Here are the new Victorys: Victory HT (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

I view Binoculars as tools. Not things intended for nature watching. I treat all my optics either camera or others as precision tools for any purpose. Would you use a screwdriver which shaft and handle has some movement ? Anyway my rainguard comes off if the binoculars are flipped over, quite loose.

Hi Joe

My HT rainguard never moves unless I move it, but then I don't 'flip' the bins over.

If they are around my neck or on a harness they just hang down and the rainguard just sits there until I take it off. If I take the binoculars off to put them down then they stand on the objective lenses if there is a table or similar, and the rainguard just sits there on top. If there is no table I lay the bins down carefully and again the rainguard doesn't move.

However my IPD is relatively small so I guess the springiness of the rainguard is pushing it outwards against the eyecups and maybe holds it in place for me.

Lee

 

[joe101]

Hi Joe

My HT rainguard never moves unless I move it, but then I don't 'flip' the bins over.

If they are around my neck or on a harness they just hang down and the rainguard just sits there until I take it off. If I take the binoculars off to put them down then they stand on the objective lenses if there is a table or similar, and the rainguard just sits there on top. If there is no table I lay the bins down carefully and again the rainguard doesn't move.

However my IPD is relatively small so I guess the springiness of the rainguard is pushing it outwards against the eyecups and maybe holds it in place for me.

Lee

Lee,

I too do not flip the bins , It was just an example of the extend of looseness.
Though it keeps coming off while inside my bag.

 

[james holdsworth]

Mine fits snug and tight. I actually prefer a looser design, as I like the guard to rest on the oculars and then fall away when I lift the bins.

 

[joe101]

Mine fits snug and tight. I actually prefer a looser design, as I like the guard to rest on the oculars and then fall away when I lift the bins.

want to trade ?

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

I too do not flip the bins , It was just an example of the extend of looseness.
Though it keeps coming off while inside my bag.

How about wrapping the strap between the two tubes then up and over the rainguard, then down and up between the tubes again. This ought to hold the rainguard in place.

Lee

 

[joe101]

How about wrapping the strap between the two tubes then up and over the rainguard, then down and up between the tubes again. This ought to hold the rainguard in place.

Lee

I do that now

 

[joe101]

Update on the HT focuser, the hair of play at the 1/4 from infinity has spread to almost the whole range. And the focuser is slightly looser.

 

[brocknroller]

Joe

I know exactly how you feel when there's something not quite right with your alpha bino's.
For the price, everything should be perfect.
What really annoys me is when you ring an alpha supplier, your usually met with scepticism over your concerns, like you don't know what your talking about.
Strangely every single binocular I've sent back, has always had my concerns confirmed
I'm just getting fed up with the verble battle I have to go through, only to find out I was right all along.

At the moment I've sent a Swarovski eyepiece back because it has dark spots on the image. Unfortunately I had to put up with the "oh no its you again" attitude, before they grudgingly allowed me to send it back.


Tim

NIGEL: Hey, Humphry, I’ve got Tim the whiner on the phone again with another problem. Now he’s seeing spots before his eyes!

HUMPHRY: He's a nut job, that one, all right. Pretend you’re on a cell phone, crinkle some paper, and tell him he’s breaking up and then hang up the phone.

NIGEL: I don’t think Swarovski would like that.

HUMPHRY: If Swarovski doesn’t like that, they shouldn’t damn well make binoculars that make you see spots before your eyes, now should they?

NIGEL: We have to honor the warranty.

HUMPHRY: It’s probably fungus, after all, he lives on a bloody island. Send him some anti-fungus powder.

TIM: Hello, are you still there?

NIGEL: Yes, Tim, sorry for the delay, we’re posting you something that should clear up the problem.

TIM: What is it?

NIGEL: (crumpling sounds) Sorry, you’re breaking up…. losing you…expect a package soon. CLICK

<B>

 

[Troubador]

NIGEL: Hey, Humphry, I’ve got Tim the whiner on the phone again with another problem. Now he’s seeing spots before his eyes!

