[motts]

I can purchase a Victory FL (non Lotutec) or an Ultravid (non-HD) for about the same price. Neither will have hydrophobic coating, but the Zeiss will have the FL glass.

I'm looking at a 10x42 configuration. From my reading I've gathered that the Zeiss may have a better view, due to the ABK prisms and FL glass. However, I've read that the Ultravids have better contrast? And some say the Zeiss feel plasticy vs the super tough Ultravids.

I'll be using them for some hunting, but mostly just observing wildlife or whatever outdoors. I'm not super hard on my equipment so I can't imagine that I'd break either one. However, durability is always nice...just for peace of mind even.

Given the choice between the two, what would you recommend? Anything in particular that I should really be considering that may sway me one way or the other?

Thanks for the comments and help!

[Fireform]

For my two cents, I would take the Zeisses. They're as good as the lotutec version optically and IMO just a little better than the non-HD Leicas.

[dogfish]

I second that. I have FL 7 x 42s and Ultravid 8 x 42s. The FLs may feel plasticky to some but there's not a shred of evidence that they're less tough than the Ultravids.

Sean

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by motts

I can purchase a Victory FL (non Lotutec) or an Ultravid (non-HD) for about the same price. Neither will have hydrophobic coating, but the Zeiss will have the FL glass.

I'm looking at a 10x42 configuration. From my reading I've gathered that the Zeiss may have a better view, due to the ABK prisms and FL glass. However, I've read that the Ultravids have better contrast? And some say the Zeiss feel plasticy vs the super tough Ultravids.

I'll be using them for some hunting, but mostly just observing wildlife or whatever outdoors. I'm not super hard on my equipment so I can't imagine that I'd break either one. However, durability is always nice...just for peace of mind even.

Given the choice between the two, what would you recommend? Anything in particular that I should really be considering that may sway me one way or the other?

Thanks for the comments and help!

motts,

I think you have outlined the differences well. With alphas it comes to down personal preferences. You won't know until you compare both side by side outdoors.

However, if that's not possible where you live, you might be better off soliciting the opinions of hunters.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthr...pics/2663909/1

Note this comment from one hunter:

"For my eyes, Ultravids are as sharp, and color neutral as any bin out there, actually more so, but they are a little finicky. I have to pay attention and line them up perfectly, otherwise I get slight kidney bean black-outs."

See the 8x32 FL thread on BF for a technical (and some non-technical) discussions of the IPD issue.

Since you have a big budget, also check out the 10x42 EDG. I tried them recently and thought they were superb. I could hold them much steadier than any closed bridge I tried. Eagle Optics had demos on sale for around $1,200.

However, I must admit that for myself, I would prefer a 10x50 to a 10x42 for winter wildlife observation due to the the larger exit pupil and better DOF.

The 10x50 Meopta is well regarded by hunters. You might want to check it out:

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/te...exId=cat601548

Half the price of alphas.

Cabela's sells the same bin under their badge in a 10x42 model (but w/out the "pimples" on sale for two hundred dollars less):

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/te...exId=cat601539

Here's a review:

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/te...ryId=SEARCH_ai

[ronh]

I am currently enjoying a new 8x42 FL, but I can't tell you what you'd like best. At this level, don't hesitate to select one over the other for ANY REASON regardless how picayune it may seem! The FL certainly is much brighter, almost devoid of CA, lighter, and smoother focusing, compared to my two-generations-back Trinovid BA, but it does not seem as comfortable to view through (wide sweet spot, full field easily viewed with little blackout) nor as physically neat-o.

I'd guess if you aren't a big CA hater, it might well go to the Leica, provided you get one with a smooth focus, a gripe with some of the non-HDs.
Ron

[motts]

I have been heavily considering the Meoptas as well. First the 10x42, but I'd probably go 10x50 as Brock suggested.

I tend to lean a bit towards the Zeiss because of the FL glass. I have a somewhat hard time paying over $1000 and not getting FL/ED glass.

Now, if Meopta would just come out with an FL/ED line of binos for under $1500...I wouldn't even have a doubt in my mind...I'd get them!

[motts]

I've emailed Zeiss to see if the $250 rebate applies to non-Lotutec Victory FLs, but haven't heard back from them yet. The rebate says all Victory FL binoculars which leads to believe it will be included.

I may just get the Zen ED2 and save my money for the latest and greatest to come in 2010. Deicions...decisions.

