New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

[SivaL]

From the mouth of the dutch Dali himself

SF pros - beeldveld(field), gewicht(weight)
SV pros - comfort(comfort!), randscherpte(edge sharpness)

In part two the reviewer shows SV having Magnesium eyecups while SF eyecups are all plastic. Weight reduction using plastic is not a revolutionary idea. On the looks department Swaro is the clear winner. Zeiss at least should have put a better looking armor on the SF. Still, SF's unassuming industrial design appeals to me. Might be overlooked as a cheaper bin and keep it from being stolen.

 

[Troubador]

From the mouth of the dutch Dali himself

SF pros - beeldveld(field), gewicht(weight)
SV pros - comfort(comfort!), randscherpte(edge sharpness)

In part two the reviewer shows SV having Magnesium eyecups while SF eyecups are all plastic. Weight reduction using plastic is not a revolutionary idea. On the looks department Swaro is the clear winner. Zeiss at least should have put a better looking armor on the SF. Still, SF's unassuming industrial design appeals to me. Might be overlooked as a cheaper bin and keep it from being stolen.

Yo Sub0888

You are entitled to not like SF's armour. Some people hate Swarovski green, some people don't like the dumpy bars of rubber all over the armour of Zeiss FL. But don't for one moment think that the SF's armour was some sort of economy measure. It is specially designed with grooves underneath to absorb impacts better than solid rubber and colour was chosen after much deliberation. No reason why you should agree with the choice but the armour chosen was chosen with good reasons in mind.
The colour is similar to a previous Dialyt by the way, see the attachment.

Lee

 

[SivaL]

Yo Sub0888

No reason why you should agree with the choice but the armour chosen was chosen with good reasons in mind.
The colour is similar to a previous Dialyt by the way, see the attachment.

Lee

Yo bro, I can see where SF got it's color scheme from. The Dialyt design with the grey ribbed armor works well together. It is a good looking instrument.

I am trying to imaging how the SF will look with ribbed armor. Well, it has already gotten a fair share of ribbing here at BF. :-O

 

[HighNorth]

From the mouth of the dutch Dali himself
SF pros - beeldveld(field), gewicht(weight)
SV pros - comfort(comfort!), randscherpte(edge sharpness)

The reason I went for the 8x42 SF over the 8.5x42 SV was that the SF had a much bigger field of view. I also thought the SV was heavy and bulky (less comfortable in my opinion). I am also one of those people who don't like the Swarovski-green...

Edge sharpness I don't care about. Who uses the edge to look at anything anyway?

Regarding plastic eyecups on the SF: at least they should be cheaper to replace if/when they break. Magnesium can also break by the way, and yes, I have tested that! :smoke:

 

[HighNorth]

The big field of view of the SF is very nice to have by the way! Today I was birding down by the fjord, scanning a flock of sea gulls, when suddenly a huge, white-tailed eagle sailed gracefully into the view! It was awesome! ||

 

[BruceH]

Here is a You Tube video that I do not recall seeing posted yet.

It is a short interview with Mike Jensen, President of Zeiss USA, done at the January 2015 Shot Show in Las Vegas. The part of the SF is in the first minute and twenty seconds of the video. He also talks about the new Terra at about 2:22. There is cross bow scope discussion in between.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUNnLrb3z5s&feature=youtu.be

 

[NDhunter]

Here is a You Tube video that I do not recall seeing posted yet.

It is a short interview with Mike Jensen, President of Zeiss USA, done at the January 2015 Shot Show in Las Vegas. The part of the SF is in the first minute and twenty seconds of the video. He also talks about the new Terra at about 2:22. There is cross bow scope discussion in between.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUNnLrb3z5s&feature=youtu.be

Bruce:

Thanks for posting this, it is good to see the interview with Mike Jenson.

Zeiss has been busy with all the new products, and I like what I see.

Jerry

 

[brocknroller]

Yo Sub0888

You are entitled to not like SF's armour. Some people hate Swarovski green, some people don't like the dumpy bars of rubber all over the armour of Zeiss FL. But don't for one moment think that the SF's armour was some sort of economy measure. It is specially designed with grooves underneath to absorb impacts better than solid rubber and colour was chosen after much deliberation. No reason why you should agree with the choice but the armour chosen was chosen with good reasons in mind.
The colour is similar to a previous Dialyt by the way, see the attachment.

Lee

I didn't realize Zeiss made a SIX by FORTY TWO. What's the FOV?

They must have been pretty rare, this is the first one I've seen. The pic is labeled "Skippper," and they have IF EPs, apparently for WP purposes, but 6x has such good DOF, that they would probably be useable for birding if the close focus isn't a light year like most IF EP bins.

Where did you find this photo? Is it a museum piece?

Found some info:
Zeiss 6x42 BGAT!!!!!

Brock

 

[8x60deckmount]

The big field of view of the SF is very nice to have by the way! Today I was birding down by the fjord, scanning a flock of sea gulls, when suddenly a huge, white-tailed eagle sailed gracefully into the view! It was awesome! ||

The big view of field is very nice . My old one - zeiss 8x60 is about 154 /1000 and is one of my favorite binos

 

[HighNorth]

The big view of field is very nice . My old one - zeiss 8x60 is about 154 /1000 and is one of my favorite binos

Looks a bit heavy to lug around. Is it all steel construction?

 

[Elmer Fudd]

I didn't realize Zeiss made a SIX by FORTY TWO. What's the FOV?

They must have been pretty rare, this is the first one I've seen. The pic is labeled "Skippper," and they have IF EPs, apparently for WP purposes, but 6x has such good DOF, that they would probably be useable for birding if the close focus isn't a light year like most IF EP bins.

Where did you find this photo? Is it a museum piece?

Found some info:
Zeiss 6x42 BGAT!!!!!

Brock

Here is one on auction:

http://www.ebay.de/itm/Zeiss-Dialyt...94?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_77&hash=item4ae9259236

I have seen one of these in realty in a camera shop in Münster /Westphalia back in the late 80s/early 90s.

If I had the money and if I weren't hot on the trail of a field scope I would give it a try.

 

[8x60deckmount]

Looks a bit heavy to lug around. Is it all steel construction?

Not very heavy.
I was lug around last sunday on a 4 hour trip with this one .

I may climb 1000m up this mountain with it later this year

http://www.nrk.no/video/PS*76261

 

[David in NC]

Here is a You Tube video that I do not recall seeing posted yet.

It is a short interview with Mike Jensen, President of Zeiss USA, done at the January 2015 Shot Show in Las Vegas. The part of the SF is in the first minute and twenty seconds of the video. He also talks about the new Terra at about 2:22. There is cross bow scope discussion in between.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUNnLrb3z5s&feature=youtu.be

Yeah thanks for posting. I'm amazed I didn't find this as I was looking and searching for bino vids (especially the SF!) around the time of SHOT!

 

[Troubador]

I didn't realize Zeiss made a SIX by FORTY TWO. What's the FOV?

They must have been pretty rare, this is the first one I've seen. The pic is labeled "Skippper," and they have IF EPs, apparently for WP purposes, but 6x has such good DOF, that they would probably be useable for birding if the close focus isn't a light year like most IF EP bins.

Where did you find this photo? Is it a museum piece?

Brock

Brock

They come up for sale sometimes on the internet and I grab the accompanying pics. Our own Gary Hawkins has a lovely example in his collection.

Go to: http://www.pbase.com/g_hawkins/image/114314664 But beware the slight blue tone of the pic, Gary assures me that the bins are actually gray. Note also the name Nautik which was also use for these bins.

I have posted pics of this Dialyt before and I think Henry had the idea that they may be 7x42 but with 8x42 Dialyt eyepieces.

For a comparo with the 7x42 see below.

Lee

 

[henry link]

I have posted pics of this Dialyt before and I think Henry had the idea that they may be 7x42 but with 8x42 Dialyt eyepieces.

Lee,

I know you meant to write 8x56 Dialyt eyepieces.

Henry

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

I know you meant to write 8x56 Dialyt eyepieces.

Henry

AAAaaaaagh! Drat these fingers on the keyboard and double-drat the brain that is supposed to be guiding them. :-O

Of course I meant x56, thanks for being alert Henry :t:

Lee

 

[Uhu74]

Today I tried a 10x42SF at my local optics store, and I thought, why not share my findings here?

It's my personal opinion, so please don't shoot me for it.
First impression, it is very light! About the looks, that's not really my cup of tea. The grey color looks very cheap, and I wonder how they will look after a couple of years of field use....
Ergonomically I think it's very nice. Holds comfortable, and gives a nice relaxed, easy view.

Optics:
The SF provides a nice image, sharp, bright, nice contrast, wide FOV, but it has a bit softer edges than an SV.
CA is very well controlled. Colors seemed to be at the colder side compared to an SV, more clinic, and a bit "emotionless"
What immediately caught my attention, the field seems not very flat! It has a fair amount of pincusion distortion, in such a way I wouldn't actually consider it a flat field.
When panning across the bell tower of the church, I could actually see it "bending". The SV also shows a bit of pincusion distortion, but this seems to be a lot less than the SF. Too bad I didn't have a SV next to it, I'll try to do a side by side comparison as well.
This makes me wonder about some people who find the SF to have more RB effect than the SV. Theoretically the SV should have more RB effect because of the apparent flatter field, but I'm no expert regarding to this, so I could be wrong here.

Another thing what caught my attention, I wouldn't say the "S" in "SmartFocus" of this particular sample is standing for "smart", but something else...... Uneven feel with some heavier turning spots when focusing, and not smooth at all. It likely is exemplary for this sample, but you see it's not Swarovski onky, but happens with other brands too.

Conclusion, Very nice bin without a doubt, I can understand that people are falling for it, but it's not my personal taste.
It should be considered the opponent of the SV, but to me they actually are 2 rather different binoculars. It all comes down to a matter of taste.There are no "best binoculars", it's about which one suits a person best.

Cheers,

Gijs

 

[brocknroller]

Today I tried a 10x42SF at my local optics store, and I thought, why not share my findings here?

It's my personal opinion, so please don't shoot me for it.
First impression, it is very light! About the looks, that's not really my cup of tea. The grey color looks very cheap, and I wonder how they will look after a couple of years of field use....
Ergonomically I think it's very nice. Holds comfortable, and gives a nice relaxed, easy view.

Optics:
The SF provides a nice image, sharp, bright, nice contrast, wide FOV, but it has a bit softer edges than an SV.
CA is very well controlled. Colors seemed to be at the colder side compared to an SV, more clinic, and a bit "emotionless"
What immediately caught my attention, the field is not very flat! It has a fair amount of pincusion distortion, in such a way I wouldn't actually consider it a flat field.
When panning across the bell tower, I could actually see it "bending". The SV also shows a bit of pincusion distortion, but a lot less than the SF. I have to say that was a bit of a disappointment to be honest.
Makes me wonder about some people who find the SF to have more RB effect than the SV. Theoretically the SV should have more RB effect because of the flatter field, but I'm no expert regarding to this, so I could be wrong here.

Another thing what caught my attention, I wouldn't say the "S" in "SmartFocus" of this particular sample is standing for "smart", but something else...... Uneven feel with some heavier turning spots when focusing, and not smooth at all. It likely is exemplary for this sample, but you see it's not Swarovski onky, but happens with other brands too.

Conclusion, Very nice bin without a doubt, I can understand that people are falling for it, but it's not my personal taste.
It should be considered the opponent of the SV, but to me they actually are 2 rather different binoculars. It all comes down to a matter of taste.There are no "best binoculars", it's about which one suits a person best.

Cheers,

Gijs

Gijs,

I think it's unfortunate that people have to mention RB on every thread when it only affects 5% of the population. Majority Rules! Just bustin' Jerry's chops.

He does make a point, though. Only on a bin forum frequented by "optics nuts" would you find such an esoteric topic being discussed. But that's what we "nuts" like to do - crack open, examine and give our opinions on what we've found.

The SF has revived interest in this topic because it was designed purposely with enough pincushion to counteract RB for most users (but not for all, as we have found out). This is not just theoretical, below is a link to Holger's report on distortion in the SF and his comparison of it with the SV EL and other bins.

You'll notice that the 8.5x and 10x42 SV EL are way at the bottom of the chart, meaning they have the least distortion of all the binoculars in the test, and therefore those susceptible to seeing RB (which, from reading these forums, is a lot more than 5%) are more likely to see it in those two model SV ELs than the 8x32, 10x50 or 12x50 SV ELs, and more likely to see it in the 8.5x model than the 10x42. For those who are very sensitive to RB, they are more likely to see it in the 8x42 SF than the 10x42 SF, because the 10x42 has a bit more distortion.

Of course, most people who see RB quickly or more slowly adapt to it, but at least they know what the not-so-silent minority is talking about.

Who said they see RB in the SF and not in the SV EL, and what model SV EL were they referring to? From Holger's chart, it appears the 8x32 model has the most distortion of the line.

Here's Holger's report and chart:

Distortion of the new Zeiss Victory SF: A paradigmatic shift on the binocular market?

Someone else reported getting a "wonky" focuser on his SF, which I think he returned, however, it seems to be the exception to the rule. Zeiss focusers are usually smooth turning. OTOH, for Swaros, the exceptions to the rule are focusers that turn smoothly in both directions right out of the box. The question is whether or not the owner can or wants to live with a less than smooth focuser. Just like RB, even among those who see it and can't adapt, there are some who can live with it. Ditto for Swaro focusers, not everyone who has a Swaro focuser that turns harder in one direction or is a bit "sticky" is going to be bothered by it.

I do a lot of close-in birding where frequent and quick focusing is required, so that's why I prefer a smooth but not too fast focuser.

Yes, the "best" binoculars are those that are best suited for the user's eyes, hands, tastes, and wallet.

Brock

 

[Pinewood]

...
What immediately caught my attention, the field seems not very flat! It has a fair amount of pincusion distortion, in such a way I wouldn't actually consider it a flat field.
...
Cheers,

Gijs

Hello Gijs,

A flat field remedies field curvature. Pincushion distortion is another matter. It is frequently added to a binocular to overcome the rolling ball effect, when panning.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[brocknroller]

Brock

They come up for sale sometimes on the internet and I grab the accompanying pics. Our own Gary Hawkins has a lovely example in his collection.

Go to: http://www.pbase.com/g_hawkins/image/114314664 But beware the slight blue tone of the pic, Gary assures me that the bins are actually gray. Note also the name Nautik which was also use for these bins.

I have posted pics of this Dialyt before and I think Henry had the idea that they may be 7x42 but with 8x42 Dialyt eyepieces.

For a comparo with the 7x42 see below.

Lee

Lee,

Thanks for that info. I bet they are worth a pretty penny.

Brock