I agree with Lee, the reviewer got a lemon (beaten-to-death review unit?).
. . . When prices reach these levels, things need to be better sorted out before the binocular is boxed and shipped. Most of the user described issues should be discoverable within a time span of a few minute examination, again, before it is boxed and shipped.
There were reports of QC issues when the first SF's were released. These issues sounded a lot like what are described in the review from the OP. Other user posts sounded a lot like what Chuck describes with his SF.
This poses a couple of questions. The first is if the review model, which was purchased anonymously (according to the review) was an early release SF that had been in the box on the shelf for awhile? If memory serves it seems the SF Chuck got was from the time period they were first available. The next and biggest question is whether or not Zeiss has taken any pains to correct these issues?
Things like the internal debris from the photos in the review are certainly not to be expected nor appreciated...either by the consumer or Zeiss. Loose diopter dials should never have seen release into the wild either. However because one sample has a loose dial, that shoul dnot be taken to mean the SF in general has the issue.
I'm not getting into the loose armor too far other than to say all binoculars tend to have some armor looseness and user perceptions can vary a lot. Just how far was the squinching of armor being carried out to get noises?
When prices reach these levels, things need to be better sorted out before the binocular is boxed and shipped. Most of the user described issues should be discoverable within a time span of a few minute examination, again, before it is boxed and shipped.
Wow. A surprising and disappointing review from the perspective of build quality; and then to have Chill6X6 confirm it. At any rate the best image I've ever seen was from the Zeiss HT 8x42 as I said last week below.
You agree Chuck since you have SF, HT's, and UV's? How is the HT build quality?
As my eyes got progressively wider in the Roger Vine review:
"armour is thin and the strap lugs are plastic [magnesium actually], the eye cups quite flimsy"
"More seriously, the armour on the test pair was loose in places, making scrunching noises when pressed."
"there is all that dust in the left barrel."
"loose eye cups"
"the uneven finish on the bridge"
"the loose and wobbly diopter knob"
Wow. A surprising and disappointing review from the perspective of build quality; and then to have Chill6X6 confirm it. At any rate the best image I've ever seen was from the Zeiss HT 8x42 as I said last week below.
You agree Chuck since you have SF, HT's, and UV's? How is the HT build quality?
As my eyes got progressively wider in the Roger Vine review:
"armour is thin and the strap lugs are plastic [magnesium actually], the eye cups quite flimsy"
"More seriously, the armour on the test pair was loose in places, making scrunching noises when pressed."
"there is all that dust in the left barrel."
"loose eye cups"
"the uneven finish on the bridge"
"the loose and wobbly diopter knob"
Hi Jerry:
Is it SF 10x42? I own an SF 10x , and was considering buying also an EDG 10x42---I cannot try the EDG before buying, and would appreciate a comparison of your EDG and SF---I believe the EDG was your favorite; why do you now prefer the SF? (the EDG has a number of potential mechanical issues; besides that it is sometimes referred to as a "lump of lead"---does it really feel heavy in the hand?).
Peter
Like Jerry, I also have the Nikon EDG-II and the Zeiss SF, both in a 10X42. The EDG was my all time favorite until getting the Zeiss SF. I now prefer the SF over the EDG without hesitation.
Two of the more obvious advantages of the SF are the wider field of view and the better balance. Both of these improvements are quite noticeable. I also think the SF has a more neutral color balance. (The Nikon shows a little red/pink color balance.) The SF view has more life (better contrast?) and detail stands out better. The view of the Nikon is excellent but the SF is just that much more excellent!
The mechanics are a little nicer on the SF. For some reason, the eye cups on the Nikon tend to turn in although they do not seem that loose. (Must be gremlins!) Also the hinge is on the loose side and it may be getting more so over time (as reported by others). These are only minor issues.
The Nikon EDG is excellent, but I do not see any improvement over the SF you already have. The Nikon does have a slightly nicer focus mechanism but there is nothing wrong with the focus mechanism on my SF.
The Nikon EDG-II feels just fine in the hand. It does not feel like a lump at all. Take a look at a photo and notice the curves of the barrels. They fit the palm of the hand real well. The Nikon has a nice hold but it is more front heavy than the SF. I prefer the SF balance over the EDG and the EDG over the Swaro EL 10X50 that I have.
My big concern about the EDG is if Nikon plans to continue in the high end market. They have disappeared from the birding scene. One of the high end reps told me last fall that he does not even consider Nikon a competitor any more. I have doubts as to what kind of service support will be available for the EDG over the long term.
There are two generations of the EDG. The first gen has a dual hinge design and the second has a single hinge. The general consensus is that they are the same optically, but the EDG-II is superior mechanically. If you do get an EDG, go for the EDG-II.
The primary reasons for buying an EDG over a Zeiss SF would be if it is available for a much lower price or if a shorter binocular is required. Just looking at the optical quality and the over all package, for me, the Zeiss SF is the much better choice.
It will be interesting to see what Jerry has to say.
I agree with Steve. Especially at the price level of the Zeiss SF every binocular should be individually inspected for defects. It is surprising to me that these quality control problems were not detected before the binoculars got out on the market especially the first ones produced. You know people are going to be looking closely at the initial production run. Obviously most Zeiss SF binoculars were fine but there have been some reviews and several members where they said they had quality problems.There were reports of QC issues when the first SF's were released. These issues sounded a lot like what are described in the review from the OP. Other user posts sounded a lot like what Chuck describes with his SF.
This poses a couple of questions. The first is if the review model, which was purchased anonymously (according to the review) was an early release SF that had been in the box on the shelf for awhile? If memory serves it seems the SF Chuck got was from the time period they were first available. The next and biggest question is whether or not Zeiss has taken any pains to correct these issues?
Things like the internal debris from the photos in the review are certainly not to be expected nor appreciated...either by the consumer or Zeiss. Loose diopter dials should never have seen release into the wild either. However because one sample has a loose dial, that shoul dnot be taken to mean the SF in general has the issue.
I'm not getting into the loose armor too far other than to say all binoculars tend to have some armor looseness and user perceptions can vary a lot. Just how far was the squinching of armor being carried out to get noises?
When prices reach these levels, things need to be better sorted out before the binocular is boxed and shipped. Most of the user described issues should be discoverable within a time span of a few minute examination, again, before it is boxed and shipped.
I agree with Steve. Especially at the price level of the Zeiss SF every binocular should be individually inspected for defects. It is surprising to me that these quality control problems were not detected before the binoculars got out on the market especially the first ones produced. You know people are going to be looking closely at the initial production run. Obviously most Zeiss SF binoculars were fine but there have been some reviews and several members where they said they had quality problems.
Thanks for your viewpoint. I really laughed at your comment:
"Seriously....pulled the SF out of the box and was like...ahhhhh...oh oh. Creaking armoring is kinda like a dash on your car that rattles.. Car still drives fine but it sure isn't confidence inspiring. I'm trying to think how many binoculars I have actually PURCHASED...from $49.00 to about $2,800 and only one has creaked out of the box and only one has armoring that stains...."
I laughed at the humorous way you related your problems but I am truly sorry though you had trouble with your new SF's. It is disappointing to spend that much money and not get what you expected. That is why QA is so important. I am sure Zeiss will correct your problems.
The Swaro focusers have been dodgy in the past. That is true. They use a grease less system so they work in cold temperatures and a spring tension system I am told that sometimes causes them to be easier in one direction and have stiction. My 10x50 SV had a little stiction in both directions that wasn't too bad but it bothered me. I sent it in to Swarovski and in about a month they returned it free of charge. Honestly, Swarovski has the best customer service I have ever experienced from any company in my life. They have sent me countless eye cups, lens covers and cases free of charge. I am not sure what they did to the focus but it is perfect now. No stiction and the same tension in both directions. It makes me wonder why they don't do it in the first place because the focus can be corrected. I have heard the newer Fieldpro models have smooth focusers so perhaps they have solved the problem. Time will tell. I am not saying Swarovski's are perfect but I have had many for years and the focus is the only issue I have had but I have also had many Zeiss binoculars including the older FL's of many sizes and their compact Victories and I have never had a problem with them either. To me having QA problems like this is not the Zeiss I have known. That is why this talk of loose armour and staining is strange. None of my FL's or any other Zeiss I had had these kind of problems. They have always been a superb binocular. I even had the Zeiss 8x56 FL for awhile and it had awesome optics but I just couldn't carry the weight. Not one problem with it.So, are you worried about the focus on your SV crapping out? After all, we have had lots of reports of this problem, dating back to their introduction. It's been 6 years and yet we keep getting reports of dodgy SV focusers - what's up with that?
It's not that I would give a pass to the SF quality issues - I have commented here previously that it is unacceptable for such a costly device - but perspective and objectivity are needed.
The primary reasons for buying an EDG over a Zeiss SF would be if it is available for a much lower price or if a shorter binocular is required. Just looking at the optical quality and the over all package, for me, the Zeiss SF is the much better choice.
Thanks for your viewpoint Chill6x6. I really laughed at your comment::-O
"Seriously....pulled the SF out of the box and was like...ahhhhh...oh oh. Creaking armoring is kinda like a dash on your car that rattles.. Car still drives fine but it sure isn't confidence inspiring. I'm trying to think how many binoculars I have actually PURCHASED...from $49.00 to about $2,800 and only one has creaked out of the box and only one has armoring that stains...."
I laughed at the humorous way you related your problems but I am truly sorry though you had trouble with your new SF's.:-C It is disappointing to spend that much money and not get what you expected. That is why QA is so important. I am sure Zeiss will correct your problems.