10x42SE vs Zeiss 10x42FL (1 Viewer)

I'm thinking of selling my FL's and since relatively speaking the SE's are reasonable priced I was wondering how they perform against each other. I figured there was a good chance the SE is downright superior in many area's.

Sharpness and brightness were my main concerns but I'd like to hear anything anyone has to say on the subject.

Hmm, I don't think there is anything the Nikon SE's can do better than the Victory's (except leave your wallet 2x fatter). But there a serveral things Victory's can do that the SE's can't.

Rick

RJM said:

Hmm, I don't think there is anything the Nikon SE's can do better than the Victory's (except leave your wallet 2x fatter). But there a serveral things Victory's can do that the SE's can't.

Rick

Click to expand...

Have you looked through both? People say the 8x30 beats the Zeiss so maybe the 10x42 can too?

I have owned all the SEs (Several samples of each. I still prefer the EIIs) but have only "borrowed" a 8x32FL. I can tell you the Victory will be brighter, more color accurate and with better contrast and saturation. I am suprised you suspect them to be optically inferior.

Rick

I've owned both of these bins and AB'd them against each other quite carefully. I take issue with RJMs take on them. The optical strengths of the FL are that they have less visible chromatic aberration and are just slightly brighter. The strengths of the SE are better contrast, somewhat more vivid color rendition generally, better control of stray light, and a more 3-d view.

The CA in the SEs can be pretty much eliminated in the center field by paying attention to centering your eyes in the oculars--no such attention is necessary with the FL. The resolving power of the two are very close--I would give the edge to the SEs by the merest whisker, but I'm not sure everyone would have the same perception. I see glare in the 8 and 10x FLs under certain conditions while the SEs are champs at minimizing it. The SEs are a smidge lighter (which may or may not be an advantage at this magnification) and of course the FLs are waterproof, have faster focus, twist up eyecups etc. For what it's worth I don't own either one now, but I got rid of the FL first.

Fireform said:

The optical strengths of the FL are that they have less visible chromatic aberration and are just slightly brighter. The strengths of the SE are better contrast, somewhat more vivid color rendition generally, better control of stray light, and a more 3-d view.

Click to expand...

??? Chromatic aberration, contrast, and saturation are not mutually exclusive. If an optic shows less CA it should also have better contrast and saturation. After all, the edges are sharper and better defined for all objects in the FoV. Blacker blacks and whiter whites. That is the essence of contrast. The dielectric prism coatings in the Victory reflects light more evenly across the spectrum for more natural colors vs. the slightly warm/yellow in SE.

Rick

I had 10x SE's and sold them after buying 10x32 FL's. The Zeiss were enough better in all categories optically, in my opinion, and I tested the two very carefully. They had a noticeably cleaner and sharper image with great color saturation. It surprised me quite honestly. In addition, the SE's have a very slow focus that gets extremely stiff in cold weather. Since a good deal of birding in the NE is in the winter, that made them unusable for general use when it was cold. With any near/distant viewing, I found them extremely frustrating and missed birds. The optics are very very good, however, but they have other qualities that you might not like.

Don't hurry up. Although I can get a bit more detail with the 10X42SE than with any other 42mm, resolution isn't all. In my experience, lots of people, including myself need more time for being accostumed at the SE view than at the FLs, or every alpha roof by the way. I need months for getting the full potential of my 8X32SE, posibly the best optics in 32mm ever made. In the point of the colour, these are more satisfactory than its bigger 10X42 brother. I suspect the FLs were designed thinking in the SE view. So, try in first place. Other behaviour would be risky.

RJM said:

If an optic shows less CA it should also have better contrast and saturation.

Click to expand...

Should. But it doesn't. The 8x32 SE is at least equal in contrast, and better in saturation compared to the 8x32 FL. The added sharpness of the SE probably contributes to that contrast, since the edges of objects are a tad sharper.

In my experience the FL color is not as rich and saturated as other ED/HD/FL glass. My Pentax ED is richer, my Zen ED2 is richer, and my non-ED SE is richer, too. Now, ultimately the FL is probably the most accurate of the bunch, exaggerating nothing, so I guess it becomes an aesthetic question. It seems a lot of ED glass is moving towards rich, saturated, and slightly warm views. Evidently the new SV is rich, too.

If you haven't A/B'd these glasses, as I have done numerous times, you really can't know. The Zeiss FL view is less contrasty and vivid than the SE, whether you're comparing the 8x32s with each other or the 10x42s. It's a small difference but quite obvious. The Zeisses, while slightly brighter, are also definitely less sharp and more astigmatic off axis. Remember, the CA in the SEs is not really visible in the center field if your eye is reasonably well centered, especially with the 8x. The flip side of this is that if I were trying to view detail in poorly illuminated areas of the field of view, the Zeiss would have a slight advantage.

The Zeiss FLs are excellent bins, and it's particularly impressive to me that the 8x32 version equals or exceeds the brightness of the SEs using S-P prisms. The eye says that they're not superior to the SE in every catagory, though. I would concur with Kammerdiner that the ZR ED2 also has better centerfield contrast and saturation than the Zeiss. It's not their strong suit in my opinion and is the main reason I switched to Leicas in the 8x32 format despite the latter showing more visible CA.

Fireform said:

If you haven't A/B'd these glasses, as I have done numerous times, you really can't know. The Zeiss FL view is less contrasty and vivid than the SE, whether you're comparing the 8x32s with each other or the 10x42s. It's a small difference but quite obvious. The Zeisses, while slightly brighter, are also definitely less sharp and more astigmatic off axis. Remember, the CA in the SEs is not really visible in the center field if your eye is reasonably well centered, especially with the 8x. The flip side of this is that if I were trying to view detail in poorly illuminated areas of the field of view, the Zeiss would have a slight advantage.

Click to expand...

My guess is that both Fireform and RJM are correct. When the quallity of optics gets to the level that these two bins possess, the sample to sample variations can be sufficient to allow either brand to be superior to the other, depending on the level of excellent of each sample. Add in the subjective aspect and individual value systems, and you're bound to get a difference of opinion.

Dean

Dean, right now on ebay, there are a goodly # of really fine binos on auction.....2 10x42 FL's ($1195 & $1565), 2 10x42SE's (both at $600, one from a regular poster to BF), 2 10x42HG ($755 & $1120), a 10x42SLC ($710 current bid)....also for anyone else interested, 2 8x30EII's ($450 & $495) 2 8x32FL's ($1395 &$1600), and an 8x32LX L ($859). You really can't go wrong with any of these, tho' some may be a little optimistically priced....

I've had a 10x42SE since Jun 01 (have the 8x & 12x as well), and I have 2 FL's and several other brands, so I have no real preference. The only advantage I can see in the FL is a little wider field & twistups. I don't consider waterproofing an advantage, tho' some do. But the view.....the SE will hold its own with anything out there.

RJM said:

??? Chromatic aberration, contrast, and saturation are not mutually exclusive. If an optic shows less CA it should also have better contrast and saturation. After all, the edges are sharper and better defined for all objects in the FoV. Blacker blacks and whiter whites. That is the essence of contrast. The dielectric prism coatings in the Victory reflects light more evenly across the spectrum for more natural colors vs. the slightly warm/yellow in SE.

Rick

Click to expand...

Master Rick,

With deference to the kung fu book of wisdoms, where I believe you took your general dictum - "chromatic aberration, contrast, and saturation are not mutually exclusive. If an optic shows less CA it should [emphasis added] also have better contrast and saturation" -- my own humble observations show that this does not apply in every case.

For example, let those with discerning eyes compare a 10x42 LX with a 10x42 SE (any year) and you will find that despite greater CA, the LX blows away the SE in terms of contrast and color saturation (particularly pre-2002 SEs).

When I first tried the 10x42 LX, which I now realize was ahead of its time and still holds up well against the "latest and greatest" ED bins except in CA control, I was blown away by the stunning sharpness, contrast, and super saturated colors of the images.

Despite its better but not perfect CA control and impressive resolution, the 10x42 SE (an 001xxx model - 1998?), did not come close to the stark contrast and super color saturation of the 10x42 LX. Frankly, the SE's images looked dull in comparison, because they lacked the LX's image "SNAP!" (super nasty ass picture .

In re: to sample variation - I have used three sample 10x42 SEs (one briefly, two extensively), two 8x32 SEs (owned both of them), and three 12x50 SEs (owned two of them), and I can report that compared to other series of bins I've tried, I found the SE's are very consistent from sample to sample and from model to model. Except for DOF and FOV, the images look very similar in all three models.

The only "sample variations" I found was that one 12x50 SE had a close focus of 16' (typical is 24') and that the 505 8x32 SE, which had upgraded coatings, produced better contrast and color saturation (but also more CA) than the 501 8x32 SE.

So if you compared a good sample FL to a pre-2002 SE sample 10x42 SE (the year Nikon upgraded the coatings and switched to lead-free glass), it wouldn't surprise me if the SE had less contrast and color saturation, though I have not actually compared the FL and SE.

However, even this turned out to be the case, I would not generalize that observation to say that every bin that shows less CA also has better contrast and saturation.

This wasn't the case in comparing the 10x42 LX to the 10x42 SE or the 505 8x32 SE vs. 501 8x32 SE since both of the former bins showed more CA but better contrast and color saturation.

Grasshopper

Excerpt from kung fu book of wisdoms:

Disciple Caine: Master, our bodies are prey to many needs: hunger, thirst, and the need for premium optics. Shall we then seek to satisfy these needs?

Master Kan: Only Acknowledge them and satisfaction will follow. To suppress a truth is to give it force beyond endurance, but always seek three months same as cash deals to avoid getting ripped off.

I am a birder first and foremost, and a non waterproof gas filled bin is not an option, I get soaked once a week every fall and autumn and encounter difficult weather conditions too often. But I understand that you hardcore optics can live with non water proofing, as a reference bin or for star gazing, or to have with you in the bed

More on I agree that the ZR ED2 has more amazing colours and everyone should try a pair of ED2s, Charles magic methods, the dielectric coating or some other factor has definitely created a bin with optics that has to be tried. Vivid is a good word to describe it. Center sharpness and colour rendition on the ED2 is spectacular.

That said, I have owned 7 bins the last 3 years, and I have sold all due to various reasons, the ED2 included. But when I unpacked and grasped my 8x32 FL I realised that this would be my primary bin for many years to come, and I still feel this way. The ergonomics is just perfect for my hands and eyes, the focus wheel has the perfect resistance, speed and the stiffness remains stable regardless of temperature. When we talk glass, the ED2 is more vivid, but it is more untrue, FL is like someone else said, a magnification of the true image. Matter of taste. And matter of wallet, my FL was expensive, even though I made a good deal on a second hand non-FL.

I heard rumours that the LT FL has a slight green bias, but is unconfirmed. Also I heard that LT attracts dust. But I have also heard that the LT keeps both thumbprint, water and other unwanted substances of the surface.
So, just my opinion, like Sancho use to say, don´t trust it too much

For what it's worth, my comparisons were based on two different pairs of 8x SEs, three different pairs of 8x32 FLs (one lotutec, two non-), one pair of 10x SEs and two 10x FLs. Different bins of the same model varied ever so slightly amongst themselves in regards to collimation and coma, but visible differences in contrast, color saturation and sharpness were very consistent. I'm pretty sure I could pick the SE from the FL in a double blind A/B test 100% of the time.

Fireform said:

...I would concur with Kammerdiner that the ZR ED2 also has better centerfield contrast and saturation than the Zeiss. It's not their strong suit in my opinion and is the main reason I switched to Leicas in the 8x32 format despite the latter showing more visible CA.

Click to expand...

FF,

Do you have a Leica 8x32 BR or HD?

Also, did you mean centerfied "resolution" rather than "contrast" in re: to the ED2?

Yes, my small binocular now is an 8x32 HD.

You could say contrast or resolution or both. The ZRs are something else on axis. Unfortunately they are something else again off axis.

Fireform said:

Yes, my small binocular now is an 8x32 HD.

You could say contrast or resolution or both. The ZRs are something else on axis. Unfortunately they are something else again off axis.

Click to expand...

Thanks for answering my questions. I have read reports about the ZR having higher resolution than the 8x32 FL (which made me feel better about having to pass on Doug's $769? FL demos at Cameraland), but I think this was the first time I read about the ED2 also having better contrast.

So even HD glass isn't enough to correct the CA in the midsized Ultravid? Maybe this is due to the short FL in the 8x32 model. The CA in the BRs must have been even more noticeable.

The ZR 7x36 ED2 controls CA very well. The lower power and longer FL probably help in this regard.

My ZR also has very good edges for such a WF bin. No complaints from me, and I'm picky about edge performance since I started using bins as an amateur astronomer, and I have been spoiled by my Jap. made Nikons.

I think there must be sample variation going on with the 7x ZR, because reports vary as to its edge performance. It can't be due to differences in focus accommodation, because my focus accommodation isn't very good.

Even though the ED2 I bought is the original version, I chose this sample because I can deal with the "veiling glare" easier than I can fuzzy edges. Though it would be even nicer to have a sample with both baffles and good edges.

The ultravid HDs do show CA more readily than the FLs do, no doubt about that. You usually won't notice it, but I was watching a flock of cedar waxwings in a bare tree against the sky the other day and they had thin fringes until I adjusted my eye position a little. It's not really bothersome since I rarely see it and can make it disappear if I do. They have very nice centerfield contrast and resolution and are super compact and light. Off axis performance is arguably bit better with the FL but in practice I find it a wash. The trade off with the FL is brightness for contrast, plus a very slightly nicer focus action in the FL. I wear glasses and although they FL has more eye relief the HD has enough.

The 7x36 ED2 is actually quite sharp off axis but has very strong field curvature in the outer 30% or so of the field of view, so a viewer with very good focus accommodation would likely perceive a significantly broader sweet spot than one without. In my case, in normal use I found the outer 20% or so of the field of view essentially useless. That and the stiff focus traction soured my zen state.

Fireform said:

....Off axis performance is arguably bit better with the FL but in practice I find it a wash. The trade off with the FL is brightness for contrast, plus a very slightly nicer focus action in the FL. I wear glasses and although they FL has more eye relief the HD has enough.

The 7x36 ED2 is actually quite sharp off axis but has very strong field curvature in the outer 30% or so of the field of view, so a viewer with very good focus accommodation would likely perceive a significantly broader sweet spot than one without. In my case, in normal use I found the outer 20% or so of the field of view essentially useless. That and the stiff focus traction soured my zen state.

Click to expand...

Fireform,

What you describe in the FL about the trade off of contrast for brightness is similar to what I've described in the Nikon LX L. On brightly lit objects, the contrast is washed out and so is much of the detail, being overwhelmed by the overly bright image.

Brightness is something that is usually appealing in a bin, particularly when you live under a nearly perpetual cloud cover like I do.

But you can get too much of a "good thing," and apparently this is the case with the LX L and the FL. I also see a bit of this effect in the EDG, but it's not as extreme.

I do see the field curvature in the 7x ED2, and I can make the edges sharper with focusing, but until the very edges, the image sharpness is acceptable enough not to be distracting, and the ample sweet spot and WF of view make the view very "easy".

What bothers me is when a bin's sharpness falls off steeply off axis. While panning my eyes dart ahead to the left or right and into the fuzz. Under certain lighting conditions, I can also see a diffuse ring of light around the edges of bins with a lot of field curvature or astigmatism.

The ED2's focuser is stiff on my ED2 (a few users have reported smoother focusers), more so while turning in one direction than the other.

What I found helps is keeping two fingers from each hand on the focuser. I can more quickly reach my target this way, and the open bridge design makes it possible for me to keep a steady grip while doing this.

Well, the snow has finally stopped so I'm going outside for some four-finger birding.