• 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.

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (2 Viewers)

Holger:

Thanks for the reply, I did not think you would post an article and test findings with numbers just using mfr. provided information.

Distortion and the globe effect are complex issues. I thought these would
be hands on evaluations you have completed.

It is good you have tried to clear this up.

Jerry



Yea, I am no insider. I can only use whatever is published by the manufacturers. If Zeiss could send me the precise distortion curves of their binoculars, then I could simulate their panning behavior and judge about the strength of their globe effect. An exact value for the apparent field is better than nothing, it yields the k-value and thus a good hint for the amount of distortion one has to expect. Yet, the curve is important, too, as mentioned in my analysis of the BPO.

Cheers,
Holger
 
This thread has gone in warp 10.
Just read the whole thing... Feel like I've just read a book.

Is a 42 mm bino which such a genuinely large FOV for both models technically possible???
And no rolling globe effect???

Surely it can't be done, or it already would have.

I did significant testing of the Zeiss 8x32 FL vs the 8x32 SV.
To my eyes the Zeiss FOV was about 15 percent less than then SV. Even though there should only be 1metre in it... Ie 140m for the FL and 141m for the SV.

Additionally I notice a 32mm version of the SF will be on offer in the future...
Are we looking at a 8x32 SF with a FOV of 150m plus ?

Cheers Tim
That's what so astounding! A 42mm with a 444 foot FOV and Swarovision edge sharpness no RB and 92% transmission and a 32mm is coming with a 450 plus FOV and open bridge design and super light in weight. These are going to be some nice binoculars.
 
That's what so astounding! A 42mm with a 444 foot FOV and Swarovision edge sharpness no RB and 92% transmission and a 32mm is coming with a 450 plus FOV and open bridge design and super light in weight. These are going to be some nice binoculars.

Dennis don't get too excited at the prospect of a new Victory class 32 from Zeiss. See my post 186.

Lee
 
Dennis don't get too excited at the prospect of a new Victory class 32 from Zeiss. See my post 186.

Lee

The 8x32 FL won't live forever…it is becoming an oddity in the zeiss line up,

but it would be bad sales strategy to release the 8x32 prior to the 42mm models,

an effect of the SF 8x42 pricing is that the swaro 8x32 SV will look like a real bargain…
;)

32mm SV is probably the best birding binocular in the world today, if you consider weight/size/performance!

o:D

so zeiss have a very tough nut to crack in the SV32,
 
Last edited:
The 8x32 FL won't live forever…it is becoming an oddity in the zeiss line up,


so zeiss have a very tough nut to crack in the SV32,

VB

About the FL, I quite agree, although it is still competitive in performance.

About SV32 I am not sure that you're reasoning is necessarily correct. You are right the SV32 is a tough nut because it is a superb instrument, but if SF turns out to be the significant step forward that it appears to be, then SV32 (although still excellent) will simply be the smaller SV using last year's technology.

Of course in the car world many people are very happy indeed to buy a 2 or 3 year old car at a price they can afford as they can then enjoy a standard of comfort and performance that was out of reach when the car was new. Same with bins to some extent. SV32s will still be in demand several years from now.

Lee
 
VB

About the FL, I quite agree, although it is still competitive in performance.

About SV32 I am not sure that you're reasoning is necessarily correct. You are right the SV32 is a tough nut because it is a superb instrument, but if SF turns out to be the significant step forward that it appears to be, then SV32 (although still excellent) will simply be the smaller SV using last year's technology.

Of course in the car world many people are very happy indeed to buy a 2 or 3 year old car at a price they can afford as they can then enjoy a standard of comfort and performance that was out of reach when the car was new. Same with bins to some extent. SV32s will still be in demand several years from now.

Lee

Lee,

In what way is the SF "a significant step forward" except for Zeiss? Zeiss finally has SP prisms and a flat field with the SV, if this is significant. And so they have joined the crowd in a field that is becoming crowded.

Swarovski's Swarovison binoculars and Nikon's EDGs have had both for several years now.

You have noticed that Leupold now has the same thing at 1/3rd the retail, haven't you?

Bob
 
VB

About the FL, I quite agree, although it is still competitive in performance.

About SV32 I am not sure that you're reasoning is necessarily correct. You are right the SV32 is a tough nut because it is a superb instrument, but if SF turns out to be the significant step forward that it appears to be, then SV32 (although still excellent) will simply be the smaller SV using last year's technology.

Of course in the car world many people are very happy indeed to buy a 2 or 3 year old car at a price they can afford as they can then enjoy a standard of comfort and performance that was out of reach when the car was new. Same with bins to some extent. SV32s will still be in demand several years from now.

Lee

with current price indications on the SF 8x42 I have seen (my local prices),
the 8x32 SF might have to be more expensive than the 8x42 HT,
would that be reasonable?

The market for a super-premium 8x32 I suspect is significantly smaller than for a 8x42.

Comparing specs (relative to swaro 8x32 and 42 mm models)
the weight for the SF 8x32 would be about 540 g
FOV a stunning 157 m/1000m (8,9 degrees)!!

Possible? maybe...

So, how will Zeiss do to NOT cannibalize on their own products?
And also create an USP for a smaller SF binocular?

I suggest that Zeiss give us an amazing 7x35 SF!
Or maybe not…but I'm very curious on how zeiss will handle
marketing positioning..

:eat:
 
Last edited:
but I'm very curious on how zeiss will handle
marketing positioning..
:eat:

To me it seems they are marketing very competitive binoculars within 3 different price ranges: Terra, Conquest and HT/SF as a successor for Victory FL.

Lee,

In what way is the SF "a significant step forward" except for Zeiss? Zeiss finally has SP prisms and a flat field with the SV, if this is significant. And so they have joined the crowd in a field that is becoming crowded.
Swarovski's Swarovison binoculars and Nikon's EDGs have had both for several years now.

You have noticed that Leupold now has the same thing at 1/3rd the retail, haven't you?
Bob
Firstly, the SP is not better than Abbe Koenig, so there was no real step forward in that regard. But how many of those SP bino's have transmission of +90% and a FOV that is really significantly wider than the closest competitors?
Don't forget that the FL series is already on the market for more than 10 years, and few surpass transmission numbers from those. Swaro brought the ergonomic superior EL, but the transmission of that one always stayed well below 90%.
You have any transmission % for the Leupolds?
 
To me it seems they are marketing very competitive binoculars within 3 different price ranges: Terra, Conquest and HT/SF as a successor for Victory FL.

problem is that the latest Conquests are very good,
the old made-in-hungary-conquests were a joke compared to the FL:line,
so the need for a SF 8x32 is less today, and the SF 8x42 is already pretty light,

so "estethicically" Zeiss need a premium replacement for the 8x32 FL,
it's odd and speaks an old design language.

I just wondering what the budget people will say,
their only question will be: will the 8x32 SF sell or not?

No, probably not,
but we must have it in our line up…

so whats the USP for the 8x32 SF if they won't sell?

o:D
 
Lee,

In what way is the SF "a significant step forward" except for Zeiss? Zeiss finally has SP prisms and a flat field with the SV, if this is significant. And so they have joined the crowd in a field that is becoming crowded.

Swarovski's Swarovison binoculars and Nikon's EDGs have had both for several years now.

You have noticed that Leupold now has the same thing at 1/3rd the retail, haven't you?

Bob

Bob,

The SV is outstanding already. To have a SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD over them, according to myself, is next to impossible. Will the slight improvement (which I expect) attract current SV users switching to SF ? I even doubt if the HT users will do so. And, how many of us really have a hawk's eye to appreciate the single digit improvement over another almost perfect binoculars.

Well, of course, the abovementioend might be not applicable to deep-pocketed optics enthusiasm.
 
To me it seems they are marketing very competitive binoculars within 3 different price ranges: Terra, Conquest and HT/SF as a successor for Victory FL.


Firstly, the SP is not better than Abbe Koenig, so there was no real step forward in that regard. But how many of those SP bino's have transmission of +90% and a FOV that is really significantly wider than the closest competitors?
Don't forget that the FL series is already on the market for more than 10 years, and few surpass transmission numbers from those. Swaro brought the ergonomic superior EL, but the transmission of that one always stayed well below 90%.
You have any transmission % for the Leupolds?



The 7x42 FL already had that FOV. Giving the 8x42 SF the same FOV along with a flat field involves technical expertise which any of the other manufacturers could do if they want to pay the price.

What would really have been "significant" (albeit impossible) would have been giving it the same DOF as the 7x42.

As for percentage of transmission values, personally they don't interest me much with those little increments. I'm really not caught up in things like that. Close is close enough. However, regarding your inquiry, Allbinos does give Leupold's old, discontinued 8x32 Golden Ring stellar ratings; partly for it's superior transmission and partly for, in their words, a "huge field of view" which had a large sweet spot of "78% +/- 3% which IMO is also "close enough." (See the transmission graph in the link below.) So Leupold is also capable of doing it if they want to pay the price. And although they were put together in the USA they really were another Japanese manufactured binocular, just like Nikon's EDG which does have a "flat field."

It doesn't look like this is new technology. It probably would be if some Japanese or Chinese company could find a way to do it at a lower cost and maintain quality control.

http://www.allbinos.com/184-binoculars_review-Leupold_Golden_Ring_8x32_HD.html
 
Last edited:
Bob,

The SV is outstanding already. To have a SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD over them, according to myself, is next to impossible. Will the slight improvement (which I expect) attract current SV users switching to SF ? I even doubt if the HT users will do so. And, how many of us really have a hawk's eye to appreciate the single digit improvement over another almost perfect binoculars.

Well, of course, the abovementioend might be not applicable to deep-pocketed optics enthusiasm.

It will depend, and I am serious here, on how many people who have deep pockets are also obsessive enough about these issues to search them out while also using the binoculars for their intended use.

Not me!

Bob
 
Will the slight improvement (which I expect) attract current SV users switching to SF ? I even doubt if the HT users will do so.
Until recently, I would have bought the Swarovision in 8x32 as there is no better. But now, if a future SF is going to be better, I would at least wait and see.
If the FOV is really wider, one will for sure notice. Maybe not so much the extra transmission %, but the FOV is something that is a valuable selling argument.
I didn't even mention the faster (and probably more supple) focuser of the SF.
 
Lee,

In what way is the SF "a significant step forward" except for Zeiss? Zeiss finally has SP prisms and a flat field with the SV, if this is significant. And so they have joined the crowd in a field that is becoming crowded.

Swarovski's Swarovison binoculars and Nikon's EDGs have had both for several years now.

You have noticed that Leupold now has the same thing at 1/3rd the retail, haven't you?

Bob

Hi Bob

Holger's calculations seem to show that SF may well show RB to fewer people.
The SF has a FOV of 148m at 1,000m compared with EL SV's 133m (which is affected to a degree by the extra 0.5 magnification). This is a terrific step forward and beats Leupold by some 6m.
At 780g it is lighter than the EL SV at 835g or Leupold at 822g and has been significantly re-balanced compared with other brands and models

It seems to me that Zeiss has gone a step further than the competition. Of course none of us knows what these specs mean in terms of what it will feel like in the hand or look like to the eyes.

Of course Zeiss has used SPs before, notably in 32s and I think they have used them in the SF to make room for the field flattener.

Lee
 
Last edited:
It will depend, and I am serious here, on how many people who have deep pockets are also obsessive enough about these issues to search them out while also using the binoculars for their intended use.

Not me!

Bob

Bob I have a lot of sympathy for where you are coming from here. Thats why my review of Conquest HD and SLC 15x56s concentrated on 'normal viewing' and not esoteric test procedures.

But here is a more interesting question: Why was the FOV of FL 7x42 no better than the 7x45 Night Owl before it and no better than the 1980s 7x42 Dialyt before that? Did this lack of progress lead to the stagnation of sales that in turn has seen no 7x HT or SF? Would a 7x flourish commercially if given a whacking great FOV to match its depth of field?

In those days Zeiss was 'asleep at the wheel' but not today.

Lee
 
I think Zeiss have missed a trick not making the SF 8.5x, I strongly believe that many would be buyers when trying both side by side (not birdforum members) will declare the SV ahead on resolution because of the extra detail that 0.5x will present to them.
 
It doesn't look like this is new technology. It probably would be if some Japanese or Chinese company could find a way to do it at a lower cost and maintain quality control.

http://www.allbinos.com/184-binoculars_review-Leupold_Golden_Ring_8x32_HD.html

Sigma is doing it with their new 50/1,4 DG HSM ART lens, individual quality control and calibration of every single item.

It's better (and heavier) than any Nikon, Sony or Canon 50 mm lens, and just about as good as the Zeiss Otus, (slightly better in some aspects).

Otus is claimed by zeiss as the worlds sharpest lens. The Otus monster lens costs 4 times more than the Sigma and weigh almost 1000 grams.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sigm...-DG-HSM-A-Canon-versus-Carl-Zeiss-Otus-1.4-55

Look out for the Sigma binoculars...
 
Hi Lee

Nice to hear from you again.

Concerning a future 8x32 SF and HT. Apologies. Info was wrong.
Got it from a post by Gyorgy Szimuly. Assumed it was official.

Concerning 8x32 FL fov. Subjectively, to my eyes the field was about 15 percent smaller.

Ie surface area... Not diameter...

Cheers Tim
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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