zeiss sf 8x42 vs zeiss ht 8x42 (1 Viewer)

[Paultricounty]

Well ... perhaps. Yes, the FOV is tight in the 7x42. Either you can live with that or you can't. And it's maybe not brighter than other binoculars in good light. However, the clarity of the 7x42 is astounding, in any light, and its colour reproduction is the most neutral I've ever seen in any binocular. The contrast is also among the best and beats IMO many so-called "alphas". The large exit pupil is also very nice to have, even during the daytime. And what's very important to me: It's essentially free of any glare, especially veiling glare, one of my pet peeves. In that respect it's clearly the best of the Habicht series. Only very few binoculars are as good as the Habicht 7x42 in that respect. One example is the Noctivid.

I really like it ...

Hermann

I also believe the 7x42 Habicht is the sweet spot in the line up. The sharpness and resolution is outstanding, and it’s low light capability is why it’s my main goto for low light conditions. Handles glare batter than the others, better than most binoculars in general and much better than the 8x30.

The UV 7x42 is slightly better than the 7x35 retro on the edges and sharpness , but I find the retro maybe just a tad better with color saturation, the contrast of objects of similar color seem to pop a little more. A very sweet little package. I know there’s been conversations comparing SP and AK bins and some indicate they are superior in some way, and optically I’m sure we can debate that fact when it comes to certain areas. I know if all things are equal they transmit more light, but that doesn’t always equate to a brighter perceived image, of course coatings-play a large role. I’ve compared two AK bins Zeiss FL 8x42 and Vortex UHD to a few different SP, side by side with the Nikon EDG, Noctivids, UVHD’s, ZeissSF’s and NL’s and the only thing I might say, is there is a slight, tiny bit more dimensionality, but it is only noticeable in side-by-side comparisons.

To me the Noctivids (8x42) check all the boxes and they’re probably my favorite binoculars. Unlike some who wanted Leica to go down the same path as Swarovski and Zeiss with the huge FOV and flat fields , I for one feel they went a different route and took the more traditional style and just improved all aspects of the image. Making them as sharp as anything else, an excellent edge, great panning characteristics , still have that Leica rich color saturation and a FOV that appears bigger than the paper stat reflects. As far as build quality, the Nocs are second to none.

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

Can you imagine a 7x42 Noc! WOW....

Even better a compact 7x35.

 

[dries1]

7x bins have always been special due the realisitc spacing between background and foreground objcts not just because of the area that is in forcus.

Good to see you back in action Lee.

 

[Patudo]

At the 2017 Birdfair Zeiss had both the HT and SF in both 8x42 and 10x42 available for viewing and I (of course) made sure to try both, though mainly the 10x42s as I find 10x much more useful for the birding I do. The view across Rutland Water and the terrain beyond was far better than the view you now have at the current Birdfair site, allowing you to look progressively further out, from the reedbeds up close to hirundines working over the reservoir and beyond that, test sharpness and detail at distance on the branches of distant trees and far soaring gulls and raptors. I thought both were excellent products - the HT very slightly but noticeably brighter, the SF better in balance and handling (though the HT handled well in its own right) and very noticeably delivering more field of view and a larger sweet spot. I wasn't blown away by the perceived build quality of the SF, but given the choice I'm pretty sure it's what I would choose.

 

[james holdsworth]

I’ve got both and, to my eyes, there is no doubt the HT has the more dynamic image - greater edge contrast, richer colour saturation and more neutral, with sparkling whites. The HT image is aided by superb control of veiling glare, which maintains the contrast.

 

[Paultricounty]

I’ve got both and, to my eyes, there is no doubt the HT has the more dynamic image - greater edge contrast, richer colour saturation and more neutral, with sparkling whites. The HT image is aided by superb control of veiling glare, which maintains the contrast.

Dynamic image, that’s another one I don’t get in optics terminology 😝. When you say the HT has better edge contrast, does that mean the center has less contrast? I find the SF contrast is very even throughout the whole image circle. Also please explain that it has more color saturation but it’s more neutral . I’ve tried 8/42 HT, but breifly and not comparing to anything else, I thought it was very nice, but it didn’t impress more than the first time looking through SF. All individually subjective of course.

 

[hopster]

I’ve got both and, to my eyes, there is no doubt the HT has the more dynamic image - greater edge contrast, richer colour saturation and more neutral, with sparkling whites. The HT image is aided by superb control of veiling glare, which maintains the contrast.

I agree with all of this.

