• 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 Victory 8x42 SF 524223 REVIEWS? (1 Viewer)

I liked the ergonomics, focus and everything except the view. I don't feel the quality is quite on par with the Swarovski but it is fine. When I looked through them I like it at first except the edges were a little softer than the SV and it was more prone to blackouts than the SV then on a sunny day I started seeing a thin orange ring at the outermost of the FOV. It just must because of the way my eyes and facial structure work with the binoculars. I returned them and got the SV 8.5x42. I prefer them for my eyes.



OK!

Bob
 
RB doesn't bother me. The Zeiss were a little more prone to blackouts also and I prefer the sharper edges of the SV. Everybody is different. The Swarovski's just work the best for me. I tried a Leica Ultravid HD Plus 8x32 and the eye cups were to short on it also. It irritated me because I could see it had really nice optics and good contrast. I might try an SV 8x32 again but before I got quite a bit of glare with it. I don't get the glare with the 8.5x42 SV.

I would think the rolling ball would be pretty annoying for anyone at that price over your orange ring issue, (for you) SV 8x32 glare issue will still be there when you get there.
 
Too bad you didn't give another one a chance, I'm Mr picky when it comes to optics and the copy I sent back because of internal dust was still sharper in detail then any other binocular I've ever had and I've had just about all of them in my hands.
I have the Swarovski 10x50 and it's too close to the Swarovski 8.5 to justify the purchase and have also the Swarovski 15x56 both are excellent.
Had the Swarovski 8x32 but had problems with the rolling ball effect and the SF 8x42 kills it, hope Zeiss doesn't send me your copy :king:


It seems that i am not sensitive at all to RB . I don't wear spec and my view is perfect.

I did play one week in a lot of differents conditions with one 8x sf and a 8.5 EL.
For me the sentence is clear except the wider FOV the image quality of the SV kill the Zeiss !

Now i am waiting a 10X42 EL to do my final choice.
 
The picture in post 29 is from Dutch origin and "kunststof" is the Dutch word for "plastic". The difference between the SF eyecups and the Swarovski ones is that the SF's are made of plastic and the Swarovski ones from metal.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
I would think the rolling ball would be pretty annoying for anyone at that price over your orange ring issue, (for you) SV 8x32 glare issue will still be there when you get there.
RB is like CA it doesn't bother some people and some it does. It doesn't bother me. Thanks, for the tip on the SV 8x32. I didn't think they have gotten rid of it. But glare or no glare I think the SV 8x32 is the best 8x32 available.
 
Last edited:
Dennis, what about the 8X56 SLC, do you still have it?

Andy W.
No, the SLC 8X56 had more blackouts than the 8.5x42 SV FP and I decided I l prefer the sharp edges of the SV so I went down to ONE binocular. I keep trying different binoculars but for me I really think the SV 8.5X42 works the best overall. So that's my binocular right now the Swarovski 8.5X42.

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/swarovski/swaroel8.5x42sv/swaroel8.5x42sv.html
https://www.allbinos.com/251-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_8.5x42_Swarovision.html
 
Last edited:
I would think the rolling ball would be pretty annoying for anyone at that price over your orange ring issue, (for you) SV 8x32 glare issue will still be there when you get there.
The orange rings were weird. I have never seen anything like it on any binocular I have had. Look for it when you get your SF's. Maybe they sent you my pair.:-O
 
The orange rings were weird. I have never seen anything like it on any binocular I have had. Look for it when you get your SF's. Maybe they sent you my pair.:-O


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 !
 
Last edited:
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 !
Maybe the blue/purple ring at the edge is the same orange ring I am seeing. Distortion because of a too large FOV sounds reasonable.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top