• 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.

When a new Zeiss binocular? (2 Viewers)

AlbertoJ said:
I think Zeiss should make soon a new binocular to compete with the last Swarovski (Swarovision).
His Zeiss FL is from 2004.
Click to expand...

Just a little copy/paste from another Zeiss thread. Apparently the rumors could be true as some info was just related from one of the Zeiss NA repair folks....

The lady claims that the 10x40 Conquest was discontinued this year and the current 8x30 and 10x40 Conquest models go back 8-10 yrs. In fact she said the 10x40 was 86'd because of being replaced by one of the new models in the spring of 2012.
Click to expand...

So maybe we aren't just looking at new "FL-level" bins but rather a complete redo of their entire lineup.
 
Maybe a Chinese built Zeiss budget series?
I would not mind a mechanically reliable Zeiss branded glass selling for less than a small country GNP, even if the parts were made in China.
 
james holdsworth said:
Henry,

The fall-off of the red and blue wavelengths, how will that show in the field?

I ask as I have found the FL to be bright, but not really that outstanding at dusk, compared to other similar bins. What is consistantly better in the FL's, though, is that white's seem whiter....almost boosted or luminous.
Click to expand...

In bright light the eye is most sensitive to yellow-green light, and in low light it's most sensitive to blue-green light.
 
temmie said:
@ Brocknroller: since when has Swarovski produced a lighter binocular in the same class than Zeiss? ...
Click to expand...

The Swaro CL is nearly as lightweight, and more compact, and very similar in other specs to the Conquest. The only "spec" where the CL is not competitive with the Conquest is price.

8x30 Conquest weight: 17.46 oz
8x30 Companion weight: 17.64 oz

8x30 Conquest H x W.: 5.20" x 4.53"
8x30 Companion H x W.: 4.69" x 4.49"

8x30 Conquest FOV: 6.9*
8x30 Companion FOV: 7.1*

8x30 Conquest ER: 14.6 mm
8x30 Companion ER: 15 mm

8x30 Conquest Close Focus: 9.84'
8x30 Companion Close Focus: 9.84'

8x30 Conquest Price: $569
8x30 Companion Price: $929

To me, the failure of the CL to accomplish its mission of being "an entry level to the Swarovski family of optics" was their high price. If Swaro had made the CLs in Hungary, they could have been competitively priced.

I don't know how well the CLs are selling but I haven't heard much about them after the initial hemming and hawing about where they fit into the price/quality scheme, with the consensus eventually being reached as the "second tier" (though not before someone kept insisting they were nearly as good as the SV EL! :).

Brock
 
james holdsworth said:
Henry,

The fall-off of the red and blue wavelengths, how will that show in the field?

I ask as I have found the FL to be bright, but not really that outstanding at dusk, compared to other similar bins. What is consistantly better in the FL's, though, is that white's seem whiter....almost boosted or luminous.
Click to expand...

The fall off in the red makes them appear "cooler" than the "warmer" Nikons and Leicas. Some people interpret the FL's color balance as having less "apparent contrast".

Here's our own Frank D's words:

"Though the Zeiss is “above average” in its presentation of contrast the discussion of its particular representation of contrast has often been kicked around. It does not have quite the apparent contrast of the Leica Ultravid, known in particular for this characteristic, but I find it comparable to just about anything else out there."

Brock
 
henry link said:
... The weakest thing about the current FL's is astigmatism beginning at 12-15 degrees off-axis.

Second, better control of lateral color.

Third, an increase in the bandwidth of the T* coatings, which have good peak transmission at green/yellow wavelengths, but roll off too quickly in both the red and the blue.
Click to expand...

Henry's right. I can't say I ever really got used to the astigmatism. I suspect Zeiss will remedy that. And I like the color/contrast of the latest bins a bit more than the FL. I'm sure Zeiss is on that as well.

Brock, I'll bet Zeiss does drop the ribs, just for aesthetic reasons and to trim down the barrel. Oddly, in hand I can't say as I even notice them much. I'm pretty sure they don't actually DO anything.

A suggestion for something radical? Super-lightweight with some real space-age materials. Imagine a 23 ounce full-field (400'+) 8x42.

Mark
 
Brock,
Your Conquest vs Companion spec blow by blow is interesting, thanks. Those are the things that can be counted and numerically compared.

According the reviews, there are some things that can't be counted that are still very noticeable. The Conquest is apparently not only modest in its optical aspirations, like the Companion, but has a rather cheap construction (for Zeiss) to match. The focus of the Conquest is sometimes criticized for being somewhat rough, lacking the exemplary smooth feel of the FL. The rubber cladding has been called too sticky, and attractive to dirt and dust. The Companion, on the other hand, seems to be above reproach in fit and feel, appearance, and mechanics, a true "taste of Swarovski" in these areas. I'm not so sure the Companion is a failure. Doesn't everybody appreciate these things?

But, $370 worth? Well, sure. Go clothes shopping with your wife, if you want to get an idea how much more it costs to get something that's not just good, but really nice.
Ron
 
Last edited:
FrankD said:
the question should be what other optical area could Zeiss improve upon. Are there other optical aberrations that aren't being corrected for in any of the other binocular designs? I am sure there are. The question then becomes which one should they address and how much of an observable improvement would it make to the final product.
Click to expand...

Answer:

etudiant said:
If restricted to solely optical design and utility, one goal might be to recreate the ease of viewing offered by the big 8x60 WW2 Zeiss porros in a smaller and more handy package.
With modern glass and coatings, maybe it is possible, although perhaps there are a few laws of physics that will need circumvention. ... it would be nice to get a really wide angle glass with good eye relief. The latter is another candidate for bending physical laws. None of these concepts will be easily doable, so a multi million dollar engineering effort is a prerequisite. Given the small numbers of high end binoculars that are sold annually, prospects for actually implementing any such designs appear remote.
Click to expand...

What etudiant said is what I had in mind: A binocular with a more comfortable viewing experince. That is, one that allows your eyes to be placed in a large and comfortable zone behind the eyepice and still shows you the entire field of view. Yes, this will require somehow bending the laws of physics but it is possible. A certain member of this forum has demonstrated this concept to certain key people at a certain alpha-class sports optics company. It is not certain how much further R&D is needed to turn this concept into a top quality observation instrument though.
 
Last edited:
About what Etudiant said:
a Zeiss representative said to me the following last week:
"I can tell you the 10x56 and 8x56 won't be replaced any time soon, There binoculars have a very specific market, directed to hunters who don't seem to care too much about the weight. And optically, they are already top notch." (end quote).
 
AlbertoJ said:
FrankD, I see my thread bothers you.
For my part I will only discuss about binoculars and not debatable opinions.
I won´t answer you anything else about that.
Click to expand...

?

I am confused. Did you misinterpret something I posted earlier? Your original question was whether or not Zeiss was going to introduce a new binocular. In another Zeiss thread one poster mentioned that he had spoken to someone at Zeiss who mentioned that something was coming out in the spring of 2012. Isn't that related to what you were asking?

For what it is worth I don't find your thread bothersome at all. Quite the contrary. I like the fact that folks are discussing potentially new Zeiss offerings.
 
Dear friends,

Please save this poor soul.
Here we have a thread where suggestions for the future of our beloved instruments can be posted freely. Here we have over 30 contributions, from 16 participants, and in only two instances (Etudiant and Omid) the subject of angle of view is brought up.
I find this disappointing, if not to say appalling.

Now, what's going on?

Is the wide angle view no longer an issue for the birding community?
Are we satisfied with the FoV the optical industry is presenting us with nowadays?
Is it beyond our imagination to appreciate say 10 deg. field over 8?


Renze
 
Last edited:
I am already very pleased with the angle of my beloved 7x42. No other brand does a better job in 7x42.

If Zeiss wants to make something impressive, I am thinking about a 7-20x50, very lightweight, with mechanical image stabilisation (no batteries etc), and a good FOV over the whole range and no significant loss of transmission. Ofcourse waterproof and fairly compact and solidly built.
Something that would make any bird spotting scope meaningless... :)
 
Ok FrankD, all clear, I misinterpret what posted earlier. Excuse me for the misunderstanding.
Written language often gives that kind of confusions or misinterpretations.
Best regards
 
Renze, if you read my second post I do mention field of view not being reduced as a trade off for larger zone of center sharpness.

To me most important is how fast I can get on a bird. I tend to consider speed of focus and field of view. Speed of focus, how fast the dial turns and I guess depth of field. Not having to center my eyes on oculars helps too.

Zeiss 7x42 are pretty good at above which is why I own them. Bins are a tool and it's more than just sharpness. If new bins weighed less and were smaller and optics the same or little better(which is all I think is reasonably possible) I would consider them.

Mike
 
Renze,
I'd love to see a 7 x 42 with a 10 degree field of view which also has a flat field. But at a reasonable price!:'D
Bob
 
Renze,
I guess I just prefer 8x. I have 7x compact, but always feel like I lose a little detail that way.

That said, I have to say I don't really crave a super-wide field either. 400' in an 8x is just fine by me, and I can get by with less than that. I used one for years that only had 330' and I don't recall having any complaints. I wouldn't go back, but I think I could. For backpacking I sometimes use a compact cheapie with only 315'. It works, but it's pushing it. Nothing below that for sure.

Why don't I want more? I have no idea. Probably just what I'm used to.:-O But I'm not sure what a wider field would really get you for birding. Once you're used to the handling of a particular binocular you can get on the bird pretty much regardless of the FOV, can't you?

I definitely wouldn't want a wider field if it meant a) less eye relief, or b) fuzzy edges. Most of those old widefield porros aren't, if you wear glasses. I never could get used to not seeing the fieldstop. It just bugged me.

Fuzzy edges bug me too, if it's pronounced anyway. I didn't like the Zen 7x36 for instance.

Mark
 
temmie said:
About what Etudiant said:
a Zeiss representative said to me the following last week:
"I can tell you the 10x56 and 8x56 won't be replaced any time soon, There binoculars have a very specific market, directed to hunters who don't seem to care too much about the weight. And optically, they are already top notch." (end quote).
Click to expand...
That's a shame (because I have just been looking at these!). Maybe they'll introduce a good x50 instead with a good FOV...
 
Last edited:
michaelboustead said:
Renze, if you read my second post I do mention field of view not being reduced as a trade off for larger zone of center sharpness.

To me most important is how fast I can get on a bird. I tend to consider speed of focus and field of view. Speed of focus, how fast the dial turns and I guess depth of field. Not having to center my eyes on oculars helps too.

Zeiss 7x42 are pretty good at above which is why I own them. Bins are a tool and it's more than just sharpness. If new bins weighed less and were smaller and optics the same or little better(which is all I think is reasonably possible) I would consider them.

Mike
Click to expand...


Excuse me Mike, I definitely should have counted you in!
Also, I agree with you as well on the other factors involved, and how they're related.
Thanks,

Renze
 
Kammerdiner said:
Renze,
I guess I just prefer 8x. I have 7x compact, but always feel like I lose a little detail that way.

That said, I have to say I don't really crave a super-wide field either. 400' in an 8x is just fine by me, and I can get by with less than that. I used one for years that only had 330' and I don't recall having any complaints. I wouldn't go back, but I think I could. For backpacking I sometimes use a compact cheapie with only 315'. It works, but it's pushing it. Nothing below that for sure.

Why don't I want more? I have no idea. Probably just what I'm used to.:-O But I'm not sure what a wider field would really get you for birding. Once you're used to the handling of a particular binocular you can get on the bird pretty much regardless of the FOV, can't you?

I definitely wouldn't want a wider field if it meant a) less eye relief, or b) fuzzy edges. Most of those old widefield porros aren't, if you wear glasses. I never could get used to not seeing the fieldstop. It just bugged me.

Fuzzy edges bug me too, if it's pronounced anyway. I didn't like the Zen 7x36 for instance.

Mark
Click to expand...


I think a wide angle view is not so much a requisite for birding, as well as contributing to a more natural, easy, non-fatiguing view.
I notice that this aspect has become more and more important to me, and is certainly influenced by the excellent results shown by for instance Swarovski in their EL SV and SLC HD binoculars (both of them).

Renze
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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

E
How Waterproof are Zeiss binoculars ?
Replies
4
Views
540
Maljunulo
M
A
Carl Zeiss Jena DF 7x50 Extremly early model?
Replies
9
Views
747
Ignatius
Ignatius
E
Age of Used Zeiss Victory SF 10 x 42
Replies
4
Views
620
z-ben
Z
C
Zeiss SFL 10 x 40 or Swarovski EL 10x42 WB ? ?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Scott98
S
G
Inherited Zeiss binoculars
Replies
4
Views
953
Geometer
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top