• 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.

Zeiss questions out of curiosity (1 Viewer)

S

SeldomPerched

Well-known member
Was wondering the following:

1. Is it right that the optics of the 8x42 Victory HT are essentially the same as those of the discontinued Victory FL? If not, are there any similarities apart from the 8x42 bit?

2. Even if no.1 is wrong is it fair to say that the 8x42 FL is an exceptionally good binocular? (I know this depends on what you want from binoculars.)

3. I found yesterday that sharpest focus on my just acquired 8x56 FL was with the dioptre setting at zero. On my other two non-compact bins the sharpest setting is at -1/2. I have heard this sort of difference occurs, but why?

4. On my compact 8x20 I find it almost impossible to set the dioptre as the adjustment is at the end of one barrel (is that the right word?). And since the twin-hinge arrangement wriggles like a Labrador puppy I haven't yet found the best setting. Any tips?

5. In practice is the lack of sharpness at the edge of a 7x42 FL something that users find they can't happily live with? Any experiences?

Thank you,

Tom
 
Tom

HT is essentially an FL but with high transmission glass and metal optical tubes (rather the GFRP) and very different (and IMHO, much better) handling. I had an FL 8x42 for many years and it was one of my very best binos but IMHO HT is better.

Dioptre engravings on binos and the mechanism that adjusts them shouldn't be thought of as NASA 'laboratory'- standard instrumentation and much depends on how closely to Zero the mechanism is when the adjuster is set to 0 and is set up at the factory. If the adjuster provides you with the sharp image you want then its working fine.
Lack of sharpness at the field edge is something some folks find objectionable or at least find that sharp edges give them enjoyment. I don't fall into that category and indeed find it uncomfortable trying to look at the edge of the fov. If something appears at the edge of the fov I centre it in the view and examine it there. And anyway the main thing that matters is whether this bothers you or not.

Lee
 
SeldomPerched said:
Was wondering the following:

1. Is it right that the optics of the 8x42 Victory HT are essentially the same as those of the discontinued Victory FL? If not, are there any similarities apart from the 8x42 bit?

2. Even if no.1 is wrong is it fair to say that the 8x42 FL is an exceptionally good binocular? (I know this depends on what you want from binoculars.)

3. I found yesterday that sharpest focus on my just acquired 8x56 FL was with the dioptre setting at zero. On my other two non-compact bins the sharpest setting is at -1/2. I have heard this sort of difference occurs, but why?

4. On my compact 8x20 I find it almost impossible to set the dioptre as the adjustment is at the end of one barrel (is that the right word?). And since the twin-hinge arrangement wriggles like a Labrador puppy I haven't yet found the best setting. Any tips?

5. In practice is the lack of sharpness at the edge of a 7x42 FL something that users find they can't happily live with? Any experiences?

Thank you,

Tom
Click to expand...

Does it matter what the engraved setting say if you can get a clear image. I for one have never looked at the dioptre setting on any binocular or scope I own. I just adjust until I get the view I want, then use it.

For edge sharpness, I dont look through the edges, so to me its of no consequence as long as the focused field is wide enough. I dont sit and gaze through glasses at the general view, Im usually looking at something instead of looking at the binocular, and since my vision is sharpest when centered, thats what I do.

HT is a hell of a glass, FL is a hell of a glass, compared to 20 years ago, a Terra is a hell of a glass
 
Troubador said:
Tom

HT is essentially an FL but with high transmission glass and metal optical tubes (rather the GFRP) and very different (and IMHO, much better) handling. I had an FL 8x42 for many years and it was one of my very best binos but IMHO HT is better.

Dioptre engravings on binos and the mechanism that adjusts them shouldn't be thought of as NASA 'laboratory'- standard instrumentation and much depends on how closely to Zero the mechanism is when the adjuster is set to 0 and is set up at the factory. If the adjuster provides you with the sharp image you want then its working fine.
Lack of sharpness at the field edge is something some folks find objectionable or at least find that sharp edges give them enjoyment. I don't fall into that category and indeed find it uncomfortable trying to look at the edge of the fov. If something appears at the edge of the fov I centre it in the view and examine it there. And anyway the main thing that matters is whether this bothers you or not.

Lee
Click to expand...

Lee, fair enough and thank you! I would be in the same camp. Not trying to frame a photo for posterity but to look at something where it is easiest and looks best. So the edges wouldn't bother me either. Interesting tip about the HT. Right now setting the dioptre on the Trinovid 8x20 is the hardest one...

Thanks again for all the help. This coming week I will quieten down. Deadlines etc and will get out more for exercise or relaxation (sometimes both together) rather than go on the computer when I have downtime.

All the best,
Tom
 
perterra said:
Does it matter what the engraved setting say if you can get a clear image. I for one have never looked at the dioptre setting on any binocular or scope I own. I just adjust until I get the view I want, then use it.

For edge sharpness, I dont look through the edges, so to me its of no consequence as long as the focused field is wide enough. I dont sit and gaze through glasses at the general view, Im usually looking at something instead of looking at the binocular, and since my vision is sharpest when centered, thats what I do.

HT is a hell of a glass, FL is a hell of a glass, compared to 20 years ago, a Terra is a hell of a glass
Click to expand...

I'm happy with those findings, perterra!
 
SeldomPerched said:
5. In practice is the lack of sharpness at the edge of a 7x42 FL something that users find they can't happily live with? Any experiences?

Thank you,

Tom
Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

only about this point...
I was not happy with the Zeiss Victory 7x42!
It had a maximum of 66% usable field of view, significant distortion and astigmatism.
The whole field of vision was a bit washed out, not really harmonious.
I swapped the Zeiss Victory 7x42 for a Nikon EDG 7x42!
Just my 2 cents ...

Andreas
 
Conndomat said:
Hi Tom,

only about this point...
I was not happy with the Zeiss Victory 7x42!
It had a maximum of 66% usable field of view, significant distortion and astigmatism.
The whole field of vision was a bit washed out, not really harmonious.
I swapped the Zeiss Victory 7x42 for a Nikon EDG 7x42!
Just my 2 cents ...

Andreas
Click to expand...

Funny,

I have the same Victory 7x42 and it is the best 7x42 I own. I got it on December 31, 2012. I saw my first bird of 2013 with it on a rather dark January 1st at 8:00 AM through my living room window! It was a Red-tailed Hawk perched in the top of a tree behind my neighbors house across the road and the binocular was plenty bright enough for me to see the Hawk in all its detail!

It certainly has much more than a 66% usable field! It has a small bit of astigmatic distortion at the very edge. There is no distortion that I can see anywhere else and the colors I see in it on these early summer days are vibrant! If yours is that bad you seriously should get it checked out by Zeiss!

I also have a Swarovski SLC 7x42 B made in 2006 which I also enjoy using and I also have a Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN that I got in 2004 which I still enjoy using.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Hi Bob,


I had two samples, both were identical!
Put the glass on a tripod and look into the sky, then you will see how sharp the glass really is on the edge!
It is well known that the edge sharpness of the Zeiss is not so good, only some people do not mind.
Distortion starts just outside the middle very clearly, straight lines are bent significantly ...
The Zeiss was unusable for me, so the exchange to Nikon.

Andreas
 
5:
I get at least 80% (measured, not estimated) of the 7x42 FL FOV sharp (with some refocus as it's not completely flat). The rest of the 150m FOV is still a help when following fast moving birds at close range, detecting movement etc.

Compared to my 8.5x42 SV the SV is slightly "cooler" but IMO colors look nice and realistic in both.

Light weight (740g), compact format, quick and sensitive focus wheel, very high transmission (93%), low CA and a more 3D-like view is other positives with the FL.

If I had to pick one of the FL and SV, it would be the FL as it's the more versatile.
Sometimes it's nice with at bit more magnification and 100% edge sharpness though.
 
Last edited:
Conndomat said:
Hi Bob,


I had two samples, both were identical!
Put the glass on a tripod and look into the sky, then you will see how sharp the glass really is on the edge!
It is well known that the edge sharpness of the Zeiss is not so good, only some people do not mind.
Distortion starts just outside the middle very clearly, straight lines are bent significantly ...
The Zeiss was unusable for me, so the exchange to Nikon.

Andreas
Click to expand...

Andreas,

I've never heard of this sharpness test of putting the binoculars on a tripod and looking at the sky. There isn't anything up there to look at. I don't know how you can even see edge astigmatism or edge curvature by looking at the sky.

In any case distortions like pincushion curvature are built into the lenses by the designers. You have to look for it in the edges of the lenses by focusing on straight edges like telephone poles and building edges to see it.

I know that the Zeiss FLs have this astigmatism at the edge and pincushion distortion too. Most people who own them do know this and they do not mind. I certainly can't see it when I use mine! Like most people I look at the center of the view and follow the bird by moving my head, not rolling my eyes.

This distortion is even mentioned in Allbinos reviews of the 8x42 FL and 10x42 FL where they are ranked 3rd and 4th respectively against other binoculars of the same format.

https://www.allbinos.com/238-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_8x42_T*_FL.html

Bob
 
Last edited:
Conndomat said:
Hi,

That's exactly the point, how much percentage really stay sharp then, I mean without refocusing?

Andreas
Click to expand...

Andreas,

I suspect that this is an individual issue to a certain extent.

In my case with my 7x42 FL at least 85% of the view is sharp. Maybe a little more.

Astigmatism at the edge of the view cannot be focused into sharpness like pincushion distortion can be.

Bob
 
Conndomat said:
Hi,
That's exactly the point, how much percentage really stay sharp then, I mean without refocusing?
Click to expand...

Hi,

the problem with this question is that the answer depends on the user, at least for field curvature.

There is three main reasons for a lack of edge sharpness:

- coma (makes stars look like comets) should not really happen in well built refractors - it is usually a sign of decentered elements.

- astigmatism (makes stars look like a cross in bad cases - like an elllipse changing direction focusing through a pointlike best focus in less severe cases) can happen to a degree at the edge of many eyepiece constructions. The question is if it happens at 70% out or at 95%.

- field curvature (inherent in doublet and triplet refractor objectives - can be corrected with extra elements). This is the part of edge defocus which can be focussed out. There is always a sharp centre due to depth of field and the acomodation of the users eye.

Since the effect of field curvature seen by the user depends on his eyes ability to acomodate (which varies between different persons and even with age in the same person - think reading glasses), it is quite difficult to quantify.

I personally don't mind a bit of fuzzy edges if the field is large, like in my E2. That part is still useful for noticing movement and quickly recentering. In smaller fields like through a spotter, I prefer a flat field.

Joachim
 
Conndomat said:
Hi,

That's exactly the point, how much percentage really stay sharp then, I mean without refocusing?

Andreas
Click to expand...

I would say at least 80%...
My example was when looking at a flat surface at a fairly short distance.
In real use in a forrest for example things are not flat. The DOF is also large which helps with getting more things into sharpness in the depth dimension.

I also can enjoy bins with field-flatteners, the SV:s are very nice for long-term gazing even at very long distance. The 100% edge sharpness and the 1.5x extra power can be quite nice to have in those cases.

In the winter-time/low light, in forests, shrubs and bushes and more casual walk-around birding the FL:s have the edge.

It's impossible to cover every aspect of birding in one single binocular IMO.
 
Last edited:
SeldomPerched said:
3. I found yesterday that sharpest focus on my just acquired 8x56 FL was with the dioptre setting at zero. On my other two non-compact bins the sharpest setting is at -1/2. I have heard this sort of difference occurs, but why?

5. In practice is the lack of sharpness at the edge of a 7x42 FL something that users find they can't happily live with? Any experiences?
Click to expand...
On diopter setting see this recent thread: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=362131

Edge sharpness is entirely a matter of taste. Until recently no bino was truly sharp to the edge, and not everyone likes how a flat field behaves (panning etc), so most are compromises. I draw a distinction between field curvature and optical aberrations (astigmatism/coma). As long as 75%+ of the field looks sharp to me, softer edges don't bother me. But I do find the kind of astigmatism Zeiss typically allows ugly and distracting, and couldn't use such a bino myself.

On the other hand, I'm relatively insensitive to pincushion distortion, because I don't study a lot of brick walls. I've used Leicas for years which have quite a lot. When people start talking about how far from the center they see straight lines begin to curve, I roll my eyes. So it's important to distinguish which of these factors matter to you: field curvature, aberrations, pincushioning.
 
Tenex,

As you have the SLC 10X56, have you compared it to a SV 10X50 ? Just curious about the 56, the 50 has a very good flat field great for astronomy, but I tend to like the the FL 10X56 and UVHD 10X50 for daytime viewing, I feel the field curvature is not an issue during the day and the contrast that they provide (non-flat field) is more pleasurable, I can see more detail. I am not a fan of the panning of a flat field, although the EDGs have a flat field the 10X42 EDG does not have that uncomfortable barrel like the SV when panning.

Now The SV is a great glass in its own right, but I do see how some have issues with panning. I am just curious in that I have the 15X56 and it is a flat field and great for astronomy, but was wondering if the 10X56 has a bit more field curvature, for more pleasurable daytime viewing.

Andy W.
 
Edge sharpness / astigm. etc., like so many other things we discuss here, is subjective and personal. What causes it and if it is present [technically] in a certain bino is certainly not subjective but the main issue is how the owner sees it. Somehow, most astigmatism and poor edge sharpness is cancelled out by my eyes and the way I hold my binos.

So, to me, it's not an issue while the technician would say it's there and you should be able to see it. Kinda like CA - it's there and some see it and some don't and we don't know why....
 
Last edited:
dries1 said:
As you have the SLC 10X56, have you compared it to a SV 10X50 ? Just curious about the 56, the 50 has a very good flat field great for astronomy, but I tend to like the the FL 10X56 and UVHD 10X50 for daytime viewing, I feel the field curvature is not an issue during the day and the contrast that they provide (non-flat field) is more pleasurable, I can see more detail. I am not a fan of the panning of a flat field, although the EDGs have a flat field the 10X42 EDG does not have that uncomfortable barrel like the SV when panning.

Now The SV is a great glass in its own right, but I do see how some have issues with panning. I am just curious in that I have the 15X56 and it is a flat field and great for astronomy, but was wondering if the 10X56 has a bit more field curvature, for more pleasurable daytime viewing.
Click to expand...
Like you I'm not a big fan of the totally flat field, although the ELs are really nice and were definitely my second choice (price contributed to that too). And the issue is muddied a bit as I think recent ELs do have a hint of curvature, to reduce panning discomfort. The SLCs have more still, so I'd call them "pretty flat" which suits me perfectly. I do think (and others have said) there is a bit more curvature in the 10x than the 15, though it doesn't strike me as a flaw or even very noticeable -- the 10 is still excellent for astronomy, and the 15 still gives very natural (to me) panning. I just think you can't go wrong with either of these SLCs, they're beautiful if you're willing to lug them. Of course most people do seem to prefer the ELs and are willing to pay the difference.
 
When I have some off time from work, I will take a short trip to western PA to check out the 10X56 SLC. Like the FL the AK prisms are a great in 10X for astronomy, showing the more faint stars in better detail.

Andy W.
 

Similar threads

Pauhana
Zeiss storefront says Victory SF 8x42 discontinued?????
Replies
4
Views
1K
Conndomat
Conndomat
B
Zeiss SFL versus Zeiss Victory FL contrast and color reproduction.
2 3
Replies
45
Views
10K
Trinovid
T
S
Who is still viewing through Victory HT 42s?
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Nivado
N
J
Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Declan Joseph Deasy
D
O
Zeiss Victory HT 8x42 vs. Victory SF 8x42
Replies
4
Views
576
Scott98
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top