Here's My Review of the Much Anticipated and Continually Delayed HT (1 Viewer)

Hi

Just returned from the Bird Fair and can report that the mythical Zeiss HTs do really exist and I have looked through them!

The Fair was really busy and crowded so extended and contemplative viewing and comparing was not possible. I was able to try out a full production 10x42 and a prototype 8x42 with production-specification optics.

The HTs are like FLs but turned up to 12 on the optics and up to 15 on the ergonomics.

Optically (this is for you Brock) they are the Fender Telecaster (thats an electric guitar, possibly the electirc guitar you non-musos) of bins: bright and sharp but capable of yielding the most subtle of nuances. Lets address the question of the high transmission head-on. Checking out a mostly white poster / billboard about 75 metres away my FL 8x42 yielded a characteristically bright image, but through the HTs the white background really was white. Swapping back to my FLs I couldn't believe it but the 'white' was now a subtle shade of the palest grey. Moving to areas in shade I could see more detail with the HTs. I think it is fair to say this benefit will be most beneficial in dull weather or dusk. I find the FLs to be colour-neutral and they are able to register many subtle shades of colour which is useful when I am flower hunting with them. The HTs also reproduced these shade differences accurately so don't worry about the extra brightness washing out the colours.

A bigger step forward is in the area of ergonomics. With the focussing wheel set further down the optical tubes the balance is just perfect. I could hold the 8x42 steady with one hand, something I can't do with the FLs. And no matter how you pick them up the focussing wheel is right there under your fingers. Talking of the focussing wheel the action is delicious, even better than an FL, and is probably due to the wheel being pivoted / supported at both ends instead of just one.

In short the HTs take the FLs further along the same road but with a major improvement in handling.

Was that OK for you Brock?

Other briefs: The new Conquest 32s are brilliant. Tried out the Swaro SW 32s and thought them excellent but not more so than FLs or Ultravid HDs.

Lee

How is the distortion like ? similar with the Fls or more like the new conquest HDs ?

I think the big question will be edge sharpness [and sweetspot size], as that was the perceived shortcoming of the FL - although I never thought it bad at all.

If the HT's really make whites ''whiter'' that would be really something, as my FL seems to give me the whitest, most luminous whites of any bin. I have used.

Thanks for the review!

Joe

What distortion? Of course I know there is some in there but I only concern myself with issues that present themselves to me in normal everyday viewing and I just haven't noticed any.


James

You are right and some optically enthusiastic bin lovers will no doubt agonise and debate this issue. For myself I always centre the object of my attention in the field of view so edge fall-off doesn't worry me. Its an instinctive thing with me and its reinforced by wearing varifocal spectacles with which it is absolutely necessary to turn ones head to face the object of interest in order to be looking through the correct portion of the lens.

Thanks both for your interest.

Lee

Troubador said:

Hi

Just returned from the Bird Fair and can report that the mythical Zeiss HTs do really exist and I have looked through them!

The Fair was really busy and crowded so extended and contemplative viewing and comparing was not possible. I was able to try out a full production 10x42 and a prototype 8x42 with production-specification optics.

The HTs are like FLs but turned up to 12 on the optics and up to 15 on the ergonomics.

Optically (this is for you Brock) they are the Fender Telecaster (thats an electric guitar, possibly the electirc guitar you non-musos) of bins: bright and sharp but capable of yielding the most subtle of nuances. Lets address the question of the high transmission head-on. Checking out a mostly white poster / billboard about 75 metres away my FL 8x42 yielded a characteristically bright image, but through the HTs the white background really was white. Swapping back to my FLs I couldn't believe it but the 'white' was now a subtle shade of the palest grey. Moving to areas in shade I could see more detail with the HTs. I think it is fair to say this benefit will be most beneficial in dull weather or dusk. I find the FLs to be colour-neutral and they are able to register many subtle shades of colour which is useful when I am flower hunting with them. The HTs also reproduced these shade differences accurately so don't worry about the extra brightness washing out the colours.

A bigger step forward is in the area of ergonomics. With the focussing wheel set further down the optical tubes the balance is just perfect. I could hold the 8x42 steady with one hand, something I can't do with the FLs. And no matter how you pick them up the focussing wheel is right there under your fingers. Talking of the focussing wheel the action is delicious, even better than an FL, and is probably due to the wheel being pivoted / supported at both ends instead of just one.

