• 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 could not agree with you more...when I got my pair I literally went to buy another model/another brand (about 1/3 of the price), and to benchmark my chosen pair with the best I comprared it vs the Swarovision 8.5x42 and the Zeiss SF 8x42.

I liked the Swarovision but didnt think it worth 3 times the price...and when I tried the Zeiss I was blown away, not only by its clarity but for the FOV. I went back to the drawing board and back to the shop a few times with different light conditions to perform additional testing, eventually I bought it and I havent regretted. What a binocs, it is such an amazing piece of kit!




I recently looked through the 8x42 SF and it was hands down the most comfortable view I ever had through a binocular.
I was looking for a new binocular after having used a 7x42 T*FL for the last 10 years. I went out to try a 8x42 HT after all the rave and could see just the slightest improvement compared to my trusty old 7x42: It was a bit closer, a tiny tiny bit sharper maybe (but most was due to the 8x compared to 7x) and the FOV didn't feel that much smaller. The 7x42 T*FL had a bit of a yellow hue when looking at a pure white object that the 8x42 HT didn't have.

But then I tried a 8x42 SF and the FOV was nothing short but amazing. Everything felt as wide as my 7x42 but closer. I thought I had a winner with the HT but am seriously considering the 8x42 SF as my next bin. The touted shifted in balance, because of more weight in the eyepiece, was just like everybody said: perfect.
Besides the fact that it's a bit big, the SF really feels like the better birder binocular.

Comparing to an 8.5 SV, I like the view in both but I am a sucker for fast, fluid, precise focusing bins and wide field of views that makes one get a bird in the bins quicker. Swarovski focusers often have backlash and even if not, they always feel a bit more grainy and slow in their focus. This in combination with a smaller FOV doesn't really help getting birds into view quickly.

[sidenote: Since I am a birder, I reckon a fast focus has resulted in many times the difference between seeing a fast moving bird and not seeing. I would dare to say I have seen 50-odd species more in my life due to the focus of my 7x42 T*FL (also combined with the great debt of field, of course)]

So the Swarovision remains a no-go... I must admit I like the ergonomics and the compactness of the 8x42 SLC a lot (and not to forget the view), and the focus is in a better position on that one compared to Swarovision.

But to stick with the SF: it strucks me that the (in my view) very very best birding binocular gets nothing but a topic that drifts off constantly and doesn't really show enough praise for a binocular I consider a better version of the Swarovision for birding. The only reservation I have to make is I didn't use it for longer than some minutes in a shop. So I hope to read a review any time soon Planetmaker so I have some more food for thought on whether to buy this one soon or not :)
 
Reviews are all well and good but you are going to have to take some risk and try the bin in the field for a few weeks - it really does take that long to conclude if they work in all situations and if they work ergonomically for you.

You are so right. Thirty minutes at a retail store or a binocular/birding venue really just doesn't cut it when it comes to binocular evaluation.
 
Have a link to reviews of the newest Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF 524223?
I see threads going back to the older grey models but no reviews of the newest 524223 yet?
Thanks

I tested an early grey one years ago, a somewhat faulty sample, and disliked it. I played around with an MK2 black one a week ago and was very pleased to see the coatings are now much lower intensity, reflecting red/tobacco, yellow, and blue. Colour reproduction seemed very similar to the Leicas I had for comparison which was not at all the case with the early grey SFs. Sharpness and contrast similar to the Swarovision I had at hand (with the Swarovision being way to blue in colour). So the main remaining issue with the SF IMO is if one finds the distortion/globe effect acceptable.
 
I tested an early grey one years ago, a somewhat faulty sample, and disliked it. I played around with an MK2 black one a week ago and was very pleased to see the coatings are now much lower intensity, reflecting red/tobacco, yellow, and blue. Colour reproduction seemed very similar to the Leicas I had for comparison which was not at all the case with the early grey SFs. Sharpness and contrast similar to the Swarovision I had at hand (with the Swarovision being way to blue in colour). So the main remaining issue with the SF IMO is if one finds the distortion/globe effect acceptable.
I just pulled out mine and the distortion/globe is so very minor that it's not even worth mentioning unless your a constant scanner and too hyper to stay still on a subject the way they are meant to be used
 
I tested an early grey one years ago, a somewhat faulty sample, and disliked it. I played around with an MK2 black one a week ago and was very pleased to see the coatings are now much lower intensity, reflecting red/tobacco, yellow, and blue. Colour reproduction seemed very similar to the Leicas I had for comparison which was not at all the case with the early grey SFs. Sharpness and contrast similar to the Swarovision I had at hand (with the Swarovision being way to blue in colour). So the main remaining issue with the SF IMO is if one finds the distortion/globe effect acceptable.

Is there any other evidence that Zeiss changed the AR coatings on the black versions of the SF? Not that I don't believe Tobias, but you would think more than one person would notice.
 
I don't believe the T* coating was changed from grey SFs to black ones. Can't see a difference between my old grey 10x and the newer black 8x and a coating change has never been mentioned by Gerry Dobler.

Lee
 
Is there any other evidence that Zeiss changed the AR coatings on the black versions of the SF? Not that I don't believe Tobias, but you would think more than one person would notice.


Subjective truth only means someone is honestly relating their impressions at that moment. We are not dealing with measurable facts, until proven otherwise. Last April on this forum the same poster described the grey SF in these terms: posts 44 and 45:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=350880&highlight=joke&page=2

"SF is dark and not especially 3D. A strange bin."

"The SF birdwatching thing is a bad joke. Why should a birdwatching bin have a strong green cast to increase contrast except to save Zeiss precision in manufacturing?"

Now, to the same individual's eyes, the revised SF with a new black armored sheath, revised focusing, and improved eyecups, also has achieved color reproduction that is on par with Leica, while attaining sharpness and contrast similar to Swarovski, though it is not at all evident that these specific characteristics were altered by the manufacturer in the revision process.

Even if the product spec hasn't necessarily changed to reflect these new perceptions, it is still nice to know that one's subjective evaluations can evolve in a more rational and positive direction, when given the opportunity.

Bravo Tobias! ;)


-Bill
 
Last edited:
So the coating colour reflections have not changed? It would be strange that Tobias would see different colours reflected back but no one else does...how about some photos of each, side by side...;)
 
Subjective truth only means someone is honestly relating their impressions at that moment. We are not dealing with measurable facts, until proven otherwise. Last April on this forum the same poster described the grey SF in these terms: posts 44 and 45:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=350880&highlight=joke&page=2

"SF is dark and not especially 3D. A strange bin."

"The SF birdwatching thing is a bad joke. Why should a birdwatching bin have a strong green cast to increase contrast except to save Zeiss precision in manufacturing?"

Now, to the same individual's eyes, the revised SF with a new black armored sheath, revised focusing, and improved eyecups, also has achieved color reproduction that is on par with Leica, while attaining sharpness and contrast similar to Swarovski, though it is not at all evident that these specific characteristics were altered by the manufacturer in the revision process.

The first few (grey) Zeiss SF DID have a fairly strong greenish colour cast. I tried two different binoculars (8x42 and 10x42) on different occasions and in different lighting conditions, and the colour cast was obvious to me. Both were very early versions, bought immediately after the SF became available.

When I tried a couple of the later (black) versions, I didn't see that colour cast anymore. I still wouldn't call the colour reproduction "neutral" but it's pretty close.

It's well known that manufacturers like Zeiss and the other "big players" continually work on their coatings and so on, so I don't find that surprising at all.

Hermann
 
"Kunstsoff" is I believe German for plastic.

The meaning of 'Kunststoff' -- note spelling includes an extra t -- can be wider than 'plastic'. It covers manmade / synthetic material or substance.

I believe that the plural 'Kunststoffe' is used to mean 'plastics'; however the words 'Plastik' also exists and is generally the word used in the singular: e.g. 'aus Plastik' meaning 'made of plastic'.

The word 'Kunst' in compounds can signify art or something artificial. 'Kunst' on its own as a distinct word means 'art' or 'skill'.

Forgive me for getting so animated about this and indulging my interest in languages -- something I'm better at than bird identification (not that that is saying much)!

Tom
 
Last edited:
The meaning of 'Kunststoff' -- note spelling includes an extra t -- can be wider than 'plastic'. It covers manmade / synthetic material or substance.

I believe that the plural 'Kunststoffe' is used to mean 'plastics'; however the words 'Plastik' also exists and is generally the word used in the singular: e.g. 'aus Plastik' meaning 'made of plastic'.

The word 'Kunst' in compounds can signify art or something artificial. 'Kunst' on its own as a distinct word means 'art' or 'skill'.

Forgive me for getting so animated about this and indulging my interest in languages -- something I'm better at than bird identification (not that that is saying much)!

Tom

Hi Tom

While you are in besserwisser German-language-mode (meant in the friendliest of ways :t:) could you tell us something about the meaning of 'plasticity' as translated from the German. Leica has made much of the 'plasticity' of view of the Noctivid and previous attempts to deduce what is meant by this have concluded it means something close to a 3D view.

Lee
 
Subjective truth only means someone is honestly relating their impressions at that moment. We are not dealing with measurable facts, until proven otherwise. Last April on this forum the same poster described the grey SF in these terms: posts 44 and 45:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=350880&highlight=joke&page=2

"SF is dark and not especially 3D. A strange bin."

"The SF birdwatching thing is a bad joke. Why should a birdwatching bin have a strong green cast to increase contrast except to save Zeiss precision in manufacturing?"

Now, to the same individual's eyes, the revised SF with a new black armored sheath, revised focusing, and improved eyecups, also has achieved color reproduction that is on par with Leica, while attaining sharpness and contrast similar to Swarovski, though it is not at all evident that these specific characteristics were altered by the manufacturer in the revision process.

Even if the product spec hasn't necessarily changed to reflect these new perceptions, it is still nice to know that one's subjective evaluations can evolve in a more rational and positive direction, when given the opportunity.

Bravo Tobias! ;)


-Bill

So the coating colour reflections have not changed? It would be strange that Tobias would see different colours reflected back but no one else does...how about some photos of each, side by side...;)

How about throwing unit to unit variation into the mix ?!
And while there may have been no deliberate (or even arbitrary ;) ) change in coatings from Grey to Black armoured versions, GiGi recently posted some mail from Zeiss that coatings are constantly (periodically) upgraded (as Swarovski does too) - so perhaps that is at play too ?!
Perhaps ze Germans just got sick of Green Ham ?!
Perhaps it's global warming ?!
Perhaps the bins /life, viewed immediately prior had a weird distorting effect on the colour palette ?!
Or perhaps other environments have changed - perhaps different light bulbs, different time of day, angle of light, age and condition of the eyes ?!

Curiouser and curiouser ....... :cat:




Chosun :gh:
 
Chosun:

Oh Ye, of little experience, please back off your criticism. It is very annoying.|=@|


Jerry
 
Last edited:
Chosun, post 134,
The SF sample we have investigated did not show any green cast, so you idea, that Zeiss changed coatings and that we have to distinguish between "green"and "non-green" SF's seem tempting, but it is a lot of work and if we have to buy them ourselves you must at least be president of the US to have enough funding.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Chosun, post 134,
The SF sample we have investigated did not show any green cast, so you idea, that Zeiss changed coatings and that we have to distinguish between "green"and "non-green" SF's seem tempting, but it is a lot of work and if we have to buy them ourselves you must at least be president of the US to have enough funding.
Gijs van Ginkel
Hi Gijs :-O , if Zeiss is indeed upgrading and changing coatings (as GiGi reported, and as Swarovski seem to also do) outside of defined model upgrades or step changes (such as the SF Grey -> Black change) , then is there any way of identifying these 'change points' by serial number that they would release to the public ? Perhaps some of our industry insiders and dealers may be able to clarify ?



Chosun :gh:
 
I have checked with two dealers, one in the UK and the other on continental Europe and neither has been informed of any changes to the SF coatings. Neither of them has seen a green cast and neither has noticed a change in the view through SFs from the early grey ones to the later black models.

And if there is a temptation to say 'they would say that wouldn't they?', both of these are multi-brand dealers who don't mind which binos you buy as long as they are the right ones for you and they are very familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of all their products and openly discuss them.

Lee
 
I would still like to see a side-by-side of the gray and black objectives...anyone?

All I can say is I had MY gray ones and picked up the black ones at the counter of Time and Optics at Magee marsh and stepped out back. Focus adjustment better? YES. Color change? YES. Another click on the eyecups? YES. Optic difference? None that I could see. I think the VAST majority of those that have actually OWNED an SF are probably elated with it optically and have zero complaints. I know I had none. I would think IF any optics changes have been made within specific current models(in this case SF) they would be so subtle as practically impossible to notice. Same for Swarovski.
 
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