New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

Troubador · Jun 8, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
Kestrel,

Yes. The 92% transmission figure quoted by Zeiss for the SF would be the peak, or ~ daylight figure (won't know for sure until we see the graph). ie. around a wavelength of 555nm (green). Typically the T* coatings cause gentle drop off on either side, so colour rendition should be neutral, and pretty good. Not great news for those who like a "red shift" and everything to look like it is being viewed on Mars :-@ -
but great for the rest of us. :t:

Chosun :gh:

CJ

I'm not sure that we can talk about T* as a fixed and unchanging factor.

Doing a side-by-side of HT and FL showed significantly redder red roofs just across the valley from us and this noticeable increase in red could be seen in the browns and reds of Scottish hillsides and sea-weeds.

I think T* has been re-balanced and if they did this for HT they might have done it again for SF.

Lee

Troubador · Jun 8, 2014

Calling Brock

Brock, clear your PM box out please:smoke:

Thank you

Lee

Holger Merlitz · Jun 8, 2014

[email protected] said:
The fact is these new Zeiss 8x42 SF will most likely be the best birding binoculars available. We are talking a 7X FOV on an 8x magnification. That is awesome with Swarovision edge sharpness and no RB. These could be the roofs that convert all the porro maniacs. Even Broc if he could afford them. The fact is IF you can afford these you are looking at the new benchmark in birding binoculars. If you got the money get your order in.

Except that you could do the same with a Porro, probably at significantly lower price, so that we could then in fact afford them

Cheers,
Holger

Chosun Juan · Jun 8, 2014

Troubador said:
CJ

I'm not sure that we can talk about T* as a fixed and unchanging factor.

Doing a side-by-side of HT and FL showed significantly redder red roofs just across the valley from us and this noticeable increase in red could be seen in the browns and reds of Scottish hillsides and sea-weeds.

I think T* has been re-balanced and if they did this for HT they might have done it again for SF.

Lee

Lee,

True, I realize they (T* coatings) are an integrated, ever evolving component designed to fit in with the rest of the optical design, but I was making the observation that there seems to be a familial consistency and history. For Zeiss, this seems to mean transmission curves which resemble a gently curving hilltop, peaking in the green. Swarovski on the other hand often resembles a volcano with the top blown off! I had this discussion with Gijs, and there is definitely something that just works about the Swaro approach that gives beautifully realistic colors.

No doubt the HT exhibits more red than the FL, I presume as a way of balancing the greater transmission in the blue due to the use of HT glass. They both have the 'gently curving hill' shaped transmission curves, and I predict the SF will be similar. :cat:

Chosun :gh:

Troubador · Jun 8, 2014

SF Flat Field with well-controlled RB

Holger's fascinating paper ( go to: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/newk/newk.html)
suggests that Zeiss's claim to have endowed SF with a flat field while at the same time minimising RB may be well-founded.

The graph also casts light on why RB is much less reported for the 32 mm SV than the 42 mm.

Lee

Troubador · Jun 8, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
Except that you could do the same with a Porro,

Cheers,
Holger

Yes, but Holger, holding a porro is like shaking hands with an alien :eek!:

Lee

Chosun Juan · Jun 8, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
Except that you could do the same with a Porro, probably at significantly lower price, so that we could then in fact afford them

Cheers,
Holger

I agree Holger. Could those 2 or 3 guys in the world capable

, get cracking on with the job of applying the SF field formula to a Porro II design, in 9x50, HT glass, carbon fibre, and dual density armouring, or jeez, I dunno, let somebody else have a crack! :t:

Chosun :gh:

Hermann · Jun 8, 2014

Troubador said:
Holger's fascinating paper ( go to: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/newk/newk.html)
suggests that Zeiss's claim to have endowed SF with a flat field while at the same time minimising RB may be well-founded.

The graph also casts light on why RB is much less reported for the 32 mm SV than the 42 mm.

Yep. That paper is a must-read for anyone interested in flat field binoculars and the RB effect.

