ticl2184
Well-known member
As the HT's slowly arrive in the Uk I took the opportunity to see how my 8x32 Swarovisions (SV's) faired against the 8x HT's.
On this occasion I didn't have to travel 80 miles to get my hands on the HT's. This time I only had to jump on a ferry and travel a few miles to Winchester London Camera Exchange.
I spent a good 2hrs comparing the bino's on a bright late January day.
On this occasion all photos were taken with the camera set at ISO800, 1\250 second shutter speed and F8.0.
Before I am criticised for the accuracy of these images, it should be noted that these photos are not supposed be 100% accurate and withstand scientific scrutiny. They are however unaltered raw images.
BRIGHTNESS.
Strangely my first impressions were that the SV's were brighter than the HT's ? This didn't make much sense as the SV's obviously have a smaller aperture. However as I started to really focus on brightness, and not be fooled by colour, the Zeiss were obviously brighter. They seemed to penetrate areas of shade, almost like a image intensifier.
Judge for yourself. The 2nd larger image is the control, the 3rd the SV's and the 4th the HT's.
CA.
On my previous review I tried to find any CA in the HT's. This time I really tried to find CA in HT's.
Result, try as I might I couldn't find any, even at extreme edge of field. Remarkable. CA in the Swarovski was a lot more noticeable to my eyes.
INTERNAL REFLECTION FROM SIDE LITE SOURCE. Ie The Sun !
On my previous review I couldn't test for milky fogging because of the weather. On this occasion the Sun was low and bright, perfect for testing reflections.
The result was astonishing.
There was literally no internal reflections or milky fogging caused by the Sun that I could find. I almost had to get the Sun in the field of view before any reflections were seen.
In my opinion a 100% improvement over the old FL's and significantly better than the SV's.
INTERNAL REFLECTIONS FROM BRIGHT SOURCE. Ie The moon or streetlights.
The old FL's were very good in this department but incredibly the HT's were even better. Brilliant.
The SV's were much improved in this area over the old EL's but not as good as the Zeiss.
EDGE OF FIELD CLARITY
Just when you think everthings going Zeiss's way the Swarovski fought back. Edge of field clarity of the SV's was unbeatable. The Zeiss was good, not sure if it was better than the old FL though. Strangely edge of field clarity was almost sharp to the edge in the vertical* plane of the HT's, but definatly not in the horizontal.
FIELD OF VIEW
It is usually the case in top end binoculars that the 32mm models have a wider fov than the 42mm so I always thought the Swarovski would be better.
The HT states a fov of 136m with the SV being 141m.
In practice I have yet to see a binocular with a wider fov than the Swarovski SV, It is actually wider and sharper than the old EL.
However, The Zeiss was very, very good indeed. I tested the fov of both on some railings outside the church. Surprisingly the Zeiss was only slightly behind the SV. If the Swarovski genuinely has a fov of 141m,* I would say the Zeiss is nearer to 139m instead of 136.
QUALITY OF FIELD
In this area the Swarovski was the clear winner with bright, sharp, clear images across the field.
I felt that this was the weakest area for the Zeiss. If you have a look at picture 5 which is the SV and image 6 which is the HT you can see more bowing of Tower in image 6.
When viewing this image with the eye, this anomaly is quite significant and annoying. I think its the opposite of a pincushion effect. I'm sure Henry will be able to inform us as to the nature of this curvature.
DEPTH OF FIELD
Both very good, but the SV was slightly better I felt.
ROLLING GLOBE EFFECT
I am a rolling glober. To me the 8x32 SV displays more rolling globe than my 10x42 model. In the case of the Zeiss "rolling globe," is swapped for bending or bowing of the image. Both anamly's are equally annoying to my eyes. So there was no clear winner.
COLOUR
This was another category which I wanted to investigate further from my previous review.
On reflection I think the SV has a more natural rendition of colours. However the Zeiss colour rendition is a vast improvement over the old FL I thought. I think the Zeiss colour could be described as neutral but very bright. The SV could be described as more natural but darker.
Make your own mind up.
CONTRAST
The contrast of the Zeiss was again a significant improvement over the old FL. Instead of merging washed out shades, the Zeiss produced a more natural contrast effect. The SV however was the winner with a greater contrast range.
EYE RELIEF
The HT were good but the SV's were better, 20mm of eye relief produced a more relaxed range of positions the eye could be placed at.
BUILD QUALITY
As before I found the SV build quality everso slightly better than the HT. But only by the smallest amount.
DESIGN
Again the HT was a significant improvement over the old FL, but just the slightest amount behind the SV.
WEIGHT
Obviously the SV was a lot lighter, however I will again state that the HT is remarkably light for a 42mm binocular. Perhaps the lightest I've felt.
FEEL IN HANDS
Again the Zeiss felt great in the hands. But as before the SV's just felt that little bit more secure when holding with one hand.
PRICE
The HT and SV's are very closely matched in this area. However I believe the Zeiss will probably be better value for money when price eventually drops.
BALANCE
Again its a draw. Balance of both binoculars was awesome.
FOCUS
The HT's were as smooth as butter with no variation in focus quality.
AESTHETIC QUALITY
Pretty much a draw. I love the sleak black appearance of the Zeiss but also the compact sand colour of the SV's.
CONCUSIONS
As before its pretty much a draw between the SV and HT. The HT's are brighter have less CA and have pretty much zero internal reflection. The SV are light, feel better in the hand and have better image quality and edge of field resolution.
Colour and contrast of the SV are more natural but are darker than the HT. The HT's colour and contrast are a vast improvement over the FL's. FOV of both is excellent with the HT's probably having a understated fov.
I must say the one thing that annoyed me about the HT's was quality of field with obvious curvature of the field at the edge.
In conclusion, both awesome bino's which are probably meant for different markets.
But I don't think you could go wrong with either.
PS. Have to apologise to Zeiss Uk. Although my order was placed early last year it wasn't passed onto Zeiss until November.
Look forward to receiving my HT's on Tuesday.
Cheers Tim
On this occasion I didn't have to travel 80 miles to get my hands on the HT's. This time I only had to jump on a ferry and travel a few miles to Winchester London Camera Exchange.
I spent a good 2hrs comparing the bino's on a bright late January day.
On this occasion all photos were taken with the camera set at ISO800, 1\250 second shutter speed and F8.0.
Before I am criticised for the accuracy of these images, it should be noted that these photos are not supposed be 100% accurate and withstand scientific scrutiny. They are however unaltered raw images.
BRIGHTNESS.
Strangely my first impressions were that the SV's were brighter than the HT's ? This didn't make much sense as the SV's obviously have a smaller aperture. However as I started to really focus on brightness, and not be fooled by colour, the Zeiss were obviously brighter. They seemed to penetrate areas of shade, almost like a image intensifier.
Judge for yourself. The 2nd larger image is the control, the 3rd the SV's and the 4th the HT's.
CA.
On my previous review I tried to find any CA in the HT's. This time I really tried to find CA in HT's.
Result, try as I might I couldn't find any, even at extreme edge of field. Remarkable. CA in the Swarovski was a lot more noticeable to my eyes.
INTERNAL REFLECTION FROM SIDE LITE SOURCE. Ie The Sun !
On my previous review I couldn't test for milky fogging because of the weather. On this occasion the Sun was low and bright, perfect for testing reflections.
The result was astonishing.
There was literally no internal reflections or milky fogging caused by the Sun that I could find. I almost had to get the Sun in the field of view before any reflections were seen.
In my opinion a 100% improvement over the old FL's and significantly better than the SV's.
INTERNAL REFLECTIONS FROM BRIGHT SOURCE. Ie The moon or streetlights.
The old FL's were very good in this department but incredibly the HT's were even better. Brilliant.
The SV's were much improved in this area over the old EL's but not as good as the Zeiss.
EDGE OF FIELD CLARITY
Just when you think everthings going Zeiss's way the Swarovski fought back. Edge of field clarity of the SV's was unbeatable. The Zeiss was good, not sure if it was better than the old FL though. Strangely edge of field clarity was almost sharp to the edge in the vertical* plane of the HT's, but definatly not in the horizontal.
FIELD OF VIEW
It is usually the case in top end binoculars that the 32mm models have a wider fov than the 42mm so I always thought the Swarovski would be better.
The HT states a fov of 136m with the SV being 141m.
In practice I have yet to see a binocular with a wider fov than the Swarovski SV, It is actually wider and sharper than the old EL.
However, The Zeiss was very, very good indeed. I tested the fov of both on some railings outside the church. Surprisingly the Zeiss was only slightly behind the SV. If the Swarovski genuinely has a fov of 141m,* I would say the Zeiss is nearer to 139m instead of 136.
QUALITY OF FIELD
In this area the Swarovski was the clear winner with bright, sharp, clear images across the field.
I felt that this was the weakest area for the Zeiss. If you have a look at picture 5 which is the SV and image 6 which is the HT you can see more bowing of Tower in image 6.
When viewing this image with the eye, this anomaly is quite significant and annoying. I think its the opposite of a pincushion effect. I'm sure Henry will be able to inform us as to the nature of this curvature.
DEPTH OF FIELD
Both very good, but the SV was slightly better I felt.
ROLLING GLOBE EFFECT
I am a rolling glober. To me the 8x32 SV displays more rolling globe than my 10x42 model. In the case of the Zeiss "rolling globe," is swapped for bending or bowing of the image. Both anamly's are equally annoying to my eyes. So there was no clear winner.
COLOUR
This was another category which I wanted to investigate further from my previous review.
On reflection I think the SV has a more natural rendition of colours. However the Zeiss colour rendition is a vast improvement over the old FL I thought. I think the Zeiss colour could be described as neutral but very bright. The SV could be described as more natural but darker.
Make your own mind up.
CONTRAST
The contrast of the Zeiss was again a significant improvement over the old FL. Instead of merging washed out shades, the Zeiss produced a more natural contrast effect. The SV however was the winner with a greater contrast range.
EYE RELIEF
The HT were good but the SV's were better, 20mm of eye relief produced a more relaxed range of positions the eye could be placed at.
BUILD QUALITY
As before I found the SV build quality everso slightly better than the HT. But only by the smallest amount.
DESIGN
Again the HT was a significant improvement over the old FL, but just the slightest amount behind the SV.
WEIGHT
Obviously the SV was a lot lighter, however I will again state that the HT is remarkably light for a 42mm binocular. Perhaps the lightest I've felt.
FEEL IN HANDS
Again the Zeiss felt great in the hands. But as before the SV's just felt that little bit more secure when holding with one hand.
PRICE
The HT and SV's are very closely matched in this area. However I believe the Zeiss will probably be better value for money when price eventually drops.
BALANCE
Again its a draw. Balance of both binoculars was awesome.
FOCUS
The HT's were as smooth as butter with no variation in focus quality.
AESTHETIC QUALITY
Pretty much a draw. I love the sleak black appearance of the Zeiss but also the compact sand colour of the SV's.
CONCUSIONS
As before its pretty much a draw between the SV and HT. The HT's are brighter have less CA and have pretty much zero internal reflection. The SV are light, feel better in the hand and have better image quality and edge of field resolution.
Colour and contrast of the SV are more natural but are darker than the HT. The HT's colour and contrast are a vast improvement over the FL's. FOV of both is excellent with the HT's probably having a understated fov.
I must say the one thing that annoyed me about the HT's was quality of field with obvious curvature of the field at the edge.
In conclusion, both awesome bino's which are probably meant for different markets.
But I don't think you could go wrong with either.
PS. Have to apologise to Zeiss Uk. Although my order was placed early last year it wasn't passed onto Zeiss until November.
Look forward to receiving my HT's on Tuesday.
Cheers Tim
Attachments
Last edited: