HighNorth
Well-known member
I've made my gratitude to Zeiss clear on numerous occasions.The snide comments have mostly been provided other posters...
HN
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
I broke my SF so you don't have to... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter HighNorth
- Start date
I've made my gratitude to Zeiss clear on numerous occasions.The snide comments have mostly been provided other posters...
HN
The Ultravid wasn't as good as the BN? Really! THE SV's have low contrast. Really! Nikon EDG not exciting. I agree. It was the most boring binocular I ever owned. It could put me to sleep just looking at it.
Last edited:
Dennis
You missed the remark about EL SVs having poor contrast:eat:
BTW I am not saying they do. In the past couple of weeks we have had SVs described as 'extra contrasty' and now as having poor contrast.
The only eyes that really matter are your own.
Lee
HighNorth
Well-known member
NDhunter
Experienced observer
gj:
An interesting post, I am wondering if you have much of any experience
with the binoculars you are referring to. :eek!:
Enough said.
Jerry
brocknroller
A professed porromaniac
The tiny whiny minority is jealous. HN has had three samples, and most birders in the US haven't had the opportunity to try one.
Eagle Optics - Out of stock.
B&H - notify when in stock
Adorama - On Backorder
Amazon - not listed
17th St. Photo has two samples available on eBay
Zeiss-Victory-SF-8x42-Binocular-Gray-and-Black
Sounds like the SF is "the best" full sized bin out there now. What's not to like except the price tag and scarce availability?
<B>
Last edited:
HighNorth
Well-known member
They are all out of stock because High North has them all.
brocknroller
A professed porromaniac
Relax Brock: you're not missing out on anything!
Well, I bought one, I'd be missing $2,599 + interest over the three years it would take me to pay it off. :smoke:
Also, according to Ju Ju Bees, I would become addicted to the SF if I tried it. So I'd better not, otherwise, it could lead to a life of crime, knocking off convenience store after convenience store to get my next SF "fix."
The 8x42 model would be my gateway drug, then before long I'd jonesing for the 10x42 model, and who knows, perhaps Zeiss will come out with an entire line of SFs like they did the HTs and Conquest HDs.
It could end up being the biggest crime spree in the U.S. since Bonnie & Clyde. I wouldn't shoot anybody, though, only Tasers and other non-lethal weapons like bean bags. My brother "Buck" has a stockpile of them. His wife Blanche makes the bean bags herself and even grows the beans in their backyard.
No, a life of crime is not for me even though I'm sure it would impress my wild, bleached blond girlfriend, who has a gun fetish.
The Zeiss roof I would like to try is the 8x42 Conquest HD. It could realistically come into the range of affordability at some point. If the focuser is half as fast as the Terra HD, and if I get the longer eyecups to prevent image blackouts, and if I can deal with the 28 oz. weight (not an issue for a Porro like the 804 Audubon, which is 29 oz., but on the heavy side for a center-weight-concentrated closed bridge roof), and if the eyecups were comfortable (the Terras are but only if I have them set just right, in between stops), and if the edges weren't fuzzy, and if they were no harder to hold than the Terra, and if they had noticeably higher resolution than the Terra, well, then I might finally be happy with a pair of roof prism binoculars. But that's pretty "iffy."
Maybe next time mooreorless needs to buy a pair of boots at the Lost Creek Shoe and Sports Optics Shop, he'll let me ride along since it's likely they have the Conquest HDs. Maybe the only store in a 100-mile radius that does.
Steve - Let me know when you plan to visit the Troyers again. I'll make some pot pies, butter noodles, chicken corn soup, chow-chow (an Amish pickled relish made from a variety of vegetables), chipped beef gravy, beets, apple butter, and homemade scrapple in case they are willing to barter for the Conquest.
Brock
Last edited:
brocknroller;3231557 ............................................................ The Zeiss roof I would like to try is the 8x42 Conquest HD. It could realistically come into the range of affordability at some point. [I said:
I think I understand. The Mavens are probably out of the question for you but if you had some ham you could make a ham sandwich if you had some bread!
Bob
Last edited:
Calm down my friend you seem a little tightly wound, each to his own.Lets just use our wonderful optical instruments and stop arguing. By the way my Bushnell Rangemaster 7x35 made by Fuji photo optical circa 1956 beats all of the above for sharpness and contrast to at least 50% to the edge ,just something to think about.I await your insults.
All those old binoculars were sharp on-axis. The major advancements in binoculars in the last 20 years has been flat fields and edge sharpness. It is easy to make make a binocular with a 50% sharp field. The Nikon Action is sharp on-axis and you can buy one for $70.
I don't know about the SF being the best binocular. A lot of people that have compared them to the Swarovski SV like the SV better. Most say the SV is higher quality and quite a few still prefer the optics of the SV. I am not sold on the fact that the SF is best. Here is just one of many comparisons.