HUMPHRY: He's a nut job, that one, all right. Pretend you’re on a cell phone, crinkle some paper, and tell him he’s breaking up and then hang up the phone.

NIGEL: I don’t think Swarovski would like that.

HUMPHRY: If Swarovski doesn’t like that, they shouldn’t damn well make binoculars that make you see spots before your eyes, now should they?

NIGEL: We have to honor the warranty.

HUMPHRY: It’s probably fungus, after all, he lives on a bloody island. Send him some anti-fungus powder.

TIM: Hello, are you still there?

NIGEL: Yes, Tim, sorry for the delay, we’re posting you something that should clear up the problem.

TIM: What is it?

NIGEL: (crumpling sounds) Sorry, you’re breaking up…. losing you…expect a package soon. CLICK

<B>

:-O

Lee

 

[lmans66]

This is a tag on to the excellent review by Penfold as he reviewed the Zeiss 8 x 42 HT, the 8 x 42 Swaro and 8.5 X 42 Swaro. His review was excellent but I have a few things to add on. Just this week I ordered the Zeiss HT from B and H and the Swaro from Eagle Optics, with the idea that I was going to keep one of these fine binoculars and return the other. Initially I birded my backyard and eventually field tested them at Forsythe Refuge in New Jersey, mainly on shorebirds.

Both are excellent binoculars. The ‘feel’ of each was splendid with the armor as well as the overall feel in your hands. Although the Swaro has finger indents, honestly, ….I am not sure if you need them since the Zeiss does not but still has an excellent feel. I really preferred the feel of the Zeiss.

The eyecups for both are one piece although I like the Swaro better. The objective lens covers are one piece for the Zeiss and are attached to the bino for the Swaro. I liked the Zeiss lens covers.

Color rendition…the Zeiss has more vivid color in the reds and browns, the Swaro in the greens. Since ‘spring’ is in the air, the greens really popped out, but when looking at brown birds or reddish tinges …the Zeiss had a bit better color.

When testing both bino’s in my backyard….the birds sparkled. The focus wheel of the Zeiss is nothing but spectacular. If there is anything such as “AF” in a binocular focus, the Zeiss obtained it. I really enjoyed holding the Zeiss and using the focus….so much easier than the stiffer focus of the Swaro. The Zeiss was an excellent walk about/birding bino for ease of focus. It was simple to refocus from 15 yards to 5. I was blown away by both binos in terms of focus and clarity of up close birds on feeders, in trees etc.

Light transmission was super for both bino’s. I know that the Zeiss states they have 95% light transmission, and they may…but for my eyes, both proved equal. This includes shadows, dusk, dawn etc…both excelled.

Now,…for the Zeiss disappointment…and a huge one. When I took the binos into the field to use them walking around etc…again, the Zeiss felt really nice walking trails and observing birds within 15 yards or so…Excellent in fact. But…shorebirds clearly belonged to Swaro. Viewing birds such as Glossy Iris’s… peeps etc… If the birds were over 15 yards, the Zeiss never could focus in as clearly as the Swaro. In fact, my eyes tired looked thru the Zeiss. The constant focusing back and forth attempting to hit that sweet focal point and when I did, it still never lived up to the Swaro. I shore-birded for close to 6 hours spread over two days, one at late morning and into the afternoon while the other more at dusk.

I really wanted the Zeiss to do better and I gave it ample opportunity. A $2000 pair of bino’s shouldn’t have bad copies and I should be able to find a bino that serves me upclose and at a reasonable distance as in shore-birding peeps, terns, Iris’s and the likes. I found myself always turning to the Swaro for a clear view. Don't get me wrong as the Swaro is also excellent. It has a nice 'sturdy' feel to it and while the focus wheel is not as buttery soft, one can still bird 'one-handed' with it but the large focus wheel of the Zeiss was something I enjoyed.

So….bottom line, sadly the Zeiss is returned and the Swaro is kept as a decision had to be made. Did I get a bad copy that for some reason didn’t focus as well in longer distances? Tell me so…..for I really wanted the Zeiss. The overall feel, the buttery focus wheel….the looks etc…all were telling me to keep the Zeiss but in the end, the overall clarity of the Swaro won out. The bino's were obtained thru different outlets with Both being reputable having used them before but the Zeiss had a pricetag of only 1999 instead of 2200 as I see most often. I wonder if this copy I had was a returned copy and ‘for good reason’ and they keep passing it around hoping to sell it. But it wasn’t labeled as ‘used’…but new. Anyhow…I really wanted the Zeiss since the focus wheel was so soft, so buttery, so Auto Focus like, ..... jim

 

[Troubador]

Imans

Do you think the extra 0.5x magnification was making the difference? Shorebirds can be a challenge through 8x bins.

Lee

 

[lmans66]

Imans

Do you think the extra 0.5x magnification was making the difference? Shorebirds can be a challenge through 8x bins.

Lee

Lee...I was comparing 8 x 42 for both the Swaro and the Zeiss...I didn't have a 8.5 Swarovision to look at...

But you are right...shorebirds need a 10X to be effective and I have a 10X Vortex which might be better than either of these. Perhaps that should be my next experiment prior to sending back the Zeiss... See how the 10x Vortex compare to either of these in regards to shorebirds. Maybe just settle upon the Zeiss as my birding walkabouts, the 10x Vortex as my shorebirding lens... But it is important to note how the Swaro did a better job on the shorebirds though....

I really prefer the feel of the Zeiss and am trying to find ways to keep it! I haven't sent it back, yet.... jim

 

[Mike Penfold]

Imans,

Yesterday we were birding on the shores of Georgian Bay, where the shimmering heat waves off the water negatively affected resolution.

Wonder if the Swarovski SV has a differential response to haze.

Otherwise, puzzling that you would get significantly better resolution at one distance over another with the Zeiss.

Mike

 

[Troubador]

Lee...I was comparing 8 x 42 for both the Swaro and the Zeiss...I didn't have a 8.5 Swarovision to look at...

But you are right...shorebirds need a 10X to be effective and I have a 10X Vortex which might be better than either of these. Perhaps that should be my next experiment prior to sending back the Zeiss... See how the 10x Vortex compare to either of these in regards to shorebirds. Maybe just settle upon the Zeiss as my birding walkabouts, the 10x Vortex as my shorebirding lens... But it is important to note how the Swaro did a better job on the shorebirds though....

I really prefer the feel of the Zeiss and am trying to find ways to keep it! I haven't sent it back, yet.... jim

This is a really puzzling result for me to understand. A few weeks back I was looking at distant ducks through my HT 8x42s one moment and then small birds a few metres away the next and with both distances the sharpness was terrific.

Hope you get a good outcome.

Lee

 

[joe101]

This is a really puzzling result for me to understand. A few weeks back I was looking at distant ducks through my HT 8x42s one moment and then small birds a few metres away the next and with both distances the sharpness was terrific.

Hope you get a good outcome.

Lee

Maybe he got a lemon, my first unit was like that.
thats is what i thought the resolution of the HT is lower than the FL.

 

[lmans66]

I went out again today....just down the road to the river. I really think the HT I have is a bit of a lemon. When I compare it to the clarity of my Vortex 10-42, while the closeness of the Votex has to be taken into account, at times the clarity of distant birds is similar. For instance, I barn swallows landed on a post about 20 yards away it was better than the HT...while the HT was more akin to the Vortex... So with that comparison, I think the one I have is somewhat of a lemon. Will try one more time tomorrow at the refuge and take all with me....

One thing I have noticed about the binoculars is the finger placement to the focus wheel. On the Swaro, the focal wheel is much closer to the eyes, thus your index finger rides on the focal wheel. On the Zeiss the focal wheel is more centered so I naturally place my index and middle finger on the focal wheel...That alone makes the turning of the wheel easier than the Swaro with one finger placement.

Also, the turn rotation of the Zeiss focal is tighter, thus not having to rotate as much when going from far to near...another huge benefit.

All the little things make a difference and point to the Zeiss....but the one that stands out ...clarity.....

 

[Troubador]

I went out again today....just down the road to the river. I really think the HT I have is a bit of a lemon. When I compare it to the clarity of my Vortex 10-42, while the closeness of the Votex has to be taken into account, at times the clarity of distant birds is similar. For instance, I barn swallows landed on a post about 20 yards away it was better than the HT...while the HT was more akin to the Vortex... So with that comparison, I think the one I have is somewhat of a lemon. Will try one more time tomorrow at the refuge and take all with me....

One thing I have noticed about the binoculars is the finger placement to the focus wheel. On the Swaro, the focal wheel is much closer to the eyes, thus your index finger rides on the focal wheel. On the Zeiss the focal wheel is more centered so I naturally place my index and middle finger on the focal wheel...That alone makes the turning of the wheel easier than the Swaro with one finger placement.

Also, the turn rotation of the Zeiss focal is tighter, thus not having to rotate as much when going from far to near...another huge benefit.

All the little things make a difference and point to the Zeiss....but the one that stands out ...clarity.....

Swap it for another HT Jim.

Lee

 

[lmans66]

I would like to...to truly see... I will send the one I have back but hate to get another from that same dealer.... Will see if I can go thru Eagle Optics...but I already have the Swaro from them..seems bad getting one after the other and using them... I am not sure if they consider that a 'used' unit or just place it back on the shelves. I don't try to unpack anything but the bino though...jim

 

[james holdsworth]

Try to close the IPD down a tad. My HT had the same impression initially [seemed less than sharp from 100 m +, especially dead-centre] and I was convinced they were a lemon and were going back.

Then, last-ditch effort, I tweaked the IPD to a point a bit tighter than I would normally and *boom*, instant clarity - like superior clarity to any bin I have used and easily sharper than my FL.

Although the HT is less finicky for eye-placement than the FL for edge sharpness, CA and glare, they may be a bit more touchy for IPD, with the wider barrels needing a bit more convergence for that perfect sweetspot.

Anyway, if this doesn't help, send it back...any suggestion of non-clarity is definitely outside the norm for this bin. If you can't get things tack-sharp, the unit is a dud. I was doing bird surveys the past two days, swapping between the 8 HT and the 10x42 FL and it is more apparent than ever just how superior the HT is, in every regard. After using the HT for a few hours, holding the FL up to my eyes presents dullness and disappointment. Not that the FL 's have fallen that far, just the HT has moved the bar a long way up.

 

[lmans66]

Try to close the IPD down a tad. My HT had the same impression initially [seemed less than sharp from 100 m +, especially dead-centre] and I was convinced they were a lemon and were going back.

Then, last-ditch effort, I tweaked the IPD to a point a bit tighter than I would normally and *boom*, instant clarity - like superior clarity to any bin I have used and easily sharper than my FL.

Although the HT is less finicky for eye-placement than the FL for edge sharpness, CA and glare, they may be a bit more touchy for IPD, with the wider barrels needing a bit more convergence for that perfect sweetspot.

Anyway, if this doesn't help, send it back...any suggestion of non-clarity is definitely outside the norm for this bin. If you can't get things tack-sharp, the unit is a dud. I was doing bird surveys the past two days, swapping between the 8 HT and the 10x42 FL and it is more apparent than ever just how superior the HT is, in every regard. After using the HT for a few hours, holding the FL up to my eyes presents dullness and disappointment. Not that the FL 's have fallen that far, just the HT has moved the bar a long way up.

Hi James...thanks for the advice...I really want to make these bino's work. I am going out in a few min and spend the day again and will try your little trick...IPD.

I went out yesterday with the Swaros' and they were tack sharp but still the focus wheel is just way too stiff...i find myself having to work at focusing while this Zeiss just has such as smooth one. If I can fix this focus problem coupled with the ease of the focus wheel in the field,...this is a true winner .... Will let you know, jim