• 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.

Reasons not to buy Zeiss SF 8x42? (2 Viewers)

Huronbay,

I feel IMHO, quality will continue to decline with all companies who make all sorts of optical equipment, cameras, lens, etc, because they have to compete with China, or use Chinese manufacturers. What would it cost for Zeiss to make a 8X56 or 7X42 BGA in Germany today, what would these cost for the consumer. If I am correct Swarovski is the only manufacturer who does not make cameras, or camera lens, so their business model is shall I say is more specialized.
Nikon is a manufacturer who has gone away from making a premium quality bino, save the WX, (all the glass they make now is mid to economy class, and when I receive my archived Nikon glass back from them un-repaired I will share my story here on their abysmal service.
I must say both Zeiss and Swarovski service are the best out there from a premium glass standpoint, so along with a good product, a good company needs to continue service it's products.

Andy W.
 
Swarovski has 3 big branches: sport optics, lead glass (commonly called crystal), and abrasive products. Sports optics is by far the smallest.

The last sentence is also true for Zeiss, Kowa, Leica Camera*, Nikon, Olympus, Optolyth, ...



* The other companies with Leica in the name are complete different companies.
 
Last edited:
dries1 said:
I feel IMHO, quality will continue to decline with all companies who make all sorts of optical equipment, cameras, lens, etc, because they have to compete with China, or use Chinese manufacturers.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this - quality products are increasingly coming from China which can help to raise quality in middle and lower tiers without raising cost, as we're now seeing. Of course there is a decline of quality and of quality assurance at the lower end and to some degree in the mid tier as well.

In the world of camera lenses, large strides in quality have been made in the past 10 years, arguably far more than binoculars have advanced, today's lenses are handily the finest ever. Mid tier lenses are also better than ever...
 
Troubador said:
Huronbay

I am sure all Zeiss enthusiasts and many bino fans share your concern about the direction and future of Zeiss Sports Optics given the corporate changes that are taking place there right now.

Profits are necessary to invest in the future of a business and only a profitable business can support the kind of customer service that Swarovski provides, which as you rightly point out, is second to none.

Having interviewed Joerg Schmitz, head of more than just Sports Optics for Birdforum, I can honestly say I saw no hint of product quality reduction as a path for the future, quite the opposite, and the most recent new product from Sports Optics, the Victory Pockets, have certainly been welcomed as a very significant step forward from the Victory Compacts that they have replaced.

I think this is encouraging, but lets see what happens over the next few years.

Lee
Click to expand...


Hi Lee:
You have a talent for handling potential issues well and I appreciate that particularly in a moderator. Additionally, I appreciate that Herr Schmitz took the time and effort to put minds at ease. I do not doubt his sincerity.

I really am not blessed with such grace, so do more lurking on forums and have been here for many years. Also in business for over 40 years on the management side of things, fwiw...

So without any offence intended, if angels descended from on high blowing trumpets and announcing something of particular significance, I would still assume they were acting in line with their Superior's best interest.

The OP asked for reasons not to buy and I submitted mine. When making a fairly expensive purchase for possibly a 20-30yr year time period of a top-line product (as in my case), one should exercise prudence. Changes at corporate or CS make me wary and as you said--let's see what happens over the next few years. No doubt some clarity will come into the picture and hopefully Zeiss continues in the FL type tradition of excellence.

Making that decision today however, is not quite so transparent.

Best,
tom
 
asp09 said:
Hello all,

I'll soon be ready to buy my first set of high-end bins (currently using Vanguard Endeavor EDII 8x42). I've narrowed my search down to the Swarovski El 8.5x42 and Zeiss SF 8x42. I've tried both pairs on two occasions now, once in reasonable light, once in low light. I think that optically, I would be happy with either; I love the wide FOV and (to my eyes) superior brightness of the Zeiss, but would also settle for the higher magnification (and possibly more neutral colours?) of the Swaro. When it comes to ergonomics, however, I much prefer the Zeiss. Not that the Swaro is bad, but the Zeiss just feels a lot lighter and has a much smoother focus. So all in all, the Zeiss made a greater impression on me than the Swaro. Despite this, I can't help thinking that the latter would be a safer option. It is a known quantity which has stood the test of time, and I would get total piece of mind thanks to Swarovski's apparently unrivalled customer service. Conversely, I keep coming across posts expressing doubt about Zeiss's build quality and quality control, and not just in relation to the older grey version; certainly, the sales person at my preferred optics retailer does not think much of Zeiss build quality and after-sales service and much prefers Swarovski. As I'm fairly cautious by nature, and hope to keep whichever pair I buy for at least the next 20 years, I'm still considering getting the Swaro even though I prefer the Zeiss.

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the matter, and whether you think these are legitimate concerns.
Click to expand...
Pay attention to your eyes. Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica all make phenomenal optics. The SF is a very impressive bin as is the Noctivid. I mainly use Swarovski bins but I'd have no problem limiting myself to one of the others. The SF has a superior walk-in view and the Noctivid has a drop-dead gorgeous view that's impossible to explain. The Swaros speak for themselves.

After care service by Swarovski is the best you can get. I don't know about Zeiss support but Leica returned my 7X42 Ultravid BR in better-than-new condition after the coatings failed on internal glass.

Enjoy!
 
asp09 said:
The only reason I haven't really considered the HT is that not many optics retailers stock them over here so I haven't been able to try one. The same goes for the Swarovski SLC.
Click to expand...
The SLC 42 doesn't have quite as close focus (~3m) but is otherwise well worth a look. Given such a difference in cost along with my bias against open-bridge designs, I would choose it over the EL myself. I have the 10x56 and am very impressed with the SLC line.

I handled an SF for the first time recently and instantly liked it for the clever balance despite its size, smooth focusing, and FOV. The plastic eyecups have been a concern for some, so I did examine them carefully and found them less solid or firm than others in clicking into place extended. And someone here just mentioned one of theirs can sometimes collapse. But obviously most owners have no problem with this, and I'm sure if you did, Zeiss would replace them.
 
Last edited:
There are thoughtful people, who like to buy excellent products, made in countries, where the workers get good money for good work, where the environment is a little bit protected by laws, etc.

These people spend more money than those, who buy good products made in low-wage countries. I'm one of them.

For me, it's a pity, that the US have no producers of sports optics left.
 
tenex said:
The SLC 42 doesn't have quite as close focus (~3m) but is otherwise well worth a look. Given such a difference in cost along with my bias against open-bridge designs, I would choose it over the EL myself. I have the 10x56 and am very impressed with the SLC line.

I handled an SF for the first time recently and instantly liked it for the clever balance despite its size, smooth focusing, and FOV. The plastic eyecups have been a concern for some, so I did examine them carefully and found them less solid or firm than others in clicking into place extended. And someone here just mentioned one of theirs can sometimes collapse. But obviously most owners have no problem with this, and I'm sure if you did, Zeiss would replace them.
Click to expand...

Ideally, I would have liked to have tried the SLC's, but I think the 3m close focus and slow focus speed would have proved to be a deal breaker for me anyhow. I also quite like open-bridge designs, which is what I'm used to with the Vanguard EDII's.

You're right about the SF being instantly likeable, and this, paradoxically, is precisely what is making me take my time over the decision; I am wary of being seduced by the wonderful ergonomics and FOV and thereby overlooking the perhaps more subtle merits of the EL.
 
asp09 said:
Ideally, I would have liked to have tried the SLC's, but I think the 3m close focus and slow focus speed would have proved to be a deal breaker for me anyhow. I also quite like open-bridge designs, which is what I'm used to with the Vanguard EDII's.

You're right about the SF being instantly likeable, and this, paradoxically, is precisely what is making me take my time over the decision; I am wary of being seduced by the wonderful ergonomics and FOV and thereby overlooking the perhaps more subtle merits of the EL.
Click to expand...

You are right to take your time over such a decision. One feature of SF that doesn't always get a mention is that it has a focus a little faster than EL.

Lee
 
for me the choice would be easy...

I am a birdwatcher, birding is a sport and the best sport optics have big FOV, fast focuser, balance, high transmission, good eyerelief and ofcourse are sharp at least in the best part of the center. Further on, they have to be relatively light, and sturdy / well-built.

The ad nauseam disccusions about color hue (bluish-reddish), sharpness until the edge, design and boosted sharpness are far less important, unless you are more of an optics nerd / star gazer / casual birdwatcher / collector (nothing wrong with all of those! ;) )

Regarding all abovementioned merits a fine birding binocular has to have, the Zeiss beats the Swarovision hands down in three very important aspects: FOV, fast focusing and balance. Whenever you chase a fast moving bird in a tangle (fast focuser, FOV), try to locate a diving bird coming up for a few seconds (balance, FOV), follow a flying bird (fast focuser, FOV), you will have a far better chance to ID said bird or just enjoy the view. No question about it.
For other aspects: Transmission, eye relief, build quality, I reckon they are on par. edge sharpness, design details and accessories, Swarovision is a bit better. Warranty: there is nothing better than Swarovski but Zeiss has been excellent for me and many others. And bringing up doubt if Zeiss will even exist in 30 years...?!
 
I have seen lots of swarovisions with bubbles in the rubber, grindy focuser and black coating on the metal bridge turning metal color because of bumps / wear and I have seen swarovisions with dust on the inside.
All more-or-less foreseeable if you use them in a hard way, but not exactly evidence of superiority in build quality compared to any other well-build binoculars.

Those get send back to Swarovski for repair and that's why you pay premium. Not because they are better, but because repair will cost.

So can you tell me what exactly is wrong with the build quality of the SF? I heard about eyecups but (and that's very personal) I am a glass wearer, so I never have any broken cups. Is there anything else?
 
dries1 said:
IMHO the difference in build quality is there, for me the Swarovision rules.

Andy W.
Click to expand...


I don't know why the myriad reports of gritty / faulty focus don't get included in ''build quality''....nor the user reports of having to send a bin in for ''service'', no matter the reason.

Just because a brand is great at follow-up service doesn't mean it has good build quality nor reliability, just that they will fix what breaks.
 
james holdsworth said:
I don't know why the myriad reports of gritty / faulty focus don't get included in ''build quality''....nor the user reports of having to send a bin in for ''service'', no matter the reason.

Just because a brand is great at follow-up service doesn't mean it has good build quality nor reliability, just that they will fix what breaks.
Click to expand...

:t:

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 
Temmie, you certainly make a compelling case for the SF! Just as I was beginning to sway towards the Swaro, your post has me wavering again :)
 
asp09 said:
Temmie, you certainly make a compelling case for the SF! Just as I was beginning to sway towards the Swaro, your post has me wavering again :)
Click to expand...
This brand nonsense has been going on for years. The SF isn't perfect and neither are the Swaros. Buy and use whatever makes you happy.
 
Yes all binos that real birders use will need service, they get abused.
The Zeiss SF has probably the best to date view in a 8X42, no doubt - and I am talking about the large FOV..., I just wish the chassis was designed/built with less concern about weight, and I wish the objective was better baffled (Leica) - the eyecups made of a light magnesium (Nikon EDGs), and the diopter was recessed into the bridge. Small issues really, although these changes might have made it even longer,and more costly. As someone who has owned one briefly, it just was not for me.

I have various formats of the FL series and they suit me just fine, I believe that they are some of the toughest glass made with nice bright views, and economically priced.

I also enjoy my SV ELs, Nikons and Leicas.

Andy W.
 
temmie said:
for me the choice would be easy...

I am a birdwatcher, birding is a sport and the best sport optics have big FOV, fast focuser, balance, high transmission, good eyerelief and ofcourse are sharp at least in the best part of the center. Further on, they have to be relatively light, and sturdy / well-built.

The ad nauseam disccusions about color hue (bluish-reddish), sharpness until the edge, design and boosted sharpness are far less important, unless you are more of an optics nerd / star gazer / casual birdwatcher / collector (nothing wrong with all of those! ;) )

Regarding all abovementioned merits a fine birding binocular has to have, the Zeiss beats the Swarovision hands down in three very important aspects: FOV, fast focusing and balance. Whenever you chase a fast moving bird in a tangle (fast focuser, FOV), try to locate a diving bird coming up for a few seconds (balance, FOV), follow a flying bird (fast focuser, FOV), you will have a far better chance to ID said bird or just enjoy the view. No question about it.
For other aspects: Transmission, eye relief, build quality, I reckon they are on par. edge sharpness, design details and accessories, Swarovision is a bit better. Warranty: there is nothing better than Swarovski but Zeiss has been excellent for me and many others. And bringing up doubt if Zeiss will even exist in 30 years...?!
Click to expand...


Temmie:

Was your comment about Zeiss existing in years derived from my post #44?

If so, my point was I don't sell my bins generally speaking and have bins that are decades old from new. Not that I keep them all but I like quality and generally keep such stuff ...:)

My comments about business would infer that Zeiss will indeed be there in the future.
 
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.

Similar threads

E
Age of Used Zeiss Victory SF 10 x 42
Replies
4
Views
643
z-ben
Z
G
In praise of the Zeiss SFL 10x40
Replies
2
Views
995
gweller
G
J
Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Declan Joseph Deasy
D
mgp13
ZEISS Victory SF Appreciation Thread
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
9K
Scott98
S
G
Inherited Zeiss binoculars
Replies
4
Views
989
Geometer
G

Users who are viewing this thread

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