New Zeiss Victory FL binoculars (1 Viewer)

[Leif]

I can easily see the difference in CA between a cheap scope and an expensive scope. The difference between my $379 binoculars and the Leica Ultravid is not of this degree, if there's any difference at all.

I think most of the time CA is not obvious in 8x binoculars, though as Hermann says, it is there and does have an affect albeit subtle. It can change colours, with white becoming purple for example, making an id harder. But when looking at a bird in flight against a bright sky I can see obvious yellow and/or red colour fringing around the bird in most binoculars. In one or two expensive binoculars the bird looks like it has a bright purple companion and I find this aesthetically unappealing.

 

[Swissboy]

I would also guess that Swarovski technology is mostly licensed from other firms.
Arthur Pinewood

I would guess that your guess is wrong. But maybe there is someone on this board who knows more?

Robert

 

[hinnark]

I think most of the time CA is not obvious in 8x binoculars, though as Hermann says, it is there and does have an affect albeit subtle. It can change colours, with white becoming purple for example, making an id harder. But when looking at a bird in flight against a bright sky I can see obvious yellow and/or red colour fringing around the bird in most binoculars. In one or two expensive binoculars the bird looks like it has a bright purple companion and I find this aesthetically unappealing.

I found that best living test object to detecting CA among European birds is Avocet, Recurvirostra avosetta. Especially under high fog and bright light weather conditions at the same time one can see clearly CA - violett or purple lines beneath the black lines in its plumage - even with some of the very high prized binos. But other birds with high contrasts like White stork, Oystercatcher etc. are also eligible.

Steve

 

[Curtis Croulet]

The American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) is good for the same test. Viewed through a borrowed $299 scope, I found the bird overlain with blue at 45x. I knew I'd never be satisfied with a cheap scope and bought a Swaro ATS 65 HD. I don't see that kind of difference between my $379 binoculars and the $1395 Leica Ultravid.

 

[Jonathan B.]

The American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) is good for the same test. Viewed through a borrowed $299 scope, I found the bird overlain with blue at 45x. I knew I'd never be satisfied with a cheap scope and bought a Swaro ATS 65 HD. I don't see that kind of difference between my $379 binoculars and the $1395 Leica Ultravid.

I can think of at least one reason why the Leica might be worth the difference in price. I own the Ultravid 7x42, which can resolve pine needles at a quarter mile. I used an EORPC 8x42 for a few hours one day, and the eye strain caused by it was terrible. I can use the Leica for six or eight hours continuously and experience no eyestrain at all. I did not consider the EORPC's resolution to be nearly as good as either the Ultravid or the Nikon SE, both of which I use constantly and consider optically superb.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

My 8x42 EORPC has been my constant companion for two years. I have not experienced any eye strain. Perhaps yours was miscollimated. The central resolution of my 8x42 EORPC is equal to that of the Leica Ultravid 8x42 I tested, acknowledging that the Leica's field of view is greater. I tried and tried to find some situation where the EORPC fell behind the Leica in resolution, brightness or color, but I found none. OTOH, the focus of the EORPC is smooth, as is that of my wife's Minolta, whereas that of the Leica has a tiny bit of friction that must be overcome before it starts to turn. I found precision focus to be something of a trial. Whatever else one may say about the Leica's performance, I have a hard time accepting such a focus mechanism in a binocular this expensive. Makes you wonder if it was frozen into its production configuration before it was fully tested. I'll be looking at the Leica again, just to see if I feel differently, but I'm eager to see the new Zeiss before I buy anything.

 

[hinnark]

The American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) is good for the same test. Viewed through a borrowed $299 scope, I found the bird overlain with blue at 45x. I knew I'd never be satisfied with a cheap scope and bought a Swaro ATS 65 HD. I don't see that kind of difference between my $379 binoculars and the $1395 Leica Ultravid.

Curtis,

the reason for that could be that you wasn´t close enough to that bird when watching it with the bino, so you couldn´t see any details proper anyway. I was watching avocets out of a birding hide for distances of about 10-50 m.
For the price of a Swarovski ATS 65 HD you could buy much favourable scopes that don´t rank much behind the Swaro or equals it - Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Kowa, Pentax. Even the Minox MD 62 W ED is an amazing good working scope for just 1/5 of the price of the Swaro. In fact you could buy a complete high end quality birding equipment for the price. For example a Zeiss Diascope 65 FL together with a Nikon 8x32 Venturer (HG) could be the dream of every birder for many years. But everyone as he likes it. But perhaps this bino you mentioned is a little piece of wonder?

Steve

 

[michaelboustead]

I found that best living test object to detecting CA among European birds is Avocet, Recurvirostra avosetta. Especially under high fog and bright light weather conditions at the same time one can see clearly CA - violett or purple lines beneath the black lines in its plumage - even with some of the very high prized binos. But other birds with high contrasts like White stork, Oystercatcher etc. are also eligible.

Steve

Is CA less of a problem if you bird with low magnification? I own a Zeiss 65mm and use a 23x eyepiece? Never really noticed CA, but I don't look for it either I guess.

I use 8x bino's and I am interested in the Zeiss 7x42FL.

Mike

 

[Curtis Croulet]

I'm missing your point, hinnark. I tested scopes, not binoculars, on the American Avocet, and, later, other shorebirds and waterfowl. This was in the winter of 2002-2003. There was a big difference between the cheap scope ($299) and the Swarovski that I bought (about $1700 with tripod). My conclusion: an expensive scope is a big improvement over a cheap scope. Swarovski vs. other high-end scopes is not in argument here. Now, roll forward to July 2004. I directly compared my Eagle Optics Ranger Platinum Class 8x42 ($379) to a Leica Ultravid 8x42 ($1345). Except for field of view, the Leica was not superior to the EORPC in this particular test, and, in one respect (focus), the Leica fell short. My conclusion: Leica Ultravid binoculars are only a slight (if any) improvement over some models of cheap binoculars. Maybe another test would reveal a difference in favor of the Leica that I didn't see on this occasion. Maybe I'd see a big difference if I let both of them fall to a hard floor. Maybe another sample of the EORPC would fail miserably. Certainly Jonathan's comments suggest that possibility. One other thing: I'm 59. Perhaps a younger birder would see a difference that I cannot see.

 

[Andy Bright]

Two full production Zeiss 10X42 FL's are in the hands of BF as of today. I'll update over the next few days but there seems no optical differences between these and the pre-production models I tried in April, the eyecups now have a more substantial and positive feel to them but that seems about it.

I'm happy to reiterate my previous findings, in that these binoculars show less central CA than any other RP design... in addition to this, they show no noticable colour bias. I'll have more time now to ascertain how bright the image is from the 10x model, notably in comparison to the Swaro' 10x EL.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Andy, did you receive a complete kit -- case, strap, caps, booklet? What's that stuff like?

 

[Steve]

Curtis Yes we did recieve the complete kit, I have to say it is all very nice, anyone passing my door is welcome to drop in for a trial. I have the 10x42. And They will be on the stand for members to look at, at the Birdfair.

 

[Andy Bright]

Andy, did you receive a complete kit -- case, strap, caps, booklet? What's that stuff like?

Hi Curtis,
The objective caps are the same as the Swaro EL's, the ocular rainguard is rubber jointed. Bino strap is padded but not quite as springy as some. The bino padded carry case is very nice, touch of Lowepro about it with internal zipped pouch for whatever, clip-on strap with small padded section. Also added was a Zeiss lens cleaning cloth.
On this evenings viewing, the 10x Fl definitely shows a more contrasty image vs the EL ...amazingly, making the Swaro binos look slightly flat in comparison.

Regards,
Andy

 

[oathkeeper]

I'll have more time now to ascertain how bright the image is from the 10x model, notably in comparison to the Swaro' 10x EL.

Andy,

Any chance you could compare the FL to a Nikon 10x42 SE? I'm interested in optical performance only.

Thanks.

 

[marcus]

Hey Steve,
Are you going to give a good, BVD type description of the FLs you've got, and maybe some pictures? That would be nice!
marcus

 

[Steve]

Marcus I have been out with them this evening, I cant see what all the fuss is about
Everything looks miles away.

 

[Steve]

Ok Things are much better now I looked through the right end

Here is a pic, Please direct any questions to andy !!

 

[Pileatus]

I'm interested in a few technical aspects of the Zeiss FL.

What's the IPD range?
How much useable eye relief is available?
Last, but most important, are they as sharp and contrasty as the Nikon SE?

Thanks for any and all observations.

John

 

[Jonathan B.]

OTOH, the focus of the EORPC is smooth, as is that of my wife's Minolta, whereas that of the Leica has a tiny bit of friction that must be overcome before it starts to turn. I found precision focus to be something of a trial. Whatever else one may say about the Leica's performance, I have a hard time accepting such a focus mechanism in a binocular this expensive.

You are right that the Leica's focus mechanism is disappointing. With regular use mine has become much smoother. I formerly used two opposing fingers for fine focusing, but no longer need to. When reversing focus from very near to infinity or vice versa, there is resistance that must be overcome. I will be curious to see if this also loosens with use. My Nikon SE has a butter-smooth focus with no backlash or slack; its only disadvantage is that it stiffens in cold weather. But in summer it is the finest focus mechanism of anything I have ever handled.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Jonathan, you've hit on something that may help to separate the good from the wonderful. The focus of my EORPC, although smooth as I described, is, shall we say, a bit "heavy." And it is very much influenced by the ambient temperature, becoming more free in hot weather, heavier in cool weather. As a test, I intentionally put the EORPC in the fridge for a few hours, and it became very stiff and heavy. How about your Ultravid?