"Yesterday I went to Land, Sea and Sky in Houston to check out the SF 8x42 they had. It was sunny and very hot outside and I could only spend 10 minutes with it. The first thing I noticed was the size of that thing. The SF is huge, but it had perfect balance. All the talk about the weight at the back makes sense. It was so easy to hold and look through.
While I was looking the sales manager brought a SV 8.5x42 outside and we compared both for some time. The SF barrels were easier to hold. I had some issues wrapping my fingers around both barrels of the SV. The SV felt heavier, but it was not too bad to hold either.
Optically I liked the SV better. It is flat to the edges and the SF is not. The SV was also brighter and contrasty. The manager who has been selling Binoculars and Telescopes for many years felt the same. He said he uses a SV 10x50 for astronomy and likes the SV better than the SF. For me the SF had some kidney beaning in the center. Too much eye relief I guess. SV also had some kidney beaning, but I could alleviate it by adjusting the IPD. We also tried the SV 10x42 and SV 10x32. The 10's are good, but the slight shake they had made the SV 8.5x42 a better choice. I could't see any benefit in the SV 10's over the 8.5 which is just stunning to look through. I also liked the SV build quality better than the SF.
Zeiss apparently have got the form factor right as SF is a delight to hold and handle. I don't think they have surpassed Swarovski in optics though. IMO, SV is better than the SF. I will have to try the Leica UV+ when it gets here.
About long Eye Relief causing issues - Are they making high end bins only for older people wearing glasses? It's likely because older folks obviously have more money and can afford the $2.5K alphas
I had no such issues with a Monarch 7 8x42."
Last edited:
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
Here is what Denco had to say when he actually owned the Nikon EDG .......
That describes the EDG perfectly.It's the EDG you want. I'm telling you it's the perfect binocular.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2473168&postcount=2
I find it hard to believe you don't feel your EDG is your sharpest binocular. It is about as sharp as they get.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2472163&postcount=2
These EDG's seem to have the most 3D effect of any roof I have had.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2411571&postcount=31
Yes. The Nikon 8x32 EDG. Perfection at it's best.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2412406&postcount=6
The big improvement of the II is BALANCE. The II is so perfectly balance it feels like an 18oz. binocular.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2404988&postcount=3
The big difference is the size of the sweetspot. .........., and the EDG's are 100%. In the EDG's the whole field right to the edge is sharp.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2382948&postcount=24
I was comparing my EDG ........ and that is what I noticed the most. The relaxed view and the great colors the EDG gives you.
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2474046&postcount=4
Let me see if I got this.
Perfect Binocular + Sharpest+ Most 3D Effect + More Perfection + Perfect Balance + Edge to Edge Sharpness + Relaxed View + Great Colors EQUALS The Most Boring Binocular Denco has ever owned!
So, now knowing perfection equates to boring , I will go for the boring binocular any day.
To show how unexcited he was about owning this boring Nikon EDG, here is how he described it back when he owned it. (Actual fonts from the post).......
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2400932&postcount=14
Move along folks, there is nothing exciting to see here. :eek!:
Last but not least, here is were Denco equates the EDG to Bo Derek, a perfect 10 ......
These EDG's are sweet. Better optically than your EII's AND waterproof. They are a perfect 10. You will be thinking of Bo Derek and humming Bolero when you put your eyeballs up to these momma's. Nikon's crowning achievement after decades of making binoculars. These are the pinnacle. I am telling you Brock you are going to wet your pants when you look through these babies!
I think poor Bo is going to be upset when she finds out Denco equated her to boring.
When I first saw that clip of Bo Derek running across the beach, I sure did not find it boring and I do not recall thinking about going to sleep. :king:
I think the truth is, Denco found the Nikon EDG very exciting, if looking through them made him want to wet his pants!
That was all before I tried the Swarovski 8x32 SV's and then the EDG's were nothing more than a distant memory. Once you try the best you forget the rest.
BruceH
Avatar: Harris Hawk
So, are you saying that your posts, for the most part are irrelevant and any significance is as fleeting as the pixels on the screen, best to forget.
Those quotes were not relative comparisons, but were absolutes. How can a subsequent binocular be better than a perfect binocular? I can see it being as good, but not better. There is nothing like being hoisted on one's own petard.
I agree that you do not know about the SF being the best! Maybe it would be best to leave that call to those who have seen them and better yet, those that own them.
Last edited:
The review I put up was from somebody that obviously compared the two side by side. Most comparisons favor the SV so it looks like it is not worth upgrading to the SF. We need more side by side comparisons between these two. Without buying one and having to return it a lot of members would like to know if it is worth buying the SF if they already have another alpha.
Last edited:
Everybody seems to have forgotten that the 8x42SF is supposed to have replaced the discontinued 7x42 Victory FL which had a 450'@1000yards FOV.
The new 8x42 SF includes a FOV of 444'@1000 yards and a Flat Field which the 7x42 Victory FL did not have,
Compared with the 8.5x42 SV the 8x42 SL has a much wider FOV than the SV along with a Flat Field like the SV has.
Bob
Last edited:
