• 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.

Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 vs Cabelas Euro HD 8x32 (1 Viewer)

absolut_beethoven

Well-known member
I couldn't resist getting this virtually brand new Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 at an excellent price from Amazon knowing that returns are easy. Plus I have until January 31st to decide whether to keep them or not.

Here's a short preview to whet your appetite for those who would like to know exactly how much more you get for twice the amount of money. The Euro HD is $800 and one can buy the Zeiss FL for around $1600 or less these days depending on your keeping track of eBay, Amazon Warehouse deals, Eagle Optics etc.

Physical differences aren't that great as the Zeiss sans straps caps etc weighs in on my wife's food scale at 556g and the Euro at 601g. They're comparable in size except for the Zeiss larger diameter barrels. Interestingly, although the Zeiss has much larger eye cups, the eyepiece ∅ measures approximately 19mm versus the Euro with its much smaller eye cups but has eyepieces 2mm larger at ∅ 21mm.

Full review to follow later but here are a few quick observations.

Both binos subtly change white to a slightly more ivory/cream color, with the nod going to the Zeiss. The Euro is marginally more cream colored. Easily seen by me, but trust me when I tell you that the differences are really small. See the pic of the 6000k LED lit whiteboard that I posted below - the Zeiss is on the left. As seen in this pic, for some reason when looking through the objectives the Euro appears to have a much larger exit pupil than any other bino I've seen. Obviously not possible as both have the same magnification and objectives. Hopefully one of our more knowledgeable members will let us know why.

On the star test, tiny medium bright stars appear as very sharp pin pricks through the Euros, so I was really surprised to see that even without using my Zeiss 3X booster I could easily see that the Zeiss made those pin pricks even smaller and sharper. On the weekend I'll use the booster on the USAF chart to see how much difference in resolution my eyes will see.

I've read so much about the Zeiss lack of CA so I was really curious to see if it would pass muster with me because I've always seen that distortion more easily than most people. From my short time with them so far I can tell you that it has virtually zero CA in the sweet spot, and only marginally more right at the edge. IMHO I would rate the CA at the edge as less than what most binos have in the center. Definitely the least CA of any bino that I've seen. Most impressive indeed!!

More to follow soon.
 

Attachments

  • ZeissFL_EuroHD.jpg
    ZeissFL_EuroHD.jpg
    117.5 KB · Views: 427
I think you are referring to the field stop instead of the "exit pupil".

I look forward to reading the rest of your comments in comparing these models. I haven't seen the Euro HD 8x32 go head to head with the "big boys" yet but look forward to seeing the comments.
 
Zeiss vs Cabelas Part 2

Pin cushion distortion is pretty comparable on both in that it starts to be noticeable around 50% of the FOV. But even right at the edge where its at its worst I’d rate it at slightly worse than medium versus slightly less than medium in the sweet spot, with the Zeiss curving the line about 3% to 5% less than the Cabelas right at the edge. The undisputed champ in this area has to the Nikon EDG 8x32 that I owned as it has the least amount of pin cushion of any bino that I’ve seen, and they managed that outstanding feat without adding any other strange distortions such as rolling ball, or that slightly out of focus ring that forum members have seen in the Kowa Genesis 8x33, a bino that I’ve yet to check out. The bottom line is that most people won’t notice it in field use, but some might find it annoying if all they’re using these binos for is scouting out sights in the city.

Comparing the size of the sweet spot of these two samples that I have on hand, I was surprised to see that the Cabelas has a marginally larger area that remains in focus before blurring becomes noticeable. I only use one eye for this test because with both eyes open when the small print that I’m checking out is on the left with my right eye, then that same print will be smack in the middle of the sweet spot with my left eye and my brain tries to reconcile both images into one, so it becomes more difficult to determine exactly where the image starts blurring. The sweet spot on most good quality binos usually extends to about 70% to 80% of the FOV, unless they have field flattening correction lenses. As mentioned above, there’s not a big difference between these two and I’d estimate that blurring starts around the 70% to 75% on the Zeiss, and about 80% on the Cabelas. Neither is sharp enough right at the edges to read that same small print, but even although it’s still soft and out of focus, doubling the size of the font makes it readable. Both fulfill my criteria in that the view is still useful enough to notice anything moving into your FOV, unless you’re only checking out humming birds and bumble bees!

Brightness – yes, I’m sure that most of you want to know how well the new Cabelas compares with the undisputed brightness champ in the 8x32 arena, especially seeing as both companies boast that their transmission exceeds 90%. This test was very interesting, and at the same time very difficult for me because there was virtually no difference between them. For this test I joined two ads together from an old copy of Cornell University’s Living Bird magazine, see posted pic below. I chose these two because of the bright red bird in the upper one, and the brilliant shades of violet in the lower one. I pinned them up on the far side of my fence and started the test a few minutes after sunset as this probably qualifies as the official start of twilight. Viewing the ads from about 100’ away I couldn’t see any difference between the two. The red was easily seen as bright red, and the violet could only be seen as a homogenized violet color even at this early stage when it’s bright enough to read outside. Darkness sets in quite quickly once the sun dips below the horizon, so I kept on switching back and forth between the two until it was too dark to see any color at all but could still make out the shape of the red bird due to its lighter background. Because I couldn’t really see any difference between them, I called my 15 year old son over about 2 minutes into this test to see if his younger eyes could pick up anything that my older eyes might have missed. At first he thought that the Cabelas was marginally brighter, but after switching back and forth a couple of times, he agreed with me that it was too close to call. I would have called this one a draw, except that as I switched back and forth, with the sky getting darker by the minute, I noticed at one point that I could still read the bold yellow print in the upper left corner of the lower ad with the Zeiss, but that all I could see with the Cabelas is that there was something yellow there. I couldn’t make out any words at all. I was only able to switch back and forth a few times before it became too dark to see the print at all. Nevertheless, I was able to do 3 or 4 comparisons in that short space of time. Even although I knew exactly where the words were as I could see them clearly enough with the Zeiss to read them, I could only see that there was something yellow there with the Cabelas, I couldn’t see let alone read any of those yellow words or letters. I honestly couldn’t see any other difference in brightness or clarity between them in this test under the aforementioned conditions. Everybody’s eyes see colors differently, so others may come to a different conclusion. My conclusion is that the Zeiss is imperceptibly brighter, but most won’t notice it except on colors in the yellow range. I have to say that the Cabelas gave the Zeiss a good run for the money in all these tests, especially this one.

Field of view (FOV) is listed as 8° or 420’ @ 1000 yards for the Zeiss, and 7.9° or 417’ @ 1000 yards for the Cabelas. I didn’t see it that way as it appeared to me that the Cabelas had a slightly wider FOV. Had I not known the specs, I would have reversed the specs – that is 7.9° for the Zeiss and 8° for the Cabelas. Either way, there wasn’t a big difference between them, but the Cabelas will broaden your FOV by a couple feet compared to the former.

Yesterday was overcast virtually the whole day here in Dallas, so except for the twilight/brightness test mentioned above I didn’t get a chance to compare them outdoors. Fortunately today is a bright cloudless day here. Perfect weather to compare their sharpness/resolution, contrast and glare control, so I’ll try and post part 3 later this evening together with a few pics of them side by side.
 

Attachments

  • mag_ads.jpg
    mag_ads.jpg
    300 KB · Views: 302
For comparing brightness, I find it much easier to compare ''whiteness'' of the image in poor light, or look at things like fence boards, concrete walls or other semi-reflective surfaces to see which seems to bounce more light back to my eye.

Another good test is to look at a dim horizon and try to see which seems brighter, all things considered. Now, maybe none of these are really registering ''brightness'' but they do indicate which bino. contributes to a more luminous [and to me] an aesthetically more pleasing image - both in full light and dull conditions.

I don't think colour is a great indicator - as my Terra shows brighter looking colours than my HT - but the Terra has a much warmer [brown / yellow] look than the completely neutral HT. I have always thought that more saturated colurs is more a by-product to lower transmission than higher - could be wrong though!
 
For comparing brightness, I find it much easier to compare ''whiteness'' of the image in poor light, or look at things like fence boards, concrete walls or other semi-reflective surfaces to see which seems to bounce more light back to my eye....

Thanks for your comments James. As mentioned above, I didn't see any difference at all between them as far as clarity, brightness and color are concerned under twilight conditions except for those large font yellow letters in the lower ad, and that includes the slightly smaller font white letters in the Kowa ad.

True, I didn't concentrate only on those white letters, but I did make an effort to scan each ad to see if any one thing was clearly more visible with one bino but not the other. I read somewhere that someone uses a black and white checkered soccer ball to see how far into twilight the white squares can be seen. I don't have one, but I'll see if I can do something similar and compare them once again but this time with all color removed from the equation. IMHO I think that the color test is more important to most people than a purely monochrome one. Everybody's priorities are different so let's hear what others have to say about this.
 
True, I didn't concentrate only on those white letters, but I did make an effort to scan each ad to see if any one thing was clearly more visible with one bino but not the other. I read somewhere that someone uses a black and white checkered soccer ball to see how far into twilight the white squares can be seen. I don't have one, but I'll see if I can do something similar and compare them once again but this time with all color removed from the equation. IMHO I think that the color test is more important to most people than a purely monochrome one. Everybody's priorities are different so let's hear what others have to say about this.

Many thanks for an interesting posting, I have the Zeiss 8x32FL but nothing in my own collection will quite match it in any respect, so it's very interesting to read other comparisons.

Ben
 
Zeiss vs Cabelas Conclusion

Shortly after noon this afternoon I checked out some high voltage wires that run through my neighbors back yard and the much thinner steel cables that support them against the bright blue cloudless sky. Through the Zeiss there was only the very slightest hint of CA because the top edge had a very faint purple glow and the bottom edge had a very faint green glow. Trust me when I tell you that in the sweet spot the CA of the Zeiss is really minuscule. During the star and moon test I couldn’t see any against the dark background of the night sky. CA through the Cabelas was more easily seen but that’s only in comparison to the tough competition I had on hand. I’d classify CA through the Zeiss as virtually non-existent and very low on the Cabelas.

Most readers won’t be surprised to hear that the Cabelas has a richer, exceptionally vivid view which without a doubt falls into the ‘wow’ category. Or as Dennis would say, has great pop. I suspect that this is the reason that my son initially thought that they were brighter than the Zeiss in the twilight test. Some readers have described the colors of the Zeiss as being a little washed out, but it definitely didn’t appear that way to me. Sure it didn’t have the vividness of the Cabelas, but it certainly wasn’t lacking in color either. Of course some will disagree with me. As always, it’s best to check them out for yourself instead of letting some pundit on the internet make decisions for you.

Glare and veiling glare was another test that wasn’t easy to do due to light leakage of the Cabelas small eyecups. When fitted snugly deep into my eye sockets they did handle looking towards the late afternoon sun better than the Zeiss. However, until I got the depth and snugness correct it was really a matter of six of one and half a dozen of the other. The Zeiss eyecups fit me perfectly and seal out most extraneous light so the slight glare weakness is not due to them and I’ll leave it to others exactly where to lay the blame. Keep in mind that I’m talking about looking directly towards the sun, and only a few degrees below it in order to avoid damaging my eyes. This is not an easy test for any binocular. Personally I would suggest that Meopta modify their eyecups to a slightly larger diameter as I believe that is their only major weakness. The Zeiss eyecups measure 39mm ∅ versus the Cabelas at 34.5mm ∅. Interestingly, the thickness of the eyecup wall that actually rests up against the eye sockets is 4mm on both, but the smaller diameter of the latter makes it feel as if it’s thinner and sharper.

For comparisons sake I have posted a pic of the oculars of the three binos I have on hand with the largest at the top, and the smallest at the bottom. The Pentax ocular is 21.5mm ∅, the Cabelas is 21mm ∅, and the Zeiss is 19mm ∅. All are reasonably accurate guestimates as I didn’t want to risk scratching the lenses. In the other two posted pics one can see the fatter barrels of the Zeiss versus the Cabelas, 48mm ∅ vs 43.5mm ∅. While I’m on the subject of barrels I should mention that the Zeiss rubber has a slight rubber odor (almost like the rubber in car tires) that lingers on my hands after using them. The Cabelas has a much weaker and more benign odor. Both provide an excellent non-slippery feel to them with the former having a tiny more grippy feel to it.

Finally we get to the sharpness/resolution test. As always, I use a brightly lit USAF chart with both binos mounted on a reasonably sturdy tripod about 20’ away. I don’t wear eyeglasses when using binos so others may get different results. Unaided, I could clearly see both the horizontal and vertical bars of the 2nd row in the 1st column with both. Using the Zeiss 3X tripler I could see the last row #6 in the same column. The Zeiss was at a disadvantage when using the tripler both because I didn’t have a proper tripod mount for it, so I just placed it on top of the Cabelas, and also because the tripler that I have doesn’t have the correct sized attachment for it. The one that I have is too large, so I had to hold it by hand which didn’t make for a very steady view at 24X magnification. It didn’t have this disadvantage without the tripler as I could view the chart without my face actually touching the eyecups. The fact that stars appeared sharper and more like pin pricks in the star test, tells me that under the aforementioned circumstances I wasn’t able to wring out the last iota of resolution that its capable of.

I have listed the strengths and weakness of each, and only you can tell which one will better suit your needs in the long term and if the cost is worth it to you.

Hopefully another brave soul will make the effort for our dear readers and do a similar test with the Zeiss Conquest HD versus the Cabelas Euro HD. As for me, I don’t want to see another chart or do another test for at least a year or two :t:
 

Attachments

  • oculars.jpg
    oculars.jpg
    266.1 KB · Views: 665
  • Zeiss_Euro1.jpg
    Zeiss_Euro1.jpg
    245.8 KB · Views: 963
  • Zeiss_Euro2.jpg
    Zeiss_Euro2.jpg
    227.9 KB · Views: 507
Thanks a lot for your effort, AB! :t:
Best of all, you have erased the last shade of doubt whether it was right to sell my 10x32 FL or not. The Euro HD is definitely a worthy contender to the FL and to the Conquest HD.
Best of all, the colours seem to have improved compared to the older version which is similar to the old Conquest. The older Meostar has very little CA but it is good to know that the HD is even better.

One thing I think you could have mentioned is the significantly better portability of the Meopta. I'm sure the volume differs significantly. The easiest way to determine this is to immerse them in a scaled vessel. They replaced my Bushnell Excursion 8x28 which is the smallest usable binocular for me, but the Meostar is a lot better optically, and still quite small.

Another effect of the thinner barrels is how much easier the binoculars could be held.
My IPD is 67 mm and the Zeiss's thick barrels don't allow the thumb/s to take more than one position. With the Meostar, it's easy to grip the focusing knob between the index finger and the thumb, which is a massive improvement of the handling properties.

//L
 
Hello Absolut,

Thanks for the posting.

I recently bought a MeoPro 6.5x32, which has many good points. Strangely, it is labelled as "assembled in the USA." Is the Cabela glass labelled as made in the Czech Republic?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewoo :hi:
 
Finally we get to the sharpness/resolution test. As always, I use a brightly lit USAF chart with both binos mounted on a reasonably sturdy tripod about 20’ away. I don’t wear eyeglasses when using binos so others may get different results. Unaided, I could clearly see both the horizontal and vertical bars of the 2nd row in the 1st column with both. Using the Zeiss 3X tripler I could see the last row #6 in the same column. The Zeiss was at a disadvantage when using the tripler both because I didn’t have a proper tripod mount for it, so I just placed it on top of the Cabelas, and also because the tripler that I have doesn’t have the correct sized attachment for it. The one that I have is too large, so I had to hold it by hand which didn’t make for a very steady view at 24X magnification. It didn’t have this disadvantage without the tripler as I could view the chart without my face actually touching the eyecups. The fact that stars appeared sharper and more like pin pricks in the star test, tells me that under the aforementioned circumstances I wasn’t able to wring out the last iota of resolution that its capable of.

I'm confused by the resolution test results. Was it inconclusive due to the tripod mount issue? Or, were you able to tell which bin is sharper ?
 
Hello Absolut,

Thanks for the posting.

I recently bought a MeoPro 6.5x32, which has many good points. Strangely, it is labelled as "assembled in the USA." Is the Cabela glass labelled as made in the Czech Republic?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewoo :hi:

My 8x32 Euro HD is clearly marked with the Meopta emblem on the removable plastic "screw" where you mount the tripod adaptor. These bins are very, very impressive.
 
Hello Absolut,

Thanks for the posting.

I recently bought a MeoPro 6.5x32, which has many good points. Strangely, it is labelled as "assembled in the USA." Is the Cabela glass labelled as made in the Czech Republic?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewoo :hi:

Arthur,

Meopta has a large optics facility in Hauppauge, Long Island.

http://www.meoptasportsoptics.com/us/overview/binoculars-9/meostar-b1-series-23.html

http://www.meoptasportsoptics.com/us/history-1.html

Bob
 
Last edited:

Bob,

Thanks for the information. That is practically in my neighborhood. I have a long history of using Meopta products, going back to my photographic enlarger and its lenses, forty or more years, ago.
Incidentally, I have heard from two people that Meopta supplies that Austrian binocular brand with components.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
 
Arthur, that wouldn't surprise me at all. I know for a fact that Meopta supplies some of the glass to Zeiss for their Conquest rifle scopes.
 
|:d|
Thanks a lot for your effort, AB! :t:
Best of all, you have erased the last shade of doubt whether it was right to sell my 10x32 FL or not. The Euro HD is definitely a worthy contender to the FL and to the Conquest HD.
Best of all, the colours seem to have improved compared to the older version which is similar to the old Conquest. The older Meostar has very little CA but it is good to know that the HD is even better.

One thing I think you could have mentioned is the significantly better portability of the Meopta. I'm sure the volume differs significantly. The easiest way to determine this is to immerse them in a scaled vessel. They replaced my Bushnell Excursion 8x28 which is the smallest usable binocular for me, but the Meostar is a lot better optically, and still quite small.

Another effect of the thinner barrels is how much easier the binoculars could be held.
My IPD is 67 mm and the Zeiss's thick barrels don't allow the thumb/s to take more than one position. With the Meostar, it's easy to grip the focusing knob between the index finger and the thumb, which is a massive improvement of the handling properties.

//L

Thanks for your comments. Yes, colors are outstanding. I was looking at the different hues of the leaves on the trees in my back yard, and the range of autumn colors through the Cabelas is just outstanding. Bright orange, pale brown to pale and dark green. Officially winter, I know, but don't tell the trees that because I'm enjoying the splash of color while I eat my breakfast.

Yes, the thicker barrels will definitely affect IPD, but even my small hands found them very comfortable and a joy to use. As for the portability, yes the Zeiss is slightly larger in width, but it's also slightly lighter. I think that once I add the winged eye cups I'll be a very happy camper |:d|
 
Hello Absolut,

Thanks for the posting.

I recently bought a MeoPro 6.5x32, which has many good points. Strangely, it is labelled as "assembled in the USA." Is the Cabela glass labelled as made in the Czech Republic?

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewoo :hi:

Now you have a very good reason to visit your neighbors. You might even leave with a new toy after looking through them :t:
 
Last edited:
My 8x32 Euro HD is clearly marked with the Meopta emblem on the removable plastic "screw" where you mount the tripod adaptor. These bins are very, very impressive.

After looking through a few of the 10x42 Euro HDs in different stores under very different conditions, I knew that I'd be one of the first to get the smaller model. I'm really impressed that they did such an outstanding job, plus I believe that the price is unchanged from the earlier non HD version.
 
So is the gist of this review that the $800 Meoptas best the $1600+ Zeiss'? If so, I don't buy it.

No!

If you read through my review carefully you'll see that I stated as clearly as I could that the Cabelas almost matched the Zeiss in every area except control of CA, and bested it in two, viz. vividness of colors and slightly better glare control under extremely difficult lighting conditions. And even the latter required work in order to get the eye cups to sit just right.

So the question for potential buyers is whether the extra cost is worth those small improvements.

It's also worthwhile noting that this Zeiss model is already quite a few years old, and was ahead of most, if not all of its competition when it was introduced. The virtually month or two old Cabelas Euro HD has taken exceptionally good advantage of all the optical and AR coatings advances which have been made in the interim.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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