Hermann

Hermann · Jun 8, 2014

Troubador said:
I'm not sure that we can talk about T* as a fixed and unchanging factor.

Definitely not. Zeiss first introduced the term T* in 1985 or 1986, and the coatings have changed a lot since then. I also always had the impression that Zeiss used different T* coatings in different binoculars. For instance, the 7x42 BGAT*P of the early 1990's had coatings on the objective lenses that looked quite different from those of the 10x40 BGAT*P. They also looked different from those of the 8x56 BGAT*P of the same vintage.

So, T* means it's a Zeiss multicoating, no more and no less IMO.

Hermann

Hermann · Jun 8, 2014

Troubador said:
Yes, but Holger, holding a porro is like shaking hands with an alien :eek!:

Well, it looks as though I really like aliens then ...

Just got a new porro at home that is in many ways the complete opposite of the SF: Tunnel view, no close focusing, no smooth focuser ... But the optical quality in the centre sure beats my Nikon SEs no problem at all. Both of them, easily. And all of my admittedly aging roofs. No contest at all.

Seriously: The SF looks very interesting indeed, and it may well be my first new roof for over 10 years. Once it comes out and is really as good as I expect it to be.

Hermann

Chosun Juan · Jun 8, 2014

Troubador said:
Holger's fascinating paper ( go to: http://www.holgermerlitz.de/newk/newk.html)
suggests that Zeiss's claim to have endowed SF with a flat field while at the same time minimising RB may be well-founded.

The graph also casts light on why RB is much less reported for the 32 mm SV than the 42 mm.

Lee

Thanks Lee, and of course Holger!

There is a very interesting MUST click link at the bottom of that paper ....."How to measure your individual visual distortion" .... :cat:
EVERYONE should do it - especially for those who bleat long and loud about RB this and RB that whether they have looked through the bins or not! If that's you, then for criminy's sake (not to mention Pete's), get off your virtual clackers and measure your damn eyesight and give us the public heads up as to the degree of your Mr. Magooness! |8.|
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/test_distortion.html
Thanks Holger! :t:

Once you've done this simulated test you will have your own personal distortion value, which along with Holger's published bin k values will give you a fairly good idea of whether you'll be likely to succumb to RB with various bins and by how much, bearing in mind that it's still subject to a whole host of situational, behavioural, and other factors. ... :h?:

Chosun :gh:

Sancho · Jun 8, 2014

Torview said:
As for the porro maniacs..............well no roof at any price is going to offer a porro view, simple as.

After years in the roofie wilderness I'm coming to the same conclusion.

Troubador said:
Yes, but Holger, holding a porro is like shaking hands with an alien :eek!:

Lee

I used to think so until I held an old pair of Sibley 8x40's. Among the most comfortable bins I've held, with a pure 'wrap-around' one-hand grip if I needed it. Took 'em apart though to see their innards. Then began to use SE/EII more and like it.

Holger Merlitz said:
Except that you could do the same with a Porro, probably at significantly lower price, so that we could then in fact afford them

Cheers,
Holger

I think I'd be prepared to re-mortgage my in-laws and pay anyway for porros thus designed.

spiralcoil · Jun 8, 2014

How about the size of the new SF, seems big for a 8x42 (length wise in 173mm , would be the longest in the size category?)... not too big for the handling...?

NDhunter · Jun 8, 2014

Holger Merlitz said:
Now that Zeiss has apparently taken my suggestion of a k=0.7 value serious, I would guess that the globe effect remains absent to at least 90% of all observers. The SF thus has a little higher amount of distortion than the average Swaro SV, yet small enough to offer only gently curved lines toward the edges of field.

What we don't know yet is how the distortion varies radially from the center toward the edge. If there exist any anomalies, such as in some of the SV ("mustache distortion") , then the globe effect might reemerge into the scene from the "back door".

Cheers,
Holger

Holger:

I have read your recent article about the different levels of distortion
and the graph is very nice to see the different levels.

