• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Interview with the new head of Zeiss Sports Optics (1 Viewer)

CJ

LOL indeed. This is not what others have reported at all. There has been mentioned a 'greenish', or 'yellow-greenish' cast, and most on here don't see either. Nobody has reported a pinkish-grey-green cast so your unique perception is a puzzle.

Prof Gijs van Ginkel who has experience of transmission testing and has had his work verified by the top three brands has also stated more than once that his transmission curve does not support the idea of a colour cast in SF but of course transmission curves don't take into account the eye-brain system of the observer.

I certainly wouldn't bother taking SFs to the Western Isles of Scotland or Islay where we will be heading in a few weeks if they turned those pristine sea-shell-sand beaches and indeed, everything observed through them, into the colour of old mouldy, bacteria-ridden boiled ham to my eyes.

I have ample evidence at home of how colour perception can differ as Troubadoris and me often disagree as to whether a fabric or a paint etc is blue or green......

Lee

The SF greenish warm gray colour cast seems very noticeable to Tobias Mennle...and he took images to prove it. Being a cameraman, as I used to be too, and to film editors and photographers such traits are likely more noticeable.


http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/zeiss/zeissvictorysf8x42/zeissvictorysf8x42.html

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/articles/coloursandbrightness.html
 
Last edited:
The SF greenish warm gray colour cast seems very noticeable to Tobias Mennle...and he took images to prove it. Being a cameraman, as I used to be too, and to film editors and photographers such traits are likely more noticeable.


http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/zeiss/zeissvictorysf8x42/zeissvictorysf8x42.html

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/articles/coloursandbrightness.html


Maybe we should get Tobias and Gijs in the same room and record the discussion. :-O

Lee
 
Lee, post 62,
I was 7 times national university judo champion (middle weight and all catagories) , so be careful with your suggestions.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Just saw Putin on the news using, I think, a Zeiss type 10x50 Russian Porroprism binocular on his latest military outing.
With gold trim on front objective cell covers. A bit shiny maybe, but maybe black internally.

I think he wrote a book on Judo.

Gijs, fancy a match?
 
Hi Lee, I won't be drawn into the old transmission discussions as I am not scientifically-minded... I'd just like to say thank you for your full report on what sounded like a most reassuring interview. Reassuring for the future of Zeiss, for us as customers, and especially for the workforce as people only lost their jobs through retirement.

All the best and thank you,

Tom

PS> I have just bought that nice, clean Victory 7x42 FL to show my confidence in Zeiss... feeling very lucky to have landed it!
 
Last edited:
Hi Tom and thanks for your kind words. That FL looks like a real beauty and I am sure you will enjoy it.

Lee
 
This thread is old but I one thing worth to ask Zeiss is about the stated eye relief.
Zeiss seems to have carelessly neglected to measure eye relief on their binoculars. They seem to have thought that: "uh, write 18mm on all models". 18mm seems to be the default value they want to specify. Even when the first Victory FL series came out, which included 8x32, 10x32, 7x42, 8x42 and 10x42, 18mm was specified on all models. Now they have done the same with the SFL series. Yes: 18mm on all.
We know that there is a direct relationship between ER and the focal length of the eyepiece. To get higher magnification with the same objective requires shorter focal length. And the shorter focal length - the shorter ER. And with wide angle FOV it requires a more advanced eyepiece design with larger eye lens in order to maintain the ER.
This is the reason why higher magnifications with the same objective always have shorter ER.
I don't understand why Zeiss does that. They of course know how the optics work and must understand that knowledgeable people in the subject will discover their incorrect information.
 
Last edited:
"Up to more than .... " is sheer nonsense.
Discounting deliberate misinformation, linguistic contortions of that sort are probably the pinnacle.
I just read a complaint by the editor of a watch magazine that those responsible for manufacturers' press releases often don't understand what they are talking about. All too often the case with sports optics.

John
 
Last edited:
This is the reason why higher magnifications with the same objective always have shorter ER.
This is not universally true, although it does apply to some binocular families such as the Swarocski SLCs and Meopta Meostars which use scaled eyepiece designs for different magnifications. There the eye lens diameter and eye relief diminish progressively with increasing magnification.
With large objective diameters and low magnification eye relief can sometimes be excessive but adequate eye relief with smaller formats involves some design complications.
Assuming the average 32 mm binocular had objective focal lengths of around 120 mm, the 10x32 version would need eyepieces of 12 mm focal length and, with a simple design, have an eye relief of less than 12 mm.
However, if the rear elements of the eyepiece have a longer focal length (and eyerelief), a negative field lens, or Barlow, will effectively increase the objective focal length enabling the desired magnification.

John
 
This is not universally true, although it does apply to some binocular families such as the Swarocski SLCs and Meopta Meostars which use scaled eyepiece designs for different magnifications. There the eye lens diameter and eye relief diminish progressively with increasing magnification.
With large objective diameters and low magnification eye relief can sometimes be excessive but adequate eye relief with smaller formats involves some design complications.
Assuming the average 32 mm binocular had objective focal lengths of around 120 mm, the 10x32 version would need eyepieces of 12 mm focal length and, with a simple design, have an eye relief of less than 12 mm.
However, if the rear elements of the eyepiece have a longer focal length (and eyerelief), a negative field lens, or Barlow, will effectively increase the objective focal length enabling the desired magnification.

John

You are right. It's not always the case even if it's usually so.

Patric
 
However, if the rear elements of the eyepiece have a longer focal length (and eyerelief), a negative field lens, or Barlow, will effectively increase the objective focal length enabling the desired magnification.
A growing number of short-focal-length astro eyepieces today also have this sort of built-in-Barlow design to provide greater eye relief. It seems now to have become standard practice, at little cost thanks to modern coatings.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top