Zeiss ht discontinued ? (1 Viewer)

pbjosh · Jun 8, 2018

Slightly different model (the Conquest HD 8x42) but talking about Zeiss color cast - I recall a few opinions, notably yours Chosun, I believe, that the Conquest shows muddy red/brown color. Well, I was recently was birding with my Conquest (probably the 1000th or 1200th day of use, some 5+ years in, genuinely), and for the first time I saw a muddy red/brown color presentation through one of the two tubes. I flipped the binocular upside down but it stayed on the same side so it was definitely my brain's registration of the color presentation. It was only that one time looking at a certain target in certain light, I've not seen it again since and had almost forgotten about it. But at the time, I thought, "Well if I registered the view through both tubes like this all the time I'd be pretty unimpressed as well!"

Anyways back to the green SF discussion...

pbjosh · Jun 8, 2018

Might as well throw this out too - I have an SF 8x42 as well, and I still think it's handily the best binocular I've ever used, but I recently found a very annoying aspect to it. I have prescription sunglasses, Maui Jim brand, that are wrap-around and were pretty expensive as they have to 3D form the lenses, they can't just cut them. I love them and bird with them all the time - true comfortable wrap around sunglasses that block all the stray light, wind, etc, and are prescription, are a godsend for me. However if I'm birding somewhere sunny enough to use my sunglasses I usually use a pair of 10x's, and I usually use my SF's in forest. However I was recently on a long pelagic and for the first time (after more than a year of ownership!) picked up my SF's with my sunglasses on. Some interplay of coatings (perhaps having to do with my sunglasses being polarized?) results in bizarre coloration - everything takes on a purplish/bronzy semi iridescent tone, real colors are severely muted, and I feel like I'm on a bad trip. It's definitely not a workable combo. After this I checked all other bins and I couldn't reproduce the effect with the Conquests or my Swaro SVEL 10x42's (already knew those two were fine), nor my Monarch 7 8x30's, nor a few pairs of friends bins - Victory T*FL 8x32, Leica Noctivid 8x42, Ultravid 10x50, and a few others...

Anyways, it's not that bad, just means basically that the SF's are not suitable for pelagics. Minor bummer but far from a deal breaker. I still fail to see any odd color cast with normal glasses or with no glasses with them.

Troubador · Jun 8, 2018

SeldomPerched said:
Do you think the 8x42 HT is still available in Britain even if discontinued?

Focus Optics still show HTs in stock: https://www.focusoptics.eu/

Lee

NDhunter · Jun 9, 2018

pbjosh said:
Might as well throw this out too - I have an SF 8x42 as well, and I still think it's handily the best binocular I've ever used, but I recently found a very annoying aspect to it. I have prescription sunglasses, Maui Jim brand, that are wrap-around and were pretty expensive as they have to 3D form the lenses, they can't just cut them. I love them and bird with them all the time - true comfortable wrap around sunglasses that block all the stray light, wind, etc, and are prescription, are a godsend for me. However if I'm birding somewhere sunny enough to use my sunglasses I usually use a pair of 10x's, and I usually use my SF's in forest. However I was recently on a long pelagic and for the first time (after more than a year of ownership!) picked up my SF's with my sunglasses on. Some interplay of coatings (perhaps having to do with my sunglasses being polarized?) results in bizarre coloration - everything takes on a purplish/bronzy semi iridescent tone, real colors are severely muted, and I feel like I'm on a bad trip. It's definitely not a workable combo. After this I checked all other bins and I couldn't reproduce the effect with the Conquests or my Swaro SVEL 10x42's (already knew those two were fine), nor my Monarch 7 8x30's, nor a few pairs of friends bins - Victory T*FL 8x32, Leica Noctivid 8x42, Ultravid 10x50, and a few others...

Anyways, it's not that bad, just means basically that the SF's are not suitable for pelagics. Minor bummer but far from a deal breaker. I still fail to see any odd color cast with normal glasses or with no glasses with them.

It seems you now know, that it is not easy to view with sunglasses.

I have several brands and models, and the Maui Jim's easily have the warmest
color and very good polarization.
There are many other sunglass brands that are much more friendly to binocular use. I have settled in on Serengeti as my favorites, as they
are photochromic, and great drivers models.

So don't blame the binocular, it is the user. I also have one eye that sees
colors much more in the reds. It balances out in the brain, I suppose....

Add: Also the Serengeti microfiber cloths are the best I've found for cleaning lenses. I will say it, even better than
the nice white Swarovski cloth.

Jerry

huronbay · Jun 9, 2018

Troubador said:
This is a strange phenomenon in the light of Gijs van Ginkel's findings:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=321724 Post 2
Lee

**

As I lurk occasionally, I missed this post above on the HT. Thanks for that.

Had a 10x54 HT which I only used in the evenings or at night with moon for the most part, so daytime color was not an issue for me. It presented dark conifers as a noticeably unreal lighter shade of green. It may have just been the example, I don't know.

Cataract surgery both eyes, in my early 50's, so the lenses are clear. One should take care wear sunglasses more often... As well, my wife had the same results with the HT.

I just assumed at the time it was a byproduct of the stretch for higher transmission.

pbjosh · Jun 9, 2018

NDhunter said:
It seems you now know, that it is not easy to view with sunglasses.

Jerry

I don’t find that to be the case at all. I bird and live with sunglasses frequently with no problems.

Troubador · Jun 9, 2018

huronbay said:
Troubador said:

This is a strange phenomenon in the light of Gijs van Ginkel's findings:
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=321724 Post 2
Lee

**

As I lurk occasionally, I missed this post above on the HT. Thanks for that.

Had a 10x54 HT which I only used in the evenings or at night with moon for the most part, so daytime color was not an issue for me. It presented dark conifers as a noticeably unreal lighter shade of green. It may have just been the example, I don't know.

I just assumed at the time it was a byproduct of the stretch for higher transmission.

Click to expand...

Stuff can look dark from a distance but look much lighter when you are closer and a 10x bino gets you 10x closer.

Lee

huronbay · Jun 10, 2018

Thanks. Do have some familiarity with their function.

Made a number of comparisons with a number of bins, including a new 10x56 SLC. Spent some time at it.

Vespobuteo · Jun 10, 2018

The official retail price difference between a brand new HT and a UVHD+ is now 700-900 € around here after the Leica price increase in May. No doubt the HT would be a good buy if you can get hold of a pair.

Sebzwo · Jun 10, 2018

Have recently made HTs been upgraded in any technical way? Like updated glass or modified details or similar?

dries1 · Jun 10, 2018

Price

Vespobuteo said:
The official retail price difference between a brand new HT and a UVHD+ is now 700-900 € around here after the Leica price increase in May. No doubt the HT would be a good buy if you can get hold of a pair.

Vespobuteo,

What model (format) are you talking about with respect to the HT and UVHD.

Andy W.

SeldomPerched · Jun 10, 2018

Robert Moore said:
I just looked them up on B&H and it says they are discontinued. Looks like it’s just the SF now. I knew I should have kept my 8x42 ht.

Robert, slightly off topic, but do you mind just briefly letting me know how you found the HT for handling and balance? I've only tried SF and they handled brilliantly. And I am wondering whether to play Russian roulette with my card and try to get HT 42 while available new. Thank you.

Tom

Troubador · Jun 10, 2018

SeldomPerched said:
Robert, slightly off topic, but do you mind just briefly letting me know how you found the HT for handling and balance? I've only tried SF and they handled brilliantly. And I am wondering whether to play Russian roulette with my card and try to get HT 42 while available new. Thank you.

Tom

Tom
I am sure Robert can reply for himself but I will butt-in here as I own both SF and HT.
HT is a brilliantly improved handler compared with its predecessor (FL) and I think its handling improvements are at least as important as the addition of HT glass. HT also has a certain seductive transparancy of view that SF doesn't quite achieve but honestly I have never been looking through SFs and thought 'if only this thing was more transparent'.

For my purposes SF is superior due to its even better handling, which facilitates longer viewing without lowering my binos (we sometimes watch Otters in Scotland for up to an hour) and its field of view which makes it easier to scan big landscapes, seascapes and skyscapes. For example if you compare HT and SF 8x42 fields of view by area at 1,000 metres you find that SF's is over 18% bigger. Thats 18%+ more for your money every time you lift them to your eyes. Comparing the 10x models the SF's fov is exactly 19% bigger.

