• 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.

Tests of the Zeiss 8x54 HT (1 Viewer)

Lee, ol' bud, have you been puffin' muffins? or perhaps even muffin puffins! :smoke:

In the absence of any official word, there's starting to be a loud echo in here ...........
Chosun :gh:

Yes, you are right, I can't resist a firm but moist Muffin :-O

And of course the official word is that the problem is noted and it is being investigated. This is better than silence, I think, and while we all might wish that the wheels of investigation turned as quickly as your own choice of emoticons, we will all have to calm our excitement and wait.

Do you have Muffins in your neck of the woods? ;)

If so, I suggest you grab one. It will do you the world of good :t:

Yours, as always, Lee
 
David and Kimmo,

20mm is fine with me for 8x. I've been opportunistically using whatever masks happen to be around and are about the right size. For 22mm I use the center opening of an eyecup from a Swarovski Hacicht Porro.

David, I would expect good binoculars, certainly ones with large objectives, to be essentially diffraction limited when they are stopped down to 20mm. That would by 5.75" or 115/D using the USAF chart. 125/D is what I've seen in the best binoculars at full aperture.

Henry

Henry,

I'll be sure to let you know when I find a 115/D pair but I suspect 125 might be as good as it gets with my test set up. The sizing is pretty good on my home printed chart but the edge definition and contrast could certainly be better which might account for the one element difference in the numbers. Perhaps I'll treat myself to one of those Edmunds versions one day.

Just judging by sharpness I suspect it's not at all uncommon for 'alpha' samples to be less than perfect stopped down. I've certainly seen quite a lot that I wouldn't count as sharp as those '125' models I've actually tested. I'm hoping someone will find a way of evaluating a few and settling the issue.

David
 
Last edited:
Hello Henry,

Yes, that "slices" are, exactly, the flat spots on the outer diffraction rings. Very small but present.
The binoculars I used are a 10x42 HT and a Habicht W GA of the last or newest ones.
Thank you.

PHA
 
That does it! It is all too exhausting.

Sorry B&H and Zeiss, no purchase 8 or 10X54 plans for me, it is just a tool for me, my Zeiss Marines are fine.

I'll come back in 2015 and see if this is all sorted out.

Peace
 

Attachments

  • OnDutyZeiss.jpg
    OnDutyZeiss.jpg
    245.5 KB · Views: 142
That does it! It is all too exhausting.

Sorry B&H and Zeiss, no purchase 8 or 10X54 plans for me, it is just a tool for me, my Zeiss Marines are fine.

I'll come back in 2015 and see if this is all sorted out.

Peace

These bullbars do look a lot like the ones on that other car......
Bon Voyage Alabama.

Jan
 
I saw that one and the other video "review" on Youtube. Both are about what you would expect from dealers, but I won't be at all surprised to read enthusiastic reviews from happy owners of units no better than the one I saw.

Henry
 
Last edited:
I saw that one and the other video "review" on Youtube. Both are about what you would expect from dealers, but I won't be at all surprised to read enthusiastic reviews from happy owners of units no better than the one I saw.

Henry

Why would you expect the average bino. user not to notice a view [that you said] was clearly not sharp in the centre?

[''I’ll just add that this specimen’s failure to form a sharp image in the center of the field was not subtle. I think any but the most casual user would find it unacceptable in a binocular at any price.'']

I think most people are discriminating enough to see something as blatant as what you reported.
 
Last edited:
James,

I shouldn't have said that. I've been around long enough to remember the dark ages of the 1980s before alpha roof prism binoculars were phase corrected. Obviously flawed image quality didn't prevent magazine reviewers and delighted owners from lavishing praise on inferior binoculars. There's never been a better example of the Emperor's New Clothes. I don't think too much has changed when it comes to expectations being fulfilled.

Henry
 
Why would you expect the average bino. user not to notice a view [that you said] was clearly not sharp in the centre?

[''I’ll just add that this specimen’s failure to form a sharp image in the center of the field was not subtle. I think any but the most casual user would find it unacceptable in a binocular at any price.'']

I think most people are discriminating enough to see something as blatant as what you reported.

the image is created in your brain…
have you ever seen a ghost?
many people say that they have..
:brains:
 
Meanwhile on the Zeiss website the HT 54s are given 5 out of 5 for hunting, but only 3 out of 5 for birding.

Are we judging HT 54s by the wrong criteria???


Lee
 
Meanwhile on the Zeiss website the HT 54s are given 5 out of 5 for hunting, but only 3 out of 5 for birding.

Are we judging HT 54s by the wrong criteria???


Lee


I think sharpness is universal, so if they really are not sharp they are not good for anything, esp. at $3000 a pop.
 
I think sharpness is universal, so if they really are not sharp they are not good for anything, esp. at $3000 a pop.

Normally I couldn't agree more, but something has made Zeiss mark it down to 3 out of 5 for birding.

Could it be absolutely wonderful in the last 10 minutes of hunting light but only average when birding in full light?

Lee
 
Normally I couldn't agree more, but something has made Zeiss mark it down to 3 out of 5 for birding.

Could it be absolutely wonderful in the last 10 minutes of hunting light but only average when birding in full light?

Lee

You have a good point there,
they are obviously not made for birders...

When I tried it, I think the sharpness looked pretty ok when I finally managed to place them in the correct eye position, but I had not very much time to try them.

The compactness and low weight might come with a penalty,
and I think the eye piece looks a bit undersized which might be a problem.

Compared to a pair of 56 mm binoculars the 54mm HT:s are very compact and light, and that will probably make them attractive to stalking low light hunters.
CA will not be an issue when everything is gray with no contrast, and your eye vision may be the limiting factor for sharpness when your pupil is dilated to 6 mm.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile on the Zeiss website the HT 54s are given 5 out of 5 for hunting, but only 3 out of 5 for birding.

Are we judging HT 54s by the wrong criteria???


Lee

It is marketing, nothing else. Because few birders would possibly carry a 54mm binocular around their necks, Zeiss gives them 3 for birding. Another factor may be the close focus distance, which is not 'birder friendly' with the big HTs.

Cheers,
Holger
 
Compared to a pair of 56 mm binoculars the 54mm HT:s are very compact and light, and that will probably make them attractive to stalking low light hunters.

For the practical user there is certainly some evolution in the market here.

Some mid-market manufacturers are offering 'compact' 8x56s, the shortest in length that I have seen recently is 170mm, however the savings are currently just in length as the weight is still there.

The Zeiss is certainly comparatively light (in weight), e.g. the NM5 8x56 weighs 1140g, but at 193mm the Zeiss is not in the very compact field, and not there by a long way.
 
For the practical user there is certainly some evolution in the market here.

Some mid-market manufacturers are offering 'compact' 8x56s, the shortest in length that I have seen recently is 170mm, however the savings are currently just in length as the weight is still there.

The Zeiss is certainly comparatively light (in weight), e.g. the NM5 8x56 weighs 1140g, but at 193mm the Zeiss is not in the very compact field, and not there by a long way.

due to less bulkiness,
ergonomics is top notch, much like the 42mm HT:s,
And not the feeling of holding a brick that most 56mm binos have,
 
It is marketing, nothing else. Because few birders would possibly carry a 54mm binocular around their necks, Zeiss gives them 3 for birding. Another factor may be the close focus distance, which is not 'birder friendly' with the big HTs.

Cheers,
Holger

If you are correct Holger then I would criticise Zeiss for confusing two separate issues:

1 Apart from specialist acitivities like twilight observing, the size of bins one uses, 32, 42, 54/56 is really a matter of personal preference.

2 The optical suitability of the bins for birding is surely separate from this.

But I agree the close focus distance would have a bearing on this although whether one would mark the bins down to 60% is something else.

Lee
 
When I first looked though the 10x56FL I was blown away, I thought I might have had the 12 by accident but the pop and wow from those big objectives really made an impression on me.

When I looked through the 10x54HT they looked good but weren't blowing me away. They looked like a 10x42 with a better FOV. And they are ergonomically pretty good. But the larger FOV was the only wow part for me this time not the image. (The FOV on the 10x42HT felt smaller than the FL to me)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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