• 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.

zeiss 8/10x54 HT (1 Viewer)

V

Vespobuteo

Well-known member
any user experience yet of the new 54 mm HT:s?

I think zeiss are pushing these very much for hunters,
something like "the completely revolutionary travel hunting binoculars"
in some youtube video..
:)

well hmm, they are still pretty big and heavy..

shame that zeiss didn't listen to me and made a 11x50 HT Birders Deluxe model with less weight
3:)
 
I would be curious to know how the 8x54 HT compares with the 8x56 FLs (Henry Link, Kimmo, Binomania?). As of now, the U.S. pricing puts the two Zeisses within $50 of one another, but the 8x54 HT is 8 oz. lighter overall. I've thought of a new 8x56 Swarov SLC, but Swarovski won't bring them to the U.S. The lighter 8x54 HT, if as bright as the 8x56 FL could be a winner!
 
I hope to be able to test the 8/10x54 in the next few weeks. If I'm able to do that I'll definitely directly compare the 8x54 HT to the 8x56 FL.

Henry
 
I had a brief encounter with both of the big HT's on two separate occasions last week and today. I did not have either one on a tripod nor did I put a booster to them, just looked with them out on the yard of the shop they were in, and compared the views to some Swaro models and my Canon 10x42.

My impressions are thus tentative and based on only one unit of each configuration, but I was not impressed. The 10x especially showed much more pronounced CA on axis than what I would expect to see in a premium HD/FL/etc binocular, and contrast, snap and ease of view just were not there. With the 8x, when looking at a yard of gravel or a field, it felt like my eyes needed to do a bit of adjustment every time I moved them to a different part of view field.

I'll try to go back next week when I have a little more time, and take a more systematic approach to see if my initial impression was wrong or, if it was not, what is going on with the image.

Handling and balance were very nice, and the large focus wheel is comfortable. Weight is low for the objective size. I measured 1070 g for the 10x54 on a digital letter scale.

Kimmo
 
kabsetz said:
I had a brief encounter with both of the big HT's on two separate occasions last week and today. I did not have either one on a tripod nor did I put a booster to them, just looked with them out on the yard of the shop they were in, and compared the views to some Swaro models and my Canon 10x42.

My impressions are thus tentative and based on only one unit of each configuration, but I was not impressed. The 10x especially showed much more pronounced CA on axis than what I would expect to see in a premium HD/FL/etc binocular, and contrast, snap and ease of view just were not there. With the 8x, when looking at a yard of gravel or a field, it felt like my eyes needed to do a bit of adjustment every time I moved them to a different part of view field.

I'll try to go back next week when I have a little more time, and take a more systematic approach to see if my initial impression was wrong or, if it was not, what is going on with the image.

Handling and balance were very nice, and the large focus wheel is comfortable. Weight is low for the objective size. I measured 1070 g for the 10x54 on a digital letter scale.

Kimmo
Click to expand...

ok, thanks,
keeping my FL:s,
at least until the SF:s are in the stores,
:)
 
Of course it's going to be brighter and better. Would the design team release something that can't beat out their last model?

I wish Zeiss would get on board and release the large objective bin in 12 or 15 that their fans have been asking for for years.
 
Nessus said:
Of course it's going to be brighter and better. Would the design team release something that can't beat out their last model?

I wish Zeiss would get on board and release the large objective bin in 12 or 15 that their fans have been asking for for years.
Click to expand...

Nessus

Have you tried the Conquest HD 15x56?

I have (see review on separate thread) and it is terrific.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
Nessus

Have you tried the Conquest HD 15x56?

I have (see review on separate thread) and it is terrific.

Lee
Click to expand...

No but I really want to that see that conquest 56.

I got sometime with the Swaro 8x25 yesterday. The image is far beyond any compact in the world. I wish Zeiss would release a a nice 7x25.
 
I took another look at the 8x54 HT today. This time with a Zeiss 3x12 tripler to look at glitter points and USAF glass slide resolution pattern with the binoculars tripod-mounted.

The short of it is that this particular sample of the HT had really excessive spherical aberration in both barrels. One side of focus showed a bright pink central dot with what should have been diffraction rings being a vague haze of greenish light, while the other side showed a very bright yellow-green outer ring with much dimmer and redder inner rings. It is hard for me to guess how much under corrected SA there actually was, as I have not seen photos with this much and don't have the aberrator functioning at present. There was no miscollimation or astigmatism to speak off, but with this much SA that did not salvage much. The line-pair target looked mushy and low-contrast both through the booster and with naked eyes.

I compared the Zeiss with a 10x56 sample of the Swarovski SLC (they had sold the 8x56 on Friday). This particular SLC star-tested really well. I would estimate it at 1/4 wave or better. One tube had a bit of miscollimation, with slightly eccentric ring patterns and uneven light distribution, but diffraction ring patterns were clear on either side of focus. There was also less of the color split between red and yellow-green, and the image would have been respectable for a 30x scope. The line patterns on the glass slide snapped to focus very decisively and contrast and resolution were much better than in the Zeiss.

I'm hoping to see some other units later. Whether I'll conduct a proper test I don't know yet, but unless there is a significantly better sample to do it with there would be little point in it.

Kimmo
 
Kimmo,

Well, looks like I'm the first Zeiss fanboy to regain consciousness after your 54 mm HT knockout punch. Thank you for sharing the results of those careful objective tests and also your normal use impressions. Ouch. That is not what is expected of a nearly 3K$ binocular.

Ron
 
I've only just picked myself up off the ground! :eek!:

I was hoping that the 10x54 was going to be something of a lay down misere' problem solver :-C

Very disappointing indeed.... |8(|

Chosun :gh:
 
This HAS to be a faulty monday-morning unit.
The FL victory and Night owl in x56 where, for as much as I have looked through them, magnificent (pun intended) beasts.

if not, ... (I don't want to think about it for Zeiss and their reputation, which is scorned by producing inferior units anyway!)
 
ronh said:
Kimmo,

Well, looks like I'm the first Zeiss fanboy to regain consciousness after your 54 mm HT knockout punch. Thank you for sharing the results of those careful objective tests and also your normal use impressions. Ouch. That is not what is expected of a nearly 3K$ binocular.

Ron
Click to expand...

I read Kimmo's post yesterday and all I could think was 'wow' - pretty much still the same now... :)
 
See thread #3 above. Henry expects to be able to test the 8/10x54 in a few weeks and compare the 8x54HT with his 8x56FL.

Bob
 
A $3000.00 binocular should be flawless out of the box, no excuse will do. For that price, someone should be doing final resolution / collimation testing on every unit and they should test perfect.
 
Kimmo,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have now had 2-3 defective 54 mm HT's and didn't you also have defects in 2 different 42 mm HT's as well? If that's the case [like a 90% defect rate] it's quite astonishing.

Zeiss really has some explaining to do, this is outrageous to have such miserable QA and you would think it would require a rethink of the ''process'' - I would expect more for the Terra let alone their crown-jewel.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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.

Similar threads

etc
New Leica Ultravid HD Plus 12x50 - compared with Swarovski EL 12x50 and Zeiss 10x54 HT
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
ReinierB
R
L
Zeiss HT 10x54 vs Other “Big Eyes”
2
Replies
23
Views
4K
etc
etc
etc
Zeiss 10x54 HT and 8x42 SF - an informal review and first impressions
Replies
12
Views
4K
etc
etc
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars. Part 2 first anniversary
Replies
2
Views
676
Scott98
S
Troubador
Zeiss SFL 8x40, A Field Review
28 29 30
Replies
597
Views
88K
HenRun
H

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top