• 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.

SF and HT 8X42 (1 Viewer)

dries1

dries1

Member
This year I will be looking for another 8X42 glass and I have narrowed it to these two ,however I have not read too much about the new Leica Noctivid. Are there any detailed reviews out there about these inclusive of the Leica. Any links would be helpful or info from the lucky person who has both.
The pic below shows that I have only one green bino.

AW
 
Last edited:
Why do you want another? Zeiss FL is already as good as it gets....almost.
The HT view will be quite similar, a bit more neutral color, but you might not even notice the difference.
SF probably will feel like a bigger change/upgrade since the bigger FOV and better edge sharpness. Ergonomics on the SF is top notch also.

But, the HT is a winner in low light and have that chrystaline and sparkling center view. It's a VERY solid binocular and ergonomics is also nice, but different from SF, smooth focus wheel as well.

So it will depend on your needs and personal preferences.

Personally I probably would go for the SF. Since I already have a 7x42 FL that won't go anywhere.
 
I would go with the SF, I have the SF and a fair amount of time with the HT. I think the SF would be more different than the FL in a good way.As far as brightness goes how old are you? I just had an exam yesterday and I'm 20/20 in my left eye and 20/25 in my right. I can't see the difference in brightness between the two,maybe thirty years ago when my eyes were much better than they are now. The SF has a different feel and a more immersive experience than anything else I've used. Where is Trubs when you need him, he has more experience with the two than anyone else I know.
Steve
 
I tried them both and I much prefer the SF over the HT. I liked the bigger FOV and sharper edges. I also much preferred the handling and ergonomics of the SF. Also, try the Swarovski FP 8.5 x42 Swarovision. It is not too shabby either and I think Swarovski and Leica build quality is higher if that is important to you. The FP package is really nice if you haven't used one yet.
 
Last edited:
So I guess between the four - Zeiss SF, HT, Swaro FP and likely Noctivid it's like taking an ax to split a single strand of pasta No 8.

A.W.
 
dries1 said:
So I guess between the four - Zeiss SF, HT, Swaro FP and likely Noctivid it's like taking an ax to split a single strand of pasta No 8.

A.W.
Click to expand...

I have both SF and HT and its true that comparing some aspects of them is like arguing about the difference between two white Burgundy wines.

But there are big differences too and Vespo has already mentioned them: field of view and handling are the two that are important to me, the SF's better edge sharpness is favoured by some too. HT is a good handling bino and beats the FL 8x42s I used to have easily. If you use binos to get quick identifications of birds then the way HTs slip into your hands with the focus wheel in the right place is a great strength. But SF takes this to the next level with an altered centre of balance which means I can hold up SFs for longer and steadier when observing behaviour. And the huge fov of the SF 8x is very useful for the observing I do.

When you pick up an SF, because the weight is concentrated within your hand and not down at the objectives, it feels really lightweight. Zeiss did a great job with this thanks to team leader Gerold Dobler, but some folks misinterpret the lightweight feeling as lacking heft therefore lacking build solidity. There is no pleasing some folks! And the functional but wonky eyecups don't help build quality perception, but for goodness sake check out the weight of SF compared with the Swaro EL and you will see that while it is a bit lighter its not that much lighter. I have no worries about build quality of current SFs at all.

Lee
 
SF and HT

BruceH said:
Andy ... Maybe five if also including the Swarovski SLC WB HD and/or SLC WB.
Click to expand...

Bruce, now you are really piling on. Thanks for adding another, Since I have recently aquired a 8x32 EDG, and still evaluating it, I have not even thought about the 8X42 EDG, too many to choose from.

Lee,

Thanks for the info, I am a big fan of the FOV, and that is why I really like the Nikon Monarch 8X42 (a sure keeper), but in this format I would like one more since it is my favorite format like the 8X32s. I would never buy a high end in 10X42, perhaps a mid range in 10X50 or a 12X50 for long range observation and stargazing well down the road.

