-
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.
New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chosun Juan
- Start date
Thanks for explaining Tim, shall I ask you if you had the eyecups in the right place and then duck behind the sofa as you begin throwing things? :-O
Lee
Hermann
Well-known member
Zeiss offered binoculars with SP prisms since the introduction of the 8x30B roof in 1964, the first roof produced by Zeiss.
What's new is the flat field and the wide field view, even though it is still smaller than that of the old Zeiss porros, for instance the 10x50 porro with 130m/1000m. Those bins weren't suitable for eye glass wearers though.
Hermann
SF8x42 FOV 148m at 1,000m
EL SV 8.5x42 FOV 133 at 1,000m
Its not exactly a single digit improvement.
Lee
Hermann
Well-known member
The prices you're seeing are probably recommended retail prices. They'll go down somewhat in the not too distant future.
I think so, too. That's why Zeiss started by introducing the 42mm models.
I don't think there'll be a 7x35. No way. Just not enough demand to justify making one. It's like with the 7x42s: Lots of people suggest they *really* like them (especially on the internet), but not enough people buy them. That's why most of the big makers don't produce 7x42s anymore. It's just not worth it.
Hermann
I understand your point completely. But, would an extremely long product life (say 20 years, or even longer) can justify its economics. An uber competent 7x42 or a 7x35--particularly if classically designed--will always be in demand. A good example is the 7x42 FL. Its optical performance is stellar and still very hard to match. And in my case, if there is any reservation towards it, it is related to the common diopter focusing mechanism, and not to its optical characteristics. The 7x42 in the HT body and focusing mechanism style would be a wonderful addition that can last for a very long time indeed.
I hope that the new SF will also include an 8x32 version sometime soon. The current FL 8x32 is very competent and serves me well. However, its single focus/diopter setting mechanism is somewhat annoying and detracts from the joy of using it. I will wait and see.
Hi Ibram
I would really like to understand what it is that annoys you about the focus/dioptre on the FL 32.
I set my dioptre on my FL 8x32 in June 2012 and haven't needed to adjust it since then. Do you need to change your dioptre setting often for some reason?
Anyway it looks like you will be in luck for future Victory 32s as both HT and SF have separate and openly accessible dioptre adjusters.
Lee
Lee,
Good question. I also use several other binoculars from the Trinovid and Ultravid Leica series. Their diopter setting is "dead" accurate as both are separate (with the exception of the UV 8x20).
With the Zeiss, I am not capable to achieve this "dead accuracy" as the delinking process to change the diopter settings changes the focus by a very small tad. Further, because of the ability of using the Zeiss with and without my prescription glasses, I need to repeat this process several times in the same hike. The HT offers this functionality, however, it is not available in 7x42 or 8x32.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Holger:
Good of you to reply back. I did look on the Allbinos site, and they do
show the measured FOV, and the apparent eyepiece FOV, which must
be how they take into consideration the distortion level.
For example, 2 popular models, one flat field and one that is not:
Swarovski 8.5x42 SV, measured FOV - 7.61 degrees.
apparent FOV at the eyepiece - 64.2 deg.
Zeiss FL 8x42, measured FOV - 7.72 degrees.
apparent FOV at the eyepiece 60.6 degrees
I had not considered how this is calculated until you posted your
graph.
Am I on the right track with how this is presented?
Jerry
Well, that depends on which digit you look at. Since this is a comparison between an 8.5x binocular and an 8x binocular, you really can't just look at the real FOV. Adjusted for the magnification difference (8/8.5), there is a 4.75% greater FOV in the SF 8x42.
But I'm not going to criticize Zeiss's specs. Actually, for a very long time, I've been hoping to see a binocular with very much the specifications these newcomers from Zeiss will have. I used to use (and still own) a Zeiss Jena 10x50 porro with a 7.1 degree FOV, and that huge and expansive field was really nice to behold, although the simple Erfle eyepiece design in these meant that there was not much resolution to speak off in a sizable portion of the field. The specified fields of the SF pair, as long as the binoculars are properly implemented and the eyepieces work as they should, will provide very impressive views.
What they lack for me is image stabilization, but I know that still today, a majority of birders don't even consider this feature, let alone think of it as important or essential.
My only worry about these binoculars is whether they have been designed to have sufficiently strict production tolerances. If spherical aberration, astigmatism and coma are kept low enough, the design, specifications and Zeiss's excellent multi coating technologies will make up an excellent binocular indeed.
Kimmo
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
a stable view is very important for me, but not image stabilization,
thats why I prefer 7x binos,
But what I wonder is if the large FOV of the SF will affect the perception of stability?
with almost the Same FOV as my 7x42 FL:s, will the SF "feel" as stable?
(ergonomics excluded, the SF:s i'm sure will have better ergonomics, a weak point of the 7x42 FL:s)
Hermann
Well-known member
FOV doesn't affect stability.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Dream On
If Tyler's voice always sounded this good, I'd be an Aerosmith fan. I still suspect that he is not the vocalist on this song.
<B>
Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
Hi Jerry,
as far as I understand, Allbinos don't measure the AFOV. They take the true field and multiply it with their measured magnification, means they always ASSUME the angle-condition to hold (and thus k=0). Of course, these values are far off, once the binoculars are build with reduced distortion. I am not even sure if they actually measure the magnification, or just use the measured exit pupil diameter to calculate m. The result could be incorrect, as soon as there is any aperture stop designed somewhat tight, so that it cuts off the edge of the exit pupil and mimics an increased magnification.
Cheers,
Holger
eddy the eagle
Well-known member
What is happening,I go away for a week off line completely,Zeiss bring out a new SF 10 pages and 235 posts later and I didn´t know anything about it.I must have gone to another planet.Great reading folks all 1hr 20 mins of it,keep it up.::::Eddy
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
in theory it's true,
But some binos are just easier to hold steady,
when I compared a couple of 10x binos
it was very clear, I guess there are several
factors affecting perceived stability,
it might also be a question of minimizing eye strain,
some does it better,
another way of describing it might be viewing comfort and freehand-resolution,
obviously you can measure resolution on a tripod with a resolution chart,
or with an instrument, but most people don't us binos on a tripod, though it's very nice,
but what resolution can you get without a tripod?
I think that the SF could be a winner in that area,
giving us superior viewing comfort.
:bounce::bounce:
Last edited:
winwinbino
Well-known member
Kimmo,
You are right. That was not an apple to apple comparsion (8.5 vs 8). Even that, with TFOV difference of 15/1000m(=1.5m/100m) , practically I won't miss anything while bins birding which usually within 100m.
The wider TFOV of SF shouldn't be the main selling point. To earn the hearts of current SW, HT or EDG users & die-hard Leica fanboys, the SF have to show something really extraordinary. Let's wait and see.
Andy
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Lee,
WADR, No doubt you've got some access to some of the inner workings of the big blue Z, but I think you may have imbibed a touch too much from das biggen blu Zee vasser kooler! B
You've been pinged about this several times already, but I must pull you up on it again ..... The SF is in no way a SIGNIFICANT step forward. It is an incremental increase on an accepted benchmark .... much like starting a chin-up in the hanging position, going all the way to reach the bar - and then sneaking your chin over the top of it with a bit of extra effort.
I dunno if it's just unbridled enthusiasm and yooful exuberance, or whether you really have been nobbled by sumptin in da vasser .... first it's symphonic masterpiece's, now this ..... man, I'll have what you're havin ! :hippy: :bounce: :-O
I know your blood runs blue, with little Z shaped cells, but you're startin' to sound more one-eyed than a cyclops at a trouser snake convention !!
Had Zeiss rightly made the SF in 8.5x42, then the Fov would be more like 139.3m@ 1km (418ft@ 1000yd), representing a mere ~4.75% increase as Kimmo has since said. Not only that, but such a move would have left room for a 7x42 SF and /or HT of up to 166.7m (500ft) Fov !
About the 32 SF - it's a no brainer :brains: ..... another incremental step up (Fov, transmission, focusing, but not so much weight - getting hard to peel too much more out of it in comparison) from arguably the best in the business - the Swarovski 8x32 SV. Who would buy such a beast? Simple. Absolute droves. Those downsizing from 42mm's. Those upgrading to the 'best', including brand jumpers, and generational renewers, those new to the market, and those sick and bl**dy tired of waiting for an 8x32 HT.
So where does this leave the 8x32 FL? Again simple. It's already at 94.6% transmission according to allbino's http://www.allbinos.com/191-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_8x32_T*_FL.html so how hard can it be to whack some HT glass in (allowing you to use that wonderful phrase "up to and more than 95% light transmission
It already has a glass fibre reinforced body - so you just whack in some high modulus carbon fibre and pare back the weight and armouring to suit. This keeps the desireable small form factor, offers a differentiated market offering from the SF, improves performance - size /weight/ transmission /colour rendition and contrast (as you would well know by your experience with your 'sum is greater than the parts 42mm HT').So the 32mm HT doesn't have A-K prisms. So wot. Get over it! That's the trouble with only 2 or 3 *sheesh* 'master's of the universe' ..... can't see the wood for the trees ! :stuck:
Chosun :gh:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Bob, that's your personal view and that's fine. It can be hard to get excited over a 1% product upgrade here, and a 1% product upgrade there. But several of these put together does make a visible difference.
I would disagree with anyone who says that the frog incrementally jumping half way to the approaching 100% light transmission wall is irrelevant in practice :frog:. As ronh put it best - (paraphrasing here) each extra fraction of a % in light transmission gain, means that there is less reflected and stray light floating around in the optical system causing degradation and mush.
It also helps to balance out the colour spectrum, without shifts to either extreme, or steep peaks about the green centre, resulting in brighter, more colourful, more life-like renditions.
Personally, I look forward to the day we genuinely surpass 97.5% transmissions ..... :t:
Chosun :gh:
