Maven B2 9x45 and Zeiss SF 8x42 (1 Viewer)

Introduction
I have owned and loved the Maven B2 9x45 for about a year and a half and it has been my first choice for birding most of that time, though when I travel by air I generally take something smaller. In June I bought a Zeiss Victory 8x25 and used it extensively over the summer. I was kind of stunned that the little 8x25 had the same wow factor as the much larger Maven 9x45 as long as I wasn't in a low light situation, and I was surprisingly happy with the ergonomics given the compact form factor.

I had been drawn to the Zeiss SF 8x42 for a couple years now having tried it out at shows and shops. I found I preferred the ergonomics of the Zeiss to the competing Swaro and Leica 8x42s, and all three provided marvelous views, though of course I only had quick looks. I never seriously considered upgrading because I was quite happy with my Maven B2. OTH my recent experience with the Zeiss 8x25 made me extremely curious to compare the full size Zeiss with my Maven B2. I was happy with the retailer who sold me the 8x25 and the combination of a good price and generous return policy pushed me over the edge. The Zeiss SF 8x42 arrived a few days ago, and I have been evaluating it trying to decide whether to keep it.

My motivation here is simple. I am trying to decide if I prefer the Zeiss SF to the Maven, and if I do whether I'm willing to pay this much for that preference. I state this in personal subjective terms because I make no pretense about objective evaluation of which is better. There are specifications to compare, and I do make some evaluations of performance and features that I expect others would agree with to some extent, but my personal experience using each binocular is just that, personal. What I will try to do is articulate how important a particular feature or performance factor is to me so that others can apply their own priorities. At the end of the day, no binocular is perfect and each binocular is kind of a blue plate special. The designers and manufacturers (and yes the marketers and sales and service people) make a series of decisions and then it is up to us as consumers to choose what suits us off the menu.

Initial Impressions
Let's start with comparing specs Zeiss vs, Maven:

• Magnification 8x vs. 9x,
• Aperture 42mm vs 45mm
• Exit pupil 5.25mm vs 5mm
• Eye relief 18mm vs. 17.3mm
• Weight 28 oz vs. 33 oz
• Height (length) 6.8” vs. 7.25”
• Apparent field of view 68 deg vs. 67 deg
• Actual field of view 444ft@1000yds vs. 389ft@1000yds
• List price $2649 vs. $1080.

I purchased my Maven in excellent condition from Chuck at a nice discount, and there was also a modest discount on the new Zeiss so I end up with a price ratio of just over 3:1.

Accessories. I prefer the Maven accessories. I have both a hard case and a double layer cloth bag. I use the cloth bag most all the time carrying the binoculars in a backpack, but the hard case is nice when carrying the binoculars more like luggage. It unzips flat and fits the binoculars nicely while they are set at my IPD with rain guard, objective caps, and RYO harness. The Zeiss hard case, like the case for the Victory 8x25 is disappointing. To fit in the case the binoculars have to be opened almost flat to a very wide IPD. My IPD is rather narrow at 57mm, so that is a show stopper right there. Also the case does not open up to fold flat. The neck straps for both are reasonable, but again Maven has the advantage with a strap that clips in and out for change over to a harness. OTH the straps are irrellevant to me since I always use RYO harness. The rain guards are both fine. The Zeiss has a better objective cover system with a one piece cover for both barrels with insets that push into each barrel. It also has a small tether with clip so the cover can be attached to the lower hinge. Maven has the traditions rubber objective cover for each barrel with a tether to a rubber ring that fits around the barrel. But the rubber ring is not tight enough and if you leave the covers on the binocular in use you will lose them. However, once again this is not an issue to me as I never bring the covers to either binocular along when I observe. They are only for storage and remain in the case when the binocular is in use.

Fit and finish. Out of the box, and ignoring the labels, you might guess that the Maven was the more expensive binocular. I prefer the feel of the armoring on the Maven to the rubber armor and plastic barrels of the Zeiss. The cross hatched metal focus knob on the Maven is nicer than the plastic knurled focus knob of the Zeiss. The eyecup operation is similar. The Zeiss has greater hinge resistance, and the Maven has greater focuser resistance, but both focus smoothly and precisely with no sponginess or backlash. The Maven focuser is a little bit faster, but both are reasonably fast. The center diopter adjustment of the Zeiss is much nicer than the traditional right eyepiece diopter adjust on the Maven. It may be that Zeiss was trying to reduce weight with the high impact polymers vs. metal and rubber. But except for the diopter adjustment, the Maven feels more like a precision instrument.

Handling. Both of these binoculars feel great in my hands. I am more used to the Maven, so it took a little experimenting to “get my grip” on the Zeiss. The balance points on the binoculars are pretty similar, just to the objective side of the focus knob, but the open frame design of the Zeiss makes it more natural to hold it well below the balance point with fingers wrapped around the barrel and forefinger very naturally falling on the focus knob. With the Maven because of the location of the bridge relative to the focus knob I tend to hold it a bit closer to the eyepiece end which creates a bit more weight cantilevered “below” my grip on the objective side. As in their advertising hype, the Zeiss does seem lighter in use than its weight spec. The two binoculars seem quite similar when carrying in the harness, but the Zeiss is lighter to hold. OTH, the Maven is also very well balanced and I have had no complaint about the weight. I prefer the tactile feel of the Maven armor and focus knob, but the Zeiss ergonomics are better because of balance, open frame, and focus knob location. Zeiss focus is clockwise to infinity, Maven is counter-clockwise. Maven focus speed is slightly faster, both have similar and nice close focus of around 5 feet. I have not yet had the Zeiss out in the field, but I have a deck with a view of shore birds so I have experimented with getting on birds in flight quickly and both are easy to get on target and in focus.

The view. While the difference in actual field of view is quite obvious, most of that is due to the difference in magnification. The Maven apparent field of view at 8x magnification would have an actual field of view of 438 ft vs. 444 ft for the Zeiss. In most circumstances I would prefer 8x and wider actual field of view. Also, the Zeiss field is flatter. The Maven shows more field curvature. Both show a little astigmatism at the extreme edge of field but no other obvious optical aberrations. I have never been bothered by slight field curvature of the Maven. I have some concern about rolling ball mostly because I've heard others complain about it. I can detect it under the right circumstances, but I've yet to decide whether it is a problem for me.

Both binoculars are extremely well baffled and perform very well in difficult lighting conditions without internal reflections or noticeable stray light problems. The color balance of the two binoculars is very similar to my eye. Comparing resolution is slightly apples and oranges because of the magnification difference, but having done all my comparisons hand held I would put them on a par for on-axis resolution. They are very similar in terms of snap to focus and wow factor for image quality, color rendition and putting you in the scene.

Both control chromatic aberration (CA) well on axis, but it is obvious that Zeiss controls lateral CA better when I scan off the center of the field. This leads me to believe that the Zeiss control of CA on axis is superior as well, I presume this is because of choice of glass in the objectives. I think this gives the Zeiss a slight contrast advantage on axis that in some ways compensates for the smaller image scale of 8x vs. 9x. However, I am talking about very small differences here. My only real data point was looking at a rocky outer channel wall about 1/4 mile out in the late afternoon with sunlight reflecting strongly off the ocean beyond. The birds and rocks were reduced to silhouettes in both binoculars, but the edge between black and bright light off the water was a little sharper in the Zeiss than the Maven. So I presume that in backlit conditions the Zeiss will perform better because of marginally less color fringing on-axis.

First Impression Summary
These are two very good binoculars, that is I like them both very much. Not surprisingly, so far I mostly prefer the 3x more expensive binocular. Yet, there wasn't a different wow factor between these like there was between the Maven B3 8x30 and the Zeiss 8x25. The margins here are smaller and there are potential deal breakers besides the cost. I've also learned that comparing at home and spending time in the field can tell different stories. But with these caveats, I would say the fit, finish and accessories of the Maven are certainly as good as and in some cases better than the Zeiss. As far as bulk and weight to transport or carry, they are very much on a par, but in use the ergonomics of the Zeiss are a bit better because of open hinge design and focuser location relative to balance point. I think I prefer the lower power and wider field of the Zeiss, but that is really a question for the field. I have had no complaint about the minor field curvature in the Maven and I don't have a strong preference for the flat field of the Zeiss. I remain concerned about rolling ball, again a question for the field. I am very impressed with the superior CA control of the Zeiss, but it will become a deciding factor only if I find it easier to see details in backlit conditions in the field.

Alan

That is a very nice write up Alan, thanks for sharing. When you get them out in the field do tell us whether your preferred mode of use consists of fairly quick looks to identify species or long periods of observing behaviour or whatever kind of viewing you do. Different modes of viewing demand different talents from the binos.

Lee

Alan,

That is just one great report/review! SUCH a good job! I have to say I agree with practically everything you have written too! The Maven 9X45 IS that good! For an absolute birding binocular I'd prob pick the SF mainly due to FOV, 8X magnification, and weight. But for the MONEY???? The Maven is hard to beat!

Alan:

I owned a pair of B2 9x45 a couple of years ago, and below you can find my notes about these binos that I wrote at that time. Basically my conclusion is in agreement with yours: if on a budget buy the B2 (one of the best offerings in its price range), else get the SF.


*Accessories: I like the rainguard, and the neck strap is wide and well padded; the pouch is OK, but obviously offers little protection (a case can be bought from Maven). The wide well-padded neck strap makes it possible to carry the bino for a few hours, maybe even longer, w/o any serious problems.
*The bino is slightly larger (due to its AK prisms) but a bit lighter (by about 50g) than the SV 50mm. Interestingly when handheld it does not feel heavy at all. This should be due to the fact that there is a lot of space that can be used to wrap your hands around the barrels---which also contributes to a steady hold.
*The rubber armor feels a bit tacky (it has good friction) and so I thought it will attract dust, but actually it does not.
*The hinge's tension is good. The diopter compensation ring is very stiff as it should.
*Eyecups are solid (made from metal), they are removable and have well defined stops, but their rubber is a bit hard and their rim is not rounded (diam=41mm); despite that, they are not uncomfortable---you only feel the difference when you switch to an FL, SF or similar.
*No blackouts with the eyecups fully extended, and I can see the entire FoV. There are claims that the FoV is almost 8*; I have not measured it carefully but my guess is that indeed the FoV is larger than the value given in the specs.
*The distance between the obj lenses is 80mm, which yields a bit of 3D effect and contributes to a good DoF.
*The focuser is rather fast and runs CCW: it goes from close focus (about 1.5m) to ∞ in a little more than 1 turn; initially I thought it was a bit touchy, but the view snaps into focus and the optimum focus is easily found without fiddling. The focuser is a bit stiff, which I think is by design to prevent overshooting.
*The view is bright. The glare caused by frontal light (low sun etc) is very well controlled, better than in the SV. The reflections in the eye lenses from lateral light are not stronger than in the SV.
*The amount of pincushion is relatively small (but larger than in the SV); the panning is very comfortable with no RB.
*The curvature (and blur) in the last 10% of the FoV is larger than SV's. Some could not see any CA but it's there (if you know how to look for it), probably not much more than in the SV (like in the SV the green fringe is not a strong/dark green, but rather a yellowish-greenish fringe).
*The sharpness/resolution within the large sweet spot is very good.

In sum, I can see why hunters on a budget prefer the Maven to Swaro or Zeiss (I think the 9x45 is targeted towards hunters rather than birders, the latter usually prefer lighter binos).
Bottom line: the 9x45 is a good bino in its price range; I owned most of its potential contenders (Trinovid HD, Monarch HG, SLC, Conquest, Vortex Razor, etc) and if I had to select one I would probably choose the Maven---its main compromise compared with the others is weight & size. However the Maven is well balanced and feels good in the hand, and so IMO the said compromise is not a serious one. Of course if money is no object I'd choose SV or SF....

All: thanks for the kind words, but it is definitely a work in progress.

Lee: Obviously this will depend on the site and what happens to be going on there. While testing at home the mode is dominated by long looks and quick switches between binoculars. In the field I will only be using the new Zeiss. My personal style seems to lean toward longer looks because when I am with a group, I'm always lagging behind. On my own, I enjoy staying in one place and seeing what comes to me as I participate in the stillness, but that can still be either quick looks or longer observations depending on what is going on.

Chuck: My first question is already answered. To my eyes the Zeiss SF view is not a quantum leap better than the Maven B2 in the way that the Zeiss 8x25 was a quantum leap better than any of my 30mm-32mm binoculars. I should have already known that from your comments and Steve's review of the B2.

Peter: Thanks for adding your own independent observations. My personal opinion is that CA is always there, it is just a question of how well it is controlled. And under sufficiently stressful lighting conditions I've yet to see any binocular or telescope where I couldn't easily detect CA off axis. It is more a question of how stressing and how far off axis. The question of how much CA you can have before it degrades your viewing experience is much more subtle and subjective.

Alan

ailevin said:

Peter: Thanks for adding your own independent observations. My personal opinion is that CA is always there, it is just a question of how well it is controlled. And under sufficiently stressful lighting conditions I've yet to see any binocular or telescope where I couldn't easily detect CA off axis. It is more a question of how stressing and how far off axis. The question of how much CA you can have before it degrades your viewing experience is much more subtle and subjective.

Alan

Click to expand...

Alan,

There are (fortunate) people, for example on this forum, who do not see the CA fringes, but I agree with you that any binoculars is bound to have some (off-axis) CA, to a lesser or greater extent. According to my own experience, Zeiss Victory FL binoculars control CA almost to perfection. I heard that an inexpensive porro prism series of binoculars made by Delta Optical (Poland) control CA even better, but I haven't tried them myself.

Peter

Alan,

That is nicely done. It is also pretty interesting in that it is the only comparison of the two have seen. I already know the SV EL is not, and likely never will be, the binocular for me. All Lecias I have tried I have issues with eye cup extension not matching ER specs. That leaves the Zeiss, and at this point I have had no opportunity to see either the HT or the SF.

Your descriptions seem about right, based on my Maven experience, and I've had the B2 for quite some time now. You state the actual fov of 389 feet. Is that a measured by you fov? I have had several Maven B2 9x45 on the tripod and all have just slightly exceeded 400'. That afov comes out to a hair over 69*

I am one of those who don't see CA on a properly focused binocular. I can usually induce some CA in nearly any binocular, but NOT the B2. I don't disagree that it is always there, but I simply don't see it.

Every so often I get the idea I need to try a brand name glass, and I have been interested in one of the Zeiss models for a while.

Chuck is right the MavenB2 is indeed that good.

I look forward to the evolving comparisons.

I've had the Zeiss SF 8x42 out in the field twice in the past two days. Yesterday afternoon I visited a hotspot called Sand Dune Park. It attracts interesting migrants since it is wooded and climbs to a relatively unique high point quite close to the beach. Highlights for me were a pair of Black-and-white Warblers, a Townsend Warbler, and the first Yellow-rumped Warblers I've seen this season. The site was also crawling with Pacific-slope Flycatchers.

Then this morning I took a visitor from out of town to Madrona Marsh for a couple hours. Although the marsh remains very dry, the Red-winged Blackbirds have returned in large numbers and a variety of sparrows are starting to show up. We also saw an American Kestrel, A Cooper's Hawk and a Red-shouldered Hawk. The Scaly-breasted Munia were showing off in largish flocks and that was a life bird for my visitor, so that was nice.

No big surprises from this binocular in the field and I can find nothing to complain about. News Flash! Zeiss's top of the line 8x42 is a wonderful binocular. My only issue yesterday was that I found myself holding it more chocked up toward the oculars like I hold the Maven just out of habit, so I had to consciously adjust back to my Zeiss grip. Today, I have no idea how I held it and I pretty much forgot I was using a new binocular. It doesn't carry or handle very differently than the Maven. I know it is lighter and so it feels lighter, but it's not like switching to the Maven B3 8x30 or Zeiss 8x25 where the binocular seems not to be there when not in use. A couple times in the past 1.5 years I've been out a long time or covering what for me was rough terrain, and I wondered if it would have been easier bringing a smaller binocular. It is hard to say if the difference in weight of the Zeiss would have mattered in those rare cases or not.

I think the SF 8x42 is marginally quicker on target and in focus than the Maven 9x45, but that could be the lower magnification and larger actual field of view. I also like 8x better when I am hunting a bird inside foliage. in other words, at fairly close distance where there is insufficient depth of focus and I have to find the right focal point inside or on the far side of a tree or shrub, I prefer 8x. Today, in more open field situations I found myself wondering if the small boost to 9x might have been helpful. For instance, when we were looking at a distant Kestrel (or is it?). Also, I may be rationalizing or conjuring up this effect, but the combination of lower magnification and flatter field creates the impression of less dimensionality or depth in the view through the Zeiss.

I said earlier that there was no quantum leap difference between these two, so I guess some would say this is a hair splitting event or was it BB stacking? (Yes, a bow to Bill's curmudgeonly good sense). The fact that I forgot I was testing out the new binocular today says that it has no distracting mechanical or optical quirks. The best compliment I can give a binocular is that I forget I'm looking through it because I'm just in the scene. This is the case for both of these binoculars I think the next significant test will be switching back to the Maven after I have been using the Zeiss for a few more days.

Alan

P.S for Lee: With respect to quick looks vs. long periods of observation, yesterday had more long observations and today had more quick looks. Yesterday, I was on my own mostly hunting for some specific warblers as well as sighting whatever few in. When I spotted movement that seemed bird-like, I'd do a couple quick takes to make sure I had it in my sights then pretty much follow movements and stay on that region of the foliage hoping for a good look. Once I acquired a target I'd observe it for as long as it stayed in the same area. For some birds that might not be long, but for instance, the Black-and-white Warbler tends to creep around and hop around the same trunks or branches for quite a long time, certainly minutes to ten minutes or more. So I definitely had some fairly long observing periods, at least by my standards.

Alan,

Great to hear a report of someone actually looking at birds thru their binoculars! Here, here!

The SF has so many nice traits...8X, light weight, and huge FOV is certainly two of them. I found the SF 8X42 much quicker to find birds(especially those that were CLOSE) than even an SV 8.5X42. I kinda wish the Maven 45mm came in 8X!

This comparison has been a really good influence on my birding. And while I'm patting myself on the back here, timing it with Fall migration was alright too. In the past four days I've been out five times to four different spots for 1.5-4 hours at a time plus casual viewing out on my deck. It has been surprisingly productive and enjoyable. Yesterday I saw a gorgeous White-tailed Kite at first perched with those piercing eyes and then in flight with those long graceful wings and markings that made it look just a bit like a WWII fighter. This morning I hunted down my first White-crowned Sparrows of the season as well as a Western Bluebird couple that have returned to Madrona Marsh. No luck with the European Goldfinch reported there recently.

I've been exclusively using the Zeiss 8x42 SF and literally haven't pick up any other binocular. I have nothing but praise for the binocular--both the view and the handling are excellent. I don't know what I would change other than magically turning it into an 8x32 at half the weight with slightly faster focus |=)|. The main thing that strikes me when I pause to consider, is the slightly lower magnification and attendant slightly greater actual field of view. I believe this is an advantage over the 9x for getting on target quicker, and also for finding focus in tight quarters. However, once I'm on a bird in flight, I don't think I see quite as much detail tracking with the 8x compared to 9x. My overall impression is that I could easily forget which one I was using if it wasn't for the opposite direction of focus. I'm neither blown away by the flat field, nor having any issue with the dreaded rolling ball effect.

Tomorrow morning I'm going out again, but this time with the Maven B2. We'll see how much I miss the Zeiss and whether I sense much in the way of performance differences in switching back.

Alan

P.S. Chuck: Maven makes a 7x45 but the actual FOV is just marginally better because the apparent FOV is smaller. I know that with telescope eyepieces as you go to lower magnification (longer focal length eyepiece) at some point it is necessary to go to a wider barrel format to get wide field of view and perhaps there is a similar issue with binoculars.

P.S. Steve: I was just quoting published specs. My impression is that the actual FOV is different basically because of difference in magnification and the apparent fields are pretty similar. I know everybody has different preferences and different peeves, but I'm generally OK with apparent field of view >60 degrees, so I haven't been inspired to measure it accurately as I know you have.

Alan,

I just check fov closely enough to see whether or not it meets the specification. I don't care much whether or not a listed 420' fov at 8x shows up as say 416 or 424 feet. I asked the question from curiosity to see whether you had measured yours or not. That and you specified the 7x45 fov dimension. Like you I am OK with the afov at 60* or thereabouts. I long ago gave up being surprised at the differing reactions from different people to the same binocular. At any rate I'll be interested to see how your comparison progresses. :t:

Today I switched back to the Maven B2 9x45 for an outing at Ken Malloy Regional Park in Harbor City. We were a group of 21 including several very experienced birders. We spent a little over three hours under bright but overcast skies that threatened rain and then cleared to sunny. Over 50 species were reported by a couple folks, though I didn't see that many. Highlights for me were a Tropical Kingbird, a male Pin-tailed Whydah, and a Western Grebe swimming right beside a Clark's Grebe. It was a real teaching moment with both birds in the field of view and I had knowledgeable folks pointing out all the differences between the two.

I noticed that the eyecups on the Maven and perhaps the eyepieces are a little larger than the Zeiss, and I think the small Zeiss eyecups fit my face a bit better. I didn't notice differences in binocular size, weight, or balance. Maybe my muscle memory is not very long lasting or I have used the Maven for so long it seems quite comfortable to go back to it. I'm not stating this as a plus or minus, but it seems like there are more comfortable ways to hold the Maven and like there is a right way to hold the Zeiss. I believe that the Zeiss does feel a little lighter when viewing, but for long periods of observing the weight of my arms is more a factor than the weight of either binocular. I also think the Zeiss is a bit easier to use one handed, but I don't use either binocular one handed very often.

I was hunting for or correcting focus less today. I'm not sure if it is a difference between binoculars or just different observing conditions. Maven focus is a little faster and a little stiffer than the Zeiss so that could be a factor or it could just be that all the prior experience with the Maven gives me a bias. The observing today favored the slightly higher magnification of the Maven. The one time I wondered about the Maven performance was right at the beginning of our walk when we were viewing a distant perched White-tailed Kite against the bright overcast sky. Oddly, I had viewed the same species at a different site at somewhat closer range with the Zeiss a couple days before. While I thought that the extra magnification of the Maven was helpful in discerning the posture and head shape, I thought that given the tough lighting situation, the Zeiss might have given me better contrast for the markings even though the image scale would have been a little smaller.

As with the Zeiss, I pretty quickly forgot which binocular I was using. I was reminded when one of my fellow birders asked me if that was the Maven B2. We had been birding together yesterday at Madrona, and when he asked about the Zeiss binocular I was using, I mentioned that my regular binocular was the Maven B2. He had read about Maven but had never seen or looked through a Maven B2. I told him I was going to be using the Maven at Ken Malloy on Wednesday and I'd be happy to let him check it out.

Summary from Field Tests
Just as there was no sense of a jump up in class switching to the Zeiss, there was no big difference switching back to Maven. As Chuck and Steve have said, the Maven B2 really is that good. And now on to the hair splitting.

In all fairness, the majority of the differences, subtle though they may be, are advantage Zeiss. My field experiences are pretty consistent with my initial summary. However, I would say that in the field, the ergonomic differences were a little less than anticipated and the optical differences a little more than anticipated. And further, those differences were not quite what I expected. The main ergonomic advantage of the Zeiss to me was comfort of the eye cups, and also the handling advantage of 8x. I expected the open-bridge design and balance shift toward eyepieces to be the bigger deal. The main optical advantage of the Zeiss was a small improvement in on axis contrast in very strongly backlit conditions. I suspect it is superior control of on-axis CA in the Zeiss as the Maven has outstanding baffling and glare control. The main ergonomic advantages for the Maven were slightly faster focus and somewhat better tactile/focus feel. The main optical advantages for the Maven were a slightly more lively image showing more depth. I suspect that the liveliness and depth were some combination was 8x vs. 9x and flat field vs. field curvature at the edges.

I want to do a little more side-by-side comparing based on my field tests and then I will write a brief final conclusion.

Alan

Summary and Conclusion

The Original Question. Do I prefer the Zeiss Victory SF 8x42 to the Maven B2 9x45, and if I do, am I willing to pay for that preference?

The Fine Print. Like Steve, I was unable to find much in the way of direct comparison of these two online. I've tried to state what is or is not important to me so that others might recalibrate somewhat to their priorities. As I've emphasized throughout this comparison, choosing a binocular is personal and subjective. I think it is much easier to reject a binocular based on a specification or someone else's review than to select one. For instance, IPD limits my choices. Also, to quote the wisdom of Dirty Harry, “A Man's got to know his limitations.” What are you willing or able to pay for optics? For me that has changed with time and personal circumstances, having both ups and downs. Here is an opportunity that I missed. If you want to buy a Zeiss SF and save $1800, then don't buy the $100, $200, $500, and $1000 binoculars first (shamelessly lifted from an article about photo tripods). I also believe that what you want from a binocular can change with time and experience and also as you use it for different kinds of observing. I will never be a one binocular guy, or even a two binocular guy or ... , where does it end? But that is a different post.

Side-by-side Once More. I compared the two under sunny conditions and briefly added the Zeiss Victory 8x25 to the mix. The off axis CA control in the 8x25 is similar to the SF 8x42 and better than the B2 9x45. The 8x25 is harder to hold steady and the ergonomics are not as nice as either 8x42 or 9x45, but the on-axis view is very good and as I've said before the handling is surprisingly nice for such a small binocular.

I had my favorite strongly backlit test conditions with reflections off the water behind birds flying in the foreground including Pelicans diving for food. Observations were mostly at 1/4 mile or further pulling back to as close as 30 ft on occasion. The focus speed of both Zeiss binoculars was similar, ~ 1/4 turn from infinity to 30 ft, but for the Maven it was only about 1/8 turn. So it really is a faster focus than I thought. The Zeiss SF shows better color differentiation and has better contrast with the strong back lighting. While this is a somewhat extreme test just before everything becomes a silhouette, it confirms my field experience that the Zeiss has a small contrast advantage on axis. As before, 9x gives some advantages to the Maven and 8x gives some advantages to the Zeiss; the viewing today probably favored the 9x. Once again I often found myself confused about which one I was holding while making mental notes, and I'd have to feel for the hinge or see whether infinity was clockwise or counter-clockwise.

And the Winner Is. It is surprisingly close as has been the case since day one. While I'd love to collect more data or have some insight to tip the balance more decisively, I'm unlikely to learn much more about these two in the short term. I prefer the Zeiss, not because of any one thing, but rather as a result of a number of things being slightly better and only a few being slightly worse. Also, it is the better binocular in terms of specifications, but the specs don't tell the whole story. I could have saved a bunch of time and words if I had just echoed Peter's advice a week ago: “if on a budget buy the B2 (one of the best offerings in its price range), else get the SF.”

It would have been much easier if the Zeiss had blown away the Maven. BTW, I understand that for some people it's possible that the difference in field curvature or CA control or some other thing would be a blow out making their choice simpler. But to my eyes the differences are very small, perhaps smaller than trade offs due to 8x vs. 9x. And much to my surprise the handling of the two was harder for me to choose between than the optics. That is an area where I really expected to have a stronger preference for the Zeiss. I do prefer the Zeiss except for focus speed and tension. You'd expect this because it is shorter, lighter, has better balance, but the Maven hangs in there with good balance, great tactile feel and surprisingly gripable shape. Both binoculars are good enough that I forget I am using a binocular, let alone worry about which is which.

Pay the Price? Am I willing to pay the premium for my preference when I can so easily forget which binocular I'm using? I know it sounds crazy when phrased that way, but today my thinking is, keep the Zeiss and pay the price. I want to use the Maven for a couple days in the field, then switch back to the Zeiss before my final decision and that will bring me close enough to the return deadline that I will need to decide.

Alan

Alan
So, no final conclusion yet? Another cliff-hanger!!
Will he?
Won't he?

Nicely thought out Alan and nicely written up too. Thanks for sharing.

Lee

Basically I can have a great deal of empathy for buy the most expensive one if you can afford it position. I have long since concluded that the prime driver in optics satisfaction is a users ability to shut of the little voices screaming our ear about this one vs that one and thinking there has to something better. That is where marketing genius comes to play. The thing with the most expensive is that it is easier to quiet the voices screaming in our ears, in other words "just shut up and let me use the binocular". You have the knowledge that there is quite likely nothing better than whatever top tier glass you choose, hence the voices can be largely ignored.

From my personal experience, I was likely spoiled by my first real life, impactful, WOW moment with the Leica Trinovid. That was in about 1992 and by the time I got into comparisons in the early 2000's the mid range had significantly improved. Today's alpha class just do not WOW me like the Trinovid. Additionally I was raised to buy value for the dollar, something that is essentially engrained somewhere, somehow in my DNA. I'd be hard pressed to justify the price variation between the two with no more differences than what Allan finds to exist, unless it does WOW me in some way.

I don't think Allan will ever be able to significantly separate the the Maven and the Zeiss. What difference exist he has likely defined pretty well. I can agree with his comparisons, but the binoculars likely have to be side by side and you can drive yourself crazy looking for differences that fade into thin air when you have just one of the two with you. Allan has a pretty good illustration here of the struggle we can get into choosing binoculars.

As a minor point here, I have yet to be able, under any circumstance, to induce CA anywhere in the image of the B2.

There is not either a right or wrong choice here. Pick one, go use it, and-enjoy the view.

Or get both, just kidding of course. Unless you can get a SF in lightly used condition. I do not have any Maven glass but some friends who hunt have both the 9 and 11X45, and they attest to their optics and durability.

Andy W.

P.S. Night Viewing. I had clear skies last night for the first time in over a week so I compared the Zeiss and Maven in my light polluted view out to sea. I thought that the bright clusters that I could see were easier in the Maven as should be expected with both higher power and larger aperture. Judging by the Adler Index (Magnification*Aperture^1/2), the scores are Maven 60 and Zeiss 52. Also I was able to pick up faint stray light from a street lamp well out of the field in the Zeiss at just the right angle, but there was no such effect in the Maven. So while I intend neither of these to be primarily a night glass, the Maven B2 9x45 seems more suited to astronomy.

Lee: Ah the drama of the binocular section of the bird forum. I'm glad we have this venue to act out a bit, because I am and have always been passionate about binoculars. Also, this forum spares my family and friends, so you have their thanks as well.

Steve: I have valued your advice and I continue to appreciate your reviews and comparisons of so many binoculars. I definitely agree with your conclusion and largely agree with your analysis. The voices in my head are more like, "how well is this performing for the task at hand." Perhaps I spent too much time as a system engineer conducting trade studies and reviewing requirements. I know that to some it looks like I collect, but whether it is fountain pens, or telescopes, or eyepieces, or astronomy binoculars, or birding binoculars, and the list goes on, I usually try a range of options to help me decide what works best for me. The closer I get to the sweet spot of good performance and few annoyances, the more time I spend fully involved with the task. i rarely revisit performance issues once I make a selection unless there is a technology shift and a significant change in my circumstances or use case.

While as you say, it may seem like a struggle, it is more like solving a problem where the result is satisfying partly because of the time and effort necessary to reach an answer. I expect you have that sense about all the effort you put into reviewing. It is a combination of knowing the lay of the land and knowing your priorities so that the decision seems very natural. This summer I realized that though I was happy with the B2, I was never going to quiet the voices in my head unless I had the Zeiss SF 8x42 in hand for a while, or I was put on new meds. The fact that it is a hard decision is a tribute to the Maven for what can be done today at the $1K price point.

Last, but certainly not least, and in line with Lee's light touch, it is important to keep tongue tightly in cheek while wringing our hands over my problem of whether to choose a $1,000 or $2,500 binocular. I am very lucky to have such a choice, both in terms of my circumstances (including SWMBO), and the fact that not so long ago, neither of these instruments would be available at any price.

Best Regards,
Alan

Alan
A great explanation of how you have arrived at Maven vs Zeiss, which isn't a competitive pairing that would leap to the forefront of many binomaniacs worldwide. But thats the thing about binos. There is satisfaction in the most unexpected places. I can remember telling Gilmore Girl a few years back that I would never go near a Meopta MeoStar 8x32 because with all those swirling spots on the armour it looked like it had some disease.

Then I went and picked one up and looked through it. Suddenly it was cute and feelsome with a super view that just appealed so strongly. This taught me to try not to form opinions about binos until I have personally picked them up and handled them and had a look through them. Sounds a bit obvious really.

So Maven vs Zeiss it is and I am sure you will be very happy whichever way that goes.

Lee

Just a quick correction to my earlier night viewing comment. What I had identified as faint stray light in the Zeiss was just a reflection of dim light from behind me in one eyepiece. The Zeiss is just as well baffled as the Maven and has no stray light or internal reflections at night.

Thursday I had clear night and a chance to view a young Moon as well as some bright clusters out to sea. The Moon is a very good target for seeing any glare or scattering at night and both binoculars performed superbly. Given that both binoculars handle daytime glare very well, this is not surprising. Also, I find that any motion or shake is much easier to detect at night. The Maven is every bit as easy to hold steady at 9x as the Zeiss at 8x.

Alan

Paying the Price

In a surprise ending to no one, I am keeping both binoculars, at least for the time being. I should have one 8x42, right? After all, Chuck set the example and Andy told me to do it .

I started this thread with a preamble about the subjectivity of choosing binoculars. This is in no way a dismissal of specifications or objective measurements. Yet, I don't think that such an analysis completely captures or even determines the first person experience and aesthetics of using a fine optical instrument. There is no doubt that both the Maven B2 9x45 and the Zeiss SF 8x42 are fine optics. Further, I really enjoy using both.

The Zeiss SF 8x42 is a better binocular for me in most observing situations. The advantages are increased field of view at 8x and marginally better contrast on axis, particularly in difficult lighting. However, the fact that Maven runs neck and neck with Zeiss at a fraction of the price is admirable. In no way does having the Zeiss make me disappointed with the Maven. Anyone who thinks the Maven B2 is too heavy and/or too big had better look closely at the weight and size of the Zeiss (or for that matter top of the line Leica or Swarovski). And while I can look for and see some differences in the view, the wow factor of that first view through the Maven is the same wow. Last but not least, though I have no experience directly with Zeiss, I rather enjoyed working directly with Maven. I like their business model, I like their attitude, and I like their attention to detail.

Now back to the birds. I saw my first Yellow-crowned Night Heron this week, and there were four of them!

Alan