The eyecups on the SF they are not cheap like the Bushnell Legend ms are they?, I sure hope not, that could deter me.

I am really liking the FL and EDG 8X32s, just need more sun here in the mid atlantic US. Too bad I have been looking for a FL T 8X42 mint and they are not around, so it will be a new one what ever I choose.

A.W.
 
A comment on the SF eyecups: As an eyeglasses wearer who uses the eyecups down, I don't have any complaints with them as others do. One kind of interesting thing that I'm slowly noticing, however, is that they have a more slippery surface and don't collect as much dust/grit as the eyecups on my other bins, including Nikons, Conquests, and SVs. The result of this for me is that my glasses stay cleaner and I don't worry as much about grit collecting on the eyecups and scratching my glasses.

My only slight niggle about the SF is that my hands hit the strap lugs with some frequency depending on how I'm holding them / shifting them around.

Other thoughts: I like the Nikon 8x42 HG quite a bit based upon limited use. The low weight and compact size is fantastic, the view seems impressive, but didn't strike me as quite in the class of the SF. I'm not sure I'd want an 8x42HG over an 8x32FL.

I'm also a big fan of the 8x32FL. In fact, if an 8x32 SF comes along and isn't as compact as the 8x32 FL, I'm not certain it would be a better bin. Given my preference for compact size for an 8x32 class bin, a very compact 8x32 HG would probably be preferred to a bulky 8x32 SF. I just recently got a Monarch 8x30. Eye placement ergonomics are far inferior to the 8x32FL or 8x32SV but I really like the very compact size and feather weight, and the optical quality is impressive.
 
My initial observations are that the Nikon 8X42 HG provides better optics than the FL 8X32, a wider FOV, with better light gathering ability, and better contrast IMO. The FL is probably one of the the most portable 8X32s there is, a great glass which I just acquired along with a Nikon 8X32 EDG.
We will see if Zeiss can keep the size of a new production 8X32 similar to the FL. I also have the older Nikon 8X32 HG and many folks up graded to the Zeiss FL from the HG because of lighter weight and the smaller size. I am quite satisfied with the FL as a keeper, the design is time proven and the optics are excellent (still getting used to the stiffer focus and using the adjustable eye sockets to my facial features.

I handled the Nikon 8X30 Monarch 7, all I can say it is not in the same class of the MHG 8X42 buildwise, but a great glass for packing extremely light, (NO 8X20s or 10X25s). If cost is not an issue, the Zeiss FL is IMO the best glass to go in the back country with, light with a wide FOV and a bright glass for a 8X32. Perhaps I should take another look at the Monarch 7 8X30.

A.W.
 
pbjosh said:
My only slight niggle about the SF is that my hands hit the strap lugs with some frequency depending on how I'm holding them / shifting them around.
Click to expand...

If I pick up my SFs with my fingers wrapped around the optical tube, my first finger falls directly on the focus wheel and my hand is some distance from the strap lugs and there is no need to move it around. The only time my hand would go near the lugs is when I am adjusting the dioptre.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
If I pick up my SFs with my fingers wrapped around the optical tube, my first finger falls directly on the focus wheel and my hand is some distance from the strap lugs and there is no need to move it around. The only time my hand would go near the lugs is when I am adjusting the dioptre.

Lee
Click to expand...

Between frequently having something else in my hands as well (umbrella, microphone, speaker, sandwich, you name it), shifting grips around to avoid fatigue, and the odd quick one handed pickup I end up hitting it a bit. I think I probably naturally pick the bin up a bit higher than you do and tend to hit my right hand against the lug with some frequency. My left hand I frequently just palm the other tube for stability. It doesn't really bother me, to be honest, and if that's the biggest fault I can come up with then I'm ok with it!
 
pbjosh said:
... I just recently got a Monarch 8x30. Eye placement ergonomics are far inferior to the 8x32FL or 8x32SV but I really like the very compact size and feather weight, and the optical quality is impressive.
Click to expand...

