Let me begin by saying I'm going to call it the way I saw it through my eyes. If you own any of the binoculars mentioned, please feel free to comment as you please. For this run of tests, I limited myself to 8X models.
Zeiss FL 8X42
Today I got my hands on a Zeiss FL 8X42. Sitting next to it on the countertop were a Leica Ultravid 8X42 and a Swarovski 8.5X42.
The FL was a serious disappointment considering some of the reviews I've read. In general, I found the overall build quality of the FL inferior to the Leica or Swaro. I don't use eyecups so I can't comment on those. Eye relief was OK and the low IPD suited me just fine. So far, so good.
I thought the diopter mechanism was poorly designed and the focus wheel dialed in/out of focus much too fast. Since we usually set the diopter and forget about it, I won't make a big deal out of diopter design or operation. Focus control is another story. Maybe it was a result of shallow depth of field but I found myself going in/out of focus much too often as I spent time viewing close and distant objects. My guess is shallow depth of field.
Henry was dead on. Off-center sharpness in the 8X I tested was not good and I think the argument "Put the bird in the center" is ludicrous when applied to a $1400 binocular. What do I mean by not good? I mean unacceptable to a discriminating eye. If Stephen Ingraham really said this bin is optically better than an SE 8X32 I want to talk to him. Brighter? Probably. Sharper? NO. Easier to use? NO. A more pleasing view? Not to me it wasn’t! Enough said.
The topic of selecting from a group of bins arose in respect to the FL so maybe, just maybe, the 8X I looked at was at the bottom of the quality pile. I don't know and I don't care because I expect every $1400 bin to meet very high quality standards. Should any of us expect less? I put the FL aside wondering what it was people were impressed by.
Leica Ultravid 8X42 and Swarovski EL 8.5X42
We've all read opinions about these two bins, so here's one more. Both bins are exceptionally pleasing to use. I think the Ultravid 8X was a smidgen brighter and perhaps a gnat's hair sharper. They were so close to my eye I found myself going back and forth, preferring one then the other and back again. In the end, I decided I preferred the EL. Here's why.
The edge sharpness of the Ultravid is good, but inferior to the EL. Forget about measurements; it's about perception. The image in the EL window is presented more uniformly than in the Ultravid and, as a result, there is less visual stress. It's more about what isn't there (distortion, fuzziness, etc.) than what is.
I tested the EL and the Ultravid outside. I remember the EL handling flare a bit better than the Ultravid, but I didn't spend much time on it. It was just a quick impression. It seemed like the Ultravid was a gnat's hair sharper but it was really hard to confirm. My gut tells me to give the sharpness edge to the Ultravid with the caveat that the EL's overall image quality offset any difference in sharpness. Again, it's about perception, not careful measurements.
The clincher was a close focus test (from ~11 feet) and the EL nailed it. The Ultravid was sharp but the image suffered slightly from the Ultravid's poorer edge sharpness. The uniform image of the EL made the experience surreal. The EL also has superb depth of field and I like that a lot. The fact that the EL would allow me to get closer to my subject is also a plus.
Conclusion:
If you are happy with your FL, I'm happy for you. There is nothing better to a birder than a fine binocular. If you are seriously considering an FL, I strongly advise you to critically examine your preferences and then critically compare the FL to Leica and Swarovski models.
I would be happy to use any of the Ultravid models (7X, 8X) I've examined. All were very fine instruments with acceptable high-quality fields of view. I think the 7X might be the better of the two models, though I've never compared them side-by-side. I did compare a 7X to my SE and I came away liking the 7X very much!
The EL does it all for me. I can pick it up, dial in the image and get on with viewing. For me, it is the better view.
John
Zeiss FL 8X42
Today I got my hands on a Zeiss FL 8X42. Sitting next to it on the countertop were a Leica Ultravid 8X42 and a Swarovski 8.5X42.
The FL was a serious disappointment considering some of the reviews I've read. In general, I found the overall build quality of the FL inferior to the Leica or Swaro. I don't use eyecups so I can't comment on those. Eye relief was OK and the low IPD suited me just fine. So far, so good.
I thought the diopter mechanism was poorly designed and the focus wheel dialed in/out of focus much too fast. Since we usually set the diopter and forget about it, I won't make a big deal out of diopter design or operation. Focus control is another story. Maybe it was a result of shallow depth of field but I found myself going in/out of focus much too often as I spent time viewing close and distant objects. My guess is shallow depth of field.
Henry was dead on. Off-center sharpness in the 8X I tested was not good and I think the argument "Put the bird in the center" is ludicrous when applied to a $1400 binocular. What do I mean by not good? I mean unacceptable to a discriminating eye. If Stephen Ingraham really said this bin is optically better than an SE 8X32 I want to talk to him. Brighter? Probably. Sharper? NO. Easier to use? NO. A more pleasing view? Not to me it wasn’t! Enough said.
The topic of selecting from a group of bins arose in respect to the FL so maybe, just maybe, the 8X I looked at was at the bottom of the quality pile. I don't know and I don't care because I expect every $1400 bin to meet very high quality standards. Should any of us expect less? I put the FL aside wondering what it was people were impressed by.
Leica Ultravid 8X42 and Swarovski EL 8.5X42
We've all read opinions about these two bins, so here's one more. Both bins are exceptionally pleasing to use. I think the Ultravid 8X was a smidgen brighter and perhaps a gnat's hair sharper. They were so close to my eye I found myself going back and forth, preferring one then the other and back again. In the end, I decided I preferred the EL. Here's why.
The edge sharpness of the Ultravid is good, but inferior to the EL. Forget about measurements; it's about perception. The image in the EL window is presented more uniformly than in the Ultravid and, as a result, there is less visual stress. It's more about what isn't there (distortion, fuzziness, etc.) than what is.
I tested the EL and the Ultravid outside. I remember the EL handling flare a bit better than the Ultravid, but I didn't spend much time on it. It was just a quick impression. It seemed like the Ultravid was a gnat's hair sharper but it was really hard to confirm. My gut tells me to give the sharpness edge to the Ultravid with the caveat that the EL's overall image quality offset any difference in sharpness. Again, it's about perception, not careful measurements.
The clincher was a close focus test (from ~11 feet) and the EL nailed it. The Ultravid was sharp but the image suffered slightly from the Ultravid's poorer edge sharpness. The uniform image of the EL made the experience surreal. The EL also has superb depth of field and I like that a lot. The fact that the EL would allow me to get closer to my subject is also a plus.
Conclusion:
If you are happy with your FL, I'm happy for you. There is nothing better to a birder than a fine binocular. If you are seriously considering an FL, I strongly advise you to critically examine your preferences and then critically compare the FL to Leica and Swarovski models.
I would be happy to use any of the Ultravid models (7X, 8X) I've examined. All were very fine instruments with acceptable high-quality fields of view. I think the 7X might be the better of the two models, though I've never compared them side-by-side. I did compare a 7X to my SE and I came away liking the 7X very much!
The EL does it all for me. I can pick it up, dial in the image and get on with viewing. For me, it is the better view.
John
Last edited:
