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

[BruceH]

........

These are not quotes by these people. This is just an attempt at comedy and a way to diffuse any ill feelings over anything said in this thread.

Don't be so modest. I view most of your posts as comedy.

 

[[email protected]]

I am glad you view most of my posts. Some have me on their ignore list. I am not modest. I don't believe I even view your posts. I am still laughing over Brock's "the king-sized bed of birdwatching." joke. That was a GOOD one. HaHa.

 

[Rolstone]

The Swarovski 10x50 EL does sound splendid, but to me falls short of the Zeiss 10x 42 SF in three important areas. The FOV isn't that different, but somewhat significant--345 vs. 360 feet. I do like to use close focus on insects, so that difference seems more significant, but wouldn't be the least bit significant for people who don't focus close (9.2 ft. vs. 4.9 ft.) But I'm 63, and do lug my camera equipment when birding, and do lots of long hikes, so the difference in weight is huge to me (35.2 oz vs. 27.5). And the Zeiss SFs were SO easy to hold steady. My original binoculars when I started out as a 20-something were 7x50s--they were a gift, so at that age, with nothing to compare them to, I didn't mind the weight at all, but boy do I notice a difference now.

My sense of the lower contrast, when I was using them last year, was that I could actually see differences between grayish forms in low light more easily than with higher contrast binoculars. I used to have 10x42 Leicas (don't remember the model--this was from around 2006), which were touted as being wonderfully high contrast. But my view seemed subtly distorted, like when I am using Photoshop and up the contrast--it doesn't take much before the image seemed unnatural. I can see people liking that somehow more intense view, but I like how the view through the Zeiss FLs I have now and the Zeiss SFs I tested seem so much more natural.

Thanks CW for taking the trouble to reply.

Like you, I do not think that the difference in the FOV between the SF 10X42 and EL 10CX50 is very significant and, in my opinion, is more than balanced by the better viewing experience through the EL. I cannot argue against the short distance focusing for viewing insects close up!! That is a definite advantage of the SF.

I am one month shy of my 63rd birthday and, like you, do long hikes. I am currently getting fit to walk the 186 mile Pembroke Coastal Path (South Wales, UK) in September. I walked 18.5 miles this last weekend carrying the EL 10X50 over the Wiltshire Downs (hilly, 24 degrees C and very humid) with 30 pounds on my back to simulate what I will carry next month. The weight of the EL 10X50 is not an issue FOR ME given a good binocular harness (Swarovski in my case). I totally accept that the extra weight will, and does, put many people off the EL 10X50 but, in some cases, I think that this may be a pity because, in reality, the weight will not prove the expected issue (28% extra). The EL is certainly going to do the whole 186 miles with me next month.

I am lucky enough to have very steady hands and so holding ANY 10X bin is not an issue for me. However, I found the EL 10X50 just as easy to hold steady as the SF.

Funnily enough I find that a big strength of the 50 diameter lenses is the way that they enhance but do not distort the colours particularly in low light and, strangely enough, when looking at birds in bright light, for example when on the wing or in bright light on water.

Naturally I am only commenting on my PERSONAL opinion and totally respect yours, CW. Thank goodness we can and do have different opinions on this forum. Continue to hugely enjoy the SF and I wish you much good walking!!

Rolstone

 

[Vespobuteo]

seems that if you are 60+, an 8x32 would be sufficient…even in twilight,
o

http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=54&Tab=_Choose#.Vchf_kvWev8

 

[Troubador]

It is great that Sanjay caught this review.

So you think it is great Sanjay found a critical review of SF.

Here is the difference between us Dennis. You don't think it is great when positive reviews such as those I listed get posted. You only get happy and excited when the reviews are critical.

Do you really think people haven't noticed this?

I am happy for people to read all reviews and comments, you only want to push critical ones down peoples' throats.

All because you feel threatened by the idea that EL might not be 'the best' (whatever that means) any more and you are confronted by the notion that you are a loser for owning a loser-bin.

This is what I call childish although 'infantile' is probably more accurate.

For the record, I don't say SF or EL or Ultravid are the 'best' as the concept has no meaning. There are only bins that suit the needs of individuals better than others.

Your attempts to turn this into an SF versus EL argument only reveals your insecurity more clearly.

You know what they say 'when in a hole, stop digging'. You should stop this nonsense now before you lose the last bit of credibility you have.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Hi Guys !!!!!!!

Binomania says what i say before.....lowest contrast on SF

Globey

Higher contrast sounds like a great thing to have but it is not necessarily better, it depends on the circumstances.

I have posted many times on BF about how I can see more subtle tones of browns on Scottish hillsides and seashores than my wife can see through her Ultravids, and how this means I spot about 3 times more Otters in the brown seaweeds than she does.

I used to think this was caused by more subtle colour transmission by my Zeisses but more recently I have realised that it is because her Ultravids are more contrasty and tend to merge lighter tones together and darker ones together.

The result is that not only do I spot more Otters but I am quicker on yellow-green warblers amongst yellow-green leaves and straw-brown warblers amongst autumn leaves or reed-beds.

So does this mean I am saying my Zeiss is better than her Leica?

No, because she is quicker on distant black and white birds like gulls, auks and shearwaters etc.

In optics an 'excess' of ability in one area almost always means less ability in another.

Lee

 

[Hermann]

One of the most astonishing aspects of these long thread on the Zeiss SF is that the two most prolific posters are two people who's NEVER even handled a Zeiss SF in the field. And yet they pretend to know so much about the SF that they think they can easily judge its performance in die field, its build quality and so on.

That's classical trolling, as simple as that.

Hermann

 

[8x60deckmount]

The SF is a great one even in use on long distances .
I have used mine at this top at 1883 m over sealevel with a view that that need great optics for long distances .

http://www.hardangervidda.com/var/v...ustatoppen-Gaustabanen_member_full_banner.jpg

 

[jan van daalen]

One of the most astonishing aspects of these long thread on the Zeiss SF is that the two most prolific posters are two people who's NEVER even handled a Zeiss SF in the field. And yet they pretend to know so much about the SF that they think they can easily judge its performance in die field, its build quality and so on.

That's classical trolling, as simple as that.

Hermann

Could not have said this better

Jan

 

[Sagittarius]

Troubador: James. Somebody else found a defect in the Zeiss SF. We need to get over to Bird Forum ASAP.
Tell Torview and Perterra to get over there quick we need to defend the SF.

James : Was it Highnorth AGAIN? I am busy right now but I will get on the computer here in a few minutes.
Has Dennis seen it yet? What kind of defect was it this time?

Troubador : I guess some wahoo's hinge's are rusting. He is probably sweating all over it or something. No, I
don't think Dennis has seen it but he will be all over it soon so we need to act fast. Are the
problems never going to end with this darn Zeiss SF? This is starting to look bad for Zeiss and it is
going to hurt our resale. We need to bury this problem fast and list all the good things about the Zeiss SF. God
I wish I would have bought a Swaro.

James : Do you think we could hire a hit man and get Dennis wacked? We need to silence that darn
Globetrotter too. He keeps saying bad things about the Zeiss SF. That Sanjay isn't helping either.
All these people keep finding problems with the Zeiss. I would they would shut up.

Troubador : Well meet me over at Bird Forum we need to amass an all out assault pronto. See you over there.


These are not quotes by these people. This is just an attempt at comedy and a way to diffuse any ill feelings over anything said in this thread.

Don't give anyone ideas, Dennis. 3

 

[Rolstone]

seems that if you are 60+, an 8x32 would be sufficient…even in twilight,
o

http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=54&Tab=_Choose#.Vchf_kvWev8

Hi Vespobuteo

I am intrigued to know why you have recommended the 8X32. As I have already said, I am a 10X man and have been for many years. I do not want an 8X pair of binos.

Also, as I have already said, as part of testing binoculars before buying the EL 10X50, I tested the EL 10X32, which I found less good than the EL 10X 42, which in turn was less good than the EL 10X50.

I purchased the EL 10X50 after a much Internet research and over 3 hours of side by side testing. That is not to say that I have made the right decision, which is why I am curious to know why you think the 8X32 is the right pair for me. You may be right!!

However, I am delighted with the EL 10X50 and, on the face of it, the 8X32 seems to tick none of my boxes!!

Rolstone

 

[Houdiny]

... bad reviews, fogged up oculars, rusting hinges, staining, loose armour,low contrast, flecks inside the binocular and broken parts. There seems to be thread after thread on problems from different people. (...) I am sure this feedback will get back to Zeiss and maybe they will work on these problems.

Hi there!
As an owner of a SF 10x42 I'm trying to be as objective as possible. Dennis, there's bad reviews even on the best products. Such reviews are often tainted by people's personal likings. Sometimes reviews can help when deciding on what to buy, sometimes not. Most reviews of the Zeiss Victory SF are very good.
As for "fogged up oculars", this is neither a problem nor a fault by Zeiss. If circumstances are right, every ocular can fog up. Sometimes just one ocular fogs up, e.g. when the other has been lying in the sun, heating up.
"Rusting hinges": as far as I know there has been one report of something like rust on one Victory SF. So using the plural is already over-exaggerated. By the way, we do not know the exact conditions leading to the rusting hinge, maybe (and now I'm over exaggerating) it had been lying in saltwater for a couple of weeks. Conclusion: NOT a real problem.
"Staining": again, we do not know the exact cause for those barely visible brownish stains that one user experienced. Maybe someone with self-tanning lotion on their hands touched the SF, who knows. Nothing but speculation. As long as there are not hundreds of reports of stained armoring this is - again - NOT a real problem.
"Flecks" inside the optics: as long as they don't interfere with the optical quality, not a problem. Also, if you look for dust particles, you'll find them. Take any highly expensive telephoto lens, shine a flashlight through it and you'll be surprised how many particles are in there. If you don't like dust in your optics, don't look for it.
Loose armor: I don't know how many reports of loose armor there have been, but I guess this has been an issue with early production units. I've handled 3 Victory SFs, and none had loose armor. Conclusion: not a problem (anymore).
Low contrast: let's just use a different term for that: higher dynamic range. Wow, sounds cool. Must be a nice feature. Where other binoculars are only able to resolve black parts of the image, with the Victory SF you see more details in those former black areas. It's all up to your personal likings, and NOT A PROBLEM.
Finally, "broken parts": sometimes, when you drop something, it breaks. Big deal. Maybe HighNorth was just unlucky, and it dropped exactly in that way that made it brake. Of 1000 drops, this could have been the one drop that was exactly right (or wrong) to destroy the pairs of binoculars. AND nevertheless Zeiss took care of that by sending out a replacement for free. Problem? I don't think so.

I am extremely happy with my Victory SF. In my opinion, it's the best pair of binoculars I have ever used, better than the Swaro SV 10x50 or any other pair. But that's just me, others may like a Swaro or Leica better, for whatever reason.
So Dennis, please stop reporting on all those made-up "problems" of the new Zeiss. Buy one, don't buy one, I don't care, but if you want to report something, let it be reports of you actually using it!
Thanks for reading. Now I'm off birding!

 

[Theo98]

Well stated Houdiny! :clap:

Although I reside in the Green arena, from what I've seen, Zeiss does produce Excellent Optics. I do take any stated issues with a grain of salt and would one day love to glass with the SF's and directly compare, Then maybe I could assist other members with an "informed hands-on" experience! Otherwise, I just keep my mouth shut, read and Learn!

Happy Birding and Enjoying the Great Outdoors!

Ted

 

[perterra]

Strange, how defensive we get. We are just discussing two fine alpha level binoculars and it seems some get emotional over it. I don't think I am getting childish at all but I guess you are entitled to your opinion.

Whats strange is why you would post so many disparaging remarks about something you have never even tried. If your purpose is not to pump and dump, why bother?

I'm not sure why you wont buy one and try it, you have posted many times that you can afford anything you want. From my perspective, it seems that you would want one, after all I remember you once posting, you buy nothing but the best, money isnt an object (if you could only afford it, you would own one maybe?). Why not just buy it and return it if it doesnt suit your needs?

 

[Troubador]

Hi there!
As an owner of a SF 10x42 I'm trying to be as objective as possible. Dennis, there's bad reviews even on the best products. Such reviews are often tainted by people's personal likings. Sometimes reviews can help when deciding on what to buy, sometimes not. Most reviews of the Zeiss Victory SF are very good.
As for "fogged up oculars", this is neither a problem nor a fault by Zeiss. If circumstances are right, every ocular can fog up. Sometimes just one ocular fogs up, e.g. when the other has been lying in the sun, heating up.
"Rusting hinges": as far as I know there has been one report of something like rust on one Victory SF. So using the plural is already over-exaggerated. By the way, we do not know the exact conditions leading to the rusting hinge, maybe (and now I'm over exaggerating) it had been lying in saltwater for a couple of weeks. Conclusion: NOT a real problem.
"Staining": again, we do not know the exact cause for those barely visible brownish stains that one user experienced. Maybe someone with self-tanning lotion on their hands touched the SF, who knows. Nothing but speculation. As long as there are not hundreds of reports of stained armoring this is - again - NOT a real problem.
"Flecks" inside the optics: as long as they don't interfere with the optical quality, not a problem. Also, if you look for dust particles, you'll find them. Take any highly expensive telephoto lens, shine a flashlight through it and you'll be surprised how many particles are in there. If you don't like dust in your optics, don't look for it.
Loose armor: I don't know how many reports of loose armor there have been, but I guess this has been an issue with early production units. I've handled 3 Victory SFs, and none had loose armor. Conclusion: not a problem (anymore).
Low contrast: let's just use a different term for that: higher dynamic range. Wow, sounds cool. Must be a nice feature. Where other binoculars are only able to resolve black parts of the image, with the Victory SF you see more details in those former black areas. It's all up to your personal likings, and NOT A PROBLEM.
Finally, "broken parts": sometimes, when you drop something, it breaks. Big deal. Maybe HighNorth was just unlucky, and it dropped exactly in that way that made it brake. Of 1000 drops, this could have been the one drop that was exactly right (or wrong) to destroy the pairs of binoculars. AND nevertheless Zeiss took care of that by sending out a replacement for free. Problem? I don't think so.

I am extremely happy with my Victory SF. In my opinion, it's the best pair of binoculars I have ever used, better than the Swaro SV 10x50 or any other pair. But that's just me, others may like a Swaro or Leica better, for whatever reason.
So Dennis, please stop reporting on all those made-up "problems" of the new Zeiss. Buy one, don't buy one, I don't care, but if you want to report something, let it be reports of you actually using it!
Thanks for reading. Now I'm off birding!

Exactly.

Lee

 

[Kammerdiner]

Thank god I missed this while backpacking. I can only skim it.

Well, the bike stuff is cool. My all time favorite was a Honda Hawk 400. I could stand up and steer it with my knees.

The big stuff is all a little boring--especially Harleys. Yikes, what do you want, a very loud and uncomfortable couch?

As for Goldwings, get an RV. You know that's what you want. :t:

I've read nothing that would preclude my purchase of an SF, by the way.

Mark

 

[Pileatus]

Troubador: James. Somebody else found a defect in the Zeiss SF. We need to get over to Bird Forum ASAP.
Tell Torview and Perterra to get over there quick we need to defend the SF.

James : Was it Highnorth AGAIN? I am busy right now but I will get on the computer here in a few minutes.
Has Dennis seen it yet? What kind of defect was it this time?

Troubador : I guess some wahoo's hinge's are rusting. He is probably sweating all over it or something. No, I
don't think Dennis has seen it but he will be all over it soon so we need to act fast. Are the
problems never going to end with this darn Zeiss SF? This is starting to look bad for Zeiss and it is
going to hurt our resale. We need to bury this problem fast and list all the good things about the Zeiss SF. God
I wish I would have bought a Swaro.

James : Do you think we could hire a hit man and get Dennis wacked? We need to silence that darn
Globetrotter too. He keeps saying bad things about the Zeiss SF. That Sanjay isn't helping either.
All these people keep finding problems with the Zeiss. I would they would shut up.

Troubador : Well meet me over at Bird Forum we need to amass an all out assault pronto. See you over there.


These are not quotes by these people. This is just an attempt at comedy and a way to diffuse any ill feelings over anything said in this thread.

3:flyaway:

 

[perterra]

Thank god I missed this while backpacking. I can only skim it.

Well, the bike stuff is cool. My all time favorite was a Honda Hawk 400. I could stand up and steer it with my knees.

The big stuff is all a little boring--especially Harleys. Yikes, what do you want, a very loud and uncomfortable couch?

As for Goldwings, get an RV. You know that's what you want. :t:

I've read nothing that would preclude my purchase of an SF, by the way.

Mark

Hawk 400's were nice little bikes.


Goldwings excell at one thing, covering miles in comfort with heavy loads. I left the house at 6 am in Dallas, rolled up to my daughters house in Prescott Arizona 17 1/2 hours later having covered 1051 miles.

 

[Troubador]

Thank god I missed this while backpacking. I can only skim it.

Well, the bike stuff is cool. My all time favorite was a Honda Hawk 400. I could stand up and steer it with my knees.

The big stuff is all a little boring--especially Harleys. Yikes, what do you want, a very loud and uncomfortable couch?

As for Goldwings, get an RV. You know that's what you want. :t:

I've read nothing that would preclude my purchase of an SF, by the way.

Mark

Mark

Is that how you steer a car?

My CB250K4 was the smaller cousin to your Hawk 400 and it was a great bike until I went down at 60mph while leaning into a curve on cow sh*t that covered the road from one side to the other. I went through a wooden farm gate like a cannon ball:-O

Worked out OK though because it led to our first BMW bike.

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks CW for taking the trouble to reply.

Like you, I do not think that the difference in the FOV between the SF 10X42 and EL 10CX50 is very significant and, in my opinion, is more than balanced by the better viewing experience through the EL. I cannot argue against the short distance focusing for viewing insects close up!! That is a definite advantage of the SF.

I am one month shy of my 63rd birthday and, like you, do long hikes. I am currently getting fit to walk the 186 mile Pembroke Coastal Path (South Wales, UK) in September. I walked 18.5 miles this last weekend carrying the EL 10X50 over the Wiltshire Downs (hilly, 24 degrees C and very humid) with 30 pounds on my back to simulate what I will carry next month. The weight of the EL 10X50 is not an issue FOR ME given a good binocular harness (Swarovski in my case). I totally accept that the extra weight will, and does, put many people off the EL 10X50 but, in some cases, I think that this may be a pity because, in reality, the weight will not prove the expected issue (28% extra). The EL is certainly going to do the whole 186 miles with me next month.

I am lucky enough to have very steady hands and so holding ANY 10X bin is not an issue for me. However, I found the EL 10X50 just as easy to hold steady as the SF.

Funnily enough I find that a big strength of the 50 diameter lenses is the way that they enhance but do not distort the colours particularly in low light and, strangely enough, when looking at birds in bright light, for example when on the wing or in bright light on water.

Naturally I am only commenting on my PERSONAL opinion and totally respect yours, CW. Thank goodness we can and do have different opinions on this forum. Continue to hugely enjoy the SF and I wish you much good walking!!

Rolstone

That is an advantage of the bigger apertures. Less optical aberrations. You will also have less glare. All the distortion never hits your eyes.