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

[John A Roberts]

Hi Jerry,

a) Your initial assertion was the unqualified: 'The Zeiss Victory HT was designed by hunters for hunters'
b) Accompanied by your approval: 'and that is a good thing'

And then you were taken aback when queried on it!


I was surprised by the idea that Zeiss would have been so unwise as to make such a statement.
Since even if true, to publicise a product that's suitable for many users as being specifically designed for hunters,
would risk alienating other demographics and therefore lessen sales not only of the HT.
(Far more likely Zeiss would have researched hunters preferences, in the same way as those of other users,
as a routine part of a new design process.)

The statement seems particularly strange, since Zeiss must have clear policy on communicating their brand identity,
so as to best keep all market segments on side.
That the claim was not later repeated - even in the publicity specifically for hunters - likely tells the story

- - - -

And of course still no apology by you to hopster.


John

 

[Conndomat]

You seem to be strangely credulous, in your inability to distinguish between an advertised claim, as opposed to what's likely to be factual.

Hello John,

A few years ago I had my Zeiss FL 10x56 due to problems at the Zeiss service, the glass came back twice without the error being rectified, a service employee then suggested that I personally talk to the workshop manager to explain the problem in detail.

After the problem was discussed, I spent almost 1 hour. Talked to the technician about binoculars, he confirmed that the FL and HT series in particular are primarily aimed at hunters (which of course does not mean that birders cannot use these glasses) Zeiss traditionally has a strong following among German hunters (probably throughout Europe ) and thus secured a large clientele, Zeiss binoculars are still more popular among hunters than Swarovski or Leica.

Almost parallel to this, Gerold Dobler and his team developed the SF primarily for birders, so Zeiss used two glasses for a while, and it is not for nothing that Dobler made the statement "the best birder glasses in the world" and not "the best binoculars in the world."

I see no reason to doubt the statements of the workshop manager, IMO he was highly competent and the FL 10x56 came back in perfect condition.

Andreas

 

[Patudo]

Back then it seemed as though both Swarovski and Zeiss intended to offer a "birding model" (EL and SF) and a range aimed more at hunters (SLC and HT) - advertised as being more rugged (especially the SLC) and in formats traditionally more used for hunting (x54/56). Since then, of course, those ranges have been trimmed down quite significantly. It'd be interesting to know the rationale for this. It'd also be interesting to know when binoculars - apart from the Swift Audubon of course - began to be specifically designed for birders (maybe the ELs?). Birding was just one of a number of activities listed in connection with most binocular ranges up till the Leica BA/BN era, if not later.

I do think hunters have different priorities - in particular ruggedness (to a greater extent than for most birders), a greater emphasis on performance in low or poor light (cf large objective binoculars). Fast focus is less important, indeed slower focus travel that enables sharpness to be dialed in more precisely is probably of greater value, and dead accurate colour rendition isn't as essential - some commentators have claimed that Zeiss favouring the green end of the colour spectrum helps browns to stand out.

Those are the areas that jump out at me, but no doubt if you peruse Rokslide etc you'll find more informed commentary.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Andreas (post #182),

That all sounds reasonable. Zeiss with its origin in the 19th century has very long hunting traditions (as does Leitz/ Leica).

As a manufacturer of premium optics, the main civilian market for Zeiss products well into the 1970’s was the wealthy,
whose recreational pursuits often included hunting.
And as members of the same social class, many senior Zeiss employees (along with those of Leitz/ Leica)
were also recreational hunters (and may still be) *


But as to the 'designed by hunters for hunters' notion, I'm genuinely unclear on what particular feature distinguishes
a hunter’s binocular from that of any other user.
While there are obvious needs like waterproofness and durability, they are also priorities for many other users.
And while the FL may have been designed for hunters, its overwhelming success across user groups,
makes the point that there doesn't seem to be any practical difference.


In relation to the traditional brand preferences of German hunters, it would be interesting to know if there is any data
as to current relative popularity of the three manufacturers, such as from large German hunting products retailers.