But there is no doubting HT is a terrific instrument and handles better IMHO than, for example, Leica's Noctivid.

Lee

Vespobuteo · Jun 10, 2018

dries1 said:
Vespobuteo,

What model (format) are you talking about with respect to the HT and UVHD.

Andy W.

8x and 10x42.

UVHD+ seem to be more expensive than both SF and SV now, if you look at recommended/retail sales price. Some cheaper Leicas can still be found but I suspect that is stocked items.

Nothing wrong with the UVHD+, my intention was actually to get one later this year, (already own Zeiss FL and Swaro SV) but Leica is pushing prices a bit too far IMO.

Vespobuteo · Jun 10, 2018

Sebzwo said:
Have recently made HTs been upgraded in any technical way? Like updated glass or modified details or similar?

No, they are are still as good as it gets when it comes to light transmission, transparency and low CA.

Maybe the price on HT-glass have increased, and they can't obtain the same margin as before due to competition, lower sales volume etc.

And also, the new Victory RF will probably be what Zeiss want hunters to buy/upgrade to and will be the replacement model, though at close to double the current HT-price...

Chosun Juan · Jun 10, 2018

Troubador said:
....HT is a brilliantly improved handler compared with its predecessor (FL) and I think its handling improvements are at least as important as the addition of HT glass.....

Lee have you got those blue tinted glasses on again?!?

:cat:
Surely that's a subjective call?, and plenty don't appreciate the weight increase of the HT (up to or more than 2&1/2Oz

Personally I find the ergonomics of the HT woeful!

:brains:

Troubador said:
.... For example if you compare HT and SF 8x42 fields of view by area at 1,000 metres you find that SF's is over 18% bigger....

I think you will find the ~18% (area) Fov increase applies at ALL distances - not just 1000m

..... mind you, at a close in birding distance of say ~15m (~49ft) , the extra linear distance would only amount to 9cm (about 3&1/2 inches) per side - 'almost' enough to pick up an extra geewhizzit right on the edge of the field ...... o

Chosun :gh:

dries1 · Jun 10, 2018

Zeiss

With prices falling on some good archived models, and the cost for an HT when you can find one, I obtained a light 10X, the 10X42 FL T new in Box.This is a nice light 10X42 at 765 grams, proven history, AK prisms (Not too many glass except the HT that have them) bright and very durable. So for less $$$ the FL is still a very good glass.
I am very pleased with them.

Andy W.

Chosun Juan · Jun 10, 2018

Vespobuteo said:
.....Maybe the price on HT-glass have increased, and they can't obtain the same margin as before due to competition, lower sales volume etc.....

I highly doubt that! when Tract are introducing HT glass on their Toric which goes for ~1/2 or less the price of the Zeiss :smoke:

(you might be right about Zeiss wanting to 'funnel' HunTers into a near $3,000 RF though ..... but then, you know - who cares? :brains: .... if stoop*d HunTers can afford ammo and banjos, then they can pay through the nose for bins too! 3

Chosun :gh:

Vespobuteo · Jun 10, 2018

Chosun Juan said:
I highly doubt that! when Tract are introducing HT glass on their Toric which goes for ~1/2 or less the price of the Zeiss :smoke:

(you might be right about Zeiss wanting to 'funnel' HunTers into a near $3,000 RF though ..... but then, you know - who cares? :brains: .... if stoop*d HunTers can afford ammo and banjos, then they can pay through the nose for bins too! 3

Chosun :gh:

HT glass comes in different quality, a bit like cheese. o

NDhunter · Jun 11, 2018

Vespobuteo said:
HT glass comes in different quality, a bit like cheese. o

I agree with your very profound statement.

Most should know that Zeiss owns Schott, and I suspect they have the
choice of whatever glass type they would like to use. And that means Schott or others.

I hope that makes sense to some thinking Schott means something special,
as it is not.

Schott is a large glass mfr. with many types and grades of glass, with plants
all over the world, and they sell to many companies.

Jerry

Zeiss ht discontinued ? (1 Viewer)

missing the neotropics

missing the neotropics

Moderator

Experienced observer

Active member

missing the neotropics

Moderator

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Member

Attachments

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread