Victory HT 10x42 or Victory SF 10x42 any thoughts? (1 Viewer)

[nodd]

Hi all I am in the proses of up grading my current binoculars (opticron DBA 8x42) and have narrowed it down to either victory HT or SF. I was wondering if any one has any views one either or how the compare . I know the best way is to have a look at them side by side it would just be good to have some in formation from people have used either as well. I look forward to any help or comments.

 

[Troubador]

Hi all I am in the proses of up grading my current binoculars (opticron DBA 8x42) and have narrowed it down to either victory HT or SF. I was wondering if any one has any views one either or how the compare . I know the best way is to have a look at them side by side it would just be good to have some in formation from people have used either as well. I look forward to any help or comments.

Hi Neil
It would be helpful if you could tell us what you want to use the bins for.
If its for birding then SF is the way to go. The extra field of view of SF is great and the balance and handling of SF is outstanding.

I have an HT 8x42 and SF 8x42 and they are both special but the extra FOV of SF is really worth it.

Lee

 

[nodd]

Hi Lee I am an ecologist and they will be used for a range of viewing situations inclding building assessments, birding and mammal observations in a range of lighting And weather conditions.

 

[Troubador]

Hi Lee I am an ecologist and they will be used for a range of viewing situations inclding building assessments, birding and mammal observations in a range of lighting And weather conditions.

Hi Neil

I use my bins for a variety of purposes too, not specialising in birds.
The HT handles well and is a step up from the FL that was and is no mean performer itself. But SF takes the handling further with its centre of gravity moved back towards the eyepieces. I find, when watching otters or seals for example, I can hold the bins up for longer and steadier with SF. The ultra wide FOV of SF is great for anything that dives under water and might re-surface anywhere. The naked eye can pick up these in calm water conditions but when the water is choppy the bins are better and the FOV is great for this.

The FOV is also great for surveying habitats that are either sensitive (eg bogs, marshes, carr or dunes) or dangerous (rocky crags or cliffs) for flowers, mosses, fungi and even lichens. For example they have been a great help in surveying bogs in Scotland for the tiny Bog Orchid.

Hope this helps.

Lee

 

[nodd]

Hi Lee, thank you for you comments they have been a great help. I good to hear how they perform in real world situations technical reviews can only take you so far I feel .

 

[Bwana1]

I'm in the same dilemma myself, a new 10x42 needs added to my bag...and I just can't make up my mind.

I have the 8x32 FL *T, and really love it...thanks to the BF recommendations, I'm very happy with the purchase. The HT vs SF is KILLING me, the HT has the color & size,,,but low eye relief(I wear eye glasses). The SF has the wide view, hi eye relief, and ergonomics,,,but a large size, flat colors, and possible armor/eye cup issues. I'm staring at a BNIB pair of SF 10x42's, for sale by a dealer for a killer price,,,and can't pull the trigger.

After reading 123 pages of the SF vs SV thread, which I'll never get those 7 hours of my life back,,,I'm more confused than when I started. Note:::To the members that trash a informative thread, with their personal agendas...without even owning/touching the SF, thanks for destroying a place for information and thoughtful discussion. Since some of us may be spending 1000's of dollars, while you have no intension of purchasing the SF's....I'd personally like to thank you for destroying a source of information, and thoughtful response from SF owners/users

Can anyone venture a guess for Zeiss's intentions in 2016 ??? Since they intend to continue the excellent HT & SF lines, is it possible that they will (1)Eliminate "said" issues with armor/eye cup ? (2)Possibly alter SF lens/coating for a deeper color, similar to the HT view ?

I'm hoping a 2nd generation of the SF is made available, thus giving me the "perfect" bin for my use...hey, it's Xmas time 3

Note:I contacted the OP Mr.nodd for permission, prior to addressing this in his thread. I certainly hope it's not opening the floodgates to childish meanderings from non-Zeiss fans.

 

[Troubador]

I'm in the same dilemma myself, a new 10x42 needs added to my bag...and I just can't make up my mind.

I have the 8x32 FL *T, and really love it...thanks to the BF recommendations, I'm very happy with the purchase. The HT vs SF is KILLING me, the HT has the color & size,,,but low eye relief(I wear eye glasses). The SF has the wide view, hi eye relief, and ergonomics,,,but a large size, flat colors, and possible armor/eye cup issues. I'm staring at a BNIB pair of SF 10x42's, for sale by a dealer for a killer price,,,and can't pull the trigger.

After reading 123 pages of the SF vs SV thread, which I'll never get those 7 hours of my life back,,,I'm more confused than when I started. Note:::To the members that trash a informative thread, with their personal agendas...without even owning/touching the SF, thanks for destroying a place for information and thoughtful discussion. Since some of us may be spending 1000's of dollars, while you have no intension of purchasing the SF's....I'd personally like to thank you for destroying a source of information, and thoughtful response from SF owners/users

Can anyone venture a guess for Zeiss's intentions in 2016 ??? Since they intend to continue the excellent HT & SF lines, is it possible that they will (1)Eliminate "said" issues with armor/eye cup ? (2)Possibly alter SF lens/coating for a deeper color, similar to the HT view ?

I'm hoping a 2nd generation of the SF is made available, thus giving me the "perfect" bin for my use...hey, it's Xmas time 3

Note:I contacted the OP Mr.nodd for permission, prior to addressing this in his thread. I certainly hope it's not opening the floodgates to childish meanderings from non-Zeiss fans.

HI Bwana

Having both HT and SF I can tell you that to my eyes the similarities between the quality of the views (colour, contrast etc) far outweigh any subtle differences. And SF FOV is wonderful if FOV is what you like (whats not to like?).

Issues with armour I believe have been exagerated by the fact that the underside of the armour is covered in grooves and ribs that act as impact absorbers to protect the bins. This gives the armour a slightly squishy/soft feel which to some people has been misinterpreted as 'loose armour'. I am not saying loose armour hasn't been found but I don't believe it is anything to worry about.

The eyecups are variable in quality (ie what they feel like) and I think they are not up to the required standard, BUT all of them that I have tried out (and I have handled quite a lot now) have screwed down for glasses wearers and screwed up for non-glasses and they have stayed there and done their job. In short they have functioned as required.

Lee

 

[Bwana1]

HI Bwana

Having both HT and SF I can tell you that to my eyes the similarities between the quality of the views (colour, contrast etc) far outweigh any subtle differences. And SF FOV is wonderful if FOV is what you like (whats not to like?).

Issues with armour I believe have been exagerated by the fact that the underside of the armour is covered in grooves and ribs that act as impact absorbers to protect the bins. This gives the armour a slightly squishy/soft feel which to some people has been misinterpreted as 'loose armour'. I am not saying loose armour hasn't been found but I don't believe it is anything to worry about.

The eyecups are variable in quality (ie what they feel like) and I think they are not up to the required standard, BUT all of them that I have tried out (and I have handled quite a lot now) have screwed down for glasses wearers and screwed up for non-glasses and they have stayed there and done their job. In short they have functioned as required.

Lee

Lee,
Appreciate your thoughtful response, and that's great news explaining some of my concerns. I wear eye glasses so the cups will stay in the down position, and shouldn't be of concern.

The view between the HT/SF being very similar is fantastic to hear, my concerns were of color/contrast...so I can rest assured. The SF having the longer ER, makes it a better fit for me.

Do you feel Zeiss will offer another generation in the near future(conjecture of course), or the SF will remain a separate/different beast in it's own ?

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

Do you feel Zeiss will offer another generation in the near future(conjecture of course), or the SF will remain a separate/different beast in it's own ?

B1
I am not entirely sure what you mean by this question.

SF is definitely treading a different path from HT and I can't see that changing, indeed one of Zeiss USA guys has confirmed there will be a 32 mm SF, probably late next year.

I have no inside knowledge of future Zeiss product plans but my bet would be that HT and SF will be separate and be around for a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if coatings are improved along the way because they have a guy who's job it is to improve the T* coatings.

But there are other more obvious gaps in their product ranges that I would expect to see filled before any substantial changes to HT and SF.

Lee

 

[Bwana1]

B1
I am not entirely sure what you mean by this question.

SF is definitely treading a different path from HT and I can't see that changing, indeed one of Zeiss USA guys has confirmed there will be a 32 mm SF, probably late next year.

I have no inside knowledge of future Zeiss product plans but my bet would be that HT and SF will be separate and be around for a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if coatings are improved along the way because they have a guy who's job it is to improve the T* coatings.

But there are other more obvious gaps in their product ranges that I would expect to see filled before any substantial changes to HT and SF.

Lee

Lee,
I should have been more clear/specific(but wrapping gifts in a hurried and careless way here ),,,I understand the body/ergonomics of the SF/HT serve different users/budgets/style....thus will stay in the line-up.

I'm hoping the SF will lend it self to a small change in the coatings, to be a bit warmer like the HT...then I have the Holy Grail o

 

[Lord Muck]

I bought a like new pair of Zeiss Conquest 10x42 HD binoculars 6 months ago, and even though they are far better than the Nikon 10x50 binoculars I used to own, and are very sharp, I was wondering if anyone has compared them against the 10x42 Victory SF,..and if so,..is there a huge difference in quality ..? as Im thinking of upgrading mine to the SF.

 

[Troubador]

I bought a like new pair of Zeiss Conquest 10x42 HD binoculars 6 months ago, and even though they are far better than the Nikon 10x50 binoculars I used to own, and are very sharp, I was wondering if anyone has compared them against the 10x42 Victory SF,..and if so,..is there a huge difference in quality ..? as Im thinking of upgrading mine to the SF.

Hi Mucky

You have opened a can of worms. What do you mean by a 'huge' difference? And what are you usingf your bins for?

Here is an example.

I have an SF 8x42 and for birding and other stuff I think its the bee's knees.
But if I am chasing butterflies and dragonflies with occasional birds I use Conquest 8x32 because the focus speed is so much faster. So I can get on these fast moving insects nearby and then get on a distant bird and back again so fast. Which is best? Depends what you need.

Lee

 

[Lord Muck]

Hi Mucky

You have opened a can of worms. What do you mean by a 'huge' difference? And what are you usingf your bins for?

Here is an example.

I have an SF 8x42 and for birding and other stuff I think its the bee's knees.
But if I am chasing butterflies and dragonflies with occasional birds I use Conquest 8x32 because the focus speed is so much faster. So I can get on these fast moving insects nearby and then get on a distant bird and back again so fast. Which is best? Depends what you need.

Lee

Mucky,..lol,. i like that :-O

Lee,.. I remember we chatted ages ago about the Zeiss Conquest 15x56 binos,.... (if Im not mistaken). Because i was considering going for the "BIG" binos for long distance viewing on my mountain hiking trips to the lake district and Snowdonia. But i decided to stick with my 80x spotting scope for watching people hiking up mountains.

Last summer I ended up getting a "like new" pair of Conquest 10x42 - as i mentioned earlier, and took them last September to the WW1 battlefields in northern France, and they were very good. Even some of the guys on the coach were impressed with them, and they had Swaro's.

Essentially I want the 10x binoculars for birding / wildlife viewing, and general viewing of sporting events, and wonder if by spending an extra £1,000 on the 10x42 SF, wheather i would notice a huge difference between the Conquest 10x42 or the 10x42 SF - because if Im going to spend that kind of money,..I would want to see a big improvement between them. If there is only a 10 or 20% difference,..then Im not going to fork out an extra £1,000

Regards,

Neil M

 

[Troubador]

Mucky,..lol,. i like that :-O

Lee,.. I remember we chatted ages ago about the Zeiss Conquest 15x56 binos,.... (if Im not mistaken). Because i was considering going for the "BIG" binos for long distance viewing on my mountain hiking trips to the lake district and Snowdonia. But i decided to stick with my 80x spotting scope for watching people hiking up mountains.

Last summer I ended up getting a "like new" pair of Conquest 10x42 - as i mentioned earlier, and took them last September to the WW1 battlefields in northern France, and they were very good. Even some of the guys on the coach were impressed with them, and they had Swaro's.

Essentially I want the 10x binoculars for birding / wildlife viewing, and general viewing of sporting events, and wonder if by spending an extra £1,000 on the 10x42 SF, wheather i would notice a huge difference between the Conquest 10x42 or the 10x42 SF - because if Im going to spend that kind of money,..I would want to see a big improvement between them. If there is only a 10 or 20% difference,..then Im not going to fork out an extra £1,000

Regards,

Neil M

Hi Neil

Yes I remember that conversation.

Ok looking at your dilemma now it is still more complicated than you state it.

How do you quantify the extra wide field of view that SF has compared with another model? Is that important to you?

This could be a fabulous leap forward for some users but not very interesting to others.

If you are sensitive to CA then SF would be a good step better but if thats not an issue then don't think about it.

See what I mean? Its not that I am trying to avoid giving advice or avoid making a recommendation, but your question is unclear.

Here is one answer: if I had to have only one bin model for the rest of my life and I was told it woud be a Conquest HD I wouldn't lose any sleep. That would be OK for me.

Lee

 

[Lord Muck]

Hi Neil

Yes I remember that conversation.

Ok looking at your dilemma now it is still more complicated than you state it.

How do you quantify the extra wide field of view that SF has compared with another model? Is that important to you?

This could be a fabulous leap forward for some users but not very interesting to others.

If you are sensitive to CA then SF would be a good step better but if thats not an issue then don't think about it.

See what I mean? Its not that I am trying to avoid giving advice or avoid making a recommendation, but your question is unclear.

Here is one answer: if I had to have only one bin model for the rest of my life and I was told it woud be a Conquest HD I wouldn't lose any sleep. That would be OK for me.

Lee

Yes Lee, i see where you're coming from.
But this is my, and others peoples dilemma, in that we have a "Good" pair of binoculars, ( like my Conquest HD 10x42 )

and we get intrigued by the next model that comes out, and we think, hmmm :smoke:

And the question then becomes,... are these "Amazing Binoculars" that everyone is raving about,.. really that superior to my binoculars,...?

That it can be justified in us spending an extra £1,000 to buy them. Because i can imagine the disappointment if i did buy them, and they were only better by say 10% - it would leave me feeling like I've just been smacked over the head with a wet fish |8.| -

A wider field of view and sensitive to CA - are not big issues for me.

If some people are willing to spend that kind of money on a binocular that has a wider field of view and less CA, then thats cool,
But that would'nt get me reaching for my wallet to find an extra £1,000 Im afraid.

I think one of the problems is that company's that make "Alpha" binoculars and Spotting Scopes "Market" them, as though they are
vastly superior to previous models, (in order to justify the price hikes) and this is what leads us to question how superior the new models really are.

Neil

 

[NDhunter]

Yes Lee, i see where you're coming from.
I won't pretend Im an expert on all the technicalities of top end binoculars,
Because Im certainly not, but this is my, and others peoples dilemma, in that we have a "Good" pair of binoculars, ( like my Conquest HD 10x42 )

and we get intrigued by the next model that comes out, and we think, hmmm :smoke:

And the question then becomes,... are these "Amazing Binoculars" that everyone is raving about,.. really that superior to my binoculars,...?

That it can be justified in us spending an extra £1,000 to buy them. Because i can imagine the disappointment if i did buy them, and they were only better by say 10% - it would leave me feeling like I've just been smacked over the head with a wet fish |8.| -

Now if there was a huge difference between the Conquest and Victory SF, then i would be happy to relieve my girlfriends purse of £1,000 ( just kidding )

but you see my twisted logic Lee :smoke:

And a wider field of view and sensitive to CA - are not big issues for me.

But if some people are willing to spend that kind of money on a binocular that has a wider field of view and less CA, then thats cool,
But that would'nt get me reaching for my wallet to find an extra £1,000 Im afraid.

Neil

Neil:

I own both of the models mentioned in 10x42. I agree with your summation
of the situation, and also with Lee.

The Conquest HD 10x42 is not just a "good" binocular, it is a "very good"
binocular. The SF is better in some ways and that has been mentioned.

At this level, you do need to try these out if you can, to see which one
fits your level of satisfaction. This is not done with percentages, but
with your own eyes and handling.

Jerry

 

[Lord Muck]

Neil:

I own both of the models mentioned in 10x42. I agree with your summation
of the situation, and also with Lee.

The Conquest HD 10x42 is not just a "good" binocular, it is a "very good"
binocular. The SF is better in some ways and that has been mentioned.

At this level, you do need to try these out if you can, to see which one
fits your level of satisfaction. This is not done with percentages, but
with your own eyes and handling.

Jerry

Hi Jerry,
I remember we chatted about me buying the Conquest HD 10x42 a few months ago, (you rated them very highly, as i recall).
And i agree, they are a very good binocular. And you're also right,..its probably best to go to an optics store and try the Victory SF 10x42 model out, and then you can judge for your self before you get your wallet out.

Neil

 

[james holdsworth]

Neil:

I own both of the models mentioned in 10x42. I agree with your summation
of the situation, and also with Lee.

The Conquest HD 10x42 is not just a "good" binocular, it is a "very good"
binocular. The SF is better in some ways and that has been mentioned.

At this level, you do need to try these out if you can, to see which one
fits your level of satisfaction. This is not done with percentages, but
with your own eyes and handling.

Jerry

Jerry, you own an SF? If so, what are your impressions and how does it compare to your other glass?

 

[NDhunter]

Jerry, you own an SF? If so, what are your impressions and how does it compare to your other glass?

James:

Yes, I do own the SF, and it is a very good binocular.

I posted about that, on the Zeiss thread, "My thoughts of the Zeiss
10x42 SF". Post #45.

Jerry

 

[Lord Muck]

James:

Yes, I do own the SF, and it is a very good binocular.

I posted about that, on the Zeiss thread, "My thoughts of the Zeiss
10x42 SF". Post #45.

Jerry

Hey Jerry,

Have you had anything to do with the Zeiss Victory 10x54 HT binoculars,..?

I see that they are half a pound heavier than the 10x42 Victory HT's,

And wonder if with the 12mm wider objective lens, (they would let in more light), and give brighter overall views than the 10x42's.

I also notice that there does'nt seem to be any mention on the web of a 10x54 in the Victory SF, available at the moment.

Neil M