New Zeiss Victory FL binoculars (4 Viewers)

[And]

It's hard to keep up with all the posts on the FL's but I don't think I've seen this before:The Norwegian site "Kikkertspesialisten.no" have their review of the new 10x FL's on their webpage now. They rank the Ultravid higher. The "sharpness/resolution" and the robustness is supposed to better in the Leicas, but the contrast and edge sharpness better in the Zeiss.

Anders

 

[Grousemore]

Not sure how you test 'robustness', other than dropping them down a fjord, but from what I can make out (my Norwegian is a bit rusty)the test referred to by Anders has the 10x FL's equal or ahead of the Swaro 10x EL's on every optical criteria.
Having used both in the field last weekend, I'd agree with that summation.

The results between Fl's and Ultravid appeared very close as far as I could make out.

Unfortunately, I just could not use the Ultravids, for me the IP distance or something just meant 'black-outs' and so I could not test them thoroughly.
As a Leica fan, that was a disappointment.

 

[gorank]

It's hard to keep up with all the posts on the FL's but I don't think I've seen this before:The Norwegian site "Kikkertspesialisten.no" have their review of the new 10x FL's on their webpage now. They rank the Ultravid higher. The "sharpness/resolution" and the robustness is supposed to better in the Leicas, but the contrast and edge sharpness better in the Zeiss.

Anders

Interesting to see that the EDGE sharpness is rated higher for the FL:s than the Ultravids...even if it is the 10x model...

My own conclusion looking at the rating is that, optically, the FL:s seems better than the Ultravids. The robustness seems a bit difficult to rate, until dropped...

Remember that kikkertspesialisten SELL binos and the ultravids are more expensive than the FL:s in Norway. To motivate the higher price, well think for yourselves.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I find it very entertaining that edge sharpness of the FL, so regularly slammed in this forum, is rated even above the Ultravid.

 

[scampo]

...and edge sharpness better in the Zeiss.

Anders

There has to be some irony here...!

 

[Leif]

There has to be some irony here...!

Well the central hinge shaft is irony, the armour is rubbery and so on ...

I originally misunderstood the point that was made by Henry about the 'edge softness'. When I look carefully through my Swaro 8.5x42 there is a VERY SLIGHT drop in resolution away from the centre e.g. at 50% from centre. It is small but noticeable: it took me 6 months to notice it without looking for it. It is IMO not significant and can be ignored. Others may disagree. Henry reckons the FL were similar but a bit more marked. There is also some softness at the extreme edges. I suspect the Nordic site refers to the extreme edges and not the subtle drop in resolution at e.g. 50% from the centre. At least that's my take on it all. I'm sure Henry - or someone else - will correct me if I have gotten the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Leif, setting aside my sarcastic mode, you have the same understanding as I -- that the sharpness issues that have been discussed in this forum are not at the very edge but part way between the center and edge. However, I'm not so clear what the Norwegian review means by "edge."

 

[henry link]

Leif,

Thanks, I was about to post a message restating that my concern is in the area from about 1/3 to 1/2 of the distance from the center to the edge. After using the review sample for a few weeks I would say it was irritatingly worse than the EL in that area. The pair I have now is better, I would say acceptable, but still a bit inferior to the EL, not to mention the SE.

I suspect from his reaction that the pair John saw was a weak sample like my review pair and that Curtis has a "good" pair similar to what I have now. I would suggest (at the risk of being hounded off the thread) that new binoculars be "star tested" by boosting the magnification with a small scope or second bin behind the eyepiece to look for miscollimated optics and other defects. I did it in a few minutes right in the store. I mounted the pair to be tested on a tripod and hand held a pair behind the eyepiece using the sun reflecting from shiny spots on cars in the parking lot. It was shakey but an off center airy disc is easy to see. Both the review sample and one other had miscollimated objectives in both barrels. The "good" pair I have now has perfectly collimated objectives in both barrels. I should have known better than to take home a binocular that showed such a problem in a star test, but I'm embarrassed to admit that I went ga-ga over the image quality at the center of the field.

Henry

 

[Jonathan B.]

I would suggest (at the risk of being hounded off the thread) that new binoculars be "star tested" by boosting the magnification with a small scope or second bin behind the eyepiece to look for miscollimated optics and other defects. I did it in a few minutes right in the store. I mounted the pair to be tested on a tripod and hand held a pair behind the eyepiece using the sun reflecting from shiny spots on cars in the parking lot. It was shakey but an off center airy disc is easy to see. Both the review sample and one other had miscollimated objectives in both barrels. The "good" pair I have now has perfectly collimated objectives in both barrels. Henry

I don't suppose that any manufacturer has perfect quality control, but I am stunned that even two or three of the very small number of FLs that contributors to this thread have handled have been shipped to retail outlets in this condition. Is anybody at Zeiss reading this?

 

[Pileatus]

Leif,

Thanks, I was about to post a message restating that my concern is in the area from about 1/3 to 1/2 of the distance from the center to the edge. After using the review sample for a few weeks I would say it was irritatingly worse than the EL in that area. The pair I have now is better, I would say acceptable, but still a bit inferior to the EL, not to mention the SE.

I suspect from his reaction that the pair John saw was a weak sample like my review pair and that Curtis has a "good" pair similar to what I have now. I would suggest (at the risk of being hounded off the thread) that new binoculars be "star tested" by boosting the magnification with a small scope or second bin behind the eyepiece to look for miscollimated optics and other defects. I did it in a few minutes right in the store. I mounted the pair to be tested on a tripod and hand held a pair behind the eyepiece using the sun reflecting from shiny spots on cars in the parking lot. It was shakey but an off center airy disc is easy to see. Both the review sample and one other had miscollimated objectives in both barrels. The "good" pair I have now has perfectly collimated objectives in both barrels. I should have known better than to take home a binocular that showed such a problem in a star test, but I'm embarrassed to admit that I went ga-ga over the image quality at the center of the field.

Henry

Henry,

Thank you, once again, for confirming there are valid concerns. Last night I read a long series of recent posts and a clear pattern developed. Reviewers are looking at bins of varying quality and reporting what they see. Varying quality produced varying opinions and there was nothing sinister about it at all!

I am sorry to admit that I failed to consider poor collimation to be an issue with the FL, but that is exactly the type of deficiency that could produce the poor image I saw. I also stand by my post in its entirety.

I hope Zeiss is listening.

John

 

[henry link]

John,

I should have mentioned that the collimation I'm talking about is not the usual right/left collimation in binoculars, but the internal collimation of the optical elements in each barrel. All three samples were well collimated right to left, but 4 of the 6 "telescopes" were internally miscollimated.

Henry

 

[Pileatus]

John,

I should have mentioned that the collimation I'm talking about is not the usual right/left collimation in binoculars, but the internal collimation of the optical elements in each barrel. All three samples were well collimated right to left, but 4 of the 6 "telescopes" were internally miscollimated.

Henry

Henry,

I was referring to internal collimation because it struck me that there was something wrong with a single ocular, though I had no inkling what the cause was or the ability to test it in the store. Since my allergies were bothering me that day I thought my eyes were at fault. However, I soon dismissed that notion when other bins produced fine images.

John

 

[Leif]

Since my allergies were bothering me that day I thought my eyes were at fault.

Sounds like an allergy to Zeiss binoculars to me. I recommend some good birding in the great outdoors followed by a nice cup of tea ...

Leif

 

[mlamb]

Henry,

I was referring to internal collimation because it struck me that there was something wrong with a single ocular, though I had no inkling what the cause was or the ability to test it in the store. Since my allergies were bothering me that day I thought my eyes were at fault. However, I soon dismissed that notion when other bins produced fine images.

John

Gentlemen,

If I suspect that this is an issue with my 8X42s how would I check this using another pair of bins? It is not clear to me how Henry did this and what to look for. Now assuming that there is a problem how will I know where the collimation problem is, internal vs. left/right barrels? And how to get them corrected?

Thanks...Mike

 

[DHB]

Zeiss quality control

It is correctable but I would be surprised if you would have any success with Zeiss USA. My dealings have been less than great. Best to do what Henry did and don't take any home that appear less than great. Although this is tough to do in most area's of the world.
Pentax has the same problems, I viewed seven pair of 10x43SP's and two were obviously better. I am becoming less than thrilled with Zeiss. The pair of Victory 10x40 I owned were not sharp at all and Zeiss basically said they were within factory specs and return them to your dealer. All the while knowing I bought them used.
Oh well. I thought they would collimate them or offer to upgrade at my expense but nothing.
Dave

 

[Curtis Croulet]

It is correctable but I would be surprised if you would have any success with Zeiss USA. My dealings have been less than great...snip
Dave

Hmm, that's disappointing to hear. I'd seen a couple of other remarks on the web about great Zeiss service, but then I read in the scope section that they couldn't even test a guy's scope in the USA to verify that it did/did not meet specs, and now this. My impression is that Carl Zeiss Sports Optics, the office that handles binos & scopes in the USA, is a very small operation. I'd be surprised if there are more than a half-dozen people in the entire office, including the receptionist.

 

[kryptora]

Does size matter?

Hmm, that's disappointing to hear. I'd seen a couple of other remarks on the web about great Zeiss service, but then I read in the scope section that they couldn't even test a guy's scope in the USA to verify that it did/did not meet specs, and now this. My impression is that Carl Zeiss Sports Optics, the office that handles binos & scopes in the USA, is a very small operation. I'd be surprised if there are more than a half-dozen people in the entire office, including the receptionist.

 

[Pileatus]

Sounds like an allergy to Zeiss binoculars to me. I recommend some good birding in the great outdoors followed by a nice cup of tea ...

Leif

Leif,

Isn't it obvious to you that there must be QA problems and that people are simply reporting what they observe?

John

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Does size matter?

Size matters if Carl Zeiss Sports Optics is nothing but a small sales organization, without facilities and personnel to fully service and test their products. I don't know for a fact if that's the case, but your report that they can't collimate binoculars and the other report that they can't evaluate a scope doesn't speak well for Zeiss's North American organization.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Leif,

Isn't it obvious to you that there must be QA problems and that people are simply reporting what they observe?

John

I agree. It sounds like there's a QA problem, and if Zeiss wants to recapture the market share they've lost (at least in the US) to Leica and Swarovski, then they'd better address it!