 

[james holdsworth]

Dynamic image, that’s another one I don’t get in optics terminology 😝. When you say the HT has better edge contrast, does that mean the center has less contrast? I find the SF contrast is very even throughout the whole image circle. Also please explain that it has more color saturation but it’s more neutral . I’ve tried 8/42 HT, but breifly and not comparing to anything else, I thought it was very nice, but it didn’t impress more than the first time looking through SF. All individually subjective of course.

Edge contrast being how edges of objects are defined and set off from things adjacent…how the edges of leaves etc. stand out from one another. And the HT has better colour saturation, I’m guessing, due to ideal VG control.

This is just my opinion, not some technical treatise….but my eyes like the HT image more.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I was recently trying 8x30sfl against 8x Noctivids. In general I was amazed at how good the little SFL were. Color saturation better in NV but SFLs still pretty good. Then I found myself looking at the tire sidewall in car parked approx 10m away. The sun was on other side of car, so tire well lit but on shadow side (5pm). The difference in legibility of small raised text was very notable. Not sharpness, but contrast. The shadows (with NV) made the writing ‘pop’, whereas with the SFL it just looked ‘flatter’. Edge contrast? Not sure name of effect but unmistakable.
According to Gijs’ transmission curves the SFLs are doing great (compared to NV), but…
??

 

[hopster]

I don't think contrast behaviour like this is easy to measure. Are there any reliable methods? Certainly better binoculars show properties like this. Is it glass, prism coatings or types?

 

[PHA]

I’ve got both and, to my eyes, there is no doubt the HT has the more dynamic image - greater edge contrast, richer colour saturation and more neutral, with sparkling whites. The HT image is aided by superb control of veiling glare, which maintains the contrast.

Hi,

My HT 10x42, I sold them, had THE WORST VEILING GLARE of all my previous binoculars. Noticeable more than my previous FL 10x42. Having said this, in ideal conditions, the view was very good. But, in the end, and between my two samples, the FL was better.

 

[hopster]

Hi,

My HT 10x42, I sold them, had THE WORST VEILING GLARE of all my previous binoculars. Noticeable more than my previous FL 10x42.

It's funny that people have both praised and criticised the same design about the same issue. I don't know what to make of that. Sample variation again?

 

[PHA]

I Hopste,

I cannot say if that imposible milky veiling glare in MY HT looking toward the sun, not with the sun in front but at a reasonable angle, was inherent to the design or because my sample. Anyway, I tryed to figure what would be the reason of that. What I saw, looking from the objectives side, was the poor blackening of the inside. Instead of a dull black, all were a relatively shiny grey and poor baffling.
The FL, the same or almost the same optic design, was much better on this. As is my actual Habicht W GA 10x40.

 

[Paultricounty]

It's funny that people have both praised and criticised the same design about the same issue. I don't know what to make of that. Sample variation again?

Nope, it happens all the time. Sometimes variation, but most of the times not. The eye brain connection to bino design, glass, coatings and even the country (elevation, humidity and other factors) the optics are being used in can all play a roll. And I'm 100% sure that in some cases people see what they read or hear about. Like being able to see the difference in AK or SP prisms 🙏✌️.

 

[james holdsworth]

I regret contributing…it just brings out the same old complaints.

 

[Owlbarred]

I regret contributing…it just brings out the same old complaints.

FWIW, I found your comments in posts 145,148 enlightening, without any dogma whatsoever.

 

[tenex]

I regret contributing…it just brings out the same old complaints.

It's worthwhile anyway, so thank you. There's often disagreement, not always easily explained away, even careless ad hominem remarks... just part of the territory. I've long been curious about HTs myself, having disliked the edge distortion on FL 42, and wonder whether it improved.

 

[Canip]

I don't think contrast behaviour like this is easy to measure. Are there any reliable methods?

You are right, not easy to measure - but there are reliable methods such MTF (Modulation Transfer Function), applied in the optics industry since many years to measure, among other things, contrast performance of objective lenses etc

 

[hopster]

FWIW, I found your comments in posts 145,148 enlightening, without any dogma whatsoever.

Same here, there should be no need to censor genuine observations to please others and anyway I agree with your judgements.

 

[PHA]

Hi,

I use all my binoculars, A LOT, in many different situations in the outdoors, working as a range manager, bird and general wildlife watching, hiking, hunting. So, when I saw that milky veiling glare, with the sun not in front but relatively at the side, in MY HT was not my imagination. Period!
I don´t know if other magnifications or objective diameter of this, in all other things great, binocular show that annoying veiling glare. The ONLY drawback I see in that HT.

Best!

PHA