Victory SF: armouring, eyecups and durability? (2 Viewers)

Hi Zeiss Victory SF users

I have saved up and I'm now fortunate enough to seriously consider buying a Victory SF 8x42. Currently I'm using a Dialyt 7x42 B and a Trinovid 8x32 BN.

However, I am hoping that some of you could help shed light on the (expected) durability of the armouring and eyecups on the Victory SF.
Is the armoouring too soft and prone to getting a shiny look after some years? (like e.g. Ultravid). Is it too loose on the barrels?

Some reviews point out that the eyecups are plastic/cheapy - is that en exaggeration?

I'm torn between Victory SF and Noctivid.
Thoughts on the SF:
PROS: The balance, FOV, placing of the focus knob, colour (black), weight
CONS: Field-flattener (fear of rolling ball), (durability of armouring and eyecups?), slightly larger size

Also how does depth of field compare between SF and Noctivid?

If there was an SF 8x32 I'd love to try it.

Thanks in advance!

Hello Troels
I have been using an SF 10x42 for four years (and an 8x42 for a shorter time) and in that time they have been to many places in western islands of Scotland and here they have suffered days of constant rain, days of constant sun (really!!), spray from the sea, they have been laid on by me on seaweed while I took photos of life in rock pools, they have been banged against rocks, scraped against rocks, I have also laid on them on moorland to take photos of insects and flowers and sometimes they got sheep or goose droppings on them. Today they look absolutely fine without marks on the armour and nowhere is the armour peeling away.

The armour feels a little soft because on the underside it is grooved to both save some weight and also to give a certain 'cushion-effect' to absorb the impact of any bumps.

It is true to say that the eyecups do not feel in line with the price of the binos but actually they have never let me down, have always stayed at the setting I chose and have not worn or deteriorated in any way.

When I pick up the SFs I put my last three fingers around the barrel just under the second bridge and my first finger falls naturally onto the focus wheel.

Noctivid delivers a fine image but if I pick them up as described above I cannot reach the focus wheel and to do this I have to move my hand up the binocular and there comes a point where I think: there is no point to the open bridge design here because I can't take advantage of it. You can hold the Noctivid firmly but it might as well have a traditional closed bridge.

The balance of SF I find ideal because I do a lot of extended-period observing of behaviour and I find I can hold the SF steadier for longer than other binos. Some years ago just before SF was launched I saw a bino-purchasing office of a nature reserve pick one up for the first time and a big smile went across his face because the SF felt so light. Actually although it is lighter than a Swaro EL it isn't that much lighter but it feels it is. I can't say I notice the extra size of the SF and I don't see rolling ball on SF or other binos.

Depth of field is determined by magnification so will be the same on SF and Noctivid. SF field of view is fantastic.

So clearly I like SF. The eyecups are not in keeping with the rest of the bino but have not actually caused any problems in the field during 4 years so maybe I should shut up moaning about them.

Lee

Troubador said:

Hello Troels
I have been using an SF 10x42 for four years (and an 8x42 for a shorter time) and in that time they have been to many places in western islands of Scotland and here they have suffered days of constant rain, days of constant sun (really!!), spray from the sea, they have been laid on by me on seaweed while I took photos of life in rock pools, they have been banged against rocks, scraped against rocks, I have also laid on them on moorland to take photos of insects and flowers and sometimes they got sheep or goose droppings on them. Today they look absolutely fine without marks on the armour and nowhere is the armour peeling away.

The armour feels a little soft because on the underside it is grooved to both save some weight and also to give a certain 'cushion-effect' to absorb the impact of any bumps.

It is true to say that the eyecups do not feel in line with the price of the binos but actually they have never let me down, have always stayed at the setting I chose and have not worn or deteriorated in any way.

When I pick up the SFs I put my last three fingers around the barrel just under the second bridge and my first finger falls naturally onto the focus wheel.

Noctivid delivers a fine image but if I pick them up as described above I cannot reach the focus wheel and to do this I have to move my hand up the binocular and there comes a point where I think: there is no point to the open bridge design here because I can't take advantage of it. You can hold the Noctivid firmly but it might as well have a traditional closed bridge.

The balance of SF I find ideal because I do a lot of extended-period observing of behaviour and I find I can hold the SF steadier for longer than other binos. Some years ago just before SF was launched I saw a bino-purchasing office of a nature reserve pick one up for the first time and a big smile went across his face because the SF felt so light. Actually although it is lighter than a Swaro EL it isn't that much lighter but it feels it is. I can't say I notice the extra size of the SF and I don't see rolling ball on SF or other binos.

Depth of field is determined by magnification so will be the same on SF and Noctivid. SF field of view is fantastic.

So clearly I like SF. The eyecups are not in keeping with the rest of the bino but have not actually caused any problems in the field during 4 years so maybe I should shut up moaning about them.

Lee

Click to expand...

Both SF and Noct are solidly made by companies with a lot of experience. AFAIK both Zeiss and Leica will send you spare eyecups for free if you ask for them directly. So will Swarovski, I've heard. Sorry, but that won't help you choose B

On the other side, I think the real difference between Noctivid and SF is the view. Choose one you really like to look through.

The Zeiss 8x has a very small touch of rolling-ball when you pan, the 10x none -to my eyes.

I think you may find the 8x is a bit redundant with respect to what you already have and you would benefit from adding the SF 10x.

For myself, I can't justify the 8x SF next to my Ultravid HD 7x42, the Ultravid is just too good - I tried them next to each other.

There is now way to really be sure except to do your own testing. We here can only reassure you that the SF is a nice glass.

Edmund

eronald said:

There is now way to really be sure except to do your own testing. We here can only reassure you that the SF is a nice glass.

Edmund

Click to expand...

Especially the 8x42 SF is a very nice glass.B (I'm glad I have a 8x32 FL. Otherwise the 8x42 SF would empty my account)

I have the Zeiss SF in 10x42 and for me it is just stunning. I had the 10x42 Noctivid for a few months and it was nice but felt a lot heavier and I could not hold it for extended periods without having to bring my arms down to rest. I have not had that problem with the Zeiss SF and can literally hold it as long as I want with no fatigue. I think it’s a combination of the barrels being smaller in diameter and the rearward balance. I have med to large hands and the Zeiss is a perfect fit for me. Also the Zeiss to me seems a little sharper and has less ca than the Noctivid. Focus snap on the Zeiss reminds me of the excellent Takahashi telescopes with no going back and forth it’s just super sharp and one of the things I really like about it. I can’t tell you about durability because I have only had it a few months. It feels very solid and well made.


Rob

Robert Moore said:

I have the Zeiss SF in 10x42 and for me it is just stunning. I had the 10x42 Noctivid for a few months and it was nice but felt a lot heavier and I could not hold it for extended periods without having to bring my arms down to rest. I have not had that problem with the Zeiss SF and can literally hold it as long as I want with no fatigue. I think it’s a combination of the barrels being smaller in diameter and the rearward balance. I have med to large hands and the Zeiss is a perfect fit for me. Also the Zeiss to me seems a little sharper and has less ca than the Noctivid. Focus snap on the Zeiss reminds me of the excellent Takahashi telescopes with no going back and forth it’s just super sharp and one of the things I really like about it. I can’t tell you about durability because I have only had it a few months. It feels very solid and well made.


Rob

Click to expand...

I'm not very knowledgable about binos, but have experience for camera lenses, and the 8x42 Zeiss SF seemed better by a margin than all the other 42mm roof alphas I've seen, comfortable to hold and hugely easy on the eyes. I think Zeiss have the "best" bino of the alpha bunch, for the moment, a very nice compromise of sharpness, good color transmission, field flattening, good eye relief and fast focus.

I would buy it immediately if I didn't have a working 7x42 Ultravid HD which is as pleasant and *almost* as sharp. Photography taught me that at some point it's not worth changing equipment because what you have keeps getting better as you use it.

I don't know why no one here ever talks about the HT which might be as sharp.

I do wonder whether someone here knows of a better view through a porro or a 50mm bino.

The SF seems a rare case of a product without known faults. But then the same can probably be said about the other alphas.

In the end this choice boils down to personal preference and personal testing.

Edmund

eronald said:

I don't know why no one here ever talks about the HT which might be as sharp.

Edmund

Click to expand...

Edmund

Zeiss's HT has quite a few friends on here, you just happen to have missed their posts. HT is a very fine bino indeed.

Lee

TroelsPetersen said:

PROS: colour (black)

Click to expand...

Hello TroelsPetersen,

the Noctivid ist black too...only they are also available in green!
Do not forget the Swarovski 8,5x42, for me the glass for the island, but binoculars are of course very subjective and the SF is really a very nice glass.
By the way, binoculars are to look through, not to look at.

Andreas

Hello,

I use the black version of the ZEISS SF 8x42 since 2017 and I love it. My "work wife" has the SF 10x42 (also made in 2017) and we do quite a lot of what is now called "urban birding". Both bins have been in North America, Asia, Africa being exposed to rain, dust and heat. They have not let us down at any time. They have the best behavior for eyeglass users (ease of eye placement/ use without blackouts) and also are the best in false light reduction. With mine I have to move out the eyecups by 1-2 mm for best viewing experience with glasses. Also the SF has a very high transmission.

When mounting both on a tripod for poor man´s quality control looking at stars also additionally with the ZEISS 3x12 BP mono as a "booster" in both samples a very good Airy disc is displayed (very little coma and residual astigmatism). That speaks for very high production quality of the optics.

Weight-wise both SF´s are the same and they feel both as light as a feather. The SF you can hold forever, almost. They have a very nice 3D view and a focus that allows you to follow any bird fast. That is a bit less easy with my SV EL 8.5x42 FP which has the strongest line contrast of all.

The SF´s rubber armouring is well done especially at the objective´s ends where the SF´s have the best objective protection of all the alphas. And that armouring does not feel cheap at all. The SF is the most elegant of all the alphas although the most beautiful design for the aficionado has the LEICA NOCTIVID.

The eyecups..... oh well the eyecups are flimsy but do their job well, they are fairly robust and will not go kaputt at all. But: These current SF eyecups are nothing do write home about and have a real potential for affecting the reputation of CARL ZEISS. The SF´s eyecup rubber is just much thinner compared to the NOCTIVID or SWAROWSKI EL´s. Eyecups are what we are exposed to most when using our bins. We see them before we can look through our bin. To make them look cheap is a stupid thing. ZEISS should redesign them ASAP (also as an upgrade for the SF bins already sold). And make the eyecup tubes from metal.

I would decide by weight and image quality. If the magnification is already set. If brightness, ease-of-view, weight and ergonomic balance is paramount go with the SF 8x42 which also has a terrific image quality. If you read the review of Tobias Mennle about the EL 8.5x42 all written here is also true: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/swarovski/swaroel8.5x42sv/swaroel8.5x42sv.html. He was also very satisfied with the current version of the ZEISS SF: http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/zeiss/zeissvictorysf8x42/zeissvictorysf8x42.html

And: Every serious binomaniac should have one of the SF´s and the SV EL 8.5x42 FP. At least. And you could own a NOCTIVID for the colours. And the SV EL 10x32 FP for a compact lightweight bin with a perfectly sharp and stunning image....



All the best
Michael

Thank you all for your thorough answers - very much appreciated!

I had already tried all three alpha bins (the SV on several ocations, the other two only a single time) but I can't really get to the bottom of the testing while having an expectant salesman looking at me. And evaluating the lifetime of the rubber armouring, or the getting used to rolling ball, can't be done in the matter of 10 minutes.

I like my bins black and therefore the SV's are not really me (albeit they come in 8x32 sand which is the closest I got within Swarovski).

One of my biggest wow-experiences with binoculars was when I first looked through a Victory FL 7x42. For some reason I never bought one myself (but stuck to my Dialyt 7x42). My impression is that the SF 8x42's will do the job for me for many years.

Anyway, what really matters is for me to find that White-throated Robin a few weeks from now.

Troels

TroelsPetersen said:

Thank you all for your thorough answers - very much appreciated!

I had already tried all three alpha bins (the SV on several ocations, the other two only a single time) but I can't really get to the bottom of the testing while having an expectant salesman looking at me. And evaluating the lifetime of the rubber armouring, or the getting used to rolling ball, can't be done in the matter of 10 minutes.

I like my bins black and therefore the SV's are not really me (albeit they come in 8x32 sand which is the closest I got within Swarovski).

One of my biggest wow-experiences with binoculars was when I first looked through a Victory FL 7x42. For some reason I never bought one myself (but stuck to my Dialyt 7x42). My impression is that the SF 8x42's will do the job for me for many years.

Anyway, what really matters is for me to find that White-throated Robin a few weeks from now.

Troels

Click to expand...

SF 8x42 has pretty much the same field of view at 1,000m as FL 7x42 and indeed Dialyt 7x42.

Good luck with your choice and good luck with your White-throated Robin!

Lee

I think Holger Merlitz has an article somewhere where he has some graphs and explains that the 8x42 SF is susceptible to evoking rolling ball but not the 10x42. I checked after feeling the effect on the 8x and found out that he is right, I felt no issue on the 10x.What I felt with the 8x was no issue, except for one moment when I became seasick. I have no problem, ever, with my 7x42 Ultravid.

Try and buy from a place which does takebacks - I hear Amazon and BHPhoto are quite good.

Edmund

eronald said:

I think Holger Merlitz has an article somewhere where he has some graphs and explains that the 8x42 SF is susceptible to evoking rolling ball but not the 10x42. I checked after feeling the effect on the 8x and found out that he is right, I felt no issue on the 10x.What I felt with the 8x was no issue, except for one moment when I became seasick. I have no problem, ever, with my 7x42 Ultravid.

Try and buy from a place which does takebacks - I hear Amazon and BHPhoto are quite good.

Edmund

Click to expand...

Holger also has an article that explains why SF is less likely to cause rolling ball than Swarovski's EL. Try before you buy or buy from a place with easy-returns is always good advice.

Lee

Thank you. I have read Holger Merlitz's article a couple of weeks ago and it convinced me to opt for the Zeiss SF rather than the SV, but it made me consider the 10x. I tried both models in a shop but it was hard to test for rolling ball effects there.

I am not sensitive to rolling ball and don't see it in either the 8x or 10x SF. I use the 8x much more than the 10x and find its huge field of view a great advantage especially when observing over the sea and watching for birds, whales/dolphins/porpoise and otters re-surfacing after a dive. It is also useful when scanning the cliffs and hills for eagles and falcons and is even useful at close distances when scanning bogs and marshes for flowers and dragonflies.

Lee

Troubador said:

I am not sensitive to rolling ball and don't see it in either the 8x or 10x SF. I use the 8x much more than the 10x and find its huge field of view a great advantage especially when observing over the sea and watching for birds, whales/dolphins/porpoise and otters re-surfacing after a dive. It is also useful when scanning the cliffs and hills for eagles and falcons and is even useful at close distances when scanning bogs and marshes for flowers and dragonflies.

Lee

Click to expand...

It's interesting to see how Zeiss went out of their way to redesign the SF when they already had the HT, and how much people like it.

From what I have seen of the high-end bino world so far, the business model seems to be to invest in an optics design and then amortize it by incrementally improving it over a few decades. The fact that the product won't vary very quickly allows a stable supply chain to be set up, and an investment in the case industrial design and tooling etc. The product is sold in small numbers, has high quality, breaks even, and builds a brand which allows the manufacturer to move cheaper products at higher profits which they don't need to make themselves - eg. Trinovid, Conquest, Terra.

Interestingly, Japanese or Chinese OEMs could blow up that model if they wanted to by creating a design innovation and selling it across the low and medium ranges they OEM. I would expect to see that happen quite soon. The SF success demonstrates that consumers are sensitive to improvements in view and ergonomics, and the incredible number of new camera third-party lenses popping up from China show that optics design is boiling over there.

Edmund

eronald said:

It's interesting to see how Zeiss went out of their way to redesign the SF when they already had the HT, and how much people like it.

From what I have seen of the high-end bino world so far, the business model seems to be to invest in an optics design and then amortize it by incrementally improving it over a few decades. The fact that the product won't vary very quickly allows a stable supply chain to be set up, and an investment in the case industrial design and tooling etc..............Edmund

Click to expand...

Actually, what you are describing holds true for Swarovski and Leica, but not for Zeiss. They seem to have started anew more or less, at least when going from their FL to HT to SF x42models. And the move from the original Victory x40 to the FLs was a complete change as well. On the other hand, they have probably not changed anything on their x32 FL, except for adding Lotutec.

FL has different eyepiece from Victory Mk I, FL to HT was just the addition of HT glass and some minor adjustments to make this possible. HT to SF was a total change.

Lee

Troubador said:

Edmund

Zeiss's HT has quite a few friends on here, you just happen to have missed their posts. HT is a very fine bino indeed.

Lee

Click to expand...

Seconded. I am an HT friend and the one I have used is every bit as good as the one Lee must have been using...

Tom

SeldomPerched said:

Seconded. I am an HT friend and the one I have used is every bit as good as the one Lee must have been using...

Tom

Click to expand...

I am sure you are right Tom.

Lee