[angelo225544]

Having read recently the astronomical prices being paid for 7x42 Zeiss Classics, I can't help but wonder if I should use this opportunity to sell mine and perhaps use the proceeds to upgrade(?) to the 7x42 Zeiss FL. Has anyone else made this switch? If so, is it something you would recommend? Much as I love the wide FOV and tremendous sharpness of the Classics, I can't help but think the modern ergonomics (size and eyecups), coatings and glass of the FL might be welcome. Any input would be greatly appreciated as I have not yet used the Zeiss FL 7x42.

[ceasar]

Compare them both side by side before you decide. Based on what I've been reading about them in recent posts, Zeiss continued to add improvements (like phase coating) to the optics of the ClassiCs over the years, unlike Leica, which did little, if anything, to their old Leitz 7 x 42 Trinovids. I have an old (1990) Leitz 7 x 42 BA Trinovid and a more recent Leica 7 x 42 BN Trinovid (since replaced by the Ultravid). Believe me, the old Leitz Trinny is not in the same league with the later model Leica Trinny! The improvement in contrast, sharpness and color is instantly noticable!

This may or may not be the case with your Zeiss, depending on it's age.

Meanwhile, if anyone is interested in an old Leitz Trinovid for the price that's being floated around on the Zeiss..............................?

Cordially,
Bob

[matt green]

I wonder if those prices are bucked up by collectors,or by people who want to actually use them in the field?

If I had a pair i'd keep them in a silk drawstring pouch and stash them in safety deposit box!

I'd get the fl's

Matt

[angelo225544]

Originally Posted by ceasar

This may or may not be the case with your Zeiss, depending on it's age.

Cordially,
Bob

I should have been more specific. Mine is the latest T* and P* version of the 7x42 "Classic".

[Alexis Powell]

As I've mentioned in previous threads, I prefer the Zeiss 7x42 Classic to the FL. The differences in contrast, chromatic aberration, color fidelity, and brightness are slight (perhaps even less than the differences between the Leica BN and Ultravids), and I much prefer the optics of the Classic because it has much less off-axis astigmatism (to which I am perhaps overly sensitive--my brain never seems to get used to it). The FL has a flatter field, but with a smaller functional sweet spot (for me) because it has so much astigmatism. I also prefer the ergonomics of the Classic--the slender barrels allow a wrap-around grip (it was the original "open bridge" design, only bettered by the Swarovski 8x32 EL), and several different secure hand positions are possible. My unit has a silky smooth focus that is just the right size and ratio such that focusing seems to happen instantly (without being so fast that I overshoot best focus) and automatically (without attracting my conscious attention). These latter qualities, in combination with its wide FOV, are what make this bino such a legend amongst warbler watchers. By comparison, I find the handling of the FL to be similar to that of most other conventional binos--not as good as the classic. In summary, try before you buy. These two models have their own strengths and weaknesses. It is certainly NOT the case that the FL is superior in all respects or even superior overall.
--AP

[ceasar]

Originally Posted by angelo225544

I should have been more specific. Mine is the latest T* and P* version of the 7x42 "Classic".

It looks like you got the latest issued version. Like Alexis says, "try before you buy."

Bob

[angelo225544]

Originally Posted by Alexis Powell

As I've mentioned in previous threads, I prefer the Zeiss 7x42 Classic to the FL. The differences in contrast, chromatic aberration, color fidelity, and brightness are slight (perhaps even less than the differences between the Leica BN and Ultravids), and I much prefer the optics of the Classic because it has much less off-axis astigmatism (to which I am perhaps overly sensitive--my brain never seems to get used to it). The FL has a flatter field, but with a smaller functional sweet spot (for me) because it has so much astigmatism. I also prefer the ergonomics of the Classic--the slender barrels allow a wrap-around grip (it was the original "open bridge" design, only bettered by the Swarovski 8x32 EL), and several different secure hand positions are possible. My unit has a silky smooth focus that is just the right size and ratio such that focusing seems to happen instantly (without being so fast that I overshoot best focus) and automatically (without attracting my conscious attention). These latter qualities, in combination with its wide FOV, are what make this bino such a legend amongst warbler watchers. By comparison, I find the handling of the FL to be similar to that of most other conventional binos--not as good as the classic. In summary, try before you buy. These two models have their own strengths and weaknesses. It is certainly NOT the case that the FL is superior in all respects or even superior overall.
--AP

Thank you. This is precisely the insight I was hoping to get. I'm not certain I would recognize the off-axis astigmatism, but I do appreciate you pointing it out. I agree that this is the genesis of the open bridge roof prism design - and the complexity of internal focusing has yet to equal the smoothness and precise feel of the best external focusing. I also wonder if there might be an inherent optical advantage to the external eyepiece focus mechanism of the Classics as opposed to internal focusing of all modern waterproof designs? Perhaps the relative optical simplicity (no internal focusing elements) of these old-school designs (including the superb Nikon SE) is the very reason they have not been equalled by modern computer aided optical designs.

[FrankD]

and I much prefer the optics of the Classic because it has much less off-axis astigmatism (to which I am perhaps overly sensitive--my brain never seems to get used to it). The FL has a flatter field, but with a smaller functional sweet spot (for me) because it has so much astigmatism.

This was probably the primary reason that I sold mine as well.

In my recent search for the perfect (for my intended application) 7x42 bin I spent a great deal of time comparing the FL, Trinovid and SLC in the field. For long distance hawkwatching I actually probably preferred the FL as the exceptionally bright image and wide field of view made scanning large portions of the sky an absolute breeze. However, when switching to a fairly close bird or when attempting to focus at the bins' close focus distance I just could not get a relaxing image to my eyes. I had the bins back to Zeiss shortly after purchasing them to check the alignment, focusing and diopter so I know none of those were the issue. My only conclusion is based on something that John Traynor mentioned. It would seem that my eyes tend to relax more when more of the field of view is in focus (larger sweet spot). At longer ranges, when glassing over the horizon for example, and when focusing on one particular object at moderate ranges the astigmatism does not affect me. However, for closer viewing it seemed to give a less than relaxed image.

Both the Trinovids and the SLCs provided a much more relaxed image at all ranges with only a very moderate loss in field of view (420 vs. 450 feet) and brightness. I chose to keep the Trinovids because they seemed to have slightly less CA in the image than the SLCs plus they are more compact and lighter overall. I still see they are on sale at Cabelas for $899.