• 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.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

New Roger Vine Reviews (2 Viewers)

Patudo

Well-known member
Both me and Chuck easily found the right eyecup position with SF 8x32. Mine have been on my work station for several days so I could grab quick views of birds flying by or in the tops of our Hawthorn trees so I am often twisting my body round quickly while sitting in my chair at my computer and by no means in a good position to accurately line up the SFs....

That's with the 8x32 though - the 10x32 could conceivably be more finicky, what with the smaller exit pupil etc...

I would say the biggest difference with a dialyt versus modern stuff is contrast...this seems to be where most of the coating improvement have been manifested. I like the view through mine but it doesn’t have the same contrast pop of good current glass.

I think the 7x42 is better in this respect than the 10x40 (both P models). The 7x42 has the more "contemporary" (in your own words) view - brighter, more neutral colour rendition and yes, I'd agree more contrast. The 10x40 is better packaged but the 7x42 has a better view. A shame Zeiss never thought to combine the best of both words in an Abbe-Koening 10x42 T*P* Dialyt, packaged like a longer-bodied 10x40...

I agree that not just the 7x42 Dialyt but probably any 7x42 is going to find it hard to impress one who already owns and likes the 7x42 FL. The 7x35 Retrovid is actually remarkably competitive with the 7x42 Dialyt if my experience from about a year ago trying the two, one after another, is anything to go by.

The 7x42 d***o owned, incidentally, was not a P model and for all we know might not even have been a T asterisk (I can't add the symbol without screwing up the formatting). Still good enough to find "tons of warblers" in late February in Colorado though...
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
That's with the 8x32 though - the 10x32 could conceivably be more finicky, what with the smaller exit pupil etc...
That is a possibility which I will be exploring over the next few weeks with an SF 10x32 on loan for review.
Lee
 

Hermann

Well-known member
I agree that not just the 7x42 Dialyt but probably any 7x42 is going to find it hard to impress one who already owns and likes the 7x42 FL. The 7x35 Retrovid is actually remarkably competitive with the 7x42 Dialyt if my experience from about a year ago trying the two, one after another, is anything to go by.
Agreed. Don't underestimate the Leica Ultravid 7x42 HD+ though. It's quite a remarkable binocular.

Hermann
 

Hermann

Well-known member
That's with the 8x32 though - the 10x32 could conceivably be more finicky, what with the smaller exit pupil etc...
ANY 10x32 will be more finicky than an 8x32 of equal quality. Exit pupil matters. A lot. The question is whether you can live with the small exit pupil, and that depends on what you use the binoculars for, for instance, if you want a truly light 10x binocular, you may well find a10x32 works for you. It also depends on how well the 10x32 is constructed, some eyepieces just work better than others. For instance, the Swarovski 10x30 CL works nicely for me. The Zeiss 10x32 FL doesn't.

Hermann
 

b-lilja

Well-known member
I appreciate his review. I differ in his conclusions relative to the SF and the NL Pure. The SF fails for me because of unacceptable color rendering (too many situations shifting the color towards yellow/green unacceptably - not an ok trade off for the cool toned pop he likes), and the NL fails for me due to veiling glare.

The more I use the 7x42 UVHD+, the more I just love it.
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
An interesting review.

My serial number is roughly 3000 greater than the example shown in the review. I have no idea when mine were manufactured.

I think for mt eyes (and attached brain for signal processing) mine are absolutely brilliant, with better color contrast and subtle shading detail compared to the purchased in 2014 EL SV 10X42 they replaced.

For the first time I saw Mallards as beautiful ducks, especially the females. That is something which can't be quantified in specifications, I think. I used to think "Oh yeah, there are Mallards there." and move on, now I pause to look at them. I am most anxious for warmer weather and the resolution of some medical problems to enable me to have more time with them.

I am well pleased with my purchase, which was motivated by the fact that getting older has made the Swarovski glasses a bit too heavy, and my desire to give 8X a try. I feel fortunate to have the means to afford them, the eyesight to appreciate them, and the leisure to enjoy them.
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
I appreciate his review. I differ in his conclusions...The more I use the 7x42 UVHD+, the more I just love it.
Me too...

Roger is just a Swaro/Zeissman, he can't do that much with the Leica's.

I can't quite understand his assessment of the 7x42 Ultravid, Stars are distorted from a field with of 40-50% and from 65% very progressive blurring occurs, a large part of which Astigmatism???
Did Roger catch a banana?

Significantly, he did not notice these inconsistencies when testing the Zeiss FL 7x42, why not, the FL 7x42 is not the king of glasses on this point. !?,
"The field has a large perfect sweet spot, but the field curves heavily at the very edge where it is only good for context. This is typical for most Zeiss binoculars."
And we'd better put a cloak of silence over astigmatism ...

Roger and Leica, that just doesn't work.

Andreas
 

henry link

Well-known member
Odd to to read that Roger Vine thinks the Harpia has a focal ratio of f/1.94 at 23x. Apparently he doesn't know and didn't notice when he tested the scope that the clear aperture shrinks at magnifications below 40x until it's only 57.5 mm at 23x, something Zeiss acknowledged long ago. Even so, a focal ratio of f/3 at 23x is still crazy low.
 
Last edited:

james holdsworth

Consulting Biologist
Considering how very well Zeiss contains CA in the FL / HT series, it surprises me to see so much in the Harpia...similar to my experience with the 15x56 Conquest HD. In the Conquest, I’m sure they could do better but have chosen the less costly option. For the Harpia, the reasoning escapes me.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top