Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

50mm Zeiss SF --- When??!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Monday 24th October 2016, 14:21   #1
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,758
Question 50mm Zeiss SF --- When??!

~ 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
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 24th October 2016, 14:41   #2
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,387
Nothing wrong with the Leica 50mm binoculars.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th October 2016, 15:17   #3
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Nothing wrong with the Leica 50mm binoculars.

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


Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 24th October 2016, 15:28   #4
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,758
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
Nothing wrong with the Leica 50mm binoculars.
You mean those new wide angle Perger Prism CFRP 50mm Noctivids? Yes, I hear they're very nice

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

Last edited by Chosun Juan : Tuesday 25th October 2016 at 03:12.
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 24th October 2016, 15:35   #5
The-Wanderer
Registered User
 
The-Wanderer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 595
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-Wanderer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th October 2016, 16:12   #6
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
BF Supporter 2019
 
BruceH's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 2,393
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.
__________________
It's all about the view!
vs.
A fool and his money are soon parted!
(The Yin Yang of the Binocular Forum)
BruceH is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 24th October 2016, 16:44   #7
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,387
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 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th October 2016, 18:07   #8
The-Wanderer
Registered User
 
The-Wanderer's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 595
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.
The-Wanderer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th October 2016, 19:53   #9
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,117
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.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Monday 24th October 2016 at 19:55.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th October 2016, 20:30   #10
Binastro
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: S.England
Posts: 4,387
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.

Last edited by Binastro : Monday 24th October 2016 at 20:44.
Binastro is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th October 2016, 23:29   #11
NDhunter
Registered User
 
NDhunter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
~ 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
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
NDhunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 24th October 2016, 23:36   #12
SuperDuty
Registered User
 
SuperDuty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 888
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



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
~ 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
SuperDuty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 02:41   #13
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,758
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceH View Post
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.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDhunter View Post
...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. ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDuty View Post
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....
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


Chosun

Last edited by Chosun Juan : Tuesday 25th October 2016 at 03:33.
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 02:53   #14
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,758
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binastro View Post
..... 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.....
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
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 03:11   #15
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,758
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
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.
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:
950 -> 136.6m @1Km (410ft @1K yd)
1050 -> 123m @1Km (369ft @1K yd)
1250 -> 102m @1Km (306ft @1K yd)
12.550 -> 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.


Chosun

Last edited by Chosun Juan : Tuesday 25th October 2016 at 03:32.
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 03:55   #16
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,787
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

Last edited by ceasar : Tuesday 25th October 2016 at 04:04.
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 07:37   #17
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,758
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar View Post
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
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.

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.
Click image for larger version

Name:	2016-10-25 18.07.01.png
Views:	92
Size:	55.6 KB
ID:	603165
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.

That then makes the 50mm a 'mainstream' instrument with "strong appeal" to "most birders" (to borrow Bruce's words) ....


Chosun

Last edited by Chosun Juan : Tuesday 25th October 2016 at 07:49.
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 08:16   #18
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
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:
950 -> 136.6m @1Km (410ft @1K yd)
1050 -> 123m @1Km (369ft @1K yd)
1250 -> 102m @1Km (306ft @1K yd)
12.550 -> 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.

Chosun
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...)

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?

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Tuesday 25th October 2016 at 09:12.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 10:09   #19
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,758
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
Zeiss really have to do something extraordinary in the segment for it to sell I think. And it's a difficult equation to solve
Yes, merely equalling the Swaro 10x50 SV will not suffice. The opportunity is there though to move the game on considerably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
Maybe a 50mm will have to be 2 inches longer than the 42mm SF to tame CA etc. Then balance will be an issue.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
I suspect we won't see any 50mm Noctivids either, since they would weigh a ton at least...
In its current form certainly! ..... probably even more than a ton! ..... A CFRP Perger Prism NV would certainly set the cat among the pigeons though!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
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.
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" !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
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?
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

Last edited by Chosun Juan : Tuesday 25th October 2016 at 11:21.
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 11:29   #20
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 2,117
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.

Last edited by Vespobuteo : Tuesday 25th October 2016 at 11:38.
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 12:31   #21
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vespobuteo View Post
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.
Vespo, that's in the ballpark - many of the big guns (50-54-56mm) fall in the ~190 - 210mm range for physical length. This is where the beauty of CFRP comes in - extra length doesn't come at a deleterious weight penalty - it's largely just inert gas in a very lightweight tube. Top grade Synthetic fluorite (as used by everybody bar Canon - who grow their own real crystals) has practically the same performance but is much easier and more economical to work. It is lighter than lesser grades too. In a 50mm SF, Ultra-FL and HT glass would be de rigueur .....

Such a Vunderbin could be made at 850grams or less - and I agree, that's probably as much as you would want to carry (actually, it's probably more, but I think the satisfaction of having such a high performing 50mm bin would make it psychologically seem lighter! :)

Much the same as in the photographic world where the big CaNikon duopoly neatly segments categories and conducts development at a glacial pace, the Alpha big dawgs of binoworld also stifle innovation (within the confines of non-digital classical troglodyte optics) to protect established segments and markets. Maven is one company (Kamakura designed and manufactured) with the vision to upset the apple cart -- the only downfall here is too much weight in their products (I wonder how much longer dennis's biceps will continue to hold up :)

The opportunity for a game changing 50mm SF is there --- Is Zeiss "bold" enough to make it? , or will it futilely try and protect its outdated legacy designs, and cede market share to Swarovski, content in the trickle of income coming from it's Schott glass subsidiary ......
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 12:48   #22
SuperDuty
Registered User
 
SuperDuty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 888
I doubt Zeiss will ever build a 50mm SF but I could be wrong, I'll keep my crow eating bib handy just in case though. Crow isn't actually too bad, taste a lot like chicken.
SuperDuty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 13:40   #23
ceasar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 11,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
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.

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.
Attachment 603165
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.

That then makes the 50mm a 'mainstream' instrument with "strong appeal" to "most birders" (to borrow Bruce's words) ....


Chosun
CJ,

It might be possible under those manufacturing restrictions.

Nikon's new 8x42 Monarch HG comes in at 665 grams or 23.5 ounces with its Mag. alloy frame

https://store.nikon.co.uk/sport-opti...cificationstab

Bob
ceasar is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2010 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 14:37   #24
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
 
mfunnell's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDuty View Post
I doubt Zeiss will ever build a 50mm SF but I could be wrong, I'll keep my crow eating bib handy just in case though. Crow isn't actually too bad, taste a lot like chicken.
Only more stringy, and tougher, and altogether nastier. This is from eating an actual crow (well, an Australian Raven, but we call them crows). If the metaphorical crow tastes as bad, I'd suggest avoiding it.

...Mike

(Note: I didn't eat the whole crow. It was a collective effort. We were hungry. We didn't finish it. It tasted that good Survival training: not eating crow helps you survive!)
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

Some photos of my local birds on flickr.
mfunnell is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 25th October 2016, 17:09   #25
SuperDuty
Registered User
 
SuperDuty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 888
Apparently not like chicken then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfunnell View Post
Only more stringy, and tougher, and altogether nastier. This is from eating an actual crow (well, an Australian Raven, but we call them crows). If the metaphorical crow tastes as bad, I'd suggest avoiding it.

...Mike

(Note: I didn't eat the whole crow. It was a collective effort. We were hungry. We didn't finish it. It tasted that good Survival training: not eating crow helps you survive!)
SuperDuty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Opticron MM3 50mm vs. Vortex Razor HD 50mm drcam Spotting Scopes & tripod/heads 2 Thursday 14th July 2016 18:43
which is best 50mm+ binocular bockos Binoculars 22 Wednesday 9th September 2015 21:40
MM3 50mm Peter Ericsson Opticron 8 Monday 15th December 2014 16:16
50mm macro Freako Macro Photography 2 Tuesday 31st May 2011 11:14
Nikon 50mm vs Minox 50mm?? tkl Spotting Scopes & tripod/heads 13 Friday 8th April 2011 12:19

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.37390709 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:54.