Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

New Viking 8x42 ED FF w fieldflatteners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Thursday 28th August 2014, 18:59   #1
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
 
Binoseeker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 535
New Viking 8x42 ED FF w fieldflatteners

These might be interesting... FOV 8°

http://www.vikingopticalcentres.co.u...ing-8x42-ed-ff

Anders
Binoseeker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 28th August 2014, 22:46   #2
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,782
An 8x42 with a FOV of 420' @ 1000 yards and a flat field too for 399 British Pounds or $625.00 more or less!

I would have to see that to believe it.

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 6th September 2014, 09:16   #3
JoeRawles
Feathers Wild Bird Care
 
JoeRawles's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Salehurst, East Sussex
Posts: 350
Haven't seen these yet, the rep was in not too long ago and no mention of them, perhaps they've been keeping them quiet! Hopefully he'll bring them in next time to look through, they do sound good for under £400!
__________________
My Binocular Reviews and FAQ
JoeRawles is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th September 2014, 13:23   #4
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRawles View Post
Haven't seen these yet, the rep was in not too long ago and no mention of them, perhaps they've been keeping them quiet! Hopefully he'll bring them in next time to look through, they do sound good for under £400!
Meanwhile you can order a Zeiss 8x42 SF with a FOV of 440'@1000yards and a Flat Field for a mere $2000.00 or 1220 British Pounds more!

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 6th September 2014, 15:45   #5
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
 
Binoseeker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 535
I am trying to order a pair....
Maybe they will get back to me on monday.

Anders
Binoseeker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 6th September 2014, 16:02   #6
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,782
I did have a very casual look at all 3 EDs in the Viking range, not realising the FF was new. The Pro was easily the best but twice the price of the FF. I think my comment on the FF to the Viking rep at the time was "good colour but not sharp enough". The ED-S I don't remember which is probably not a good sign.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th September 2014, 21:37   #7
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
 
Binoseeker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 535
David,

So is the vanguard endeavour ED II 8x42 better than the viking 8x42 ED-FF ?
Both cost 399 £.....

Here is some info Viking OC was kind to give me on the 8x42 ED-FF.

- What is the eye relief ? 22mm
- Is it FMC ?Yes ED glass
- Is it water proof ? Yes
- Weight ? 850g
- Warranty period ? 10 years
- Does it have dielectric coatings on the prisms. Yes
- How many turns on the focuser from close to infinity ? Focus direction ? 2.5 turns Left for infinity
- Where is it made, China, Japan? Japan
- FOV looks like 8° on the photo , right ? Yes
- temperature interval for use & storage....it is a bit cold here in Sweden wintertime :-) ? for use -20˚ to 45 ˚ for storage -25 ˚ to 55 ˚
- Are you planning to make an 8x32-ish version, and if so, when will it be available ? Not yet


Anders
Binoseeker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 6th September 2014, 22:01   #8
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,782
Anders,

I'm sure the FF deserves a more considered look. All I can say is at the time I didn't think it as sharp as the ED-Pro and the Vanguard I have is as sharp as it gets. Of course the wider view and slower focus may be prefered by some.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th September 2014, 08:26   #9
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
 
Binoseeker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 535
David,

If you have looked through the 8x42 McKinley or Prime HD, could you please comment on image performance to the ED II and the ED-FF?

I have noted that when i look through a bin with spectales, sometimes like CA seems much less than when looking without spectacles. My eyes are myopic.
I think it is a good idea to mention using spectacles or not and what type of correction used. I often forget to mention this myself.

When looking through the ED II and ED-FF, did you use spectacles, type of correction?

Thanks,

Anders
Binoseeker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 7th September 2014, 09:00   #10
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,782
Anders,

Not seen the ZR or Leupold I'm afraid.

The Viking FF was just done with glasses and the Vanguard I've checked thoroughly with and without glasses. My distance prescription is fairly weak, about +1 if I remember rightly, and about half that for astigmatism.

David

Last edited by typo : Monday 8th September 2014 at 08:34. Reason: oops!
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 11th September 2014, 09:51   #11
JoeRawles
Feathers Wild Bird Care
 
JoeRawles's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Salehurst, East Sussex
Posts: 350
Well low and behold the rep has just been in so I've had a chance to have a look through and compare them side by side with similarly priced models. I must say I think they performed incredibly well, the wide field of view is great and with the field flatteners they really make the most of it too. The ED glass performed beautifully, no CA noticeable to my eyes. Brightness and contrast was comparable with other models, perhaps a bit better. The weigh more than some but handle very well and feel balanced in the hand, the thumb rests sitting in the right place for me. The rep was pretty sure they were Chinese made, not Japanese (which their ED Pro models are). All in all I was very impressed, will be interested to hear more opinions as they roll out.
__________________
My Binocular Reviews and FAQ
JoeRawles is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 18th September 2014, 19:38   #12
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
 
Binoseeker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 535
Short review of Viking 8x42 ED-FF

Here is a short review I made of the Viking 8x42 ED-FF.
Some comparisons made with ZR Prime HD 8x42 , Leupy 8x42 McKinley and Viking 6.5x32 MD. Tested with Mark I eye ball armed with spectacles.

The bin is delivered, put in a thin textile bag , and then put in a black binocase similar to the ones for the Prime/Mckinley.

General:
I really like the overall “neat” format of the bin, compared to the McKinley.
Length with eye cups down: 15.2 cm.
Weight with rubber cups : 857 gram
Center of gravity: estimated 80mm inwards from the front.
Dressed with rubber with very good friction so it doesn´t slip. Thumb indents. The Prime is too easy to slip out of the hand, strange they put that slippery rubber on it…
Twist up rubber eye cups has in total three positions and has smaller diameter (45mm) than Prime/McKinley. (47/48mm-ish). Eye cups rounded at top. Eye cups move 9.4 mm to the end position when twisted all way.

Diopter control (at right eye piece ) & hinge not to easy nor too hard to move.
Ocular lens diameter 26 mm, same as Prime/McKinley.
Focus wheel (OD 32,5mm, length 25.8mm, practical length to get traction 20mm) made of metal, same “splines” design as the McKinley. I like that better than the Prime design.

The ring holding the objective lens has an inner diameter of 41mm…so this is not a true 42mm bin.
Looking through the objective end using a flash light I can see small dust particles inside on the optical surface…I don´t think these will effect the image, to small to see from the other side so to speak. QC issue…have you seen dust inside 400-600£ bins assembled in Japan? Maybe these are assembled in China after all ;-)

Focus wheel. Tension similar to Prime/McKinley….not as smooth as the Viking 6.5x32 MD i have, few comes close ., no slop to talk about. Focus anti-clockwise to infinity, with 1.4-ish turns from end to end. Like 0.3 turns past infinity.

Neckstrap is connected on the outer side of the barrels, good.
Rubber protective cups on objective and ocular sides stays in place, not like on the 6.5x32 MD where they nearly fall off the objective ends, too loose. Cups on ocular side same style as on the Prime/McKinley.

VOC said it was made in Japan, but there is no text on it, nor on the box etc stating that. I guess it should be marked with country of manufacture, right?
It has a serial number.


Flat field, looking at vertical lines, bends slightly when moved towards the edge of the image.
CA slightly more than Prime.
Resolution, almost the same as Prime/McKinley, looking at a test chart, only one test group below. No boosted resolution test. Tests done indoors with artificial light so take result with a large grain of salt…see it as a relative comparison.
Large sweetspot, sharp close to the edge, good enough.
Collimation: When looking at an object far away and then removing the bin quickly, the eyes were looking a bit at different directions…QC issue...It will be sent back to VOC.
Optical coatings looks green on ocular side and on objective side.
Some focus hunting to find best sharpness, may give feeling it is not directly sharp.

Freezer test: After kept in -18° C for 12 hours, the focuser was very hard to move, dioptre adjustment possible. Hinge possible to adjust but hard to do.
I wouldn´t really call it operational down to -20°C....as stated earlier in this thread.

Summing up: A very nice bin for the money, even nicer when looking through without spectacles . If you get the chance, take a closer look at it if you like image style similar to Prime/McKinley.

Anders

Last edited by Binoseeker : Thursday 18th September 2014 at 19:44.
Binoseeker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 18th September 2014, 20:47   #13
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,782
Anders,

Many thanks for the report.

How did you think the sharpness compared in daylight? Normally our eyesight wouldn't be good enough in artificial light to spot resolution differences so the even one pattern difference might be quite significant.

I still have the Endeavour ED II and a Prime on the way, but I'm not sure if or when I'll get another chance to look at the D-FF.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 18th September 2014, 21:24   #14
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
 
Binoseeker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 535
Typo,

Thanks for your thanks... :-)

I haven´t done that kind of chart resolution test in daylight (yet). I have looked at stationary objects like bark on a tree, and i think it is a little bit easier to get the right focus on the prime/McKinley. Maybe the focus is too fast on the ED-FF and not that smooth causing some difficulties getting perfect focus.

The Prime/McKinley gives a bit better image when looking with spectacles, more forgiving concerning eye/spectacles placement. I like long ER, maybe the ER on the ED-FF isn´t perfect for me., causing some difficilties in focusing. When looking without spectacles it is easier to get better focus more quickly....

I am also getting "older" eyes, maybe "younger" eyes without spectacles get a completely different and better view through the ED-FF .

It will be most interesting to hear, if possible, your comparisons of the Vanguard - Prime - ED-FF.

Anders

Last edited by Binoseeker : Thursday 18th September 2014 at 21:39.
Binoseeker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 19th September 2014, 06:57   #15
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binoseeker View Post
.....
I haven´t done that kind of chart resolution test in daylight (yet). I have looked at stationary objects like bark on a tree, and i think it is a little bit easier to get the right focus on the prime/McKinley. Maybe the focus is too fast on the ED-FF and not that smooth causing some difficulties getting perfect focus.
I'm not going to trust a vague memory of a brief comparison to speculate on exactly what the different was when I tried them. All I can say for sure was that I thought ED Pro was really pretty good and the ED FF suffered by comparison.

I'd find it useful if you could do chart comparisons in strong light (boosted and stopped down would be better ) One less technical test I often do is to to just check the line of trees about 300m from our house. There are some bare twigs about 10-20mm thick silhouetted against the sky. Technically these are below the resolution limit of both the binocular and the eye but a quick comparison of how distinct and black they look often gives a strong indicator of combined effective resolution, contrast and CA control.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 19th September 2014, 18:13   #16
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
 
Binoseeker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 535
Here are some photos taken from ocular and objective side of the Prime, McKinley och ED-FF.
Maybe a bit too dark but better than nothing :-)

Anders
Binoseeker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 20th September 2014, 19:52   #17
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
 
Binoseeker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 535
I checked the ED-FF and Prime HD for center resolution against a resolution chart outdoors today, it was overcast.
Both bins were equally good. I looked without spectacles.

Anders

Last edited by Binoseeker : Saturday 20th September 2014 at 20:53.
Binoseeker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 28th November 2015, 21:40   #18
u10ajf
Andrew Francis

 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 14
I have not tried the prime ED but I went binocular shopping with another proffessional ornithologist today and he picked out the 8x42 ED FFs. I would not argue with that; little different from Leicas at twice the price and superior (IMO) to some Zeiss Terras (*the cheaper Chinese licensed Zeiss binoculars) as these suffered from overly sensitive focussing that could make fine focussing difficult. The 10x42s ED FFs were problematic IMO as there was sufficent spherical abberation that during scanning the field swam a bit and was unpleasant (although the look and contrast of the image was very good). Human eyes have spherical aberration also and part of finding a pair that suits you involves compensating for this so do not take my word for this, perhaps they might suit your eyes, but neither of us liked the 10x pair. The 8x42s did not have this problem. I liked the wide-feeling eye-lense distance insensitive feel of these, it's something you tend to notice on the most expensive binoculars. We did not have much in the same price range to compare the 8x42s with but some RSPB 8x42s - we thought these were marginally better (RSPB model had some internal reflection issues) and preferred the feel of them, they are chunkier and heavier but just feel more comfortable to hold. The salesman preffered the marginally cheaper RSPB model but we didn't! We were not so impressed with a cheaper pair of Viking ED S binoculars but that could have been a colimation problem with that pair. The 8x42s struck me as as being an excellent pair of binoculars with a wide field of view, very sharp, very little chromatic abberation and, so far as we could tell, bright. Personally I'd still like a pair of swaros but the price ain't worth it IMO, people buy these things as status symbols but mid range bins are very close to the alphas these days and are also waterproof, armoured, well built etc.
u10ajf is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 29th November 2015, 13:31   #19
The-Wanderer
Registered User
 
The-Wanderer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 595
I Have a pair of Viking bins and the spec was wrong - way heavier; I cannot carry them.

Why is the specified exit pupil only 4.2mm for the 8x42s?

Last edited by The-Wanderer : Monday 30th November 2015 at 07:22.
The-Wanderer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th January 2016, 13:16   #20
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
 
Binoseeker's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 535
They have probably mixed data between 8x42 and 10x42 on VOC homepage.
For 8x they specified fov to 6.4* which is wrong , shall be 8*.
Binoseeker is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2012 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 13th February 2016, 20:30   #21
mulligatawny owl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 281
I very unexpectedly bought some ED FF 8x42's today so just thought I'd do a little report on them.
I was planning on getting the new Opticron dba vhd's but after trying a whole bunch of bins got these instead. Not nearly as nice ergonomically as the opticrons and a lot heavier but at £230 cheaper I found them very much on par optically, possibly even a little better.

Also tried Opticron verano and countryman hd 8x42's, the veranos particularly seemed duller and less sharp. Also tried some kowa genesis 8x33 and conquest HD8x32's, conquest's were just as good as I remembered them, not impressed with the kowas in comparison though.

Other 8x42's I tried were the Vortex viper 8x42 and razor HD 8x42. I was not particularly impressed with the vipers but the razor HD's were very nice, as they should be for £650 more than the vikings.

Anyway, I'd never ever have considered the vikings, they are really heavy and a bit ugly to be honest, but the view really surprised me, bright, wide, and as sharp, or near enough, as Im used to with my Nikon SE's.

Interestingly I tried two pairs of ED FF's and chose the shop display pair as they seemed a little sharper and more relaxed to my eyes than the other pair.

So anyway, just my highly subjective initial report on some very impressive bins that Im sure fall under the radar for a lot of people.
mulligatawny owl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 13th February 2016, 21:21   #22
Torview
Registered User
 
Torview's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Dartmoor.
Posts: 2,173
MO, do they focus clockwise to infinity ?
Torview is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 14th February 2016, 05:44   #23
mulligatawny owl
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 281
Nope t'other way round. Think I'll need to get one of those padded and wide optech straps for them or maybe try a bino harness or possible a crane, they are definitely monsters. I wouldn't want them as my only bins I don't think. If I didn't have my SE's and my M7 8x30's I'd certainly want something lighter. Really can't argue with them optically though.
mulligatawny owl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 15th February 2016, 06:37   #24
Petrus82
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Linwood
Posts: 505
It's good to see these binoculars getting some recognition. I think they are outstanding for the money. I wouldn't say they are ugly - I think they are functional in their design but I like the armouring.

I tried them against Swarovski ELSV and Leica Ultravid HD plus. I found the Swarovski to be slightly better and the Leica to be slightly less appealing in terms of the view. This is highly subjective and I think I tend to root me for the underdog in these situations.

However, I do think there's sample variation. I tried a pair that was really pretty poor and the QC was a real issue. Hope you like them. I don't find them too heavy at all.
Petrus82 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 15th February 2016, 09:17   #25
typo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 3,782
I've only looked at the FF a couple of times. One occasion was at Birdfair when I made a point of trying out the Viking and RSPB ED models. The FF was a lot better than the HDX for sure but the Viking ED Pro was head and shoulders better than the others IMO. The other occasion I only had my Prime 10x42 with me but for me it definitely bettered the FF as well. It may well be that there are better samples around than the one I tried. The current price of the FF seems to somewhat less than the sticker price I recall and maybe I shouldn't be so critical.

David
typo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Choosing 8x42 RSPB/Viking bins Swifty49 RSPB - Viking Optics 2 Sunday 25th November 2012 14:52
Viking MD 8x42 toadoftoadhall RSPB - Viking Optics 4 Wednesday 9th February 2011 05:37
Viking 8x42 Navilux Birding Bob RSPB - Viking Optics 1 Sunday 12th July 2009 17:30
Nikon Monarch ATB 8x42 vs Vortex Viper 8x42 vs Leupold Golden Ring 8x42 vs others cnybirder Binoculars 18 Tuesday 18th March 2008 14:18



Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.33330393 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:39.