.

Lee
Click to expand...
The Zeiss website states both the SF and HT as having FL/HT lenses. I would assume HT means High Transmission so the SF does have HT glass. They both have Schott glass as it states in the description.

http://www.zeiss.com/sports-optics/...inoculars/victory-sf-binoculars.html#features
 
Last edited:
Troubador said:
Thanks for this Dennis, it is rather puzzling.
There is no mention of these 'high transmission' elements in the eyepiece, on either the UK or German websites.

Lee
Click to expand...

I suspect it's an error on the US-website,
or maybe not,
92% is remarkably high transmission,
without AK-prisms and HT-glass,
perhaps why Gijs only could measure 90%.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
I just think the bigger FOV, sharp edges, lighter weight and IMO better ergonomics make for a better birding binocular. They are both very good. IMO the SF is a little better but at a price I guess. To be honest the SF really impressed me to the point where I would like to own one but when I tried the HT it was like eeh it's all right but I wouldn't buy one. That's just my opinion on a cursory evaluation. I guess the point of this thread is to get some owners insight because you probably need to use the two binoculars longer in the field to see the strong points of the HT.
Click to expand...

Dennis, I am having a 10x42 SF winging its way to me tomorrow Then for the next 3,days will compare it to my HTs, Bet a blue tit looks just as good in either.but , we shall see.
suppressor
 
[email protected] said:
I am not sure I need any new binoculars now. I have the SV 8x32 and the SV 10x50 and I am like you in that I think the SV 8x32 can do just about everything. I was impressed with the Zeiss 10x42 SF though. I think Zeiss has made some considerable improvements over the older FL's. When I looked at the Zeiss 10x42 HT though I honestly wasn't impressed but my evaluation was just cursory so I was looking for opinions of people that have had and used them both what advantages the HT had over the SF. If I was to buy one of the two I would definitely buy the SF.
Click to expand...


Well with those two binoculars you HAVE, you certainly have your bases covered!

I used the HT and SV 10X42s today for several hours. I think that since you seem to LIKE the SV image/view, you probably wouldn't be happy with anything other than the SF.
 
chill6x6 said:
Well with those two binoculars you HAVE, you certainly have your bases covered!

I used the HT and SV 10X42s today for several hours. I think that since you seem to LIKE the SV image/view, you probably wouldn't be happy with anything other than the SF.
Click to expand...
I think it is the only Zeiss I would buy to be honest. I like the Swarovision view and the SF is the most similar. Big FOV and sharp edges with that immersive view that pulls you into it.
 
I haven't tried the SF however find the flat field design of the SV not as immersive as the HT. I find the SV quite two dimensional compared to more 3D effect of the non flat field bins. Have sold my 8x32 SV and 10x42 SV and have keep the Swaro EL Range 10x42 (for hunting) and the Zeiss HT 8x42 for general use.
 
The perception of 3D and depth in roof prism binoculars seems to be an individual thing. I haven't seen an HT, (I would like to), but the 10X42 SF didn't look as three-dimensional to me as my 10X50 SV.
 
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

J
Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Declan Joseph Deasy
D
N
SF 42 & 32 Brief Comparisons
Replies
8
Views
2K
Scott98
S
Robert Moore
Why can’t I find a store that stocks Zeiss SF?
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
AlphaFan
A
D
A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids.
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
ArchStanton
A
T
Zeiss SF 8x30 vs SFL 8x40
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
tian1227
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top