jmjutras said:
I have to agree with both Don and John. Look's to me like a Zeiss FL religion is born. It (the religion) has arguments of it's own: barely any CA, light weigth, etc., but one Achiles heel: soft edge = small "sweet spot". Or should I say "alleged small sweet spot" (for the religion tends to dismiss it as a plot from American operatives working on behalf of any company but Zeiss). This "sweet spot" is really the only "real" negative (or questionable) point emerging from all I've read on this forum about the Zeiss FL (with one exception: John's comment about the FL robustness and dioptre adjustment, both off which have been contradicted by basicaly every other posts). Sorry to put you in the "Lime Light" John, but you do stand out on these two specific aspects (minor aspects should I say). But then again subjective impressions are exactly that: subjective impressions. And what's wrong with that? If you don't agree with it you just say otherwise (that's the point). People will sort it out. NOW, my scoop: most if not every one of those talking about a small "sweet spot" in the FL are also ASTRONOMERS. Can it be that astronomers are trained to look at the entire field of view (after all, a star at the very edge of the field of view is as much a star as any other). In birding it's different, we tend to focuss on the bird's features. Well first the bird, but then the eye, the beak the claws, etc. Just food for talk...
The night sky is all at infinity and you have a relatively dark background with many small points of light. Unless looking for a particular object, I do tend to look at the whole field. I know those virtual point sources of light should look like little pin points.
When I'm on a birding walk the view through the binocular changes greatly. Things are not always so far that they are at infinity (for the focuser of the binocular).
I'm usually looking for a bird and looking pretty much in the center of the field. When I see a bird of interest, I put it in the center of the field.
I'm surprised that there is so much of a dust up over the edge sharpness of the FL. Most binoculars have soft edges. It isn't anything new with Zeiss. It certainly isn't anything new with Leica. I found the 10x42 FL had better edge sharpness than the Leica 10x42 Ultravid.
The Nikon SEs have surprisingly good edge sharpness but they have problems in other areas that make it not so much fun to use in the birding field. Sometimes the view through the SE seems a little "dead", like looking at a TV screen. However, I like them for astronomy.
The Fujinon 10x70 FMT-SX has good edge sharpness but it is, IMHO, an astro binocular and not much use for birding unless it is on a mount. It is better on a mount for astro viewing too.
One feature of the FL that is a little strange is the way the image of something like a near by building spreads outward at the top. This effect may be seen in other binoculars. I don't notice it when birding.
Have people complained about the sweet spot in the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL? It has soft edges. I don't have my Zeiss FL with me at the moment to compare them, but I don't think there is a real differnece in the size of the ELs sweet spot vs. the FLs.
I find the Zeiss 10x42 FL a real pleasure to use. I don't think it has an overly small sweet spot. The image is very sharp and high contrast. Other good things about the FL, it's relatively light weight, has a very nice focuser, nice shape, nice eyecups, very good eye relief for 10x42, etc.
Rich