• 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.

Tests of the Zeiss 8x54 HT (1 Viewer)

When I first looked though the 10x56FL I was blown away, I thought I might have had the 12 by accident but the pop and wow from those big objectives really made an impression on me.

When I looked through the 10x54HT they looked good but weren't blowing me away. They looked like a 10x42 with a better FOV. And they are ergonomically pretty good. But the larger FOV was the only wow part for me this time not the image. (The FOV on the 10x42HT felt smaller than the FL to me)

Hi Nessy

Appearances can be deceptive as the FL 10x56, HT 10x42 and HT 10x54 all have the same FOV, apart from small sample variations ie 110 metres at 1,000 m.

I have only looked through an FL 8x56 and I must say that I was impressed by the view and I can see why Henry persists with the brute.

Lee
 
I was shocked when I looked at the specs and they are both indeed 330ft.

I compared the 42's to my Nikon SE 10x42 and they felt the same or smaller, I was dissapointed as my FL's always looked a bit bigger than other 10's. A week later I tested the 54HT against a lot of smaller glass. It might just have been big comfortable eyecups letting me closer to the ocular and thus making the image appear bigger.

Don't know what to say really, I read the stats but the 54HT seemed like a larger AFOV.
 
I was shocked when I looked at the specs and they are both indeed 330ft.

I compared the 42's to my Nikon SE 10x42 and they felt the same or smaller, I was dissapointed as my FL's always looked a bit bigger than other 10's. A week later I tested the 54HT against a lot of smaller glass. It might just have been big comfortable eyecups letting me closer to the ocular and thus making the image appear bigger.

Don't know what to say really, I read the stats but the 54HT seemed like a larger AFOV.

Hi Nessy

For sure, if you inadvertently had the eyecups in the wrong position you might have cut off a part of the FOV and then with the big HTs if the eyecups were set just right, hey presto, a noticeably bigger FOV.

One possibility anyway.

Lee
 
It is marketing, nothing else. Because few birders would possibly carry a 54mm binocular around their necks, Zeiss gives them 3 for birding. Another factor may be the close focus distance, which is not 'birder friendly' with the big HTs.

Cheers,
Holger

If few birders would ever consider carrying 54mm bins, this sounds like a very good reason for not designing these bins to be suitable for birding.

Lee
 
There's no optical reason for large aperture/large exit pupil binoculars to be unsuitable for birding. Quite the contrary, when done well their low aberrations in daylight make for unusually relaxing and high quality images.
 
There's no optical reason for large aperture/large exit pupil binoculars to be unsuitable for birding. Quite the contrary, when done well their low aberrations in daylight make for unusually relaxing and high quality images.

Dead right Henry, I was poking Holger in the ribs (in fun) a bit for his statement that carried within it a contradictory explanation.

But I think Holger was referring to the weight making it unlikely a 54 would be the choice of many birders, not its optical suitablity.

For myself I vividly remember trying out FL 8x56, spurred by your enthusiasm for it, at Bird Fair a couple of years ago and it was indeed a wonderfully relaxed view.

Lee
 
Hi Nessy

Appearances can be deceptive as the FL 10x56, HT 10x42 and HT 10x54 all have the same FOV, apart from small sample variations ie 110 metres at 1,000 m.

I have only looked through an FL 8x56 and I must say that I was impressed by the view and I can see why Henry PERSISTS WITH THE BRUTE.

Lee

Lee, that phrase - my capitals - is going to stick with me. What I've been weighing up, literally: quality vs. awkward size and weight. With decent support it's fantastic though.

Tom
 
Don't forget the advantages of the HT SCHOTT glass when comparing the Zeiss FL to the Zeiss HT's. That was the BIG reason Zeiss came out with the HT's. The FL's do not have the higher transmission glass so for similar aperture sizes the HT's should be brighter. Here is a link describing the advantages of HT SCHOTT glass.

"Carl Zeiss Sport Optics recently introduced their new flagship range of binoculars, the Zeiss Victory HT binoculars, whose main feature and biggest improvement to their already excellent Victory FL range being that they use HT Glass from SCHOTT."

https://redirect.viglink.com/?forma...www.bestbinocularsreviews.co...rom-schott-06/
 
Last edited:
The Zeiss HT 8x54 and 10x54 binoculars were not designed for birders nor was the Zeiss 8x56 FL. They were designed for hunters glassing for game in the early morning hours and late evening hours when game is active probably from a static position like a mountain top. The majority of birders especially those birding in daylight are not going to carry such a large heavy binocular if they walk any distance for a relaxed view. For birding 8x32 and 8x42's are the most practical and popular size.
 
I am starting to think that HT Schott is over-hyped, too much white haze. I am not missing anything with my 8 and 10X56 FLs.

Andy W.
 
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