[falcondude]

Originally Posted by motts

I've emailed Zeiss to see if the $250 rebate applies to non-Lotutec Victory FLs, but haven't heard back from them yet. The rebate says all Victory FL binoculars which leads to believe it will be included.

I may just get the Zen ED2 and save my money for the latest and greatest to come in 2010. Deicions...decisions.

Maybe get one of each from online dealers that accept return without restocking fee (like ordering Zeiss from EO, ZEN ED2 from zen-ray, etc..). Then decide which one will be a best fit and deal for you. I found it is overwhelming by reading the reviews only.

[kristoffer]

I can really recommend the ED2, I have it and enjoy it. My budget does not allow alphas right now so it´s a blessing to able to have such an glass for that price, a few years ago I would have to make do with a pair of monarchs instead.

[motts]

Well, the Zeiss rep got back with me. Apparently the binoculars wouldn't qualify for the rebate. even though the rebate form says all Victory FL binoculars, it is actually only current models. So, Victory FLs without Lotutec are not current, and thus would not qualify.

[John M Robinson]

Hi Motts,

You really have to try them with your own eyes. Believe me there is no universally accepted "best bin". I have tried the latest lLeica Ultravid BR & HD, Swaro EL and SLC and the latest Zeiss FL. They are all fantastic bins, and I would be happy with any of them, but after weighing all of them for quite a while I ended up liking the Leica Ultravid BR or HD the best for my eyes. There are very experienced guys on here who having made the same comparisons, even personally owning all three, have come to believe one or the other, Zeiss - Swarovski, is the absolute best. Nobody is lying or twisting facts to suit an agenda, they just see it differently. These high end designs are masterfull designing trade-offs, with each manufacturer prioritizing various aspects differently, and we as individuals seem to pick up on and appreciate these trades offs differently.

That's my 2 cents,

John

[denco@comcast.n]

That's a no brainer

Originally Posted by motts

I can purchase a Victory FL (non Lotutec) or an Ultravid (non-HD) for about the same price. Neither will have hydrophobic coating, but the Zeiss will have the FL glass.

I'm looking at a 10x42 configuration. From my reading I've gathered that the Zeiss may have a better view, due to the ABK prisms and FL glass. However, I've read that the Ultravids have better contrast? And some say the Zeiss feel plasticy vs the super tough Ultravids.

I'll be using them for some hunting, but mostly just observing wildlife or whatever outdoors. I'm not super hard on my equipment so I can't imagine that I'd break either one. However, durability is always nice...just for peace of mind even.

Given the choice between the two, what would you recommend? Anything in particular that I should really be considering that may sway me one way or the other?

Thanks for the comments and help!

That's a no brainer! Get the Zeiss FL. Now if you could get the Ultravid HD for the same price it is very close to the FL but not the old Ultravid. It is a step down. No ED glass and it isn't going to be as good. Get the Zeiss FL. I had a 10x42 Zeiss FL before I had my 8x32 FL and it was an excellent binocular

[APSmith]

Originally Posted by John M Robinson

Hi Motts,

You really have to try them with your own eyes. Believe me there is no universally accepted "best bin". I have tried the latest lLeica Ultravid BR & HD, Swaro EL and SLC and the latest Zeiss FL. They are all fantastic bins, and I would be happy with any of them, but after weighing all of them for quite a while I ended up liking the Leica Ultravid BR or HD the best for my eyes. There are very experienced guys on here who having made the same comparisons, even personally owning all three, have come to believe one or the other, Zeiss - Swarovski, is the absolute best. Nobody is lying or twisting facts to suit an agenda, they just see it differently. These high end designs are masterfull designing trade-offs, with each manufacturer prioritizing various aspects differently, and we as individuals seem to pick up on and appreciate these trades offs differently.

That's my 2 cents,

John

Very well said.

I would add that an individual could easily like a Z best one day, L the next, and S the next (you can read the stories here). You really have to spend time (over time) with a bin to see how well you handle the compromises.

FWIW, after a multi-year (ongoing) search, I've found myself in the Leica camp (for now).

APS

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by John M Robinson

Hi Motts,

You really have to try them with your own eyes. Believe me there is no universally accepted "best bin". I have tried the latest lLeica Ultravid BR & HD, Swaro EL and SLC and the latest Zeiss FL. They are all fantastic bins, and I would be happy with any of them, but after weighing all of them for quite a while I ended up liking the Leica Ultravid BR or HD the best for my eyes. There are very experienced guys on here who having made the same comparisons, even personally owning all three, have come to believe one or the other, Zeiss - Swarovski, is the absolute best. Nobody is lying or twisting facts to suit an agenda, they just see it differently. These high end designs are masterfull designing trade-offs, with each manufacturer prioritizing various aspects differently, and we as individuals seem to pick up on and appreciate these trades offs differently.

That's my 2 cents,

John

Yes. But if you gave a Zeiss 8x42 FL, a Swarovski 8.5 x42 EL, and a Leica Ultravid HD 8x42 to 100 people and asked them which one they preferred I would bet 80% would prefer the Zeiss. This has been confirmed again and again in all these reviews. The MAJORITY of the people thought the Zeiss FL had the best view. So the odds are that you would too!

[oleaf]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

Yes. But if you gave a Zeiss 8x42 FL, a Swarovski 8.5 x42 EL, and a Leica Ultravid HD 8x42 to 100 people and asked them which one they preferred I would bet 80% would prefer the Zeiss. This has been confirmed again and again in all these reviews. The MAJORITY of the people thought the Zeiss FL had the best view. So the odds are that you would too!

Sure... and 3 to 1 buy the Swarovski LOL!

Try em to find the best for you.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by oleaf

Sure... and 3 to 1 buy the Swarovski LOL!

Try em to find the best for you.

That's because Swarovski advertises more and people think they are a status symbol! Hunters for some reason think Swarovski is the ultimate and I don't think they even know Zeiss makes binoculars. That's all you here come out of hunters mouths when it comes to optics. Swarovski, Swarovski, Swarovski. They advertise alot in those hunters magazines.

[oleaf]

I think Swarovski's ad dollars is an easy excuse. I'd give the hunters more credit than that. They have two eyes and one opinion just like you.

Swaros provide a very easy, comfortable view for most. There are things about Zeiss and Leica that turn off some potential customers on the first try. Rarely does a Swaro EL disappoint on the first try

Cheers

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

That's because Swarovski advertises more and people think they are a status symbol! Hunters for some reason think Swarovski is the ultimate and I don't think they even know Zeiss makes binoculars. That's all you here come out of hunters mouths when it comes to optics. Swarovski, Swarovski, Swarovski. They advertise alot in those hunters magazines.

Dubious about Hunters not knowing that Zeiss makes Binoculars because they know for sure that Zeiss makes Rifle Scopes! 60% or more of Zeiss's Optics catalog is devoted to scopes.
Bob

[stephen b]

From denco@comcast.n:

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

That's because Swarovski advertises more and people think they are a status symbol! Hunters for some reason think Swarovski is the ultimate and I don't think they even know Zeiss makes binoculars. That's all you here come out of hunters mouths when it comes to optics. Swarovski, Swarovski, Swarovski. They advertise alot in those hunters magazines.

We all know that you like what you like, but.... A lot of other people have their own personal preferences, and a lot of those like Swarovski and they are not just hunters. ( by the way -hunters are not stupid gullible people who fall for what is advertised). I know a lot of birders really like the Swarovski and a # of them know what they are talking about about as far as quality.

As a matter of fact I know of AT LEAST 3 (and I am sure there are more) of the main sales people that work at Eagle Optics not only own Swarovski, but use them as their main bino. These people have worked there for years and look thru bino's all the time. They could buy any bino they wish. I sure that they are not just falling for the ADs. I know of 2 of them that are also going to get the new Swaro's when they come out.

So use what ever you like, but don't belittle others as far (hunters and others etc.) - as being gullible to Ads or falling for a "status symbol". Or saying that hunters "don't even know that Zeiss makes binoculars" Frankly that is ignorant and insulting. I would bet that the majority of the sales of the Trinovids in the past were bought by hunters.

Motts- I am really sorry about commenting about Swarovski when your thread was asking about Zeiss, but frankly I was a little upset about the above comment. I have seen this guys postings for a while about his beloved chosen Bino's and making his comments about others esp. the Swaro's and I have grown tired of them. This time I could not help myself when he made comments insulting others concerning "status" buying; and people's ignorance concerning not being in the know concerning a brand of bino.

All of these are great bino's. And isn't it great (or a curse) that we live in a world with free will and so many choices. So choose what you like and honor other people for the choices they make and their right to do so.

It sure would be boring if we were all alike and or only had 1 or 2 choices

Just my 2c.

[Paskman]

Originally Posted by stephen b

From denco@comcast.n:



We all know that you like what you like, but.... A lot of other people have their own personal preferences, and a lot of those like Swarovski and they are not just hunters. ( by the way -hunters are not stupid gullible people who fall for what is advertised). I know a lot of birders really like the Swarovski and a # of them know what they are talking about about as far as quality.

As a matter of fact I know of AT LEAST 3 (and I am sure there are more) of the main sales people that work at Eagle Optics not only own Swarovski, but use them as their main bino. These people have worked there for years and look thru bino's all the time. They could buy any bino they wish. I sure that they are not just falling for the ADs. I know of 2 of them that are also going to get the new Swaro's when they come out.

So use what ever you like, but don't belittle others as far (hunters and others etc.) - as being gullible to Ads or falling for a "status symbol". Or saying that hunters "don't even know that Zeiss makes binoculars" Frankly that is ignorant and insulting. I would bet that the majority of the sales of the Trinovids in the past were bought by hunters.

Motts- I am really sorry about commenting about Swarovski when your thread was asking about Zeiss, but frankly I was a little upset about the above comment. I have seen this guys postings for a while about his beloved chosen Bino's and making his comments about others esp. the Swaro's and I have grown tired of them. This time I could not help myself when he made comments insulting others concerning "status" buying; and people's ignorance concerning not being in the know concerning a brand of bino.

All of these are great bino's. And isn't it great (or a curse) that we live in a world with free will and so many choices. So choose what you like and honor other people for the choices they make and their right to do so.

It sure would be boring if we were all alike and or only had 1 or 2 choices

Just my 2c.

Well said that man. If there was only one " best" then there would be no variety, no arguments, only one manufacturer and no binocular forums - actually since the Nikon E2 is the best I declare these forums closed - goodbye everyone

Paul

[John M Robinson]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

Yes. But if you gave a Zeiss 8x42 FL, a Swarovski 8.5 x42 EL, and a Leica Ultravid HD 8x42 to 100 people and asked them which one they preferred I would bet 80% would prefer the Zeiss. This has been confirmed again and again in all these reviews. The MAJORITY of the people thought the Zeiss FL had the best view. So the odds are that you would too!

Dennis, isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? I've read most if not all of the reviews that you speak of and I haven't got the impression that Zeiss is that superior to the other alphas, actually some reviews prefer Leica over Zeiss, and folks that vote with their dollars prefer Swaro over both. Our local sports store carries all three alphas and he sells Swaro 2:1 to Leica with Zeiss in third place. Now most hunters don't care about CA which is a strong point of the Zeiss and to a lesser degree Leica HDs, but that just goes to my point about different individuals putting greater emphasis on different attributes.

Now I know from reading your post over the years, that you are very knowledgeable and experienced about high end optics, but you seem to fall in love with a certain binocular and then turn into a zealot in believing that one binocular is the hand's down best in the world, and you just can't believe other equally qualified users can come to a different conclusion. I remember a "Leica is best, forget the rest" thread". You did post a remark a little while ago where you advised a guy that if he picked any one of the top three or four he would be happy, I agree with that sentiment. I'm only bringing this up because I was worried that Motts could take you literaly and buy the Zeiss sight unseen without comparing with his own eyes. Maybe Zeiss is best for him, maybe it isn't.

Respectfully,
John

[kristoffer]

The FL is great, the EL is great and got SO nice ergonomics that I probably have to buy one, and the Kowa Genesis got more "wow" image, not easy choices.

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by John M Robinson

Dennis, isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? I've read most if not all of the reviews that you speak of and I haven't got the impression that Zeiss is that superior to the other alphas, actually some reviews prefer Leica over Zeiss, and folks that vote with their dollars prefer Swaro over both. Our local sports store carries all three alphas and he sells Swaro 2:1 to Leica with Zeiss in third place. Now most hunters don't care about CA which is a strong point of the Zeiss and to a lesser degree Leica HDs, but that just goes to my point about different individuals putting greater emphasis on different attributes.

Now I know from reading your post over the years, that you are very knowledgeable and experienced about high end optics, but you seem to fall in love with a certain binocular and then turn into a zealot in believing that one binocular is the hand's down best in the world, and you just can't believe other equally qualified users can come to a different conclusion. I remember a "Leica is best, forget the rest" thread". You did post a remark a little while ago where you advised a guy that if he picked any one of the top three or four he would be happy, I agree with that sentiment. I'm only bringing this up because I was worried that Motts could take you literaly and buy the Zeiss sight unseen without comparing with his own eyes. Maybe Zeiss is best for him, maybe it isn't.