I have no problems with eye placement but would agree with you concerning its weight and the optical quality. I compared it with the Swarovski 8x30 CL in the camera shop and the Japanese girl won.
 
Troubador said:
I have both SF and HT and its true that comparing some aspects of them is like arguing about the difference between two white Burgundy wines.

But there are big differences too and Vespo has already mentioned them: field of view and handling are the two that are important to me, the SF's better edge sharpness is favoured by some too. HT is a good handling bino and beats the FL 8x42s I used to have easily. If you use binos to get quick identifications of birds then the way HTs slip into your hands with the focus wheel in the right place is a great strength. But SF takes this to the next level with an altered centre of balance which means I can hold up SFs for longer and steadier when observing behaviour. And the huge fov of the SF 8x is very useful for the observing I do.

When you pick up an SF, because the weight is concentrated within your hand and not down at the objectives, it feels really lightweight. Zeiss did a great job with this thanks to team leader Gerold Dobler, but some folks misinterpret the lightweight feeling as lacking heft therefore lacking build solidity. There is no pleasing some folks! And the functional but wonky eyecups don't help build quality perception, but for goodness sake check out the weight of SF compared with the Swaro EL and you will see that while it is a bit lighter its not that much lighter. I have no worries about build quality of current SFs at all.

Lee
Click to expand...

Lee:

I agree with your entire post. I have had 2 years with the SF, 7 years with
the Swarovision, and more than that with the Nikon EDG.

The Zeiss SF is so nicely balanced for handling, wide, bright and sharp FOV, along with a smooth as silk focuser, put it at the top.

I've only handled the HT once, and briefly in a shop. I found the focuser
placed in an odd position, and I could not get right onto it, as I do in other
binoculars. I could not figure out what finger to use to focus. That impression is one thing I remember and will not forget.

Ergos are very important, and rates very high on my list of importance.

The eyecups do the job, and they could be of better quality, but they do
not move around in practice, I always find the proper position.

Those who have not even tried this binocular should not gripe about that.

Jerry
 
dries1 said:
Thanks for the info.
Just a note, the FL I have is the 8X32. Not many 8X42 FL for sale used out there.

A.W.
Click to expand...

A few questions..

How do you use your binoculars? What do you do with them? Do you wear glasses? You use them on open areas or dense woodlands mostly?

Are you looking to improve anything specifically over what you have or just looking for something different?
 
Chuck,

I do not wear glasses yet, but the size of font out there these days with information crammed into small areas might change that. I use binos in all different types of areas, and I am finding that I find more use for an 8X or 7X and don't really use 10X unless stargazing. So I have my 8X32 format down.
I appreciate a wide field of view, approaching 8 degrees, it makes my view relaxed, not tunnel view. I only have one 8X42 the nikon MHG which you gave a good realistic evaluation from your actual field use, much appreciated, and I like the glass.
I am Just looking for one more 8X42 that can be used in a wide variety of situations and keep for life. If the Legend M 8X42 did not have so much pincushion distortion, better eyecup construction and a nikon focus I would be satisfied....for now.
I am looking for an 8X42 which could be versatile, carry a decent warranty, built like the seasoned Nikon HG, put together like the Nikon MHG and have a side FOV that is sharp to the edge of view. That is why I am looking at select brands.

A.W.
 
Quite amazing isn't it that many of us have very reasonable demands, know what we want and still it is difficult to find the right binocular. Time for customization perhaps?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

O
Zeiss Victory HT 8x42 vs. Victory SF 8x42
Replies
4
Views
543
Scott98
S
L
Help! Coatings on Victory SF being... weird?
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Hermann
Hermann
N
SF 42 & 32 Brief Comparisons
Replies
8
Views
2K
Scott98
S
S
Who is still viewing through Victory HT 42s?
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Nivado
N
mgp13
Zeiss SFL 8x40 versus Victory SF 8x42?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
7K
Troubador
Troubador

Users who are viewing this thread

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