Further thoughts on the Zeiss 8x42 HT (1 Viewer)

I picked up a few things at Cabela's yesterday and although the store was quite busy, the optics section, both scopes and binos was devoid of customers, so I took this opportunity to check out a few of the top alpha contenders. Last time I thoroughly checked out the Zeiss HT without any comparisons as I wanted to see if I could spot any flaws or weaknesses. Inside the store with the time that I had I really couldn't see any faults or flaws and was really blown away by the exceptional clarity, sharpness brightness and the relaxed ease of view.

Today I wanted to see if direct A/B comparisons would show up anything that I had missed before.

I didn't bother comparing it to the Swarovski 8x42SV because as I mentioned in an earlier post, it's distortion is too weird and distracting to me. So first comparison was to its smaller 8x32SV model which most people seem to find much better in that regard. Yes, it's true, it really does have considerably less rolling ball. Definitely not as weird (or strong for want of a better description) nor as jarring on the eye no matter how fast I panned with them. Yes, it's still there to a small degree, but I honestly believe that most people either won't notice it, or even if they do, won't be bothered by it at all. Given all of its other outstanding attributes I could easily live with this minor distortion. As always, when it's your money, only YOUR eyes count so ignore all the naysayers. On a related note I did notice that the focus knob was very smooth in one direction and only marginally less so in the other. I wouldn't have noticed this miniscule difference except that I specifically looked/felt for it because it seems to be such a huge issue in this forum.

It's definitely NOT a fair comparison to compare the 8x32SV to the 8x42HT, but price wise within a few dollars they cost almost the same. The larger diameter objective and slight weight penalty that it entails is well worth it IMHO. Besides the obvious increase in brightness the Zeiss HT presents to MY eyes a slightly sharper, very slightly brighter and/or vivid view that I also find a LOT more relaxing. And no, I still couldn't find any faults with it at all. It fits my small hands perfectly, it's so well balanced that I found the small increase in weight negligible, but do keep in mind that it will probably be more noticeable after hanging around your neck for a few hours.

Lastly, I did manage to check out the new Leica Perger prism rangefinder. Unfortunately they didn't have the 8x42 model, only the higher magnification 10x42 version. Okay, I know that I'm more picky than most users and because of my job my eyes find faults in short order when most others don't see any, but I was sorely disappointed in the amount of obvious CA that I could see so easily in the store. Yes it seemed to have a large relaxing if slightly darker view. Even quite a bit less bright than the smaller 8x32SV. But for that kind of money the amount of CA is not acceptable seeing as even the lowly Nikon Monarch 7 has it well under control except under the most difficult and harshest conditions. Whether this is a design weakness or flaw, or maybe this particular display model was out of spec I can't say. The one on display appeared to be virtually brand new and unmarked to me. Of course it's possible that it had been dropped or banged up without any visible damage.

The bottom line is that Zeiss have produced an absolutely outstanding binocular in the HT models that one would be hard pressed to improve upon. Like most people I’m not disappointed that it’s not 100% razor sharp edge to edge. As long as it’s sharp enough to easily see anything of interest enter my FOV that’s good enough for me. My eyes tire out very quickly when evaluating edge sharpness as it’s just not comfortable to concentrate for long on anything with my eyeballs rolled to the extremes – more than likely because most people’s acuity falls off drastically towards the extremes. Fierce competition among the top alpha manufacturers has produced an outstanding line up for deep pocketed customers to choose from. If, I mean when, I’m one of the latter, the Zeiss 8x42 HT would definitely be my choice.

Hi,

I'm wondering if you had a chance to compare the 8x42 HT with the (newest) Swaro 8x42 SLC? I was fortunate to buy the HD version during the brief period they were sold, but by all accounts the replacement SLC is much the same except for focus speed and short focus distance. It doesn't suffer from distortion issues, and costs considerably less that the Zeiss model. Oh, it also has the advantage of greater eye relief (18.5mm).

Nice review, by the way!

Ed

elkcub said:

Hi,

I'm wondering if you had a chance to compare the 8x42 HT with the (newest) Swaro 8x42 SLC? I was fortunate to buy the HD version during the brief period they were sold, but by all accounts the replacement SLC is much the same except for focus speed and short focus distance. It doesn't suffer from distortion issues, and costs considerably less that the Zeiss model. Oh, it also has the advantage of greater eye relief (18.5mm).

Nice review, by the way!

Ed

Click to expand...

Hi Ed, they didn't have one on hand when I was there on Sunday so no comparisons to the Zeiss HT. But, quite a few months before I first checked out the HT, I did do a quick comparison between the Swarovski 8x42SV and the older 8x42 SLC HD because that was when I first discovered that rolling ball and I don't play together nicely, so I was curious to see if their non-flat field model also had any odd distortion artifacts. While I didn't notice anything that stood out or bothered me in any way, I did notice that other than the aforementioned rolling ball I was a little disappointed that the SLC HD didn't quite match the SV for either sharpness or the vivid contrast of the latter. Of course different samples of the same models might produce different results. But that was my conclusion for the only time that I've made this comparison.

Having said that though, given that I didn't spend too much time comparing them, plus the circumstances, I would definitely need to spend more time evaluating them before making a recommendation one way or the other. Besides, let's face it $400 to $500 is a lot of extra money to spend on what probably amounts to only a 2% to 3% improvement in brightness/contrast, and probably even less than that in sharpness.

elkcub said:

Hi,

I'm wondering if you had a chance to compare the 8x42 HT with the (newest) Swaro 8x42 SLC? I was fortunate to buy the HD version during the brief period they were sold, but by all accounts the replacement SLC is much the same except for focus speed and short focus distance. It doesn't suffer from distortion issues, and costs considerably less that the Zeiss model. Oh, it also has the advantage of greater eye relief (18.5mm).

Nice review, by the way!

Ed

Click to expand...

Ed, I have the HT and have spent several hours with an SLC-HD. To me, they are both superb, with tiny differences - the SLC has a slightly wider sweetspot while the HT is a tad brighter, with a little less CA and [to my eye] cleaner whites. Both have great contrast and sharpness. I didn't really test the SLC for stray light, one of the HT's strongest points, but would like to in the future.

The SLC I tried had a smooth focus, although not as smooth as the HT.

A real eye opener would be to compare the 10x42 SLC HD, Zeiss HT, and Meopta HD on a tripod. I did just that with the SLC Hd and Meopta HD over a period of about a week, under every conceivable atmospheric condition I could. I now have 53 yr old eyes, but I could not discern any optical difference between the two. I'd be real curious how the HT/Meopta HD would compare.

jgraider said:

A real eye opener would be to compare the 10x42 SLC HD, Zeiss HT, and Meopta HD on a tripod. I did just that with the SLC Hd and Meopta HD over a period of about a week, under every conceivable atmospheric condition I could. I now have 53 yr old eyes, but I could not discern any optical difference between the two. I'd be real curious how the HT/Meopta HD would compare.

Click to expand...

If you recall a few months ago I compared the Zeiss FL8x32 vs the Cabelas Euro HD8x32, see the link below

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=270987

I think that in the 10x42 size the Swarovski SLC HD vs the Cabelas Euro HD would be an exceptionally close call. The SLC HD would probably have less pin cushion and a slightly larger sweet spot vs the Euro HD having slightly less CA and maybe a tiny bit more clarity.

I honestly believe that the Zeiss HT is bit better than both in all the important areas. As always only the individual users can decide whether these small improvements are worth the extra cost, especially considering the excellent view offered by the mid priced Euro HD.

I have both the newer SLC HDs and HTs in 8x42. For me the Zeiss ergonomics and focusing mechanism are preferred over Swaro. I agree that Swaro may have a slight edge in clarity, or as mentioned, just a little more sweet spot. I plan to spend much more time comparing, however, the Zeiss feels great. I wish my Swaros didn't have the loose, play in the focusing. TBD... Maybe I'll keep both

Anyone have any thoughts on this thread ?

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5672577/Main/5672493

I had a chance to see the latest EL 10X42 Swarovison during some pristine conditions and was pretty well blown away. Does the 10X42 HT have that same huge, CA free, non fatiguing view I saw with the EL ?

Thanks Bruce

rj112275 said:

I have both the newer SLC HDs and HTs in 8x42. For me the Zeiss ergonomics and focusing mechanism are preferred over Swaro. I agree that Swaro may have a slight edge in clarity, or as mentioned, just a little more sweet spot. I plan to spend much more time comparing, however, the Zeiss feels great. I wish my Swaros didn't have the loose, play in the focusing. TBD... Maybe I'll keep both

Click to expand...

Loose play in the focuser? Most complaints are about the focuser being stiff, at least in one direction ,sometimes both. The 10x42 SLC-HD I tried was slightly harder to turn in one direction, but I tried it after it had been used for a couple weeks, and I was told that when it first arrived, it was noticeably harder to turn in one direction than the other. So it wore in a bit by the time I tried it. Send yours into Swaro for repairs, then you will be in a better position to decide.

I'm surprised the sweet spot is nearly comparable in the HT. A departure in design from the FL's "optimizing the critical zone of sharpness" in the center at the expense of the edges. The 10x42 SLC-HD was nearly sharp to the edge. Arek from allbinos rated it as 95% sharp to the edge, which was the same as my 8x and 12x SEs, and they have field flatteners! So what was the point in putting the field flatteners in the SV EL if Swaro can make a flat flied bin without the "mustache disortion" and "rolling ball" that some people see, and let's not forget the infamous Absam Ring!

The 10x42 SLC-HD also has a nice balance of distortions (AMD/pincushion) so the panning smooth w/out badly bowed lines at the edges like some of described with the Meopta 10x42 HD ("Cupid's arrow"). From someone who posted photos through the HT and SV EL, the HT had noticeable pincushion at the edges whereas the SV EL showed straight lines remaining straight at the edges.

The SLC-HD's ergos are pretty good, but the HT looks even better with more room for your fingers in the space between the barrels and more barrel to grasp. Before Bill Gates gives all his money away to charity, he should find someone who can make him a hybrid Swaro-Zeiss. Take the optics from the Swaro and put it in the Zeiss HT body, for better ergos and focusing.

Brock

Brock

So do you think the SLC HD 10X42 image is equal to the SE 10X42 ? I would assume the SLC has the advantage in CA control, the SE a more pronounced 3D effect. I was puzzled by allbinos thinking the SLC HD to be overpriced.

and let's not forget the infamous Absam Ring ! - Great band, didn't they break up in the eighties ? :-O

brocknroller said:

Arek from allbinos rated it as 95% sharp to the edge, which was the same as my 8x and 12x SEs, and they have field flatteners!

Brock

Click to expand...

I got the chance to check out the Zeiss 8x42 HT today and compared it to a number of bins one of which was the Swaro 8x42 SLC (newest version).

To my eyes the sweetspot of the SLC was significantly larger than the sweetspot of the HT. The edges of the SLC were much better than those of the HT. The HT also didn't seem to have as large an AFOV as the SLC, but that could be just my eyes/face.

The thing I was most interested in was flare control. To my surprise I found it was easy to induce veiling flare in all the bins tested. From the reports here I had hoped the Zeiss would be better than others, but under the circumstances today the results were different. It was noon on a bright sunny day with the sun high in the sky. I just pointed the bins to a mossy slanted roof with the sun directly above the roof and compared what I saw.

Bins that showed more veiling (greyish loss of contrast) than the HT were: Swaro 10x50 SV, Kite 8x30, Swaro 8x25, Viper 8x32 non-HD. About the same was the Swaro 8x42 SLC. Both the Swaro 8x32 SV and the Swaro 8.5x42 SV showed less veiling than the HT.

I don't wish to challenge other people's views and this was just a subjective test. Results would probably be different in different circumstances and for different persons. Try before you buy is probably the best way to go.

George

bh46118 said:

So do you think the SLC HD 10X42 image is equal to the SE 10X42 ? I would assume the SLC has the advantage in CA control, the SE a more pronounced 3D effect. I was puzzled by allbinos thinking the SLC HD to be overpriced.

Click to expand...

From what I have seen the SLC has a whiter, more colour neutral image. In direct comparison the SE looks almost a bit murky, like a bit tobacco coloured. Just a little bit, but easily seen in direct comparison.

The AFOV of the SLC is also notably larger than that of the SE. On the other hand the SE has great ergonomics for me and a very, very nice three-dimensionality to the image. To my eyes CA control was about equal.

My SLC's are not stiff or tight by any means. Like an old Chevy truck's steering wheel, it has some play in the focus wheel. Makes for some over focusing and then adjusting back with a little more effort.

However, my HTs are smooth and without play. I like the new diopter adjustment wheel with Zeiss. So far, no complaints. Good job Zeiss

bh46118 said:

Brock

So do you think the SLC HD 10X42 image is equal to the SE 10X42 ? I would assume the SLC has the advantage in CA control, the SE a more pronounced 3D effect. I was puzzled by allbinos thinking the SLC HD to be overpriced.

and let's not forget the infamous Absam Ring ! - Great band, didn't they break up in the eighties ? :-O

Click to expand...

I think 14Goudvink summed up the differences/similarities nicely in post # 12. I was just referring to the edge sharpness and wondering why if Swaro can make a bin with edges sharp to 95% w/OUT field flatteners, why get complicated with the mustache distortion and field flatteners with the SV EL? Because the EDG has field flatteners and Swaro felt it had to compete with the EDG (after all, they threatened to sue Nikon over the EDG I)?

Indeed, the 3-D effect is better in the SE, but at longer distances, the 3-D effect is less dominant so I didn't mind some compression of the image with the 10x42 SLC-HD since I'm generally "looking long" with 10x bins. I might not like the lesser 3-D effect with the 8x42 SLC-HD vs. the 8x32 SE because I'd be using them at closer distances where the separation of foreground and background is more evident.

Arek thought the SLC-HD was overpriced because it was too close to the price of the SV EL. Apparently, Swaro thought so too and redesigned the SLC to make it less expensive so there is more of a gap in price between the two bins now. The SLC is still too expensive, IMO. Excellent bin, but not a $1,000 better than the 10x42 SE.

Brock

I tried the HT, SLC and EDG side by side some months ago, all in 8x42, the HT was just the brightest and SLC the widest afov to me, however I was surprised at how much pc I saw in these two and overall preferred the EDG.

Looking forward to trying the new 54mm HT`s.

14Goudvink said:

From what I have seen the SLC has a whiter, more colour neutral image. In direct comparison the SE looks almost a bit murky, like a bit tobacco coloured. Just a little bit, but easily seen in direct comparison.

The AFOV of the SLC is also notably larger than that of the SE. On the other hand the SE has great ergonomics for me and a very, very nice three-dimensionality to the image. To my eyes CA control was about equal.

Click to expand...

I have tried the SLC's (I eventually opted for the HT's)...but I found that the SLC was more closely aligned to the Conquest than any other bino.

bottom line....The HT's are great and while I like the SLC's...for the price, the Conquest is a better buy than the SLC and more apt to be a second bino of mine, if I determine to pick one up.

Torview said:

I tried the HT, SLC and EDG side by side some months ago, all in 8x42, the HT was just the brightest and SLC the widest afov to me, however I was surprised at how much pc I saw in these two and overall preferred the EDG.

Looking forward to trying the new 54mm HT`s.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised, too, because I found the distortion level was rather moderate in the 10x42 SLC-HD. but pc can vary from model to model, assuming they don't use the same EP.

This was the case with the Swift 8x42 Ultralite and the 10x42 Ultralite. While the 8x42 had moderate pincushion, with lines bending at the edges, the 10x42 model was much more extreme, with curved lines starting to bow much closer to the center. Looking at the outside trash container, the 10x42 distorted the shape from a rectangle to a saddle.

Brock

I really like the ergo`s on the SLC I find it pleasantly minimalist, almost Bauhaus...............

I photographed the pincushion distortion in a 8x42 SLC-HD a few years ago and posted it here. It was approximately the same as an 8x42 FL, perhaps a little less. The amount in both is about what is required to fully correct (but not overcorrect) angular magnification distortion. I imagine the new SLC and the HT are probably the same. The EDG has much less pincushion than either and consequently does show some AMD, which causes objects to a appear compressed toward the edge of the field. Torview's impression that there is too much pincushion is one of those perfectly valid personal reactions that wouldn't be shared by everyone. I can, for instance, easily live with either the EDG or the SLC distortion profiles.

I think most everyone will notice pincushion when looking a buildings / poles and other straight edges. I remember the 1st time I tried my trusty B&L Elite for the 1st time in a cityscape and was horrified to see all the bendy lines. And, this was after using the bin for many years birding and never seeing anything untoward.

It's like edge sharpness - you can make it as big a problem as you want, depending on scrutiny.