Have you compared the Nikon EDG to some of the others ? I am interested
to see where they come in on the list. That is why I like the EDG, a very
nice flat field, with a great choice of compromise in the design.

I have not been bothered by rolling ball in any case.

Jerry

Troubador · Jun 8, 2014

spiralcoil said:
How about the size of the new SF, seems big for a 8x42 (length wise in 173mm , would be the longest in the size category?)... not too big for the handling...?

This makes SF 5 mm or 0.20 " longer than HT.

Don't forget that a major objective for SF was to shift the point of balance back towards the eyepieces and it may be that the small bit of extra length helps achieve this. Certainly the weight is competitive at 780 g or 27.5 ozs.

Lee

james holdsworth · Jun 8, 2014

All this talk about T coating and blue bias is not based in fact or observation - as usual. I think almost invariably, these claims come from those that have not tried the HT yet.

The HT is completely neutral - not just reported by me but many others - and Gjis has produced transmission graphs that show no ''humps'' or steep drop-offs. I'm sure the SF will be just as neutral.

Troubador · Jun 8, 2014

james holdsworth said:
All this talk about T coating and blue bias is not based in fact or observation - as usual. I think almost invariably, these claims come from those that have not tried the HT yet.

The HT is completely neutral - not just reported by me but many others - and Gjis has produced transmission graphs that show no ''humps'' or steep drop-offs. I'm sure the SF will be just as neutral.

Most people seem to agree the Ultravid HD has a warm view. I do not know about wavelengths right in the red zone but at 650 nm (orange) Gijs gave the following figures in a post on BF:

UVid86.2%
HT 87.1%

Lee

ceasar · Jun 8, 2014

Chosun Juan said:
Thanks Lee, and of course Holger!

There is a very interesting MUST click link at the bottom of that paper ....."How to measure your individual visual distortion" .... :cat:
EVERYONE should do it - especially for those who bleat long and loud about RB this and RB that whether they have looked through the bins or not! If that's you, then for criminy's sake (not to mention Pete's), get off your virtual clackers and measure your damn eyesight and give us the public heads up as to the degree of your Mr. Magooness! |8.|
http://www.holgermerlitz.de/globe/test_distortion.html
Thanks Holger! :t:

Once you've done this simulated test you will have your own personal distortion value, which along with Holger's published bin k values will give you a fairly good idea of whether you'll be likely to succumb to RB with various bins and by how much, bearing in mind that it's still subject to a whole host of situational, behavioural, and other factors. ... :h?:

Chosun :gh:

Many of us took that test, or a very similar one, a few years ago when it was first posted and submitted comments. Truth to tell, I can't remember how my eyes did on it then. But it should be still here if anyone who remembers taking it wants to look up the thread.

Bob

Torview · Jun 8, 2014

Sancho said:
After years in the roofie wilderness I'm coming to the same conclusion..

............began to use SE/EII more and like it.

I`v spent (wasted) more money than I care to dwell over on roofs, some expensive (Zeiss Fl) these last 10 years, I kept them a while and then sold them on always looking for whatever it was that was missing in the view for me.

Then on a whim a couple of years ago I picked up an 8x30 Optolyth Alpin and BINGO, there it was, that amazing like my own vision 3d view of the world, how could this humble old optic please me so much more than an Fl ?, well it did and I started to seek out the best in birding porro`s still around SE/EII.

I`v little doubt the SF will be outstanding in both optics and handling just like the other Alpha`s but those humble porro`s give me the greater satisfaction thus far.

Sancho · Jun 8, 2014

NDhunter said:
Have you compared the Nikon EDG to some of the others ? I am interested
to see where they come in on the list. That is why I like the EDG, a very
nice flat field, with a great choice of compromise in the design.

Jerry

Same here, Jerry. For me, the EDG II 8x42 does everything very well, without any annoyances (so far). Some reports have criticised its low-light performance, but I don´t find much there to complain about.

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

Moderator

Moderator

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Moderator

Moderator

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Given to Fly

Well-known member

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Moderator

Consulting Biologist

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread