50mm Zeiss SF --- When??! (1 Viewer)

~ 2&1/2 years down the track from the bumbling birth of the 42mm SF, never mind about the still MIA 32mm, when are we going to see the much needed and improved (not to mention sorted!) 50mm ????

Swarovski has this format all to themselves - STILL !

They must be laughing all the way to the bank!

C'mon Zeiss --- Hurry up!


Chosun :gh:

Nothing wrong with the Leica 50mm binoculars.

Binastro said:

Nothing wrong with the Leica 50mm binoculars.

Click to expand...

Yes. And they come in 8x50, 10x50 and 12x50.


Bob

Binastro said:

Nothing wrong with the Leica 50mm binoculars.

Click to expand...

You mean those new wide angle Perger Prism CFRP 50mm Noctivids? Yes, I hear they're very nice :t:

What I'm talking about with a 50mm SF is something that moves the game on (without getting all digally and IS about it), sharp to the edges with a refined smoother distortion profile (but now with NoctiVid equalling 3-D too), a genuine 18-20mm ER, 120m+ Fov, 2m CF (a bit faster please) and circa 900gram weight or less .... With all the SF ergo doodads .....

Chosun :gh:

Maybe not to you, Binastro, but if you need much more than 15mm eye relief, they are useless for me, and others - unless you can prove me wrong.

The "SF" line is highly marketed to the birding community. Although we have a small near cult following for the Swaro 10X50 here on the Forum (saying this as a fellow owner), I doubt that a 50mm binocular has a strong appeal to most birders. Zeiss may eventually come out with a flat field 50mm, but I would not be surprised that it is not an SF.

Zeiss is due for a replacement of the 32mm FL but I can see it being something other than a smaller version of the SF. Qualities of the SF, front hinge, rear balance, longer length, do not necessarily apply to a much smaller 32mm binocular. One thing I suspect will carry over to a FL replacement is a flat field design that many birders like.

Hi The-Wanderer,
You may be right.
But my old 12x50 Ultravid has a 69 deg AFOV old style, gives great astro views.
It is also superb regarding ghosting, flare etc.

50% of us don't wear glasses with binoculars.
It is about time non glasses people were given the binoculars they can use such as those with good 75 to 80 deg AFOV.
Why should every binocular be made for every glasses user?

There are 2,000 plus different binoculars made, what about some for us non glasses wearers?

There is the Swarovski 50mm for those that do wear glasses, I suppose, although I have never seen one.
I definitely don't want bowling ball or whatever it is called.

Binastro,

You are attempting to answer a question with another question. You made a false statement. I have never said that binoculars should work with all users. You are putting words in my mouth.

Less arrogant statements would help.

Zeiss have the 54mm HT and the Conquest HD 56mm, both not targeted for birding I would say.
And the 10x42 SF is already a very good birding bin.
Questions is if a 10x50 SF would sell enough. Market if definitely smaller than for 42mm birding bins.
Perhaps if it were lighter and wider than the competition. 890 grams, 130m FOV.

The-Wanderer.

I said. You may be right.

I). I did not say that you said all binoculars should work with all people.

I said, 'Why should every binocular be made for every glasses wearer', as a general statement.
I repeat the request. I would like EWA binoculars with 10mm, perhaps 12mm eye relief that have useful 75 to 80 deg AFOV. For me and for others who don't use glasses with binoculars.
If 50 were available out of 2,000 models or even 10 that would help.

2). You said. 'Maybe not to you, Binastro, but if you need much more than 15mm eye relief, they are useless for me, and others - unless you can prove me wrong.'

I don't need much more than 15mm eye relief. I probably need 9mm or 10mm.
How can I prove you wrong or right?
I don't know how any particular binocular suits you or anybody else.
Only you or somebody else can know if you or they actually try the binocular.

I am sorry if you were offended, none was meant.

I am just bemoaning in a general sense that there is a total lack of interest in making real and useful EWA binoculars any more.

P.S.
Leica Ultravid eye relief specs.

8x50 18.1mm.

10x50 15mm.

12x50 13mm.

How this will work for a person wearing glasses, only that person can know by actually trying them out with various spectacle frames and their prescription lenses.

Chosun Juan said:

~ 2&1/2 years down the track from the bumbling birth of the 42mm SF, never mind about the still MIA 32mm, when are we going to see the much needed and improved (not to mention sorted!) 50mm ????

Swarovski has this format all to themselves - STILL !

They must be laughing all the way to the bank!

C'mon Zeiss --- Hurry up!


Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Chosun:

Zeiss has the 54mm HT as mentioned, and I would expect a 32mm SF
at some point.

I have found Zeiss does not need a 50mm SF, the 42mm does things
very well.

Lately, the big noise has softened over some of those with the Swarovski
10x50 SV, who have found some nice advantages with the SF.

I predicted that.

Jerry

Would you buy one if they produce it ?
I've got an idea that a 10X50 SF would show a little more CA than the 10X42 SF, just a thought based on owning both the 10X50 and 10X42 SV, but I may be full of hooey on that since I can't see them now to be sure. Open that purse and get the closeout 10X now before they're gone, you'll be glad you did, a change in color and new eyecups that retrofit the gray model anyway aren't worth $1000 extra. The gray 10 I have now seems like a mature product compared to my earlier one, a beautiful focus action, and a beautiful image, the eyecups may not be great but I leave them down so I can't say. It seems also that putting heavier objectives out front would require a redoing of the amazing balance of the 42. I'm glad you asked the question though, it's interesting and the binocular might be fantastic.

Robert

Chosun Juan said:

~ 2&1/2 years down the track from the bumbling birth of the 42mm SF, never mind about the still MIA 32mm, when are we going to see the much needed and improved (not to mention sorted!) 50mm ????

Swarovski has this format all to themselves - STILL !

They must be laughing all the way to the bank!

C'mon Zeiss --- Hurry up!


Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

BruceH said:

The "SF" line is highly marketed to the birding community. Although we have a small near cult following for the Swaro 10X50 here on the Forum (saying this as a fellow owner), I doubt that a 50mm binocular has a strong appeal to most birders. Zeiss may eventually come out with a flat field 50mm, but I would not be surprised that it is not an SF.....

Click to expand...

NDhunter said:

...Zeiss has the 54mm HT as mentioned, and I would expect a 32mm SF at some point.
I have found Zeiss does not need a 50mm SF, the 42mm does things very well.
Lately, the big noise has softened over some of those with the Swarovski 10x50 SV, who have found some nice advantages with the SF.
I predicted that. ....

Click to expand...

SuperDuty said:

Would you buy one if they produce it ?
I've got an idea that a 10X50 SF would show a little more CA than the 10X42 SF, just a thought based on owning both the 10X50 and 10X42 SV, but I may be full of hooey on that since I can't see them now to be sure. Open that purse and get the closeout 10X now before they're gone, you'll be glad you did, a change in color and new eyecups that retrofit the gray model anyway aren't worth $1000 extra. The gray 10 I have now seems like a mature product compared to my earlier one, a beautiful focus action, and a beautiful image, the eyecups may not be great but I leave them down so I can't say. It seems also that putting heavier objectives out front would require a redoing of the amazing balance of the 42. I'm glad you asked the question though, it's interesting and the binocular might be fantastic....

Click to expand...

Guys, I will address these all together as there is somewhat of a common theme.

In order for an Alpha 50mm bin to be a mainstream 'birding' bin, it needs to light - I'd suggest somewhere around the 900gram (~32oz) mark would be possible even with the old magnesium technology, and this would still retain all the SF goodies - great balance, sharp edges, negligible CA, wide Fov, and great (18-20mm) ER; +++

I would also think that a weight down around 850grams (30oz) or less is possible if Zeiss stepped into the 21st Century and went with a CFRP chassis - I don't care for blasting my bins with a shotgun, driving Hummers or Tanks over my bins - strong enough to maintain dimensional stability, and survive an accidental drop or pedestrian! stack will do .....

The opportunity is there to make the absolute best binocular in the world. After all, if the Swaro 10x50 SV was lighter, and with a few other minor nicety tweaks, it could realistically be a mainstream bin.

The notions that the 42mm SF has taken up some of the function carries some merit - up to a point ...... The one thing a 50mm can do that the 42mm can't, is deliver that 5mm EP at 10x. The others (54mm HT's etc) are too heavy and compromised to consider.

A 50mm SF would need to move the game on through several evolutionary improvements:-
1. Must hit that weight target ~850-900grams or less. CFRP, Titanium shafts, the works.
2. Must utilize HT glass prisms, and in other appropriate lenses to offer a perfectly neutral colour rendition and flat transmission curve (and as least Ed for one understands) to increase the brightness.
3. Must offer 70° AFov's along with that 18-20mm ER.
4. Must 'smooth' the distortion profile by offering a less radical slope and inflection point to the mustachio curve. This will address some of those who are seeing RB in the 42mm SF but not the SV. It seems that some degree of 3-D simulation (without losing the sharp edges) is also needed to compete with the NoctiVids.
5. Must improve CA handling so that results are no worse than the 42mm - more FL glass (helps with the lightness as well) - and there are other ways too!
6. Must move the glare control bar higher to be a clear leader.
7. Must sort the attachment and longevity quality of the armouring out while retaining lightness.
8. Must come to market fully sorted - no design, material, parts, supply, quality, delays as before AND DEFINITELY NO shipping of this early pilot, pre-production, and initial runs of product out the door to use customers as Beta testers. I would suggest Zeiss needs to soundly trounce the resolution standards so that even the most alien savant eagle eyed among us detects no spherical aberration, or softness.
9. Niceties would be a slightly quicker focus (in real terms) - I think 2m CF would be sufficient.

I would buy one of these in a heartbeat - especially the limited edition tan coloured perforated kangaroo leather model in 9x50 format :t:


Chosun :gh:

Binastro said:

..... I said, 'Why should every binocular be made for every glasses wearer', as a general statement.
I repeat the request. I would like EWA binoculars with 10mm, perhaps 12mm eye relief that have useful 75 to 80 deg AFOV. For me and for others who don't use glasses with binoculars.
If 50 were available out of 2,000 models or even 10 that would help.....

Click to expand...

Bin, I agree with your request - why shouldn't non glasses wearers have Alpha quality extra wide field (80° Afov) bins with good quality fields? Half your luck!

However, as I am of the four eyed kind, this thread is specifically in relation to a glasses friendly 50mm SF.


Chosun :gh:

Vespobuteo said:

Zeiss have the 54mm HT and the Conquest HD 56mm, both not targeted for birding I would say.
And the 10x42 SF is already a very good birding bin.
Questions is if a 10x50 SF would sell enough. Market if definitely smaller than for 42mm birding bins.
Perhaps if it were lighter and wider than the competition. 890 grams, 130m FOV.

Click to expand...

Vespo, I agree - the Lightness (<900grams), wide field (70° + Afov), and good ER (18-20mm) is the key. The 54mm HT, and 56mm Conquests are way too heavy and not a consideration. The 42mm is limited in EP at higher powers, so also falls short.

70° Afov is realistically achievable within those parameters, and that would put the real field widths at:
9×50 -> 136.6m @1Km (410ft @1K yd)
10×50 -> 123m @1Km (369ft @1K yd)
12×50 -> 102m @1Km (306ft @1K yd)
12.5×50 -> 98m @1Km (294ft @1K yd)

Maybe a little more is possible - I would like to see a 50mm SF offered in 9x50, and 12.5x50 formats. :t:


Chosun :gh:

With 50mm binoculars what they have to come up with is "light weight glass" for use in the prisms and lenses if one really wants them to be truly "light weight."

Zeiss had practically no metal in their 42mm Victory FL series and they still weighed 27 ounces and lots of people did not want to buy them because they did not have metal in their construction but they did have the large AK prisms that weighed more than SP prisms. My 7x42 SLC B weighs 950 grams or 33.5 ounces and I can really feel the 6 ounce difference in weight between it and my 7x42 Victory FL

Leica's 10x50 Ultravids weigh 1000 grams or 35.274 ounces with SP prisms. If Leica built them like their light weight 10x42 Blackline versions they might knock off 3 ounces or so from that. I think that is about as lightweight as they can get.



Bob

ceasar said:

With 50mm binoculars what they have to come up with is "light weight glass" for use in the prisms and lenses if one really wants them to be truly "light weight."

Zeiss had practically no metal in their 42mm Victory FL series and they still weighed 27 ounces and lots of people did not want to buy them because they did not have metal in their construction but they did have the large AK prisms that weighed more than SP prisms. My 7x42 SLC B weighs 950 grams or 33.5 ounces and I can really feel the 6 ounce difference in weight between it and my 7x42 Victory FL

Leica's 10x50 Ultravids weigh 1000 grams or 35.274 ounces with SP prisms. If Leica built them like their light weight 10x42 Blackline versions they might knock off 3 ounces or so from that. I think that is about as lightweight as they can get.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob, Zeiss introduced the so called "thin lens technology" with the FL line. It was also a Glass Reinforced Plastic chassis and weighed in about the 750gram mark or ~30grams (~1 oz) lighter than the SF! I can't believe that anybody but hairy-chested HunTers give a hoot that it's not made out of metal. :eek!:

The 42mm SF's have taken this optical glass diet further, pulling out all the tricks in the book - 2 lens ultra-FL objectives + focuser = 130grams, reversed S-P prisms for rearward weight bias = ~100grams, and 7 element eyepieces = 150grams. That's a glass weight of ~ 380grams for the binocular - or about half of its weight ..... A 50mm version would likely add circa ~100grams for the glass. :brains:

That means it should be entirely possible to bring a 50mm SF to market with the parameters I mentioned (70° AFov, 18-20mm ER, etc - see my post#13) coming in at between 800 - 900grams (or maybe even less) depending on the construction technology used. :cat:

That then makes the 50mm a 'mainstream' instrument with "strong appeal" to "most birders" (to borrow Bruce's words) .... :t:


Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Vespo, I agree - the Lightness (<900grams), wide field (70° + Afov), and good ER (18-20mm) is the key. The 54mm HT, and 56mm Conquests are way too heavy and not a consideration. The 42mm is limited in EP at higher powers, so also falls short.

70° Afov is realistically achievable within those parameters, and that would put the real field widths at:
9×50 -> 136.6m @1Km (410ft @1K yd)
10×50 -> 123m @1Km (369ft @1K yd)
12×50 -> 102m @1Km (306ft @1K yd)
12.5×50 -> 98m @1Km (294ft @1K yd)

Maybe a little more is possible - I would like to see a 50mm SF offered in 9x50, and 12.5x50 formats. :t:

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Zeiss really have to do something extraordinary in the segment for it to sell I think. And it's a difficult equation to solve.
More eye relief will mean larger eye piece and higher weight.
The big 50mm aperture will also mean it's harder to get good edge performance
with an extreme wide FOV like in the 42mm SF. Maybe a 50mm will have to be 1-2 inches longer than the 42mm SF to tame CA etc. Then balance will be an issue.
(I suspect we won't see any 50mm Noctivids since they would weigh a ton at least...:eek!

In the field I see an increasing number of 32mm bins rather than 50mm.
On the contrary people seem to buy bigger and bigger scopes (i.e. 88mm Kowa or Swaro 95mm ATX).

A 10x50 will be a nice low light/winter bin but not sure how many who would like to carry it the rest of the day/year. Hunters will be happy with the 54mm HT.
A 9x mag bin seems far too bold for Zeiss.

Personally I would be interested in a lighter 10x50. When birding without a scope on open areas it would be useful. But it must work at closer distances as well with reasonable FOV and close focus distance. And then there is the 10x42 SF...it's pretty darn good...and I'm just thinking, that extra resolution in a 50mm, wouldn't you need a tripod/support to be able to notice it?

So perhaps the question is not WHEN, but rather IF, HOW and WHY?
:smoke:

Vespobuteo said:

Zeiss really have to do something extraordinary in the segment for it to sell I think. And it's a difficult equation to solve

Click to expand...

Yes, merely equalling the Swaro 10x50 SV will not suffice. The opportunity is there though to move the game on considerably.

Vespobuteo said:

More eye relief will mean larger eye piece and higher weight. The big 50mm aperture will also mean it's harder to get good edge performance with an extreme wide FOV like in the 42mm SF.

Click to expand...

The 18mm of the 42mm SF will suffice (I find the 20mm of the SV works out to be equivalent to the 16mm of the HT in practice for me with my glasses and ER needs). They already have the 7 element eyepiece. Light will have to be bent a bit more powerfully, but the weight penalty for this would be minimal. I imagine that aspherics etc would have to be substantially employed, and all glass elements would be either FL or HT (the incremental cost of this would be negligible in a 2&1/2 thousand dollar instrument - and could be absorbed in the profit margin - unless of course Zeiss continues to throw it's hands up, and let Swarovski romp away with the market). The distortion profile could stand some minor tweakage, but I don't see the 70° AFov being unreasonable within the weight targets even using a conventional 20th Century magnesium chassis.

Vespobuteo said:

Maybe a 50mm will have to be 2 inches longer than the 42mm SF to tame CA etc. Then balance will be an issue.

Click to expand...

Something like this will be right - I don't see that much increase in length - it will be balanced with more powerful lenses. Perhaps a doublet focusing lens will be introduced.

Vespobuteo said:

I suspect we won't see any 50mm Noctivids either, since they would weigh a ton at least...:eek!:

Click to expand...

In its current form certainly! :eek!: ..... probably even more than a ton! ..... A CFRP Perger Prism NV would certainly set the cat among the pigeons though!! :cat:

Vespobuteo said:

In the field I see an increasing number of 32mm bins rather than 50mm.
On the contrary people seem to buy bigger and bigger scopes (i.e. 88mm Kowa or Swaro 95mm ATX).
A 10x50 will be a nice low light/winter bin but not sure how many who would like to carry it the rest of the day/year. Hunters will be happy with the 54mm HT.
A 9x mag bin seems far too bold for Zeiss.

Click to expand...

Many folk could use a 5mm EP even in daylight. A well executed wide angle, long ER, sharp to the edge, lightweight 50mm would be a game changer - creating markets.

I care not for HunTers.

Sadly you may be right about the 9x, if Zeiss were eagles, they wouldn't be of the species "audax" (or "bold" eagle - the kangaroo hunting Wedge tailed Eagle) ....... perhaps I will have to start my own "can do" company - "Zeitgeist" !!

Vespobuteo said:

Personally I would be interested in a lighter 10x50. When birding without a scope on open areas it would be useful. But it must work at closer distances as well with reasonable FOV and close focus distance. And then there is the 10x42 SF...it's pretty darn good...and I'm just thinking, that extra resolution in a 50mm, wouldn't you need a tripod/support to be able to notice it?

So perhaps the question is not WHEN, but rather IF, HOW and WHY? :smoke:

Click to expand...

The light delivering ability of the 5.6mm EP 9x50 (5mm for 10x) is where it's at for anyone under 3 score and ten. A 50mm SF will have to tick all boxes - but will have unrivaled ability to create markets ..... If, How, and Why are not questions .....

The only question is Why hasn't it been done already?!¿ .... are Zeiss going to let another 32mm FL with HT glass slip through their fingers again, like they did ~5 years ago (Leica sends a massive thank you from their HT glass prismed UVHD+'s btw!

C'mon Zeiss! Hurry up!


Chosun :gh:

CJ: To keep the f-stop in the 42mm, length need to increase approx. from 174 to 206 mm + more/deeper shading from stray light will be needed with a larger objective. Other lens design including pure fluorite could of course be considered but then it would not be an SF...right?
What worries me the most is weight. For walking around and active birding, my 840g SV is about what I can manage.

Models that create new market segments might break/affect sales on others. And since Leica and (probably Swaro) sprinkle Schott glass all over their bins, Zeiss is laughing all the way to the bank anyway...

But I haven't tried the SF MK II yet or the Noctivid so Santa Clause might have other bins to consider before any innovative 9x50mm SF:s are announced.