A Careful (but subjective) Comparison (1 Viewer)

[Maljunulo]

After one week of intensive and exclusive use of my new Habicht 8X30 W.

I did a careful comparison with my 8X32 SF, and except for the hard focuser, I don’t see a nickel’s worth of difference. The Zeiss may be a tiny bit “mushier” as you go through focus. When you get down to the shadings and textures level, I think the Habicht has a slight edge. Fewer lens elements perhaps? Habicht is slightly more “transparent” I think.

The Zeiss costs $1,000 more than the Habicht, but the Habicht is not (officially) sold in North America, nor serviced there. It has to go to Austria.

I find the Zeiss a bit harder to hold steady, and it is noticeably heavier. (600 gm vs 540 gm) and the Habicht weight lies wholly between your two hands, in a more compact package.

The Zeiss seems to be slightly better looking into the shaded interior of trees, when the outer leaves are in full sun.

The Habicht is now my glass of choice, and I’ll use the Zeiss for under 25 yards. On a more emotional level, the Habicht is a little jewel, and an absolute delight to hold and look through.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Any chance you could post side-by-side pic?

 

[Maljunulo]

Only a very poor one. An artist I am not.

 

[dries1]

Only a very poor one. An artist I am not.

How are the original eyecups working out, I like the 10X40 BGA better than the black leatherette. I needed the BGA eyecups for the very slightly increased length and diameter.

 

[Maljunulo]

How are the original eyecups working out, I like the 10X40 BGA better than the black leatherette. I needed the BGA eyecups for the very slightly increased length and diameter.

I have adapted, and just press the top of the eyecups lightly on the bottom of my eyebrow ridge. I find it easier to hold the Habicht steady, so the light contact is all I need.

At the risk of offending the easily offended, having seen a photo, I do agree that the green GA eyecups on the W model is really ugly. I’m glad I was able to find a work-around.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Only a very poor one. An artist I am not.

That’s great! I did not realize they were so petite (tho the SF’s are ‘big’ for a 32)!

 

[Patudo]

What's this - Maj favouring the less expensive binocular? Can a £800 binocular really be better than a £1,500 glass?

But, all jesting aside, there's a lot of enjoyment to be had in using a well executed 8x30 porro. If only, if only the Leitz and Zeiss versions had made it to the multi-coated era.

Be aware though that with your eyeball closer to the glass, it can mist up more easily when it gets colder. You may want to have a binocular with longer eye relief handy for those times of the year.

 

[Maljunulo]

Can a £800 binocular really be better than a £1,500 glass?

Well, that one little word “better” is the real crux of the discussion.

Each of the two is “better” at one or two things than the other, but you have to have both at hand, and look really, really hard to see any differences. Each is “as good as” the other optically.

The tight O rings in the Habicht ruin it for many, but I just leave it at infinity. This solves a lot of problems. I am a “focus fiddler” so it takes a bit of self discipline to control the impulse. The tight focus helps, in this case.

 

[Scott98]

Well-made porros have inherent advantages over roofs. I was just having some of these same thoughts yesterday afternoon while taking my 90's Nikon 7x35E-C porros out for a spin in the park. Overall sharpness and clarity is unbelievably high and no CA to be seen.

In fact it seems like only in the last 10-15 years or so have roof optics caught up to this level, and only for $1,000 or more. And often heavier, these are only 21 ounces for 35mm aperture, my earlier 7x35E's are only 19 ounces. Also the re-lubed focuser is amazingly smooth and precise, I prefer it to most of the top roof focusers.

Of course these are not waterproof, they only have 51 degree AFOV, and the outer field isn't sharp. The flat and wider field of my SF's and EDG are the main reasons I would pick them for a session, it does make birding easier.

 

[NDhunter]

I have adapted, and just press the top of the eyecups lightly on the bottom of my eyebrow ridge. I find it easier to hold the Habicht steady, so the light contact is all I need.

At the risk of offending the easily offended, having seen a photo, I do agree that the green GA eyecups on the W model is really ugly. I’m glad I was able to find a work-around.

Do you wear glasses ? If you did you may know why the larger GA eyecup is nice. The regular Habicht
eyecup is quite small, and smaller than most binoculars. I like to jam the eyecup into my eye sockets, and
that holds out stray light and steadies the optic.
Jerry

 

[Maljunulo]

Do you wear glasses ? If you did you may know why the larger GA eyecup is nice. The regular Habicht
eyecup is quite small, and smaller than most binoculars. I like to jam the eyecup into my eye sockets, and
that holds out stray light and steadies the optic.
Jerry

Only to read, so it’s not a problem.

I had cataract surgery in 2008 or so, and my OEM lenses were replaced.

 

[james holdsworth]

So I guess no birding with the Habicht, unless everything is farther than 25 yards…are you carrying both binos with you?

 

[Maljunulo]

So I guess no birding with the Habicht, unless everything is farther than 25 yards…are you carrying both binos with you?

My birding is done in “surveillance mode” from my balcony at home, or my car elsewhere, so not much comes that close. I’m not a competitive birder, chasing lifers, or traveling to exotic places. Age precludes.

Birds are ubiquitous, beautiful, abundant, and interesting, but they are not the only things in my world.

Binoculars don’t care what you look at through them, and they do an amazing job of revealing the unseen, even when the subject isn’t a bird.

 

[[email protected]]

After one week of intensive and exclusive use of my new Habicht 8X30 W.

I did a careful comparison with my 8X32 SF, and except for the hard focuser, I don’t see a nickel’s worth of difference. The Zeiss may be a tiny bit “mushier” as you go through focus. When you get down to the shadings and textures level, I think the Habicht has a slight edge. Fewer lens elements perhaps? Habicht is slightly more “transparent” I think.

The Zeiss costs $1,000 more than the Habicht, but the Habicht is not (officially) sold in North America, nor serviced there. It has to go to Austria.

I find the Zeiss a bit harder to hold steady, and it is noticeably heavier. (600 gm vs 540 gm) and the Habicht weight lies wholly between your two hands, in a more compact package.

The Zeiss seems to be slightly better looking into the shaded interior of trees, when the outer leaves are in full sun.

The Habicht is now my glass of choice, and I’ll use the Zeiss for under 25 yards. On a more emotional level, the Habicht is a little jewel, and an absolute delight to use.

The Habicht will be brighter in the day than the SF dues to its higher transmission, it has the advantage of the 3D stereoscopic view out to about 100 yards, and it is more transparent due to the simplicity of the porro optical train.

It is funny that a simple little porro design that has been around for 50 years that costs 1/2 the price of the Zeiss SF actually beats it optically, isn't it?