* In terms of changing social attitudes, up until the 1970’s or so so catalogues from manufacturers/ marketers showed hunting
as just one of several usual uses for binoculars e.g. see that great resource Miniature Binoculars,
with the catalogue listing in the panel on the right of the page: https://www.miniaturebinoculars.com/part1/Page304.htm

And it doesn’t take much searching to find photos of senior members of Zeiss and Leitz with binoculars and scoped rifles
after a successful hunt, particularly prior to WWII.


John

 

[hopster]

I do think hunters have different priorities - in particular ruggedness (to a greater extent than for most birders), a greater emphasis on performance in low or poor light (cf large objective binoculars). Fast focus is less important, indeed slower focus travel that enables sharpness to be dialed in more precisely is probably of greater value, and dead accurate colour rendition isn't as essential - some commentators have claimed that Zeiss favouring the green end of the colour spectrum helps browns to stand out.

I would add that a flat, wide FOV sharp to the edge seems to be less important for hunters, and it's not so important for me in a 10x either as I will inevitably be concentrating in the centre almost all of the time and just using the periphery to detect movement. The SLC (and now Kahles Helia S) have the same emphasis.

For me the HT is the most neutral colour balance of any recent Zeiss I have looked through - maybe along with the Victory Pocket. Certainly better than the SF (which is known to be designed for birders) with less of a green emphasis and more red and blue tones apparent. As far as ruggedness is concerned I hope so, it does feel solid and well built. The focus is fast enough for me but maybe not as fast as some other recent bins. Low light performance definitely, but also sharpness and transparency of a very high order in the centre 70%.

I agree with John that the 'by hunters for hunters' phrase is too simplistic and came mainly from advertising twaddle, but leveraging the low light capability to support their argument.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. It is an excellent binocular for looking at anything far away and that includes birds!

 

[Conndomat]

Back then it seemed as though both Swarovski and Zeiss intended to offer a "birding model" (EL and SF) and a range aimed more at hunters (SLC and HT) - advertised as being more rugged (especially the SLC) and in formats traditionally more used for hunting (x54/56). Since then, of course, those ranges have been trimmed down quite significantly. It'd be interesting to know the rationale for this.

Hi,

for Germany these reasons are obvious, night hunting with thermal imaging cameras and night vision devices has been allowed here for some time now, many hunters are now offering their 56 glasses optics for sale!
It is not entirely improbable that the Parameter 56 will become increasingly rare.

But as to the 'designed by hunters for hunters' notion, I'm genuinely unclear on what particular feature distinguishes
a hunter’s binocular from that of any other user.

@Patudo has already given some reasons, for hunters the transmission of binoculars has an absolute priority, it is the main topic when doing research in hunting forums, "Is binocular "A" as bright as binocular "B"?

In addition, it is not so important for hunters whether binoculars have sharp edges, have as little CA as possible or have true-to-nature color reproduction, in the twilight none of this matters.

Basically, I also think that there is a big difference between birders and hunters when it comes to using binoculars. For hunters, binoculars are just one tool among many, for birders it's the main tool, so it has a different priority.

Andreas

 

[hopster]

In addition, it is not so important for hunters whether binoculars have sharp edges, have as little CA as possible or have true-to-nature color reproduction, in the twilight none of this matters.

Carrying on from the above discussion, the HT also has less CA than I have seen from any other 10x42 binocular, so again this does not seem to be a priority in a hunting design.

 

[Conndomat]

Carrying on from the above discussion, the HT also has less CA than I have seen from any other 10x42 binocular, so again this does not seem to be a priority in a hunting design.

Hi,

You don't always have to feel personally attacked when it comes to the HT.

I don't know exactly about the HT, but the FL are one of the best binoculars in terms of CA, but it's completely irrelevant for hunting, especially in the twilight, because you can't see it anymore.

The FL were primarily bought because they have a higher transmission and are robust and reliable.

By the way, I'm not saying anything against the HT for bird watching, if you get along well with it, everything is fine.

Andreas

 

[hopster]

I'm not feeling 'personally attacked' 😄 I am just trying to supply rational counter arguments to those that insist it was specifically designed for hunting. I know it works excellently for bird watching, as I'm sure do many others here.

 

[Conndomat]

I am just trying to supply rational counter arguments to those that insist it was specifically designed for hunting.

I trust more on the statements of an insider.

Andreas

 

[hopster]

OK

 

[Scott98]

We're assuming a lot on behalf of these "hunters". If I hunted I think I'd watch sharp edges in my binoculars! Doesn't everybody want a nice sharp FOV, no purple fringes, and durability? I've got a feeling these mythical "hunters" would prefer a new 10x56 SF over the 10x54 HT. Marketing strategy is for the brochures. None of them target astronomers so I don't pay much attention to it.

Saying a product is designed for either birders or hunters is using what's called a marketing "archetype". It's a fictional construct, it has nothing to do with optics. Here you go....consumer marketing 101:

12 Brand Archetypes That Marketers Use to Get Your Attention

We're bombarded with 5,000+ ads per day, but we don't ignore all of them. Here are the brand archetypes marketers use to communicate their stories to us.

www.visualcapitalist.com

 

[Conndomat]

Saying a product is designed for either birders or hunters is using what's called a marketing "archetype". It's a fictional construct, it has nothing to do with optics.

You misunderstood something, it's not about either or, it's about primary, that's a difference!

Pocket binoculars are primarily aimed at a different audience, but this does not mean that hunters can also use them.

Andreas

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi Jerry,

a) Your initial assertion was the unqualified: 'The Zeiss Victory HT was designed by hunters for hunters'
b) Accompanied by your approval: 'and that is a good thing'

And then you were taken aback when queried on it!


I was surprised by the idea that Zeiss would have been so unwise as to make such a statement.
Since even if true, to publicise a product that's suitable for many users as being specifically designed for hunters,
would risk alienating other demographics and therefore lessen sales not only of the HT.
(Far more likely Zeiss would have researched hunters preferences, in the same way as those of other users,
as a routine part of a new design process.)

The statement seems particularly strange, since Zeiss must have clear policy on communicating their brand identity,
so as to best keep all market segments on side.
That the claim was not later repeated - even in the publicity specifically for hunters - likely tells the story

- - - -

And of course still no apology by you to hopster.


John

Not that I want to get in the middle of a lovers quarrel , but I wouldn’t be surprised if Zeiss would advertise or push an optic as good for hunters, even if it did alienate some of the customer base. I didn’t read the whole thread about what Zeiss did or didn’t do , so not up on the acaul debate. I will say look at Nikon, here a company known for and a good portion of sales, did away with all rifle scopes. I was told they wanted to move away from hunting everything, you know the whole woke thing. That certainly p- - -t off a lot of Nikon fanboys. Not to mention Nikon losing a whole segment of business.

Just my two cents, carry on.

 

[GrampaTom]

Hi,
.... Basically, I also think that there is a big difference between birders and hunters when it comes to using binoculars. For hunters, binoculars are just one tool among many, for birders it's the main tool, so it has a different priority.

Andreas

Andreas, apologies for truncating your post. I agree with the idea binos are a main tool for birders, (as well as in my case an Iphone, with Sibley and Merlin on board), whereas hunters have to deal with more stuff. And yes the priority is different, depending on what phase of the activity one is in. Stalking, finding game and/or birds are reasonably similar activities though. I disagree with a notion often expressed here, (not just by you), that birders and hunters use of binos have little in common. That is not my experience.

 

[GrampaTom]

Not that I want to get in the middle of a lovers quarrel , but I wouldn’t be surprised if Zeiss would advertise or push an optic as good for hunters, even if it did alienate some of the customer base. I didn’t read the whole thread about what Zeiss did or didn’t do , so not up on the acaul debate. I will say look at Nikon, here a company known for and a good portion of sales, did away with all rifle scopes. I was told they wanted to move away from hunting everything, you know the whole woke thing. That certainly p- - -t off a lot of Nikon fanboys. Not to mention Nikon losing a whole segment of business.

Just my two cents, carry on.

Paul, this seems apples and oranges. Not sure what Zeiss communications strategies and Nikons decision to exit hunting have to do with each other. Other than they were business decisions. The Nikon choice feels more like the Dupont dumping Remington and Olin losing Winchester firearms decisions. Having lived through both, Nikons decision seems familiar and different from Zeiss ongoing ways.

 

[temmie]

The HT (with Schott High Transmission glass) was designed primarily with a hunter's market in mind, and with hunter's input.
There is simply no question about it, and I'm far from pro-hunting. It has been discussed ad nauseam in HT topics years ago.

The HT stems from the FL series, and the FL series were Zeiss top binoculars with a wide range made for both hunters and nature lovers, but (as Zeiss tradition) with a strong emphasis on transmission so it would attract the hunter's market. It's no surprise Zeiss was, for a long time, orientated towards hunters with e.g. the Dialyt 8x56, the night owls, and the big FLs and later the HT's.

It's only with the SF and Dobler that Zeiss seriously and specifically targeted a nature enthusiast / birders public. They finally realised at Zeiss that they were making wonderful binoculars but with bad marketing. They at least tried to market specifically towards birdwatchers in order to have a better profile towards potential customers that were attracted to Swarovski in large droves. I wouldn't say they succeeded (actually, their conquest and terra series were bigger hits, and now the SFL also seems to do very well, so their lower level stuff) in making any inroads in the Swarovski dominance (and with the Noctivid as serious competition as well), and they also got comments from the BF specialists that (rightly) didn't understand why e.g. the HT should be marketed for hunters while it was an excellent bin overall and also excellent for birdwatching or other purposes (and thus missed by many potential customers).

 

[Conndomat]

I disagree with a notion often expressed here, (not just by you), that birders and hunters use of binos have little in common. That is not my experience.

Hi Tom,

surely the hunt differs between American and German hunters.

Here the hunt is mainly static, often takes place in the twilight from the high seat, the stalking is mainly limited to encircling grain fields and then sending in the hunting dogs, with a lot of "searching" there is no longer, the dogs drive the game out, the hunters only have to shoot.

The fact that many hunters no longer use binoculars at all due to night hunting with thermal imaging and night vision devices being permitted shows that binoculars are more of a tool that can also be replaced.

The traditional hunter with the big, heavy Zeiss around his neck has long been history here!

Andreas

 

[GrampaTom]

Hi Tom,

surely the hunt differs between American and German hunters.

Here the hunt is mainly static, often takes place in the twilight from the high seat, the stalking is mainly limited to encircling grain fields and then sending in the hunting dogs, with a lot of "searching" there is no longer, the dogs drive the game out, the hunters only have to shoot.

The fact that many hunters no longer use binoculars at all due to night hunting with thermal imaging and night vision devices being permitted shows that binoculars are more of a tool that can also be replaced.

The traditional hunter with the big, heavy Zeiss around his neck has long been history here!

Andreas

My point was that, hunting is just too varied, too different depending on country, terrain, species (being hunted), seasons/weather, laws, to make general comments about relevance/applicability as many do here, (who I gather do not hunt). Even this comparison of German vs American does not take into account the possibilities. One reason to support BF blockage of hunting conversations, would be this same situation. It might be mayhem. We already have a lot of unqualified opinions, arguments put forward without context, and the attendant emotions. Add the variety of hunting experience without any attempt to ensure context, it'd be awful. As one who used to and now doesn't, in fairly widely diverging places, my own sense is birders and "some" hunters have more in common than what we credit. I can live with that.

 

[Conndomat]

My point was that, hunting is just too varied, too different depending on country, terrain, species (being hunted), seasons/weather, laws, to make general comments about relevance/applicability as many do here, (who I gather do not hunt). Even this comparison of German vs American does not take into account the possibilities. One reason to support BF blockage of hunting conversations, would be this same situation. It might be mayhem. We already have a lot of unqualified opinions, arguments put forward without context, and the attendant emotions. Add the variety of hunting experience without any attempt to ensure context, it'd be awful. As one who used to and now doesn't, in fairly widely diverging places, my own sense is birders and "some" hunters have more in common than what we credit. I can live with that.

The original question was actually whether there are classic hunting binoculars and classic birder binoculars and I would answer this question with a clear yes!

Andreas