Zeiss questions out of curiosity (1 Viewer)

Alexis Powell · Jun 20, 2018

SeldomPerched said:
...On my compact 8x20 I find it almost impossible to set the dioptre as the adjustment is at the end of one barrel (is that the right word?). And since the twin-hinge arrangement wriggles like a Labrador puppy I haven't yet found the best setting. Any tips?...

Is that the Leica 8x20 Trinovid? Sounds like it needs service to tension the hinges. The hinges should hold their settings firmly. I have the 10x25 equivalent and have no trouble with the diopter or hinges.

--AP

SeldomPerched · Jun 21, 2018

Alexis Powell said:
Is that the Leica 8x20 Trinovid? Sounds like it needs service to tension the hinges. The hinges should hold their settings firmly. I have the 10x25 equivalent and have no trouble with the diopter or hinges.

--AP

Thanks for the info, AP. I think you are right; the dioptre and hinges could do with some adjustment - dioptre loosening and hinges tightening. And the focus wheel is too stiff to do small adjustments accurately. Could go in together with my old Dialyt to East Coast Binocular Repairs when I send them off.

Tom

PS: Yes, nearly forgot to say: it is the 8x20 Trinovid BCA. In olive green.

WJC · Jun 23, 2018

SeldomPerched said:
Was wondering the following:

1. Is it right that the optics of the 8x42 Victory HT are essentially the same as those of the discontinued Victory FL? If not, are there any similarities apart from the 8x42 bit?

2. Even if no.1 is wrong is it fair to say that the 8x42 FL is an exceptionally good binocular? (I know this depends on what you want from binoculars.)

3. I found yesterday that sharpest focus on my just acquired 8x56 FL was with the dioptre setting at zero. On my other two non-compact bins the sharpest setting is at -1/2. I have heard this sort of difference occurs, but why?

4. On my compact 8x20 I find it almost impossible to set the dioptre as the adjustment is at the end of one barrel (is that the right word?). And since the twin-hinge arrangement wriggles like a Labrador puppy I haven't yet found the best setting. Any tips?

5. In practice is the lack of sharpness at the edge of a 7x42 FL something that users find they can't happily live with? Any experiences?

Thank you,

Tom

I just got back from a very long trip and have not DUTIFULLY read all the responses. But the way it works is the NEW and POPULAR binocular of 2018 may well be the not so new (but popular) binocular of 1955 with a slight change in AR coatings, and dramatic change in cosmetics, and a HUGE change in PRICE!:cat:

Bill

chill6x6 · Jun 23, 2018

SeldomPerched said:
Was wondering the following:

1. Is it right that the optics of the 8x42 Victory HT are essentially the same as those of the discontinued Victory FL? If not, are there any similarities apart from the 8x42 bit?

2. Even if no.1 is wrong is it fair to say that the 8x42 FL is an exceptionally good binocular? (I know this depends on what you want from binoculars.)

3. I found yesterday that sharpest focus on my just acquired 8x56 FL was with the dioptre setting at zero. On my other two non-compact bins the sharpest setting is at -1/2. I have heard this sort of difference occurs, but why?

4. On my compact 8x20 I find it almost impossible to set the dioptre as the adjustment is at the end of one barrel (is that the right word?). And since the twin-hinge arrangement wriggles like a Labrador puppy I haven't yet found the best setting. Any tips?

5. In practice is the lack of sharpness at the edge of a 7x42 FL something that users find they can't happily live with? Any experiences?

Thank you,

Tom

1. Yes. I had both the 10X42 HT AND the 10X42 FL at the same time...probably close to two years. I found I liked the FL BETTER. Still have the FL 10X42.

2. Absolutely. I have the FL in 7X42, 8X42, and 10X42. Among my favorite binoculars.

3. The numbering frequently isn't exactly calibrate. Set it to your vision regardless of where the numbers fall.

4. You've all ready got the correct answer I believe.

5. Some good thoughts on this above. The 7X42 is my favorite of the FLs. As a birding binocular it's hard to beat. It WOULDN'T bother me if Swarovski came out with an SV 7X42 though.

It IS nice to be able to for instance look at two or three birds the same distance from you in your FOV with all of them being in focus. Instead of moving your binocular to place the bird in the center of your FOV sweet spot you may just look at the bird without moving anything but your eye. But then if there WAS an SV 7X42 almost assuredly it's FOV would be less than 450ft/1000yds, so always tradeoffs.

Troubador · Jun 24, 2018

Tom

I know an optics engineer at a famous European brand whose personal bino is an FL 7x42 because of its special qualities and also a product development manager at another Euro-brand who again praises 7x binos as being the fine wine of binoculars. Yet another project manager acknowledges their special qualities but remarks that they are always loss-makers as not enough people buy them.

Lee

ceasar · Jun 24, 2018

chill6x6 said:
1. Yes. I had both the 10X42 HT AND the 10X42 FL at the same time...probably close to two years. I found I liked the FL BETTER. Still have the FL 10X42.

2. Absolutely. I have the FL in 7X42, 8X42, and 10X42. Among my favorite binoculars.

3. The numbering frequently isn't exactly calibrate. Set it to your vision regardless of where the numbers fall.

4. You've all ready got the correct answer I believe.

5. Some good thoughts on this above. The 7X42 is my favorite of the FLs. As a birding binocular it's hard to beat. It WOULDN'T bother me if Swarovski came out with an SV 7X42 though. It IS nice to be able to for instance look at two or three birds the same distance from you in your FOV with all of them being in focus. Instead of moving your binocular to place the bird in the center of your FOV sweet spot you may just look at the bird without moving anything but your eye. But then if there WAS an SV 7X42 almost assuredly it's FOV would be less than 450ft/1000yds, so always tradeoffs.

Hi Chuck,

That is a fine picture of your 3 Zeiss 42mm FLs.:t:

Did you notice the lengths of their objective tubes? It is obvious that the 7x has the shortest objective tubes but the 8x tubes are just slightly shorter than the ones on the 10x.

I wonder if the reason that the 7x42 has that wide FOV of 8.5º is because its focal length is slightly less than f4?

Bob

PHA · Jun 24, 2018

Helo chill6x6,

I also have had both FL and HT 10x42, but I sold the FL just a few days before I got the HT. So, couldn't compare them side by side.
Anyway, I have a question about veiling glare. May be only my imagination but if I remember well, the FL had notably less veiling glare than the HT. The V. Glare is a big issue in binoculars to me. Period.
That's why last year comparing, side by side and in difficult light conditions, my HT 10x42 and the Noctivid 10x42, I was amazed by the perfect view in the NV vs. the almost white washed view with the HT.
Do you remember the difference in VG between your FL and your HT?

Thank you!

PHA

chill6x6 · Jun 24, 2018

PHA said:
Helo chill6x6,

I also have had both FL and HT 10x42, but I sold the FL just a few days before I got the HT. So, couldn't compare them side by side.
Anyway, I have a question about veiling glare. May be only my imagination but if I remember well, the FL had notably less veiling glare than the HT. The V. Glare is a big issue in binoculars to me. Period.
That's why last year comparing, side by side and in difficult light conditions, my HT 10x42 and the Noctivid 10x42, I was amazed by the perfect view in the NV vs. the almost white washed view with the HT.
Do you remember the difference in VG between your FL and your HT?

Thank you!

PHA

Good morning,

No I don't. For me there was really no huge difference the HT and FL optically. I actually like the bright presentation of both the HT and FL. Maybe the flatter transmission spectra of the NV vs. the HT could be a contributing factor of what you are seeing... Just a thought.

chill6x6 · Jun 24, 2018

ceasar said:
Hi Chuck,

That is a fine picture of your 3 Zeiss 42mm FLs.:t:

Did you notice the lengths of their objective tubes? It is obvious that the 7x has the shortest objective tubes but the 8x tubes are just slightly shorter than the ones on the 10x.

I wonder if the reason that the 7x42 has that wide FOV of 8.5º is because its focal length is slightly less than f4?

Bob

Good morning Bob!

Yeah it IS shorter. I never noticed it until THAT picture! My 7X42 is the oldest of the three and at first I thought Zeiss had changed the dimensions for the 42mm FLs. Several folks with newer FL 7X42s state that all 7X42 FLs are the same dimension.

So YEAH I guess the shorter tubes of the 7X42 do help increase the FOV while the 8X42 and 10X42s are similar to binoculars in their respective classes.

PHA · Jun 24, 2018

Thank you, Sir!

PHA

Troubador · Jun 25, 2018

ceasar said:
Hi Chuck,

That is a fine picture of your 3 Zeiss 42mm FLs.:t:

Did you notice the lengths of their objective tubes? It is obvious that the 7x has the shortest objective tubes but the 8x tubes are just slightly shorter than the ones on the 10x.

I wonder if the reason that the 7x42 has that wide FOV of 8.5º is because its focal length is slightly less than f4?

Bob

Bob

It is correct that the fov of FL7x is obtained partly because of a shorter focal length.

Lee

Tringa45 · Jun 26, 2018

Troubador said:
It is correct that the fov of FL7x is obtained partly because of a shorter focal length.

Lee,

Agreed, but I suspect that the focal length reduction was to enable the use of the same eyepieces as in the 8x42, and in this case was not a prerequisite for the 150 m FOV @ 1000m. When calculated according to ISO that is a rather modest 55,4° AFOV. IIRC the old 7x42 Dialyt had the same FOV and was a fairly long binocular.

Strangely, Swarovski went the other way with the old (and Neu) SLCs. The SLC 7x42 B was a full 17mm longer than the SLC 10x42 WB.

John

Troubador · Jun 27, 2018

Tringa45 said:
Lee,

Agreed, but I suspect that the focal length reduction was to enable the use of the same eyepieces as in the 8x42, and in this case was not a prerequisite for the 150 m FOV @ 1000m. When calculated according to ISO that is a rather modest 55,4° AFOV. IIRC the old 7x42 Dialyt had the same FOV and was a fairly long binocular.

Strangely, Swarovski went the other way with the old (and Neu) SLCs. The SLC 7x42 B was a full 17mm longer than the SLC 10x42 WB.

John

Yes the old Dialyt had the same fov and in fact Zeiss 7x binos had the same fov from Dialyt to Night Owl and to Victory FL.

AFOV is only one way of thinking about field of view. Another is to consider just how much of world you get to see each time you look through the binos and to do this you can consider the linear fov at 1,000 metres or feet and treat it as the diameter of the circle of view and calculate the area of that circle. The 150m delivers 17,673 sq metres at 1,000 metres which is a heck of a lot of sky, land or water.

Lee

ceasar · Jun 27, 2018

Tringa45 said:
Lee,

Agreed, but I suspect that the focal length reduction was to enable the use of the same eyepieces as in the 8x42, and in this case was not a prerequisite for the 150 m FOV @ 1000m. When calculated according to ISO that is a rather modest 55,4° AFOV. IIRC the old 7x42 Dialyt had the same FOV and was a fairly long binocular.

Strangely, Swarovski went the other way with the old (and Neu) SLCs. The SLC 7x42 B was a full 17mm longer than the SLC 10x42 WB.

John

Did the old 7x42 Dialyt have astigmatic edges like the Victory 7x42 T* FL has?

Incidentally, Allbino's review of the Victory 8x42 T* FL has a cut away picture of the 7x42 version at the start of it.

https://www.allbinos.com/238-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_8x42_T*_FL.html

Its Objective tubes look like they are the same length as those shown on Chucks photo of his 8x42 FL in post #24 above which makes me wonder of the cut away is correctly identified.

Bob

Troubador · Jun 27, 2018

ceasar said:
Did the old 7x42 Dialyt have astigmatic edges like the Victory 7x42 T* FL has?

Incidentally, Allbino's review of the Victory 8x42 T* FL has a cut away picture of the 7x42 version at the start of it.

https://www.allbinos.com/238-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_8x42_T*_FL.html

Its Objective tubes look like they are the same length as those shown on Chucks photo of his 8x42 FL in post #24 above which makes me wonder of the cut away is correctly identified.

Bob

Hi Bob
Well spotted! I have that same cutaway from a different source labelled 10x42. Zeiss specs from 2005 show the 7x as being 7mm shorter than 8 or 10x.

Lee

garymh · Jun 27, 2018

The cutaway picture on Allbinos is either a 10x42 FL or a 8x42 FL.......it is not a 7x42 FL. It was a standard cutaway picture used on press releases and the one used was an 8/10x42.

The 7x42FL uses exactly the same ocular assembies as the 8x42 FL.

Gary

Patudo · Jun 27, 2018

Hi Gary... sorry for going so badly off topic, but your private message quota is full. If you're not too busy, could I trouble you to check when my 10x50 was made? The serial number is 516269.

Best regards

PS. observed my second most recent peregrine kill this year with it last weekend - a ring-necked parakeet near Battersea Bridge. Thanks again for cleaning it up for me.

Alexis Powell · Jun 27, 2018

ceasar said:
Did the old 7x42 Dialyt have astigmatic edges like the Victory 7x42 T* FL has?...

No, not to the same extent. The FL has a fairly flat field but with astigmatism. The Dialyt has a curved field with little astigmatism.

--AP

Tringa45 · Jun 27, 2018

ceasar said:
Did the old 7x42 Dialyt have astigmatic edges like the Victory 7x42 T* FL has?

Bob,

I have no experience of the 7x42 Dialyt but a 10x42 FL I used to own had significant astigmatism, so I can't understand Allbinos' evaluation, where they described it as low.
Eye relief was the main quibble with the FL and it was replaced with a 10x42 EL SV. With the SV I cannot detect any astigmatism or field curvature.

John

Vespobuteo · Jun 27, 2018

Tringa45 said:
Bob,

I have no experience of the 7x42 Dialyt but a 10x42 FL I used to own had significant astigmatism, so I can't understand Allbinos' evaluation, where they described it as low.
Eye relief was the main quibble with the FL and it was replaced with a 10x42 EL SV. With the SV I cannot detect any astigmatism or field curvature.

John

The 10x42 FL actually scores lower than SV, SF, EDG and UVHD in category astigmatism.
So nothing strange there.
Still it could be considered as low.
If you find it disturbing you might call it "significant" but that is fairly subjective.
If you prefer zero astigmatism, even the slightest amount could be significant.

Zeiss questions out of curiosity (1 Viewer)

Natural history enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Attachments

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Registered User

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Binocular Engineer

sub-200 birding aspirant

Natural history enthusiast

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread