Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF 524223 REVIEWS?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Sunday 19th August 2018, 15:22   #51
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,108
I saw a white crescent at the field stop on two I tried, improper baffling perhaps, Allbinos sated the same issue in the 10X42. If they added some tube length to help stray-light, it would be the longest 8X42 ever made. Or perhaps it was sample variation on a $2800 glass.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 19th August 2018, 15:30   #52
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by dries1 View Post
I saw a white crescent at the field stop on two I tried, improper baffling perhaps, Allbinos sated the same issue in the 10X42. If they added some tube length to help stray-light, it would be the longest 8X42 ever made. Or perhaps it was sample variation on a $2800 glass.

Andy W.
By the field stop do you mean the edge of the FOV?
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th August 2018, 21:22   #53
PlanetMaker
Registered User
 
PlanetMaker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: California
Posts: 179
I think some of you may be referring to the older gray SF but the newer 524223 has none of the problems described here, no issue with rolling ball, no direct center CA, no false colors, wait am I on the Vortex bash page?
PlanetMaker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th August 2018, 21:34   #54
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlanetMaker View Post
I think some of you may be referring to the older gray SF but the newer 524223 has none of the problems described here, no issue with rolling ball, no direct center CA, no false colors, wait am I on the Vortex bash page?
No, my 8x42 SF was the latest black model ordered from SportOptics about two months ago. They were brand new from Zeiss. They had very visible thin orange rings around the edge of the FOV. I didn't mess around exchanging them. I just traded them for a Swarovski 8.5x42 SV and no problems and actually I prefer the optics. I like the sharper edges and I don't get any blackouts at all. It is a more comfortable binocular for me to use.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th August 2018, 22:51   #55
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlanetMaker View Post
I think some of you may be referring to the older gray SF but the newer 524223 has none of the problems described here, no issue with rolling ball, no direct center CA, no false colors, wait am I on the Vortex bash page?
No this has turned into the Zeiss SF bash page, and for all the many users
who find this a great optic, I find the foolish banter by Dennis too much.

I own both the SF 10x42 and have for almost 3 years, and the Swaro. SV
8.5x42 from since they came out in 2010.

I find the SF to me a better binocular all around, the optics are very similar,
and the SF excels in a larger, better placed, smoother focuser, the wider FOV is very nice and useful, and the ergos are great.

I don't play favorites, and criticize other binoculars, I just tell it like it is to me.

Jerry
NDhunter is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th August 2018, 23:53   #56
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,458
Excuse me but it is not "foolish banter". It is what I honestly experienced. I found the ergonomics of the Zeiss 8x42 SF excellent and I liked the light feel and balance of it and I thought the focuser was superior to the Swarovski being very smooth and better placed. I thought I had found my favorite binocular but the optics did not work for me. I doubt there was something wrong with the binocular. It was probably just my eyes and facial structure and shallow eye sockets that resulted in the orange rings around the FOV. We are all different and our eyes are different. Everybody gets defensive defending their binocular but they don't work the same for everybody. We all have different eyes and facial structure. I personally had more distortion at the field edge with the SF than the SV and I definitely did not like the orange rings. I am not trying to bash Zeiss. Just relating my personal experience with this model. I am sure for many it is a fine binocular. It wasn't for me.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th August 2018, 00:03   #57
Lightbender
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
Lightbender's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Germany
Posts: 27
Dennis, my personal experiences regarding SF 8x42 vs SV 8.5x42 are similar to yours. Off topic - but may I ask, have you also tried the Noctivid 8x42?

Last edited by Lightbender : Monday 20th August 2018 at 00:12.
Lightbender is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 20th August 2018, 00:34   #58
PlanetMaker
Registered User
 
PlanetMaker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: California
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhunter View Post
No this has turned into the Zeiss SF bash page, and for all the many users
who find this a great optic, I find the foolish banter by Dennis too much.

I own both the SF 10x42 and have for almost 3 years, and the Swaro. SV
8.5x42 from since they came out in 2010.

I find the SF to me a better binocular all around, the optics are very similar,
and the SF excels in a larger, better placed, smoother focuser, the wider FOV is very nice and useful, and the ergos are great.

I don't play favorites, and criticize other binoculars, I just tell it like it is to me.

Jerry
That's what I meant about the Vortex comment, for a second I had to see if you where from Europe and didn't get the joke and see your from the US
I agree with your observation
To those comparing the SV 8.5 to the SF 8 and saying the SV has more detail is laughable with the .5x addition on the SV is obvious
Time to drop out of the repetition of complaints and go out side and close the lap top, ahhh, that's better.
PlanetMaker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th August 2018, 00:46   #59
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,458
No. I have tried many Leica's and they generally don't work very well for me. I have shallow eye sockets so I have a problem getting a binocular with long enough eye cups so I don't get blackouts or have to use the eyebrow technique to get the proper eye relief. I don't think I should have to rest the eye cups on my eye brows with a $2K binocular. Many of the newer binoculars have longer eye relief for eyeglass wearers but they are too stupid to lengthen the eye cups to accommodate non-eyeglass wearers. I just tried a brand new Leica Ultravid HD Plus 8x32 because I was looking for a small 8x32 to complement my SV 8.5x42. It only has 13.3mm of eye relief yet the eye cups were about 1 to 2mm too short for my eyes hence i get blackouts unless I tilt the binocular away from my eyes resting them on my eyebrows. It irritates me because I could see the Leica had excellent contrast and a great view and I really liked the small size and ergonomics but I had to return it. Knowing that Leica's in general have too short of eye cups I would highly doubt the Noctivid would work for me because it has 19mm of eye relief. I keep trying different 32mm's to find one I like. The SV 8x32 is probably the best one but I got a lot of flare with it. I found the SV 8x32 better than the Zeiss 8x32FL and EDG 8x32. The Ultravid HD Plus 8x32 was nice and I might have kept it if the eyecups were a little longer.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th August 2018, 17:08   #60
Jack Speer
Registered User
 
Jack Speer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
No. I have tried many Leica's and they generally don't work very well for me. I have shallow eye sockets so I have a problem getting a binocular with long enough eye cups so I don't get blackouts or have to use the eyebrow technique to get the proper eye relief. I don't think I should have to rest the eye cups on my eye brows with a $2K binocular. Many of the newer binoculars have longer eye relief for eyeglass wearers but they are too stupid to lengthen the eye cups to accommodate non-eyeglass wearers. I just tried a brand new Leica Ultravid HD Plus 8x32 because I was looking for a small 8x32 to complement my SV 8.5x42. It only has 13.3mm of eye relief yet the eye cups were about 1 to 2mm too short for my eyes hence i get blackouts unless I tilt the binocular away from my eyes resting them on my eyebrows. It irritates me because I could see the Leica had excellent contrast and a great view and I really liked the small size and ergonomics but I had to return it. Knowing that Leica's in general have too short of eye cups I would highly doubt the Noctivid would work for me because it has 19mm of eye relief. I keep trying different 32mm's to find one I like. The SV 8x32 is probably the best one but I got a lot of flare with it. I found the SV 8x32 better than the Zeiss 8x32FL and EDG 8x32. The Ultravid HD Plus 8x32 was nice and I might have kept it if the eyecups were a little longer.
Dennis,

How are your 8x56 SLC's? Do they have enough eyecup extension?


Jack
Jack Speer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th August 2018, 21:28   #61
Chris223
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: somewhere
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Excuse me but it is not "foolish banter". It is what I honestly experienced. I found the ergonomics of the Zeiss 8x42 SF excellent and I liked the light feel and balance of it and I thought the focuser was superior to the Swarovski being very smooth and better placed. I thought I had found my favorite binocular but the optics did not work for me. I doubt there was something wrong with the binocular. It was probably just my eyes and facial structure and shallow eye sockets that resulted in the orange rings around the FOV. We are all different and our eyes are different. Everybody gets defensive defending their binocular but they don't work the same for everybody. We all have different eyes and facial structure. I personally had more distortion at the field edge with the SF than the SV and I definitely did not like the orange rings. I am not trying to bash Zeiss. Just relating my personal experience with this model. I am sure for many it is a fine binocular. It wasn't for me.

Is it the last EL that you have ? the first and only EL i ve used is the last one and i found that maybe there is even less friction on the focuser than on Zeiss sf one ! Maybe there is a very little difference between both direction.

For sure ergo of the zeiss is overall better and the focuser is better placed. Weight balance is also better and the field of view is bigger !

till now i have only ordered the zeiss and the swaro to see which one is better for me; so i am not addicted to one brand as the only bino that i ve owned is a way cheaper kowa one !

But after 1 week of extensive comparison i have no doubt that if i spend 2000 euros i want the optic quality of the Swaro and not the Zeiss.
So totally agree with you.

To be honest i was thinking that i will not discern any difference in the quality of the image between this 2 bino before ordering them.....i was wrong !
Chris223 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th August 2018, 22:30   #62
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,458
No, they were a little short on eye cup extension compared to the 8.5x42 SV's. The two that work the best for me for eye cup extension are the 8x32 SV FP and the 8.5x42 SV FP and that is what I have. They are perfect.

Last edited by [email protected] : Monday 20th August 2018 at 22:35.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th August 2018, 22:33   #63
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris223 View Post
Is it the last EL that you have ? the first and only EL i ve used is the last one and i found that maybe there is even less friction on the focuser than on Zeiss sf one ! Maybe there is a very little difference between both direction.

For sure ergo of the zeiss is overall better and the focuser is better placed. Weight balance is also better and the field of view is bigger !

till now i have only ordered the zeiss and the swaro to see which one is better for me; so i am not addicted to one brand as the only bino that i ve owned is a way cheaper kowa one !

But after 1 week of extensive comparison i have no doubt that if i spend 2000 euros i want the optic quality of the Swaro and not the Zeiss.
So totally agree with you.

To be honest i was thinking that i will not discern any difference in the quality of the image between this 2 bino before ordering them.....i was wrong !
Me too! I took the Zeiss 8x42 SF out of the box and liked it although it seemed kind of big but it felt light for it's size and I liked the smooth focuser. Onced I looked through it I knew right away I didn't like it as well as the Swarovski.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th August 2018, 22:43   #64
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightbender View Post
Dennis, my personal experiences regarding SF 8x42 vs SV 8.5x42 are similar to yours.
Hi,


My also, that Zeiss is better at Astro, wide field of view,
wonderful, the SV is optically superior during the day.

Contribution "53 and 58"
I'm not very sensitive to RB, but if I had to label this binoculars with RB, it would be the first SF 8x42 ... and yes, looking closer, the Swarovski shows a higher resolution of 0.5x more!
By the way, I own both glasses ...

Andreas

Last edited by Conndomat : Monday 20th August 2018 at 22:47.
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th August 2018, 23:10   #65
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Speer View Post
Dennis,

How are your 8x56 SLC's? Do they have enough eyecup extension?


Jack
I think you have to change ''are'' with ''were.''
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th August 2018, 23:37   #66
[email protected].n
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conndomat View Post
Hi,


My also, that Zeiss is better at Astro, wide field of view,
wonderful, the SV is optically superior during the day.

Contribution "53 and 58"
I'm not very sensitive to RB, but if I had to label this binoculars with RB, it would be the first SF 8x42 ... and yes, looking closer, the Swarovski shows a higher resolution of 0.5x more!
By the way, I own both glasses ...

Andreas
Isn't the flat field and sharp edges of the Swarovski SV better for Astro than the Zeiss SF? No distortion at the edges and a flat field is usually better for star fields.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 20th August 2018, 23:54   #67
Conndomat
Registered User
 
Conndomat's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Isn't the flat field and sharp edges of the Swarovski SV better for Astro than the Zeiss SF? No distortion at the edges and a flat field is usually better for star fields.
Hi,

I refer to the large field of view of the Zeiss, in addition, the glass is so 80-85% edge sharp, that's enough.
Overall, the Swaro edge of course is a little better.

Andreas
Conndomat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 21st August 2018, 02:48   #68
Jack Speer
Registered User
 
Jack Speer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
No, they were a little short on eye cup extension compared to the 8.5x42 SV's. The two that work the best for me for eye cup extension are the 8x32 SV FP and the 8.5x42 SV FP and that is what I have. They are perfect.
Thanks Dennis. I agree, the 8.5x42 is the most comfortable binocular I've used. No blackouts!

Quote:
Originally Posted by james holdsworth View Post
I think you have to change ''are'' with ''were.''
It's hard to keep up James!


Jack
Jack Speer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 21st August 2018, 04:54   #69
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,458
I just ordered a new Swarovski 8x32 SV FP to compliment the SV 8.5x42 SV FP. I know the 32mm has a little more flare but sometimes I like the smaller size and the bigger walk-in FOV. I like the FP upgrades with the strap attachment, attached objective covers, new rain guard and really improved armour and focus wheel ribbing and material. Curious to see if the latest model has improved in flare control. Even with the flare I think the SV 8x32 is still the best 32mm available. I know Swarovski's aren't perfect. No binocular is but I think they are the best available binoculars right now. The SV series are about as perfect as you get.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 21st August 2018, 08:17   #70
PeterPS
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Stanford and Uppsala
Posts: 630
Quote:
I just ordered a new Swarovski 8x32 SV FP to compliment the SV 8.5x42 SV FP.
I am sure the 8.5x will return the compliment.
Seriously, the SV 8x32 is as good as it gets. It has the well-know glare issue (and I don't think the FP has an improved glare control) but you can learn how to deal with glare, for example by tilting the bino a bit upwards. I have several very good 8x32's (SV, EDG, FL and SE) and indeed the SV is my favorite.
PeterPS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 22nd August 2018, 22:49   #71
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
 
james holdsworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ontario
Posts: 3,116
Complete merry-go-round...lol. Finish where you started.
__________________
''serenity now....insanity later.'' - Lloyd Brawn
james holdsworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 22nd August 2018, 23:22   #72
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
I just ordered a new Swarovski 8x32 SV FP to compliment the SV 8.5x42 SV FP. I know the 32mm has a little more flare but sometimes I like the smaller size and the bigger walk-in FOV. I like the FP upgrades with the strap attachment, attached objective covers, new rain guard and really improved armour and focus wheel ribbing and material. Curious to see if the latest model has improved in flare control. Even with the flare I think the SV 8x32 is still the best 32mm available. I know Swarovski's aren't perfect. No binocular is but I think they are the best available binoculars right now. The SV series are about as perfect as you get.
I remember suggesting to you a while back to get the 8.5x42 SV in place of your 8x and 9x you had at the time. I thought 8.5x would be a nice compromise instead of having two bins with only 1x mag difference. You may not remember that. Anyway, back to 8x32 SV I see and the new FP version. I really liked the FP version when I tried it sometime last year...beautiful. enjoy.
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 22nd August 2018, 23:45   #73
dries1
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
dries1's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Delaware
Posts: 1,108
No we are not on the Vortex bash page, planet whatever.

Andy W.
dries1 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 23rd August 2018, 00:29   #74
[email protected]
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,458
The 8.5x42 SV FP is probably the best all around binocular for me but I like having a 32mm for the small size and light weight. The smaller SV has a bigger FOV which feels more "walk-in" when you use it. It does have a little more flare in some situations than the 42mm but I have tried every 32mm including the Nikon EDG, Zeiss FL, Zeiss Conquest HD and the Leica Ultravid HD plus and I still like it the best. The 3rd generation just has incremental improvements but it makes quite a difference out in the field. I like the FP strap attachments with the adjustable strap and the attached objective covers. Also, the upgraded armour is really nice to the touch and it handles nice and they have improved the feel of the focus wheel. I told Sport Optics to check the focuser and make sure it doesn't have too much stiction. I just have two binoculars. The Swarovski 8.5x42 SV FP and the Swarovski 8x32 SV FP.

Last edited by [email protected] : Thursday 23rd August 2018 at 00:35.
denco@comcast.n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 25th August 2018, 09:56   #75
aCuria
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: sg
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris223 View Post
I did not see an orange ring in my pair but the extreme edge is not usable for sure ! (ok maybe extreme edge is not necessary as the FOV is wide).
The image at edge is distorded and kind of blue/purple ring.

The blurr occur more or less at 80% . With the swaro the last 99% is better than the center of most non alfa bino !

The ergo parts of the SF is perfect .But for me optically Zeiss tried to beat the competition with an extra large FOV and because ot that did not achieve the image quality of his competitor !
@ Chris, I have not tried the 8.5x42, how would you compare this to the zeiss SF if you only compare the center 60deg fov of both, ignoring the outer 60-65 degrees of the black SF?

I looked for the blue ring you speak of at the edge of the FOV and found the following:
  • The outer edge of the FOV is indeed "distorted", but this is perhaps the outer 1-2 degrees of the fov! Certainly within the 5 degree margin the SFs have over the 8.5x42s. Only the extreme 0.5mm of the fov is visibly distorted, the other perhaps 0.5-2mm is only visible when looking at something like text. I do not see a blur occuring at 80%, only at the extreme outer edge.
  • In normal viewing, a blue ring is only visible to me with glasses on, and I would have to actively look for this to see it. There is no ring with glasses off
  • Looking through the bins at extreme angles makes the blue visible without glasses (eg: move the bins up so you only can look see the bottom 20% of the fov, and a blue shift becomes more apparent.
  • When closing one eye, the ring disappears in normal viewing with glasses(!)
  • Adjusting the ipd to more extreme distances can cause the blue ring to be more apparent

I think its only fair to compare the overlapping AFOVs between bins of the same power. Zeiss could have easily added a baffle that cuts out the outer 60-65 degrees of afov, and the SFs will then have a 60 degree afov pin sharp to the extreme edges. This would not make it a better bin!

Last edited by aCuria : Saturday 25th August 2018 at 09:58.
aCuria is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Zeiss Victory SF 8x42 Slatewiper Zeiss 11 Sunday 12th February 2017 00:24
buying decision: Swarovski SLC HD 8x42 or Zeiss Victory 8x42 T*FL MeisterE Zeiss 12 Friday 7th October 2011 23:00
buying decision: Swarovski SLC HD 8x42 or Zeiss Victory 8x42 T*FL MeisterE Swarovski 17 Thursday 6th October 2011 19:03

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.26730609 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:37.