In short the HTs take the FLs further along the same road but with a major improvement in handling.

Was that OK for you Brock?

Other briefs: The new Conquest 32s are brilliant. Tried out the Swaro SW 32s and thought them excellent but not more so than FLs or Ultravid HDs.

Lee

Click to expand...

Well, it's about time! Thanks for that review, no reflux this time even though I just had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on whole grain bread.

What you said so far sounds very good, indeed. Zeiss seems to have addressed the "wash out" issue and improved the color fidelity and contrast. Considering they increased the light transmission, that's quite a feat. I wonder how they did that?

The transmission curve would probably tell the story. I saw one on Zeiss's site, but I don't recall if it had any references (that is, where the colors were).

Also good to hear about the ergos. I often have problems holding closed bridge roofs steady, but the high-bar "H" design with the focuser set back farther toward the EPs like the HT appear to be and the way the Pentax 8x36 NV is, gives my fingers more "real estate" to grip.

Could you elaborate on the "deliciousness" of the focuser? Is it faster or slower than the FLs? Some people have complained about the FL's focuser being too loose, that is, not having enough tension and being too fast, that is, turning through the depth of field too fast, which creates an impression of shallow depth.

My other concerns are those already expressed, the distortion level and the edge performance.

Distortion is something that some people can ignore or compensate for with their eyes, but if it's extreme, you will probably detect something "weird going on" when you pan and tilt with the bins.

Too much or too little pincushion can result in a "rolling" effect. Easier to see when there's too much than where there's not enough, because the distortion in your eyes can compensate in the lack of distortion unless you're a "rolling baller" like me. I doubt if that's an issue with the HT. More concerned about them going to far in the other direction.

Edge sharpness is something you should be able comment on with some precision since you have an FL to compare it with. Force your centered eyes to move to the edges while holding the bins still (they will automatically dart to the edges if you look through the bin panning) and compare the two.

Does the HT have the same amount of "fuzziness" at the edges as the FL, less, more?

Can the edges be refocused or not? That will tell you if the "fuzzy edge" is astigmatism or field curvature.

Some field curvature can be a good thing as long as it doesn't drop off steeply, but IMO, astigmatism is always a bad thing and shouldn't be severe at this price point.

Going from a super sharp center to way out of focus edges creates too much disparity for me and is particularly annoying while panning since my eyes dart ahead in the direction I'm panning into the "zone of unknowingness".

Some field curvature at the edges can create better depth perception and 3-D effect, which I like since it makes the view look more natural. Field flatteners are nice for extending the sweet spot, but in my experience, reduce the depth perception.

For example, the 8x30 EII gives me a better impression of depth than the 8x32 SE, not that the SE is "shallow" like some roofs I've tried, but just not quite as 3-D.

Brock

Lee,

It was a bit congested on the Zeiss stand when I got there. Comparisons were practically impossible, but my impressions match yours. Bright, light, beautifully balanced. Just nicer than the FL. The Conquest HD 8x32 was a bit of a gem. But then I went and tried the Nikon EII 8x30 for the first time. Wow.... that's a real view!

David

Troubador said:

Hi

Just returned from the Bird Fair and can report that the mythical Zeiss HTs do really exist and I have looked through them!

........Swapping back to my FLs I couldn't believe it but the 'white' was now a subtle shade of the palest grey. Moving to areas in shade I could see more detail with the HTs. I think it is fair to say this benefit will be most beneficial in dull weather or dusk........

Lee

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for the review!!! It appears the waiting will be worth it for me. Glad to see some real world use.

Your quote above is what I've been hoping to hear! This is exactly what is needed in a hunting bino, ie, improving the difficult light during dawn/dusk!

Now I can't wait!!! B

Thanks for taking the time to post, but that's NOT what I wanted to hear Lee!

Now I'm going to have to sell all my other binos in order to be able to afford the HTs. Not good, not good at all....

Either that or put in a lot more overtime :t:

thanks...

Lee, thanks for the review. I am just now getting used to my FL, so I am not going to set myself up for another 1,800.00 plus purchase - 2 or 3 years from now, maybe.

However, did you get a chance to give the Conquest HD 8x32 enough of a view to give a brief impression? A little more specifics? That may be within my purchasing power in the foreseeable future.

John

- and while I like the Telecaster, the heavier Les Paul was always my favorite - especially in the hands of Peter Green.

absolut_beethoven said:

Thanks for taking the time to post, but that's NOT what I wanted to hear Lee!

Now I'm going to have to sell ... Not good, not good at all....

Click to expand...

:t: Awaiting the analysts here who will find out for me why the grape juice is actually rather sour...

Troubador,
Thanks for daring to be the cutting edge and telling us how you saw it. This is terrible news. I am going into a state of denial, ok? No way it could beat the FL, just no way.....(?)
Ron

Brock

Regretably I don't have a pair of HTs in my possession I only had my hands on a couple at the Bird Fair (a 100 miles away from my home) so I can't follow your guidance notes on how to look for distortion or sharpness fall-off towards the edge. Hopefully I will be able to acquire a pair in October when they begin to reach the UK shops and I could have a look for you then.

The focusser 'deliciousness' was down to two aspects:

The focusser on the FL takes a bit over 1 turn from infinity to closest, maybe 1.1 /1.2 turns. On the HT its a bit longer, about 1.5 turns. This was just perfect for me allowing precise focussing but not taking too long. Using HTs in close-up mode on flowers and butterflies 'hiding' amongst vegetation this modestly slower rate of focussing significantly improves on the FL for finding the object of your attention and not focussing too quickly in front of or behind it and in doing so missing it all together.

The action was as smooth as FL but with a level of feel that was even better, although prior to trying the HTs I would have said this was not possible.

Idaho John
Of course Les Pauls are wonderful and I have had an ES335 myself but I always think they are just a bit too coloured for me, like an Ultravid HD LOL.

OK so if an HT is the Tele and the Ultravid is the Les Paul, which is the Strat?
SwaroVision of course, with its field flattener being the 'third pick-up'. Or I could just be hallucinating of course....

Lee

Idaho John

Tried the Conquest HD 32s briefly so can't get into specifics, but like the HD 42s I was immediately impressed. Sorry can't be more helpful and in the end its a personal choice.....

Lee

Wow, they cost more than a Telecaster. They're probably more like a custom Tom Anderson Drop-T. http://www.andersonguitars.com/product_information/models/t_family/droptclassic_morepics.cfm

HT Trivia

A couple of minor points:

The HT eyecups are similar in shape to the later FL's but the surface that touches your face / spectacles is slightly soft. Nice!

The carrying case (we use ours when the bins are just luggage, travelling long distances without usage) follows the pattern of the FLs and retains the side extensions to the lid that keep rain from trickling down this potential gap. However the cordura is of a much finer weave and the lid / flap is in a 'leather look'. Handsome and practical.

Aesthetics: even more subjective than personal optical preferences, the HTs are to my eyes very elegant in a way that my beloved FLs just aren't.

Lee

Troubador said:

Brock

Regretably I don't have a pair of HTs in my possession I only had my hands on a couple at the Bird Fair (a 100 miles away from my home) so I can't follow your guidance notes on how to look for distortion or sharpness fall-off towards the edge. Hopefully I will be able to acquire a pair in October when they begin to reach the UK shops and I could have a look for you then.

The focusser 'deliciousness' was down to two aspects:

The focusser on the FL takes a bit over 1 turn from infinity to closest, maybe 1.1 /1.2 turns. On the HT its a bit longer, about 1.5 turns. This was just perfect for me allowing precise focussing but not taking too long. Using HTs in close-up mode on flowers and butterflies 'hiding' amongst vegetation this modestly slower rate of focussing significantly improves on the FL for finding the object of your attention and not focussing too quickly in front of or behind it and in doing so missing it all together.

The action was as smooth as FL but with a level of feel that was even better, although prior to trying the HTs I would have said this was not possible.

Idaho John
Of course Les Pauls are wonderful and I have had an ES335 myself but I always think they are just a bit too coloured for me, like an Ultravid HD LOL.

OK so if an HT is the Tele and the Ultravid is the Les Paul, which is the Strat?
SwaroVision of course, with its field flattener being the 'third pick-up'. Or I could just be hallucinating of course....

Lee

Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining the difference in the FL and HT focusers. I find 1 turn too fast for me, and it also creates the impression of shallow depth. 1.5x is about ideal since it still gets you there fast enough but not so fast as to overshoot your target. YMMV.

Still interested to find out if Zeiss stuck to its FL design philosophy of optimizing center sharpness by sacrificing edge performance. Always thought that was a bit of a ruse because other bins such as the SE, HG, and EDG seem to achieve both w/out any tradeoffs.

<B>

Brock

I seem to remember the FOV of the Nikon HG 8x42 was 122 m at 1,000m and the FL 135 m.

Didn't Nikon get the sharper edges by baffling off the outer lens portion and so sacrificing FOV?

Lee

Troubador said:

Brock

I seem to remember the FOV of the Nikon HG 8x42 was 122 m at 1,000m and the FL 135 m.

Didn't Nikon get the sharper edges by baffling off the outer lens portion and so sacrificing FOV?

Lee

Click to expand...

Lee,

That's often the case, as I mentioned on the Monarch 7 thread, but in this instance, the Nikon HG series employs field flatteners to sharpen the edges.

Even though Zeiss chose not to use field flatteners, it did not have to allow so much astigmatism at the edges of the FL, but it chose to, because of their rationale that in order to achieve the sharpest "zone of critical sharpness" in the centerfield, they needed to sacrifice edge performance.

Or in the vernacular, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Tell that to a Swarovision owner and they'll laugh.

According to Henry, the astigmatism in the FL actually starts not far off axis and worsens until it's completely out of focus at the edges. So it's inherent in the design, and some reviewers and buyers/triers have been critical of this design trait and see it as a "flaw".

Other reviewers, such as allbinos, don't recognize the astigmatism, but criticize the FL for its high distortion level. For example, in this review of the 10x42 FL, the high distortion is what lost it points whereas the astigmatism level was rated as "properly corrected". Huh?

http://www.allbinos.com/108-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_10x42_T*_FL.html

I never tried an FL, so I don't know how much the "fuzzy edges" would bother me, other than knowing that I'm spoiled by my SEs and EIIs and that I like a wide sweet spot and gradual fall off at the edges.

Perhaps from the habit of using bins for stargazing where your eyes tend to wander rather than center the object, since unless you're using a bin with high magnification and a narrow FOV, your target is usually pretty tiny and in "context" of the background stars.

So when I started using bins for birding, the idea of "centering the bird" seemed foreign to me. Certainly for the best view, I do center the bird, if there's time, but in situations where I'm watching birds interact such as fighting over "first ups" at the suet feeder, or hawks pursuing a flock of doves making undulating maneuvers to avoid being caught, being able to focus the center and the edge at the same time is useful.

It's also more aesthetically appealing while panning since my eyes tend to dart toward the edges as I pan.

I prefer either sharp edges or a gradual fall off that can be refocused (field curvature). I only had one bin with astigmatism, a 9x63 Japanese-made Optolyth clone, whose edges cannot be refocused. Most other bins that I've owned have had some degree of field curvature at the edges.

The two that were worse in that regard were the Japanese-made Celestron 8x32 Ultima and 8x32 Noble. Small sweet spots with large field curvature at the edges. You could focus more of the edges than the centerfield, the opposite of what I find ideal.

The other reason I asked, is that I thought the SV EL and EDG would push Zeiss to revise their design and sharpen the edges on the HT as they supposedly did with the Conquest HD.

<B>

Thanks for the review Traubador. How would you compare the colour rendition of the HT's compared to Swarovisions you tested ?

xbted52 said:

Wow, they cost more than a Telecaster. They're probably more like a custom Tom Anderson Drop-T. http://www.andersonguitars.com/product_information/models/t_family/droptclassic_morepics.cfm

Click to expand...

Hi xbted

Yes my analogy falls down when it comes to price: HTs are indeed more Fender Custom Shop prices than American Standards, but the brightness and sharpness comparison holds up I think.

Lee