New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (6 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

I think chosen one is referring to the fact SP prisms need a mirror surface applied and PC coating also, Porro`s with their total internal reflection feel transparent to some of us in a way no SP ever will. Its not about fuzzy or sharp edges its about what`s added, impurity`s if you like.

That`s my feeling, maybe Chosun feels differently.

I agree that porro's are transparent in general depending on the quality of their optics. The most transparent one I have ever looked through is the Swarovski Habicht 8x30. Even better than the SE, as far as, transparency. It shocked me when I looked through it for the first time. It MUST have really quality optics in it!

 

[[email protected]]

Yes, that's precisely it.

Dielectric mirrors are somewhere over 99% and less than 100% efficient. It's that loss (or impurity if you like) combined with the PC coating that appears to give rise to what I called artifacts - not to be confused with the real 'Artifacts' from using IS systems. :brains:

Not every Porro will have 'transparency' due to things like color rendition biases, distortions and other aberrations, glare etc, etc, but they do seem to have a head start in the transparency stakes. (o)<

Although the top of the top S-P roofs such as the SV (and hopefully new SF) do have very nice views, they don't really have that 'transparent' quality. I think the 10×50SV is the pick of the litter - and it gets close - but not quite. It's not about an immersive clear to the edge view - but that last 1%. Curiously :cat: the Steiner ×44 Peregrine/Discovery XP gets very very close, but is let down by a yellowish brown tint and maybe that last p**fteenth of brightness.

Others (particularly those with dogs in the fight /or on fleabay! may see things differently. Of course though, they are wrong.


Chosun :gh:

Transparency comes from good coatings also and your alpha roofs especially Swaro's have really nice coatings.

 

[[email protected]]

Anyone who thinks a Swaro 8.5x42 SV is aberration free is lacking observation skills. Internal focussing binoculars have additional aberrations from the focus lens. Some are rather short, meaning faster objectives with more aberrations. 8x32 roof prism bins have even more aberrations, due to the shorter focal length objectives (they have a smaller F ratio for a given effective aperture) and possible additional effects from the eyepieces required. There may also be some differences in dispersion from the prisms, given that the angle of incidence is not normal to the prism face, except on axis. If that is observable it would be worse for an 8x32 instrument. I have never seen a quantitative analysis of the contribution of prisms to aberrations in binoculars. Basically there is no such thing as a without compromise binocular.

True the Swaro 8.5x42 roof is a more complex optical system but in alpha's you have much better precision and perfection in the optical path so the sum of the parts produces a lot less aberrations.

 

[[email protected]]

Not to jump on Dennis's bandwagon but I do know what he is trying to refer as far as image quality, speaking of the 8x32 sv.

Also I might add the 10x50 is even better!

Swarovski has done an excellent job at controlling abberations in the swarovisions, they have the least of any binocular I have tried yet.

And I say yet because I haven't tried the Zeiss sf yet.

Still if one spends as much time as I do behind the sv, I find little to fault.

Really exceptional optics.

Bryce...

Your right about the 10x50 Swarovision. It is the best 10x50 I have ever looked through. I compared one side by side with a Zeiss once at Cabella's and I couldn't believe the difference. Big difference.

 

[[email protected]]

ALERT! ALERT! SV praising taking place. CEASE and DESIST ! FORBIDDEN ACTIVITY ! :C

Why. You have one too don't you?

 

[[email protected]]

For the sake of completeness and for comparison with the SF drawing already posted, here is the equivalent drawing for HT.

Lee

How many lenses then are there in the optical path of the HT and the SF?

 

[[email protected]]

Chosun

A few moons ago you wondered whether the SF grip position might not suit you as you couldn't quickly acclimatise to HT.

Take a look at the attached drawing and you will see that the SF grip is actually not quite so pushed forward as HT, so it may suit you better.

Lee

Your right. The SF should feel lighter.

 

[Troubador]

How many lenses then are there in the optical path of the HT and the SF?

Hi Dennis

A quick look at the drawings would reveal the following:

HT: 9 lenses
SF: 10 lenses

Do you want me to count the prisms for you as well?? :-O

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Dennis

A quick look at the drawings would reveal the following:

HT: 9 lenses
SF: 10 lenses

Do you want me to count the prisms for you as well?? :-O

Lee

About the same as a Swaro. Lot of lenses in an alpha. SF has one more even. Field flattener maybe?

 

[bh46118]

It was a joke.

Why. You have one too don't you?

 

[Chosun Juan]

For the sake of completeness and for comparison with the SF drawing already posted, here is the equivalent drawing for HT.

Lee

How many lenses then are there in the optical path of the HT and the SF?

Hi Dennis

A quick look at the drawings would reveal the following:

HT: 9 lenses
SF: 10 lenses

Do you want me to count the prisms for you as well?? :-O

Lee

Transparency comes from good coatings also and your alpha roofs especially Swaro's have really nice coatings.

Dennis - a really strange lot of postings from you today - even for you !

Perhaps you have done something like mis-counted at the medicine cabinet this morning ?! :eek!: :hippy:

Swaro's do have very nice coatings, but I wouldn't say the SV is transparent. As a few have reported the 10x50 SV seems to be the pick of the views - but even it only gets close. The latest 8x30 Habicht Does have that transparent quality though.....

The Zeiss x42 HT's also have very nice coatings AND transparency ! I think it is quite interesting to note that on another thread that Jan said several HT owners have traded their HT's for SF's ! I still don't expect the SF to have that 'transparent' quality, but maybe the greater Fov and lighter weight was enough to sway those owners..... :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[ticl2184]

Sorry to interrupt....

Has anyone on the forum actually received there SF from the birfair orders yet?

Cheers Tim

 

[bh46118]

Do you see the Nikon SE as being transparent ?

Swaro's do have very nice coatings, but I wouldn't say the SV is transparent. As a few have reported the 10x50 SV seems to be the pick of the views - but even it only gets close. The latest 8x30 Habicht Does have that transparent quality though.....
:cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[NDhunter]

Dennis - a really strange lot of postings from you today - even for you !

Perhaps you have done something like mis-counted at the medicine cabinet this morning ?! :eek!: :hippy:

Swaro's do have very nice coatings, but I wouldn't say the SV is transparent. As a few have reported the 10x50 SV seems to be the pick of the views - but even it only gets close. The latest 8x30 Habicht Does have that transparent quality though.....

The Zeiss x42 HT's also have very nice coatings AND transparency ! I think it is quite interesting to note that on another thread that Jan said several HT owners have traded their HT's for SF's ! I still don't expect the SF to have that 'transparent' quality, but maybe the greater Fov and lighter weight was enough to sway those owners..... :cat:


Chosun :gh:

Chosun:

The transparency thing you are talking about is only a subjective thing,
and there is no standard.

I am not sure about your experience with the optics you are referring
to in your evaluations. Have you owned any of these, and for how long ?

Tell us which ones, I am calling you out on your experience.

Jerry

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis - a really strange lot of postings from you today - even for you !

Perhaps you have done something like mis-counted at the medicine cabinet this morning ?! :eek!: :hippy:

Swaro's do have very nice coatings, but I wouldn't say the SV is transparent. As a few have reported the 10x50 SV seems to be the pick of the views - but even it only gets close. The latest 8x30 Habicht Does have that transparent quality though.....

The Zeiss x42 HT's also have very nice coatings AND transparency ! I think it is quite interesting to note that on another thread that Jan said several HT owners have traded their HT's for SF's ! I still don't expect the SF to have that 'transparent' quality, but maybe the greater Fov and lighter weight was enough to sway those owners..... :cat:


Chosun :gh:

Why would the HT be transparent and the SF wouldn't be? I just don't get it. It is like 5 degrees in Greeley and I am getting cabin fever because it is so cold out.

 

[[email protected]]

Do you see the Nikon SE as being transparent ?

Yes, the SE is as transparent as the SV but I had the SE and the Habicht at the same time and the Habicht was more transparent than the SE.

 

[Troubador]

Why would the HT be transparent and the SF wouldn't be? I just don't get it. It is like 5 degrees in Greeley and I am getting cabin fever because it is so cold out.

Dennis

CJ will answer for herself but I think she is referring to the purity of the HT's light transmission which uses AK prisms and their total internal reflection, whereas the SF's SP prisms require a 70-layer dielectric reflective coating to help them bend the light. So the image you see through any SP-loaded bins may have a certain characteristic resulting from the reflective coating.

Lee

 

[Hermann]

Yes, the SE is as transparent as the SV but I had the SE and the Habicht at the same time and the Habicht was more transparent than the SE.

I have the SE (recent version) and the Habicht 7x42 (from 2012), and the Habicht is indeed "more transparent". In fact, the difference is to my eyes quite obvious. I think that's because of the better coatings of the Habicht with the resulting better transmission.

Hermann

 

[Vespobuteo]

Chosun:

The transparency thing you are talking about is only a subjective thing,
and there is no standard.

I am not sure about your experience with the optics you are referring
to in your evaluations. Have you owned any of these, and for how long ?

Tell us which ones, I am calling you out on your experience.

Jerry

Using terms that are not clearly defined, could be problematic,
I think CJ have to define the term better.

Transmission is apparently not the only thing in "transparency".

(And since mentioning the Steiner XP 8x44 in the same sentence as transparency I got very confused…the XP is not my favorite view...)

I read "transparency" as "presence" ???

 

[james holdsworth]

To me, transparency is cleanness of the image. In the case of the HT it is partly down to high transmission [through a fairly simple optical system], whiter whites and a lack of ''dingyness'' [as Mark put it] as well as good control of CA.

Ron has also mentioned that better control of scatter / stray light also increased transmission and betters the view - for sure there is some of this as well - giving a deeper, more saturated image with no veiling glare.

It seems that more complex systems, esp. those with field flatteners, have more problems with glare and ghosting. That would be one of the reasons I might think the SF would fall a bit short of the HT. Gotta actually try one though.....