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

[dwever]

10x32 FL's sharper than 10x42 HT?

Part of review at cloudynights review of HT (link below):

"The new HT's are beautifully made binos. And the views bright, with an electrifying touch to the image. They are also a bit longish. The adjustable eyecups are the same as in the FL's, with a bit less resistance when resting in the stops. Focussing is light and responsive. Ergonomics are good. The AFOV and TFOV are less wide than in the 10x32 Victory. Amazingly, the 10x32 are a bit sharper during the day. Not quite as bright, but sharper. Difficult small details reveal themselves in the tiny 10x32's first. Hmmm.

Under the stars, the HT's are brighter, but the FL's images are tighter, more apo-with-nagler like stars. The viewing experience wider and more immersive. Edge of field correction better. And at 10x, the 32 FL's easily fit in both the Belt and Sword of Orion, while the 42 HT's can't quite manage that.
I also tested the sharpness on a solid tripod with my Zeiss 3x12 mono to magnify the image to 30 times. Starimages where noticeably tighter in the 10x32, with perfect tight pinpoint stars. In the 10x42 HT stars were not quite as tight and didn't quite have the nice intra- and extra-focal images the 10x32 showed.

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5672577/Main/5672493

 

[Kammerdiner]

Do sea cucumbers count? Do bears play baseball in the forest?

Yes indeedy they do count. Never had the good fortune to knowingly spot a sea cuce. Today was a good day: 5 Aegires punctilucens, 1 Polycera quadrilineata and 1 Ancula gibbosa, plus a load of other stuff, including a White tailed Sea Eagle.

Despite my other thread, none of this lot was viewed through my bins after all, but I did get my 6x18 monoc on them.

Do you get to visit the sea much Mark?

Lee

Actually, I've never seen bears play baseball in the forest. Usually they just run away from me. Quite logically, they assume I'm out to kill them. Which I'm not. I often feel bad for disrupting their day. How easy it must be to shoot one. You can shoot them no matter how little. A little albino cub, forty pounds I think, was killed last year not far from me. Big time success.

The Sea? Only three times this year--a week each at Sanibel, Florida, Cape May, New Jersey, and Cape Cod, Mass. Wonderful! I'm moving to the west coast if/when I can. Point Reyes or north from there. I love that part of the world.

Here's a link to a great compilation on the sea. Not sure how much is available on line, but a friend from CA sent me this in hardcopy:

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/magazine/

I haven't had a chance to read it yet but it looks really nice.

Mark

 

[Troubador]

Actually, I've never seen bears play baseball in the forest. Usually they just run away from me. Quite logically, they assume I'm out to kill them. Which I'm not. I often feel bad for disrupting their day. How easy it must be to shoot one. You can shoot them no matter how little. A little albino cub, forty pounds I think, was killed last year not far from me. Big time success.

The Sea? Only three times this year--a week each at Sanibel, Florida, Cape May, New Jersey, and Cape Cod, Mass. Wonderful! I'm moving to the west coast if/when I can. Point Reyes or north from there. I love that part of the world.

Here's a link to a great compilation on the sea. Not sure how much is available on line, but a friend from CA sent me this in hardcopy:

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/magazine/

I haven't had a chance to read it yet but it looks really nice.

Mark

Thanks for the kind link Mark.

Hope you get your wish regarding Point Reyes. We would like to move to the Scottish Hebrides one day, but it's hellish in the winter and medical support can be tricky.

No hankering to move there but am fascinated by the coast from Seattle upto (and beyond) Vancouver. Looks great.

We had better not get started on the whole h--t--g bears thing or the moderators will be down on us like a ton of Grizzlies

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Handling

Having recently returned from three weeks on North Uist where the HTs were used intensively I would like to offer a comment about the handling.

The HTs are a comprehensive break from the layout and appearance of the FL which preceded it. The chief results from the changes are a lower position for the focus wheel and a pair of smoothly flaring objective tubes below. The feel is very different from FL but is really comfortable and stable.

They are a joy to hold and use, so much so that the FL 32's I took for days involving rock scrambling and laying down to do photography were mostly left behind.

Probably most people who have tried out Swaro's ELs have enjoyed the unfettered access to gripping the optical tubes. Zeiss's HTs offer a very similar access resulting in handling that is probably at least as much of a step-forward as the optics.

Lee

 

[CSG]

Lee, I know we talked about the HT's and I wanted to follow-up that an opportunity presented itself to trade up to the HT's from my HD's. I am very much looking forward to the upgrade as I've yet to experience a binocular as well executed as the HT's. And the eye relief is perfect for me on the HT's.

 

[brocknroller]

Part of review at cloudynights review of HT (link below):

"The new HT's are beautifully made binos. And the views bright, with an electrifying touch to the image. They are also a bit longish. The adjustable eyecups are the same as in the FL's, with a bit less resistance when resting in the stops. Focussing is light and responsive. Ergonomics are good. The AFOV and TFOV are less wide than in the 10x32 Victory. Amazingly, the 10x32 are a bit sharper during the day. Not quite as bright, but sharper. Difficult small details reveal themselves in the tiny 10x32's first. Hmmm.

Under the stars, the HT's are brighter, but the FL's images are tighter, more apo-with-nagler like stars. The viewing experience wider and more immersive. Edge of field correction better. And at 10x, the 32 FL's easily fit in both the Belt and Sword of Orion, while the 42 HT's can't quite manage that.
I also tested the sharpness on a solid tripod with my Zeiss 3x12 mono to magnify the image to 30 times. Starimages where noticeably tighter in the 10x32, with perfect tight pinpoint stars. In the 10x42 HT stars were not quite as tight and didn't quite have the nice intra- and extra-focal images the 10x32 showed.

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5672577/Main/5672493

dwever,

Given similar optical quality, the 10x is going to show more detail than an 8x regardless of the 10mm difference in the objectives. During the day when your entrance pupils are contracted, the larger objectives are not going to make much difference unless it's totally overcast and your looking in the shadows.

As to the stars, that might be a different matter, depending on how dark adapted your pupils are. As your pupils open up, more of the cornea is exposed and so the more aberrations are likely to come into play such as astigmatism. Then you're looking through the HT's 5mm exit pupils vs. the FL's 3.2mm. Less eyeball, less aberrations, tighter stars. You'd have to photograph the star images to make sure you're not seeing aberrations from your eyes.

If you observe from suburban skies, the sky contrast will also be better with the small exit pupil bins. I have 8* 10x50s and 7* 10x35s, and which I use for stargazing depends on how dark the sky is, which depends on how late it is and how much moisture is in the air.

dweezel

 

[lmans66]

Probably most people who have tried out Swaro's ELs have enjoyed the unfettered access to gripping the optical tubes. Zeiss's HTs offer a very similar access resulting in handling that is probably at least as much of a step-forward as the optics.

Lee

Right on Lee....after extensive field trials with the the Swaro's and the HT's......the handling quality of the HT became a huge factor in which pair for me to purchase. Optic wise...both are strong. Handling wise, while it depends on your hands and your comfort zone, I would be surprised if anyone would pick up a HT and not be impressed.

 

[SzimiStyle]

Right on Lee....after extensive field trials with the the Swaro's and the HT's......the handling quality of the HT became a huge factor in which pair for me to purchase. Optic wise...both are strong. Handling wise, while it depends on your hands and your comfort zone, I would be surprised if anyone would pick up a HT and not be impressed.

I found the HT quite balanced a had a good feel in my relatively large hands. The price difference between the SwaroVision and Zeiss HT is significant for me.

 

[CSG]

Per James Holdsworth's request, here are a few comments about my 8x42 HT's.

I've looked at a lot of binoculars over the years and with the HT's, a comfortable, full-size bin, I have never used a better binocular than these. Granted, I haven't had the opportunity to spend hours in the field with some of the competition and I am not a dedicated birder, rather an outdoorsman who uses binoculars for a wide range of viewing, including Search and Rescue missions.

The feel of the HT's and how they come naturally to the eye and where the focus knob is make them feel like an extension of my hands. Just a natural fit with zero compromise (and I have issues with the ergos of a number of binoculars for me). Zeiss got these just right.

As far as the optics go, I've never seen better whether in Leicas, Swaros, FL's, or anything *I've* had a chance to use. The best compliment I can pay a pair of binoculars (Yeah, I know you're not supposed to call them a "pair") is that I don't notice the optics. Same with telescopes. The view should closely replicate what I'd see with my naked eye only larger. No coloration, no obvious blurriness at the outer edges of the field, sharp, bright, and natural feeling. These do it for me.

I won't criticize the Ultravids or Swarovisions because there's nothing at all wrong with them for their fans but neither of their similar models feels so good in my hands or looks as good when viewing through them as the HT's. I wish I could afford the 10x42's as well but for me the 8x42 class is the best all arounder.

While I'm a general purpose user of binoculars, I note Zeiss markets these, primarily, to hunters. I really think they should push the birding end of these as well. If you want to see the bird as it actually is, these are the binoculars for you.

I'm sorry I'm not skilled enough in optical reviews to speak about these the same way Holger might but I have over 40 years of using optics for day and night time use and these are the best binoculars I've ever used.

 

[james holdsworth]

:t:

 

[Sagittarius]

I love my 10x42 Victory HT's !
I decided to purchase them because they were a few hundred less than Swarovski Swarovision EL's, had the new HT glass, and Abbe Konig prisms. |8)|
They feel great in the hands too. :t:

 

[joe101]

Sorry to dig up an old tread.
Does anyone here wear specs but uses the HTs without them ?

Joseph

 

[eddy the eagle]

I wear progressive glasses with the HT's and do not have any problems.However with my prescription sunglasses which are also polarising I cannot use them when viewing birds with glossy plumage,ie.glossy ibis or black storks or when viewing with them over the sea as the result is a psychedelic concoccion of multi colours and detail is difficult to view.The view without the bins is ok but there must be something in the coatings that the polarising affects.My next pair of precription sunglasses will be without polarising as with the bright sunshine in this part of the world some form of protection is needed.The sunglasses do not appear to affect the view with my 8x32 Conquest HD,don't ask me why....Eddy

 

[joe101]

I have three pairs or binoculars and have tested dozens more and I have realised that even though I have slight astigmatism most binoculars actually corrects for it and I can use the binoculars without specs. But to my surprise the HTs is not one of them.

 

[james holdsworth]

I also have some astigmatism, but only wear glasses for driving. The HT corrects my vision perfectly, as does most any other pair.

 

[Kammerdiner]

I also have some astigmatism, but only wear glasses for driving. The HT corrects my vision perfectly, as does most any other pair.

Binoculars, even the Zeiss HT, are incapable of correcting astigmatism. Best you can do might be flat field, of which the HT is not included.

PS: I'm curious about what Eddy the eagle said about polarized sunglasses. I gave up using them with binoculars long ago, but never noticed that some binos work better than others. Is it the phase coating that makes the difference?

 

[james holdsworth]

Binoculars, even the Zeiss HT, are incapable of correcting astigmatism. Best you can do might be flat field, of which the HT is not included.

PS: I'm curious about what Eddy the eagle said about polarized sunglasses. I gave up using them with binoculars long ago, but never noticed that some binos work better than others. Is it the phase coating that makes the difference?

Well, my long range vision produces ''sparkles'' or spikes on stars and car lights - maybe this is refractive error? Anyway, a binocular corrects it perfectly.

 

[Kammerdiner]

Well, my long range vision produces ''sparkles'' or spikes on stars and car lights - maybe this is refractive error? Anyway, a binocular corrects it perfectly.

My astigmatism is significant enough that I just have to wear glasses with binoculars. Without them, no binocular will come to full focus. The view just stays a little blurry.

What you're describing sounds like something different, although I don't know what it's called either.

 

[Troubador]

Well, my long range vision produces ''sparkles'' or spikes on stars and car lights - maybe this is refractive error? Anyway, a binocular corrects it perfectly.

James

Sounds like you need to send your eyeballs back to Zeiss for a refurb of the T* coating.....:smoke:

Lee

 

[james holdsworth]

James

Sounds like you need to send your eyeballs back to Zeiss for a refurb of the T* coating.....:smoke:

Lee

Only if Zeiss have a loaner set for me to use, hopefully with HT glass....