-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter Chosun Juan
- Start date
The SF has a SP prism and the HT has a AK prism. The AK prism is larger than the SP prism and generally transmits light more efficiently. The HT has slightly better transmission than the SF and is specialized for low light performance. Here is a couple threads on the subject.
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=131167
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/587339-abbe-konig-vs-schmidt-pechan-prism-systems/
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=131167
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/587339-abbe-konig-vs-schmidt-pechan-prism-systems/
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I'm annoyed too. A pretty bizarre and cynical situation don't you think !?!
What are Zeiss saying - that birders don't want a neutral white balance colour cast? , the most vivid natural blue colours in high fidelity ?!! :eek!:
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Those do not compare, AK vs. SP prism designs.
It is what you see out of the ocular lens that is important.
Jerry
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Lee, I have no issue with Zeiss making the respective design decisions of A-K prisms in the HT along with standard Fov, and 3 element objective to control CA ...... versus the S-P prisms of the SF, allowing wider Fov and a doublet objective in its long body with its improved weight distribution. In fact that's a good differentiator to get two top end models to the market.
These are just purely physical dimension dictated design compromises which largely stem from initial prism choice.
It's the hobbling of the SF from there on by not including HT glass that I have issue with. Especially in its flagship.
We have been into the realms of incremental gains for a while now - Zeiss should be pushing the boundaries ...... and perhaps also licensing Perger prisms too! :eek!: :king: 3
Chosun :gh:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Mark, there's no danger of disappearing down the rabbit hole - we know more than a little something about HT glass!Careful, Chosun. You're starting to sound a little bit like that quote you keep down at the bottom of your posts.
I'm still curious about the fact that my left eye has a slight reddish bias and my right has a bluish--but it's all relative so who really knows?!? I wonder if a bias like this could have any evolutionary value, though I can't imagine what that would be, and I also wonder how prevalent it is in the general population. Others have mentioned it here on Birdforum so I'm not alone. Just a really curious thing.
Your description of the "dirty reddish brown wash" in the Conquest agrees with what I see, maybe to a lesser extent, in the FL. I once described it as "tobacco stained" and I didn't notice it until direct comparison with an SV. That said, my FL dates to about 2010, so coatings may well have changed since then.
Mark
The transmission curves are published in the Schott catalogue for all their glass types. From there we can calculate ~ 1.5 to ~3% transmission benefit. This will be helpful in reducing stray light, glare and other nasties in the optical train by 10's of percent. This is part of the Leica NV's special Majik :king:
As I have mentioned many times I have this individual colour cast to each eye too, but only of a very late afternoon. I'm pretty sure we have discussed it and taken a poll on a BF thread somewhere and I recall many people (dozens?) mention they have a similar condition/design. I too wonder whether it is a purposeful design evolution, or the other thought that occurs to me is that my/ our individual eyeballs may age at different rates? Wherever the truth lies, it is indeed a curious thing ! ...... :cat:
Chosun :gh:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Lee, I have no issue with Zeiss making the respective design decisions of A-K prisms in the HT along with standard Fov, and 3 element objective to control CA ...... versus the S-P prisms of the SF, allowing wider Fov and a doublet objective in its long body with its improved weight distribution. In fact that's a good differentiator to get two top end models to the market.
These are just purely physical dimension dictated design compromises which largely stem from initial prism choice.
It's the hobbling of the SF from there on by not including HT glass that I have issue with. Especially in its flagship.
We have been into the realms of incremental gains for a while now - Zeiss should be pushing the boundaries ...... and perhaps also licensing Perger prisms too! :eek!: :king: 3
Chosun :gh:
Chosun:
I don't think you are an optics designer, and why are you so smart about
what Zeiss should do with binoculars. :eek!:
I think you would be best to nip it. The SF is not hobbled at all, but of course
you would not know that, you have not even looked through the thing.
Boring. B
Jerry
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
A.W. , I found Jerry's post dismissive and did not answer your question.
The SF has S-P (Schmidt-Pechan) prisms which require a dielectric mirror to work. This results in a ~1 to ~2% light transmission reduction.
The HT has A-K (Abbe-Koenig) prisms which have 100% total internal reflection, and therefore better light transmission in that regard.
The S-P prisms are more compact lengthwise, and have a lower overall volume of glass - hence weight. There's a formula based on the width (W) of the prism entrance on the objective end in this or the HT thread somewhere which mathematically specifies the benefits.
In the SF the S-P prisms are reversed from normal order of placement and so take advantage of the reducing light cone to slightly save even more size and weight. See the cutaways of actual binoculars in this thread to get a better picture.
Hope that helps. :t:
Chosun :gh:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Jerry,Chosun:
I don't think you are an optics designer, and why are you so smart about
what Zeiss should do with binoculars. :eek!:
I think you would be best to nip it. The SF is not hobbled at all, but of course
you would not know that, you have not even looked through the thing.
Boring. B
Jerry
I'm sorry I cannot separate my thoughts about Zeiss from my smart thoughts about life in general. I try to be kind, and smart in everything that I do (except being a smart *rs* .... luckily for us you've got that covered!
You obviously haven't read (or it doesn't suit your story) to recall my posts on viewing the SF ......
If you are bored, I suggest you take a break from clogging the interweb thingy with your pearls of 'wisdom' and try going out trolling in the nearest lake or ocean. Who knows you might even get a bite!
If you're really lucky - you might even catch some nice fish for the table ...... I'm sure it would make a welcome change for you from humble pie! Cheers B
Chosun :gh:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Jerry,
I'm sorry I cannot separate my thoughts about Zeiss from my smart thoughts about life in general. I try to be kind, and smart in everything that I do (except being a smart *rs* .... luckily for us you've got that covered!
You obviously haven't read (or it doesn't suit your story) to recall my posts on viewing the SF ......
If you are bored, I suggest you take a break from clogging the interweb thingy with your pearls of 'wisdom' and try going out trolling in the nearest lake or ocean. Who knows you might even get a bite!
If you're really lucky - you might even catch some nice fish for the table ...... I'm sure it would make a welcome change for you from humble pie! Cheers B
Chosun :gh:
I recall you may have had a chance to look through the Zeiss SF. Whoopee!
What really bothers me, is that you are the one that with only a quick glance, now has the expertise to offer an opinion on how Zeiss should improve the binocular. Like you would know.
Some on here have several years with the Victory SF, and are very pleased. You can save it.
It is you that likes to troll. I took your bait, and I call you out on your
lack of experience. You do not have a clue. Humble pie, you should make one, you need it.
Jerry
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Chosun:
I don't think you are an optics designer, and why are you so smart about
what Zeiss should do with binoculars. :eek!:
I think you would be best to nip it. The SF is not hobbled at all, but of course
you would not know that, you have not even looked through the thing.
Boring. B
Jerry
Jerry,
I'm sorry I cannot separate my thoughts about Zeiss from my smart thoughts about life in general. I try to be kind, and smart in everything that I do (except being a smart *rs* .... luckily for us you've got that covered!
You obviously haven't read (or it doesn't suit your story) to recall my posts on viewing the SF ......
If you are bored, I suggest you take a break from clogging the interweb thingy with your pearls of 'wisdom' and try going out trolling in the nearest lake or ocean. Who knows you might even get a bite!
If you're really lucky - you might even catch some nice fish for the table ...... I'm sure it would make a welcome change for you from humble pie! Cheers B
Chosun :gh:
Jerry,
I had to run your nerr-ne-nerr-ne nerr-nar 'you are' post through Google translate (kindergarten playground bully setting).
I have more than a "only a quick glance" with the SF (8x and 10x) , and I think several years of Mechanical Engineering degrees and practice makes up for not owning an SF (along with the subconscious adjustment to shortcomings of one's binoculars that goes along with that)
We're talking about a glass specification (branded HT) that has slightly more transmission in the blue part of the spectrum, which would also allow a reindexing of transmission coatings resulting in a brighter more neutrally colour balanced image, along with little recognised worthwhile concomitant benefits in stray light and glare reduction. It's not rocket science.
I don't recall anyone appointing you the role of thought police.
You are starting to drive really slow in the ultra fast lane again ......
You started it. I've finished it. Get a good night's sleep, and maybe have a little enjoyable fishing or birding expedition in the great outdoors tomorrow . Sweet dreams. :cat:
Chosun :gh:
CJ,
Re your post 3125 above about the "hobbling of the SF from there on by not including HT glass ...... :"
I don't know whether they have it right but the Allbino's 2016 review of the Victory SF 10x42 says it has "Schott HT (High Transmission) glass."
They rank the binocular #3 in the 10x42 category.
https://www.allbinos.com/304-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_SF_10x42.html
Bob
Re your post 3125 above about the "hobbling of the SF from there on by not including HT glass ...... :"
I don't know whether they have it right but the Allbino's 2016 review of the Victory SF 10x42 says it has "Schott HT (High Transmission) glass."
They rank the binocular #3 in the 10x42 category.
https://www.allbinos.com/304-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_SF_10x42.html
Bob
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Bob,
That's quite strange. :h?: I think Allbino's have just managed to get themselves a bit confused and made a pretty bad typo, as even Zeiss themselves don't mention HT glass at all, and as we know they have never been shy of blowing their own trumpet!
My guess is they were probably thinking of the 'Ultra FL' glass.
Allbino's even remark regarding the SF's Whiteness of the image:
"Noticeable loss of blue and purple light. Slight yellow-green hue" and only score the SF "3.7/5.0"
and conclude "Still the overall image is worse than that of the Victory HT model because its loss of blue light was significantly smaller."
I think it's really interesting to compare the Zeiss 10x42 SF with the Swarovski 10x42 SV (which they rank #2) https://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html
Check out the Swaro's transmission graph!
Regarding the SV's Whitness of the image, Allbino's say: "Excellent. Suprisingly high transmission in the blue range of the spectrum." and score the SV "4.8/5.0"
They go on to conclude: "What’s interesting, the highest transmission is situated in the blue part of the spectrum, exceeding the value of 93% there, something very rare indeed. The performance for blue and purple light is noticeably better than in the case of the older model. The binoculars also fares slightly better on the border of visible light and infrared. Overall the binoculars are able to deliver more light to your eye than its predecessor."
Hence my suspicion that the SV is already using HT or equivalent glass somewhere in the optical train ....... :cat:
To my eyes certainly the SV's offer a wonderful 'crystalline' quality to the view that the SF just can't match in direct comparison.
I'd really like to see that 'crystalline' quality and better balanced whiteness of image combined in the SF's wide expansive Fov. That would be very nice. :king:
Chosun :gh:
Lee, I have no issue with Zeiss making the respective design decisions of A-K prisms in the HT along with standard Fov, and 3 element objective to control CA ...... versus the S-P prisms of the SF, allowing wider Fov and a doublet objective in its long body with its improved weight distribution. In fact that's a good differentiator to get two top end models to the market.
These are just purely physical dimension dictated design compromises which largely stem from initial prism choice.
It's the hobbling of the SF from there on by not including HT glass that I have issue with. Especially in its flagship.
We have been into the realms of incremental gains for a while now - Zeiss should be pushing the boundaries ...... and perhaps also licensing Perger prisms too! :eek!: :king: 3
Chosun :gh:
I would like to see HT glass in SF too and it would be an obvious upgrade at the next model refresh. But I can remember when HT was launched there was some controversy over whether the high transmission glass would make any difference that could be seen with the human eye. At that time Zeiss clearly weren't sure about what transmission improvement they could maintain consistently and came up with that tomfool tag line 'up to more than 95% transmission'. And this uncertainty was despite the fact that AK prisms are relatively big old lumps of glass in HT. The controversy might have been even louder if Zeiss had made claims for visible improvements in SP prism SF and might have been accused of marketing 'smoke and mirrors', a charge that Leica has not escaped from due to the difficulty some have in seeing the improvement made by HT glass in the Ultravid.
However we are a few years down the line, Zeiss have more experience in working with high transmission glass and I am sure they will be looking ahead to the next model refresh and considering that HT glass is no longer controversial and has become part of the bino landscape, the question 'why put HT glass in SF' has probably changed to 'why not?'
Lee
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Fall-off in transmission between 500/450nm and 550/500nm:
NV: 6% (2.1%)
SV: 3% (1%)
SF: 5.2% (2.9%)
HT: 4.6% (1.4%)
UVHD+:5.8% (1.5%)
FL: 6% (4%)
All bins are within 3% difference, with HT and SF closer than I thought.
Maybe Zeiss put some kind of HT-ultra glass (there are several types*) in the SF but don't make a big deal of it.
8x42 models, Gijs measurements, 450nm value is read from diagram:
http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testrapporten/Test-42mm-kijkersMEI-2011.pdf
http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-co...-kijkers-o.a.-de-Leica-Noctivids-mei-2017.pdf
*http://www.schott.com/advanced_opti...rials/optical-glass/ht-and-htultra/index.html
NV: 6% (2.1%)
SV: 3% (1%)
SF: 5.2% (2.9%)
HT: 4.6% (1.4%)
UVHD+:5.8% (1.5%)
FL: 6% (4%)
All bins are within 3% difference, with HT and SF closer than I thought.
Maybe Zeiss put some kind of HT-ultra glass (there are several types*) in the SF but don't make a big deal of it.
8x42 models, Gijs measurements, 450nm value is read from diagram:
http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/testrapporten/Test-42mm-kijkersMEI-2011.pdf
http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-co...-kijkers-o.a.-de-Leica-Noctivids-mei-2017.pdf
*http://www.schott.com/advanced_opti...rials/optical-glass/ht-and-htultra/index.html
Last edited:
Torview
Well-known member
The lack of HT glass in the SF is the one thing that keeps me wanting one, personally I can see far more plumage detail in very high contrast situations with the SF, and Zeiss market the SF as Birding specific, I like it just the way it is, I tried a pair again in January when up at Cleyspy, its the one binocular that could tempt me away from my SV, in fact it very nearly did.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
It's interesting that people prefer different colour biases. Environment and subjects must play a part, as do the variations in our individual eyes. Several people feel the same way about the Leica UVHD's - not wanting to upgrade to the + model with HT glass. With a bit of digging around folks should be able to get a colour rendition to their liking - perhaps even by buying closeout stock or 2nd hand.
I prefer a completely neutral colour balance, and find any colour shifts really annoying ...... :cat:
Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Absolute values also count. The figures (from Allbino's) would indicate that the SF doesn't have HT glass of any type. I couldn't access the HOO site without timing out for some reason.
I have recorded all the transmission figures read from the transmission graphs in Allbino's reviews instead, though they haven't tested an NV yet.
% Light Transmission Values (+/- ~1.5%) of 10x42's are for: 400nm, 425nm, 450nm, 505nm, 555nm, 600nm, 650nm, and 700nm wavelengths.
EDG:___ 77.0, 87.0, 86.5, 87.5, 88.5, 91.0, 93.0, 93.0
.SV:____ 55.0, 94.0, 93.0, 90.0, 88.5, 91.0, 90.0, 77.0
.SF:____ 65.0, 80.0, 85.5, 91.0, 93.0, 93.0, 87.0, 74.0
.HT:____ 75.0, 87.0, 88.0, 92.5, 94.5, 93.5, 85.0, 71.5
UVHD+: 77.5, 87.5, 87.0, 87.5, 87.0, 89.5, 92.0, 90.5
.MHG:__ 62.5, 82.5, 84.5, 87.0, 88.0, 90.0, 89.5, 84.0
I think bins with HT glass (HT, UVHD+) stand out fairly easily, and I suspect both the EDG and SV may have some form of HT equivalent glass in their optical trains somewhere ....... :cat:
If Zeiss is planning a 2.1 or a Plus (or whatever they want to call it) upgrade for the SF, I'd like to see HT glass, reindexed T* coatings to suit (ie. Overall brightness increase, more transmission at both the extremities of the spectrum, AND better white balance) , along with a faster focus (that would be smart!
, better glare control/construction, and much better eye cups. Weight and importantly price should both be less too.Chosun :gh:
Last edited:
dries1
Member
Chosen, thanks for the info, so it seems that ergonomics played a role here by Zeiss choosing SP prisms for the SF to keep the weight and size down. Many in the Birding community and in nature observation are consumed by size and weight, and Zeiss wants to sell glass.
I have handled the SF 8X42 for a few days, and in the end could not justify the price of $2600 along with other issues I won't get into . I now have a T FL 8X42 glass and it is a bright glass even though it is not made anymore and many have moved on from it (HK prisms) It is a large bino but very light because of the composite construction. A really nice glass in many ways, I much prefer the ergonomics to the SF.
If the SF was made any heavier or larger, many would have complained that it was too big and heavy. Why they did not go the HT route who knows, but going forward I don't feel that Zeiss will sell as many SFs as FL Ts.
A.W.
Last edited:
A quick look at the figures recorded by Gijs shows these for transmission at 400nm. The surprise is the Leica HD+
HT 87.5%
EL 85%
SF 82%
Uvid HD+ a fraction under 80%
For more transmission info go to the graphs at the back of Gijs's test at: http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-co...-kijkers-o.a.-de-Leica-Noctivids-mei-2017.pdf
Lee
HT 87.5%
EL 85%
SF 82%
Uvid HD+ a fraction under 80%
For more transmission info go to the graphs at the back of Gijs's test at: http://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-co...-kijkers-o.a.-de-Leica-Noctivids-mei-2017.pdf
Lee
Last edited:
