50mm Zeiss SF --- When??! (1 Viewer)

Vespobuteo said:

CJ: To keep the f-stop in the 42mm, length need to increase approx. from 174 to 206 mm + more/deeper shading from stray light will be needed with a larger objective. Other lens design including pure fluorite could of course be considered but then it would not be an SF...right?
What worries me the most is weight. For walking around and active birding, my 840g SV is about what I can manage.

Models that create new market segments might break/affect sales on others. And since Leica and (probably Swaro) sprinkle Schott glass all over their bins, Zeiss is laughing all the way to the bank anyway...

But I haven't tried the SF MK II yet or the Noctivid so Santa Clause might have other bins to consider before any innovative 9x50mm SF:s are announced.

Click to expand...

Vespo, that's in the ballpark - many of the big guns (50-54-56mm) fall in the ~190 - 210mm range for physical length. This is where the beauty of CFRP comes in - extra length doesn't come at a deleterious weight penalty - it's largely just inert gas in a very lightweight tube. Top grade Synthetic fluorite (as used by everybody bar Canon - who grow their own real crystals) has practically the same performance but is much easier and more economical to work. It is lighter than lesser grades too. In a 50mm SF, Ultra-FL and HT glass would be de rigueur ..... :king:

Such a Vunderbin could be made at 850grams or less - and I agree, that's probably as much as you would want to carry (actually, it's probably more, but I think the satisfaction of having such a high performing 50mm bin would make it psychologically seem lighter!

Much the same as in the photographic world where the big CaNikon duopoly neatly segments categories and conducts development at a glacial pace, the Alpha big dawgs of binoworld also stifle innovation (within the confines of non-digital classical troglodyte optics) to protect established segments and markets. Maven is one company (Kamakura designed and manufactured) with the vision to upset the apple cart -- the only downfall here is too much weight in their products (I wonder how much longer dennis's biceps will continue to hold up :cat:

The opportunity for a game changing 50mm SF is there --- Is Zeiss "bold" enough to make it? , or will it futilely try and protect its outdated legacy designs, and cede market share to Swarovski, content in the trickle of income coming from it's Schott glass subsidiary ...... :h?:

I doubt Zeiss will ever build a 50mm SF but I could be wrong, I'll keep my crow eating bib handy just in case though. Crow isn't actually too bad, taste a lot like chicken.:-O

Chosun Juan said:

Bob, Zeiss introduced the so called "thin lens technology" with the FL line. It was also a Glass Reinforced Plastic chassis and weighed in about the 750gram mark or ~30grams (~1 oz) lighter than the SF! I can't believe that anybody but hairy-chested HunTers give a hoot that it's not made out of metal. :eek!:

The 42mm SF's have taken this optical glass diet further, pulling out all the tricks in the book - 2 lens ultra-FL objectives + focuser = 130grams, reversed S-P prisms for rearward weight bias = ~100grams, and 7 element eyepieces = 150grams. That's a glass weight of ~ 380grams for the binocular - or about half of its weight ..... A 50mm version would likely add circa ~100grams for the glass. :brains:
View attachment 603165
That means it should be entirely possible to bring a 50mm SF to market with the parameters I mentioned (70° AFov, 18-20mm ER, etc - see my post#13) coming in at between 800 - 900grams (or maybe even less) depending on the construction technology used. :cat:

That then makes the 50mm a 'mainstream' instrument with "strong appeal" to "most birders" (to borrow Bruce's words) .... :t:


Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

CJ,

It might be possible under those manufacturing restrictions.

Nikon's new 8x42 Monarch HG comes in at 665 grams or 23.5 ounces with its Mag. alloy frame

https://store.nikon.co.uk/sport-optics-binoculars/monarch-hg-8x42/BAA793SA/details#specificationstab

Bob

SuperDuty said:

I doubt Zeiss will ever build a 50mm SF but I could be wrong, I'll keep my crow eating bib handy just in case though. Crow isn't actually too bad, taste a lot like chicken.:-O

Click to expand...

Only more stringy, and tougher, and altogether nastier. This is from eating an actual crow (well, an Australian Raven, but we call them crows). If the metaphorical crow tastes as bad, I'd suggest avoiding it.

...Mike

(Note: I didn't eat the whole crow. It was a collective effort. We were hungry. We didn't finish it. It tasted that good :eek!: Survival training: not eating crow helps you survive!)

Apparently not like chicken then.:-O

mfunnell said:

Only more stringy, and tougher, and altogether nastier. This is from eating an actual crow (well, an Australian Raven, but we call them crows). If the metaphorical crow tastes as bad, I'd suggest avoiding it.

...Mike

(Note: I didn't eat the whole crow. It was a collective effort. We were hungry. We didn't finish it. It tasted that good :eek!: Survival training: not eating crow helps you survive!)

Click to expand...

Chosun Juan said:

Vespo, that's in the ballpark - many of the big guns (50-54-56mm) fall in the ~190 - 210mm range for physical length. This is where the beauty of CFRP comes in - extra length doesn't come at a deleterious weight penalty - it's largely just inert gas in a very lightweight tube. Top grade Synthetic fluorite (as used by everybody bar Canon - who grow their own real crystals) has practically the same performance but is much easier and more economical to work. It is lighter than lesser grades too. In a 50mm SF, Ultra-FL and HT glass would be de rigueur ..... :king:

Such a Vunderbin could be made at 850grams or less - and I agree, that's probably as much as you would want to carry (actually, it's probably more, but I think the satisfaction of having such a high performing 50mm bin would make it psychologically seem lighter!

Much the same as in the photographic world where the big CaNikon duopoly neatly segments categories and conducts development at a glacial pace, the Alpha big dawgs of binoworld also stifle innovation (within the confines of non-digital classical troglodyte optics) to protect established segments and markets. Maven is one company (Kamakura designed and manufactured) with the vision to upset the apple cart -- the only downfall here is too much weight in their products (I wonder how much longer dennis's biceps will continue to hold up :cat:

The opportunity for a game changing 50mm SF is there --- Is Zeiss "bold" enough to make it? , or will it futilely try and protect its outdated legacy designs, and cede market share to Swarovski, content in the trickle of income coming from it's Schott glass subsidiary ...... :h?:

Click to expand...

Chosun:

Why be so critical, I see no reason for your dreamer attitude, and
your business plan ignorance. Have you ever hired anyone or had
to make a payroll ?

I have mentioned, I find no big reason for a 50mm SF, and I am wondering
why you are so revved up over this. They are just sports optics.
Companies will bring new products when the time is right.
Zeiss has redesigned almost their entire lineup in the past 3-4 years.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

Chosun:

Why be so critical, I see no reason for your dreamer attitude, and
your business plan ignorance. Have you ever hired anyone or had
to make a payroll ?

I have mentioned, I find no big reason for a 50mm SF, and I am wondering why you are so revved up over this. They are just sports optics.
Companies will bring new products when the time is right.
Zeiss has redesigned almost their entire lineup in the past 3-4 years.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

Hahaha - you would be surprised ..... :smoke:

"You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us" .......

I'm not being too overly critical. Many of us adults are still young enough that a 4.2mm EP is constantly limiting in daylight, even mid-summer, such as when storm clouds come over, or you are peering into the depths of a riparian area, under banks, in gorges, under heavy canopy etc.

Let's be frank - if you step outside into the full midday summer sun here, then you can quite quickly seemingly audibly hear any exposed skin start to sizzle and fry - exactly like bacon on a grill! :eek!: So you tend to spend a lot of time in the shade

I even find that a 5mm EP runs out of puff (for me) later in the afternoon. This is one of the many reasons that the Swift Audubon 8.5x44 ED and I are no longer together, and why I haven't succumbed to the charms of the Swaro 10x50 SV, let alone the Zeiss 10x42 SF. If the 4.2mm EP suits you fine, then that is okay by me. I hope it's okay by you though? if it doesn't entirely suit me o

A 9x50 SF with its 5.6mm EP would be perfect for me, and could be made light enough, and with a wide enough Fov to be a one and only bin for my purposes. The ancient magnesium tech, Vortex Razor 10x50 HD clocks in at under 800grams (28oz), and it's 173mm in length. The only problem (apart from its danged CCW focuser) is the skimpy 105m Fov, and marginal 16.5mm ER. The 42mm SF is actually a rather innovative optical design, and there's no reason that it can't scale to 50mm pretty much holus bolus, with a few tweaks as I have previously mentioned, here and there. :cat:

If you have any formal strategic training, then you will know that merely "matching the hatch" and further dividing a saturated segment is not the road to riches (although this does not seem to stop every man and his dog from bringing an SUV to market! :-O ). You may do it for strategic competitive reasons, but that's another caper. When it comes to the 50mm size - Zeiss is doing neither! To be somewhat fair, they did have a crack with the 54mm HT - however it's portly parameters, woeful design standards and execution dashed more than just a few hopes ...... :-C

We're talking about a different animal here - lightweight 50mm, 70° AFov sharp to the edges, 18mm ER .... it's not rocket science!

If Zeiss wants to get all 21st Century on us and use superior CFRP material for the chassis and achieve ~ 800grams for us birders (and to heck with the hairy-chested HunTers perceptions , then all the better :t: If not someone else will beat them to it :king:

One day far in the future, when I'm old and curmudgeonly, perhaps I will be content to just have my one and only 'classic' 8x32 SV (they should have sorted the glare issues by then! , and sit around and fire cyber salvos across the bows ...... but that day is not today!

Just 'imagine' what could be possible .......


Chosun :gh:

My three score and ten have gone quite a while ago, yet my pupils probably exceed 5.5 mm although I haven't photographed them lately, A few years ago they were 5.8mm and 5.9mm in almost total darkness after twenty minutes dark adaption.
It never gets totally dark in England unless you are in cave system, and even here there may be luminescence.
It was totally dark on mount Teide and I nearly fell into the caldera. That's about as dark as I have experienced.
The book Catch me if you Can describes how sensitive young eyes get in a totally dark Fench prison. Frank Abignale's book.
I frequently see young eyes particularly girls on T.V. whose eyes are clearly 9mm.

My eyes certainly exceed 4.2mm here on a dull overcast day.

Yes, we have an enormous choice in binoculars, but they are way behind current astro eyepieces.
82 deg eyepieces retail for £100 now, probably less in the U.S.

For me, I still want the 80 deg FMC binoculars which should be a doddle to design.

I have an idea that the c.1955 Hensoldt 16x56 weighs about 640 gm. 69 degree AFOV. I haven't access to mine at the moment, perhaps Jan can weigh his sample with leather cover.
It is very light.
I think it puts the 8x42 Monarch HG to shame.
The Hensoldt is also exceedingly good.

My only problem with the Swarovision 10X50 is that it's addictive. I start earlier and bird later...thanks to its 50mm light port.
There's probably a very limited market for a 10X50 SF. However, the 8/10 42mm models should give Swarovski some stiff competition!

Binastro said:

My eyes certainly exceed 4.2mm here on a dull overcast day.

Click to expand...

Mine also. :t:

Binastro said:

My three score and ten have gone quite a while ago, yet my pupils probably exceed 5.5 mm although I haven't photographed them lately, A few years ago they were 5.8mm and 5.9mm in almost total darkness after twenty minutes dark adaption.
It never gets totally dark in England unless you are in cave system, and even here there may be luminescence.
It was totally dark on mount Teide and I nearly fell into the caldera. That's about as dark as I have experienced.
The book Catch me if you Can describes how sensitive young eyes get in a totally dark Fench prison. Frank Abignale's book.
I frequently see young eyes particularly girls on T.V. whose eyes are clearly 9mm.

My eyes certainly exceed 4.2mm here on a dull overcast day.

Yes, we have an enormous choice in binoculars, but they are way behind current astro eyepieces.
82 deg eyepieces retail for £100 now, probably less in the U.S.

For me, I still want the 80 deg FMC binoculars which should be a doddle to design.

I have an idea that the c.1955 Hensoldt 16x56 weighs about 640 gm. 69 degree AFOV. I haven't access to mine at the moment, perhaps Jan can weigh his sample with leather cover.
It is very light.
I think it puts the 8x42 Monarch HG to shame.
The Hensoldt is also exceedingly good.

Click to expand...

Hi Bin,

The 16x56 in leather # 716916 weights 745 gram;
the 8x56 in leather #916193 does 839 gram;
the 7x56 in leather #341000 is 717 gram and
the 8x56 mono in leather #755931 weights 340 gram.

Jan

Thank you very much indeed Jan.
That is very kind.

These are light compared to modern binoculars, especially when these are 56mm not 50mm.

Not much progress in 50 plus years.

I have a small Hensoldt roof Mono, but it is not up to the incredible resolution of the 16x56 binocular.

P.S.
8x32 Hensoldt Dialyt Mono 8138xx leather 249g without tethered end caps.

Binastro said:

I have an idea that the c.1955 Hensoldt 16x56 weighs about 640 gm. 69 degree AFOV. I haven't access to mine at the moment, perhaps Jan can weigh his sample with leather cover.
It is very light.
I think it puts the 8x42 Monarch HG to shame.
The Hensoldt is also exceedingly good.

Click to expand...

The Hensoldt 16x56? Well ...

- not waterproof
- fairly small sweetspot, pretty bad edges
- low eyerelief
- no phase-coating, i.e. not really sharp
- single layer coatings, resulting in low transmission and low contrast

Exceedingly good? Really?

Hermann

It outresolves double stars compared to anything similar I have compared it to.
Yes exceedingly good the one I have.
It is I think the best made binocular I have seen.

Waterproof not important to me. It is almost as new.
It loses 0.5 magnitude on stars, that is all.
It is very lightweight.
Eye relief not important to me.

Only the Zeiss 20x60 outresolves it. And that has a ridiculously curved field.

The phase coating effects have been discussed before. Sometimes over rated.

Binastro said:

It outresolves double stars compared to anything similar I have compared it to.
Yes exceedingly good the one I have.
It is I think the best made binocular I have seen.

Waterproof not important to me. It is almost as new.
It loses 0.5 magnitude on stars, that is all.
It is very lightweight.
Eye relief not important to me.

Only the Zeiss 20x60 outresolves it. And that has a ridiculously curved field.

The phase coating effects have been discussed before. Sometimes over rated.

Click to expand...

I thought image degradation in non-phased coated roofs was a given? I have compared most of the Zeiss Classic series [7x42, 8x20, 8x30, 10x40] phase-coated vs. not and the differences in image quality is stark.

Hi James,
I can't remember where this was discussed at length, but in certain situations not much gain.

It is late.
Must finish.

Would the Hensoldt have hand-ground / polished lenses?

Chosun:

I have found your first post here unusual. I have not seen you post about your experience with
Zeiss optics, and how they lack or other. First off, tell us about that ?

If you have not tried any of these at length, hold your thoughts.

You have told a company to introduce a binocular in your imagined best size, type, and that is
not realistic.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

Chosun:

I have found your first post here unusual. I have not seen you post about your experience with
Zeiss optics, and how they lack or other. First off, tell us about that ?

If you have not tried any of these at length, hold your thoughts.

You have told a company to introduce a binocular in your imagined best size, type, and that is
not realistic.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,

I won't be playing your reindeer games .... o

Nor will I indulge any strawman arguments .....

Would you say that Elon Musk needed 5 years+ of electric golf cart ownership before putting together the Tesla electric car revolution?!! ...... :smoke:

This is not rocket science, beyond using a bin for a length of time to guage fatigue, handling, etc, and using it in all ways - snap viewing, or more leisurely alignment, and in all conditions, all angles, etc - to check CA handling, distortion profile interaction with yer noggin, dof, focusing suitability, glare handling, brightness and colour renditions through the hours of the day (and night), and seasons - there's not a great deal more to learn, other than maintenance, upkeep issues, service, product lifecycles, and depreciation and resale --- there's really not a whole lot to it. :cat:

There's no need to be a part of some owner's club in order to be able to "see", in fact I would suggest that extended ownership only serves to dull the responses as one unwittingly grows accustomed to the compromises, faults, and shortcomings. Let's face it, heavy is heavy and just about all 50mm and + bins are heavy, no matter how many times you pick it up - it's never going to really get any lighter! |^|

I am puzzled that you find my opening post here unusual .... but please, don't tell us more about that .....

Zeiss has no current 50mm offering. The old A-K Conquests are archived as legacy items.

Some here think that the market for a 50mm would be limited, yet all agree that they either love their 10x50 SV's, and/or would appreciate a lighter 50mm. Didn't one of your famous, veteran US birders exclusively use a beat up old pair of 10x50's ??? ..... :smoke:

The fact remains that there is a market space there, and I think that a lightweight (~800gram), flat, 70° AFov wide field, 18mm ER, would create it's own larger segment .... :king:

As you can see, I'm not the only one who "needs nines" ! :-O
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NaX7i1Q7-Rw
(credit to Mark for first digging this up) http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=239406&highlight=need+nines


Chosun :gh:

Binastro said:

Thank you very much indeed Jan.
That is very kind.

These are light compared to modern binoculars, especially when these are 56mm not 50mm.

Not much progress in 50 plus years.

I have a small Hensoldt roof Mono, but it is not up to the incredible resolution of the 16x56 binocular.

P.S.
8x32 Hensoldt Dialyt Mono 8138xx leather 249g without tethered end caps.

Click to expand...

Bin,

The 8x32 # 32674 as binocular weights 595 gram; the 6x42 #250252 697 gram and the 6x26 #3131 brings 365 gram at the scale.

Jan