Here are the new Victorys: Victory HT (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

I assume it is a general purpose instrument i.e. hunting, birding, and nature.

My guess is that Zeiss were disappointed with sales of the FL line, since in many ways the FL bins were optically superior to the competition when released. I certainly thought the FL was superior to the original Swaro EL, but I'm sure that Swarovski sold far more EL units, if dealers I spoke to were on the level. It is possible that the Zeiss marketing wonks think that hunters are the best group to target, with birding and nature secondary.

I do wonder how many high end binoculars are sold more on the fit and finish with a cursory check of the optics, and an assumption that a high price equates to good. If these people constitute a large number, then perhaps the non metal body of the FL was seen as a negative, even though in some respects it was better (more resistant to knocks, and less likely to get very cold).

Leif

I think you are dead right about the non-metal body. My brother-in-law was visibly crestfallen to find out it was GRP. Others have posted on here comments that hint at GRP being less than a premium material despite the fact that within limits it can be tailor-engineered to your exact requirements.

By the way does anyone know whether magnesium tubes like those on the HT are castings which are then machined, or if they are machined from tube, or even solid bar?

Lee

 

[NAB]

Has anyone done a side by side comparison with Nikon EDG?

Whilst having a good play with the HT's and Swaro's last weekend, I did briefly try the EDG, but immediately dismissed it as optically it felt inferier to the other two. It just didnt feel as bright and the image had a blue tinge to my eye.

 

[Argon]

Ugo U soon should buy a copy of Nikon EDG 8x32 , in this way he can give you more information on the differences between the two binoculars.

Best Regards from Italy

Piergiovani,
Grazie for your response. I will look forward to it.

 

[Argon]

Whilst having a good play with the HT's and Swaro's last weekend, I did briefly try the EDG, but immediately dismissed it as optically it felt inferier to the other two. It just didnt feel as bright and the image had a blue tinge to my eye.

Neil,
Thank you for your response.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Today I had the opportunity to compare side by side the Zeiss Victory 10x42 HT, The Swarovision 10x42 and the Swarvski SLC-HD 10x42.
I observed that:
-1- both Swarovskis had a much better color reproduction then the Zeis Victory HT. The Swarovskis produded whites as really white, while the Zeiss Ht was definitely more red.
-2- The turning resistance of the focussing wheel of the HT was very low, lower then the turning resistance of the Swarovskis. However, when turning the HT focussing wheel in different directions there was some small free space before it started focussing again. That felt kind of cheap. The low turning resistance of the HT focussing wheel allows faster focussing then the somewhat higher focussing resistance of the Swarovskis.
-3- For the correction of the difference in eye strenght a very small wheel op top of the focussing wheel has to be turned on the HT. I did not like that construction, but that is a matter of taste and discussing taste is a difficult matter.
-4- The HT handled well.
-5- The HT was certainly not brighter for my eyes as both Swarovskis.
Unfortunately I did not have the pportunity to compare the HT with similar Leica models, but I will do that later.
Gijs

 

[Leif]

Leif

I think you are dead right about the non-metal body. My brother-in-law was visibly crestfallen to find out it was GRP. Others have posted on here comments that hint at GRP being less than a premium material despite the fact that within limits it can be tailor-engineered to your exact requirements.

By the way does anyone know whether magnesium tubes like those on the HT are castings which are then machined, or if they are machined from tube, or even solid bar?

Lee

I would be surprised if they machined from solid bar due to the wastage and time taken, and castings would surely be more sensible. Magnesium castings are quite common.

I have assumed the HT uses an 'advanced polymer' for the tube assemblies, and searching online, they only refer to a magnesium bridge. The AK prisms are heavier than SP ones, and perhaps they need to use a lighter material for the tube assemblies to get the weight down. This is supposition, as I cannot find any information about the materials used in the tubes. In my opinion, it is a perfectly sound material for that purpose, and using a metal bridge for cosmetic reasons is good. In fact a polymer might have better thermal stability, though I suppose the objective cells, eyepiece cells, and prism housings are metal, for obvious reasons.

 

[Troubador]

I would be surprised if they machined from solid bar due to the wastage and time taken, and castings would surely be more sensible. Magnesium castings are quite common.

I have assumed the HT uses an 'advanced polymer' for the tube assemblies, and searching online, they only refer to a magnesium bridge. The AK prisms are heavier than SP ones, and perhaps they need to use a lighter material for the tube assemblies to get the weight down. This is supposition, as I cannot find any information about the materials used in the tubes. In my opinion, it is a perfectly sound material for that purpose, and using a metal bridge for cosmetic reasons is good. In fact a polymer might have better thermal stability, though I suppose the objective cells, eyepiece cells, and prism housings are metal, for obvious reasons.

Hi Leif

The quote from the Zeiss website is 'The housing, with its innovative double-link bridge, is made of high-tensile, ultra-light magnesium'.

I read this to say that the housing, meaning the tubes, and the bridge, are made of magnesium. I did this because here 'the housing' is referring to something other than the bridge and I thought that after the bridge there is not much left but the tubes.

Or did I jump to the wrong conclusion?

Lee

 

[temmie]

The tubes in the FL are not even polymer, but some kind of metal (I know because the rubber housing let loose on my pair).

 

[Leif]

Or did I jump to the wrong conclusion?

I don't know, but Temmie's post suggests you are right, and I guessed wrong. |=)|

 

[kwikstaart]

Today I had the opportunity to compare side by side the Zeiss Victory 10x42 HT, The Swarovision 10x42 and the Swarvski SLC-HD 10x42.
I observed that:
-1- both Swarovskis had a much better color reproduction then the Zeis Victory HT. The Swarovskis produded whites as really white, while the Zeiss Ht was definitely more red.
-2- The turning resistance of the focussing wheel of the HT was very low, lower then the turning resistance of the Swarovskis. However, when turning the HT focussing wheel in different directions there was some small free space before it started focussing again. That felt kind of cheap. The low turning resistance of the HT focussing wheel allows faster focussing then the somewhat higher focussing resistance of the Swarovskis.
-3- For the correction of the difference in eye strenght a very small wheel op top of the focussing wheel has to be turned on the HT. I did not like that construction, but that is a matter of taste and discussing taste is a difficult matter.
-4- The HT handled well.
-5- The HT was certainly not brighter for my eyes as both Swarovskis.
Unfortunately I did not have the pportunity to compare the HT with similar Leica models, but I will do that later.
Gijs

Thank you Gijs for these first impressions after a real side by side testing. I'm looking forward to the "official" test/review. When is it to be expected and where will you publish it?

 

[jan van daalen]

Leif

I think you are dead right about the non-metal body. My brother-in-law was visibly crestfallen to find out it was GRP. Others have posted on here comments that hint at GRP being less than a premium material despite the fact that within limits it can be tailor-engineered to your exact requirements.

By the way does anyone know whether magnesium tubes like those on the HT are castings which are then machined, or if they are machined from tube, or even solid bar?

Lee

Last year on the latest binocular meeting in Jena Germany, Zeiss hold an product presentation and over there claimed that all new models would have magnesium housings because of one reason and one reason only: the fact that the customers did not wanted plastic housings.
These magnesium housings are rough castings which are later on machined to the proper dimensions.

Jan

 

[hinnark]

Today I had the opportunity to compare side by side the Zeiss Victory 10x42 HT, The Swarovision 10x42 and the Swarvski SLC-HD 10x42.
I observed that:
-1- both Swarovskis had a much better color reproduction then the Zeis Victory HT. The Swarovskis produded whites as really white, while the Zeiss Ht was definitely more red.
-2- The turning resistance of the focussing wheel of the HT was very low, lower then the turning resistance of the Swarovskis. However, when turning the HT focussing wheel in different directions there was some small free space before it started focussing again. That felt kind of cheap. The low turning resistance of the HT focussing wheel allows faster focussing then the somewhat higher focussing resistance of the Swarovskis.
-3- For the correction of the difference in eye strenght a very small wheel op top of the focussing wheel has to be turned on the HT. I did not like that construction, but that is a matter of taste and discussing taste is a difficult matter.
-4- The HT handled well.
-5- The HT was certainly not brighter for my eyes as both Swarovskis.
Unfortunately I did not have the pportunity to compare the HT with similar Leica models, but I will do that later.
Gijs

Gijs,

some coments:
-1- Since you have access to a spectrometer it would be interesting to take a look at the transmittance curve of the HT. Because the HTs were anounced as especially suitable for low light I don't understand why the light transmission at the red side of spectrum should be that enhanced. As you certainly know, for scotopic vision the blue wavelengths are of higher importance. BTW, personally I prefer the color reproduction of Leica and Nikon EDG over Swaro's. The colours seem to be more vividly to me. Could be a matter of taste, of course.

-2- Did you consider that the focussing wheel of the HT is much bigger than those of the Swaros? Could be have an influence on how the resistance feel. I saw some Swaro focusser wheels that move in a very slightly excentric way, BTW. With such samples this is visible when looking at the small gap between focussing wheel and one of the bin's barrel. Move the focussing wheel from one stop to the other and pay careful attention to the size of this gap.

-3- IMO that diopter wheel at the HT is now the best solution at the market. Until recently I prefered the Leica solution because it allowed to see the setting of the diopter without the need to unlock the focusser wheel before. With the HT this is now possible as well, but the diopter wheel can be used without the need to unlock something. With Swaros you need to unlock the focussing wheel even for take a look at the diopter's placement. Perhaps this a bit of a nitpicking, but as you have mentioned this...

-5- see comment to -1-

Steve

 

[hinnark]

Last year on the latest binocular meeting in Jena Germany, Zeiss hold an product presentation and over there claimed that all new models would have magnesium housings because of one reason and one reason only: the fact that the customers did not wanted plastic housings.
These magnesium housings are rough castings which are later on machined to the proper dimensions.

Jan

Sometimes the consumers are hard to understand. With tripods or bicycles, everyone wants to have sexy polymer compound material. Apparently, this is not the case with binoculars. I wonder why?

Steve

 

[Leif]

I have no idea if the HT does have more transmission at the red end of the spectrum, but daylight is neutral/cold at midday and distinctly red/warm at sunset, due of course to scattering in the atmosphere, blue light being scattered more than red light.

 

[jan van daalen]

Sometimes the consumers are hard to understand. With tripods or bicycles, everyone wants to have sexy polymer compound material. Apparently, this is not the case with binoculars. I wonder why?

Steve

In a earlier stage, Zeiss told me they prefered polymer housings because of the fact this superior material was 100% air tight. The Nitrogin could not leak away as it did (so they claimed) on all other brands made of (what they called) inferior aluminium/magnesium nitrogin leaking housings.

When sales results are not what they should be, blame it on the customers.

Jan

 

[Leif]

Sometimes the consumers are hard to understand. With tripods or bicycles, everyone wants to have sexy polymer compound material. Apparently, this is not the case with binoculars. I wonder why?

Steve

Carbon fibre is seen as a wonder material, and perhaps had the FL been made of carbon fibre, they would have dominated the market. But plastic does not have the same image, and the FL is somewhat utilitarian. A review in a UK magazine suggested they were made from molten down action men. (Action Man is a sort of doll for male children, with army uniforms, guns and so on.) I imagine Zeiss staff must have choked on their cornflakes on reading that.

Having tried a HT, it does look much better, and the ergonomics are nice, better than the Swarovision, which I guess is the main competitor.

 

[brocknroller]

For those who have compared the HT's and Swaro's side by side, did you not find the colour definition to be better on the Swaro's? To my eye the colour definition seems very slightly washed out on the HT's, and is this the price paid for the extra brightness obtained (and they are bright!)?

The big play by Zeiss is the benefit hunters get at dawn and dusk i.e brightness.

Update from my UK dealer on HT's, 12 pairs due in the UK this week, but Zeiss UK unable to confirm if 8 x or 10 x models? :C

NAB,

I haven't tried either, only the pre-SV EL, but I think you'll find your answer in these light transmission charts of the SV EL and FL, assuming the color balance in the HTs is similar to FLs. I asked Stephen Ingraham for a transmission graph for the HTs, but he said that Zeiss doesn't make them. These are from allbinos and clearly show the difference.

The FL's light transmission peaks in the green-yellow, colors that are eyes are most sensitive to, so it enhances the brightness.

The EL's have a flatter transmission "curve," with peaks on both ends of the spectrum and a bit of a sag in the middle where our eyes need the least help. I think that explains the "wash out" you mentioned and why the color definition seems better in the ELs.

ISCO

 

[Troubador]

At this point I will remind folks that when I compared HT with FL side-by-side in quick succession all of the colours were more vivid through HT including red.

Lee

 

[ronh]

Binomania's very nice review of the HT was covered up immediately without a mention. Thank you Pier and Ugo for your impressions, and for the effort.

http://www.binomania.it/binocoli/ZeissHT8x42/ZeissHT8x42.php

Just wanted to give it another chance to be noticed. (... not quite as positive as Mr. Ingraham's opinion.)

Ron

 

[hinnark]

In a earlier stage, Zeiss told me they prefered polymer housings because of the fact this superior material was 100% air tight. The Nitrogin could not leak away as it did (so they claimed) on all other brands made of (what they called) inferior aluminium/magnesium nitrogin leaking housings.

When sales results are not what they should be, blame it on the customers.

Jan

Yes, I believe that's true. At the time when Minox advertise their argon filling I asked a chemist about it because I couldn't imagine this. Nitrogen can in fact leave the barrels in a process of diffusion.

BTW, I didn't see anybody here blaming at customers. But I have the impression that someone here is blaming at a former business partner for reasons nobody is able to check outside this relationship. This kind of blaming in the public often achieve the opposite because people could be tempted to interpret it as an unfair form of covered advertising.

Steve