Respectfully,
John

John, I agree with you on this one, we have someone here who is very high on his own opinions, and then proclaims it as the final truth.

You know, tattoos are popular right now, I bet someone here on BF has a "Z" tattooed
on both cheeks. .

Butt, tune in next week, it will probably be something else!!

There are many excellent choices in the marketplace today, and I hope that
most here will realize that.

If you can, the old adage applies, try before you buy, or have a purchase with a liberal return policy.

Jerry

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by stephen b

From denco@comcast.n:



We all know that you like what you like, but.... A lot of other people have their own personal preferences, and a lot of those like Swarovski and they are not just hunters. ( by the way -hunters are not stupid gullible people who fall for what is advertised). I know a lot of birders really like the Swarovski and a # of them know what they are talking about about as far as quality.

As a matter of fact I know of AT LEAST 3 (and I am sure there are more) of the main sales people that work at Eagle Optics not only own Swarovski, but use them as their main bino. These people have worked there for years and look thru bino's all the time. They could buy any bino they wish. I sure that they are not just falling for the ADs. I know of 2 of them that are also going to get the new Swaro's when they come out.

So use what ever you like, but don't belittle others as far (hunters and others etc.) - as being gullible to Ads or falling for a "status symbol". Or saying that hunters "don't even know that Zeiss makes binoculars" Frankly that is ignorant and insulting. I would bet that the majority of the sales of the Trinovids in the past were bought by hunters.

Motts- I am really sorry about commenting about Swarovski when your thread was asking about Zeiss, but frankly I was a little upset about the above comment. I have seen this guys postings for a while about his beloved chosen Bino's and making his comments about others esp. the Swaro's and I have grown tired of them. This time I could not help myself when he made comments insulting others concerning "status" buying; and people's ignorance concerning not being in the know concerning a brand of bino.

All of these are great bino's. And isn't it great (or a curse) that we live in a world with free will and so many choices. So choose what you like and honor other people for the choices they make and their right to do so.

It sure would be boring if we were all alike and or only had 1 or 2 choices

Just my 2c.

Alot of the hunters I have hunted with seem to really prefer Swarovski EL's and the salesman at Sportmans Warehouse said they sell more Swarovski's in the high end category than anything. Alot of the people buying them do so with a preconceived notion that they are the best and I really think they perceive them as a status symbol like having a Browning shotgun. I think advertising has alot to do with it. The salesmen at Eagles Optics probably get Swarovski for cost that's why they use them. I hate Swarovski's because they monopolize the crystal industry and those are way overpriced too. I might look at the new Swarovision when it comes out. It will be along time though before you will get any discount on those babies.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by John M Robinson

Dennis, isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? I've read most if not all of the reviews that you speak of and I haven't got the impression that Zeiss is that superior to the other alphas, actually some reviews prefer Leica over Zeiss, and folks that vote with their dollars prefer Swaro over both. Our local sports store carries all three alphas and he sells Swaro 2:1 to Leica with Zeiss in third place. Now most hunters don't care about CA which is a strong point of the Zeiss and to a lesser degree Leica HDs, but that just goes to my point about different individuals putting greater emphasis on different attributes.

Now I know from reading your post over the years, that you are very knowledgeable and experienced about high end optics, but you seem to fall in love with a certain binocular and then turn into a zealot in believing that one binocular is the hand's down best in the world, and you just can't believe other equally qualified users can come to a different conclusion. I remember a "Leica is best, forget the rest" thread". You did post a remark a little while ago where you advised a guy that if he picked any one of the top three or four he would be happy, I agree with that sentiment. I'm only bringing this up because I was worried that Motts could take you literaly and buy the Zeiss sight unseen without comparing with his own eyes. Maybe Zeiss is best for him, maybe it isn't.

Respectfully,
John

I am just trying to save him all the time it took me to come to the realization of what I think is the best binocular on the market. I don't want him to buy a Swarovski EL and then be sorry because he sees purple fringing around stuff and then starts wondering what is that. I would not buy an EL right now I would wait for the new Swarovision if I was in the market for a new binocular now. I would definitely not pay $1500.00 for a non-ED glass binocular with all the ED binoculars coming out. That is my opinion. He asked for opinions. I am sure he is not going to buy one brand of binoculars based on one persons opinion. If was in the market for a top quality binocular I would look at the Zeiss FL, the Leica Ultravid, Kowa XD, and maybe some other top binoculars but they would definitely have ED glass or I wouldn't even consider them.