New Zeiss Victory FL binoculars (1 Viewer)

[oathkeeper]

Thank you. Got it.

That news item is dated 8/8/2003. However, BVD was updated on 3/2/2004. So, if Steve is no longer associated with reviews at BVD, who updated the site with the review of the Pentax DCF SP, well after Steve started working for Zeiss?

 

[henry link]

Origionally posted by John Traynor:
"Now that Steve works for Zeiss, we'll have to look elsewhere for truly unbiased opinions. What a nightmare that is!"


You really won't have to look any further than this forum. There is just as much or more unbiased and well informed opinion here as at BVD, and I say that as a Stephen Ingraham fan. I was an early BVD subscriber (back in the printed pamphlet days) and had many enjoyable phone conversations with him on the subject of optics; so I know for a fact that he puts his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

When I recently tested the Leica Ultravid 8x42 (see my comments earlier in this thread), I paid particular attention to eye relief, since, in my old age, I wear glasses. For me the eye relief was fine; I was easily able to see the entire field.

 

[pduxon]

Stephen Ingraham, of BVD fame, works for Zeiss. So, who's going to give us the reviews BVD was famous for?

You could do worse than check out the Alula reviews. There are scope reviews on there website and they did, imo, a good round-up of 10x bins pre FLs.

 

[Pileatus]

When I recently tested the Leica Ultravid 8x42 (see my comments earlier in this thread), I paid particular attention to eye relief, since, in my old age, I wear glasses. For me the eye relief was fine; I was easily able to see the entire field.

About a year ago I tested an Ultravid and a Trinovid (both 8X42) side by side and there was a difference in usable ER. Even the clerk noticed it, so I will check again on new stock. Maybe they made a change because both models listed the same eye relief value, fov, etc.

BTW...the Trinovid was fine and I put it on my list with the Swarovski SLC 7X42 which, at 19mm ER, was really comfortable on the eyes. I wish manufacturers would just go high on ER and let the user adjust the eyecups to suit their pleasure. 20mm seems about right.

Just goes to show you better try them before you buy them.

 

[mike60]

Spoke with Zeiss in Syd last week, and the FL will only be available locally in 10 weeks - early Oct I expect. Zeiss told me that they were already aware of the good reviews/feedback the FLs are starting to get. I hope thats not an excuse to charge exorbitant prices and turn many potential customers away.
A few questions - Any appraisal of the case/bag suppplied with these bins?. How does the FL price compare with the 8,5x42 Swaro, or 8x42 Ultravid? Please be patient with me if I am covering old ground.

 

[mak]

I liked the Leica Ultravid view until I discovered Leica reduced its effective eye relief by recessing the eyepiece more than I thought necessary. It was easy to see the problem when I compared a Trinovid to the Ultravid...they simply changed a great design to the detriment of eyeglass wearers. Ever since, I've been very suspicious of published eye relief numbers, so a hands-on evaluation of the FL by you would be most appreciated!BTW, what power are you evaluating?
Thanks
John

The eye relief on all 3 FL models is 16mm. Binoculars with an eye relief of 15mm should give spectacle wearers a full field of view. The FL's come with high eyepoint eyepieces, with 4 various settings (still 16mm ER). This could be an advantage for spectacle wearers as frames and lens come in differing sizes. Even non spectacle wearers whose own facial dimensions are different (deep set eyes etc) can benefit from the 4 settings available.

 

[Pileatus]

Thanks Kevin,
I'm not too sure if there is a definitive release date in the U.K, I'd guess early August. I'm absolutely positive you won't be disappointed if you purchased the FL's. I can almost focus on my feet.... but i am 6ft 4
regards,
Andy

Andy,

Are you going to do a comprehensive evaluation of the FL's? I think people are especially interested in knowing how it compares to the EL, Ultravid, HG, and the old Classics. I want to know how it compares (optically) to the SE 8X32.

My FL interests are:

Eye relief and IPD (seem OK based on specs)

Optics (sharpness ACROSS the field, any aberrations or is it a FLAT field view, contrast, coatings, CA, etc. as compared to the SE or the EL).

Collimation (are the ones you have perfectly collimated?) This will tell us something about quality control.

Focus control (does it allow for a nice, fine focus like the SE's, or is it too fast like the HG's?) Personally, I'll take a slower focus like the EL if I can fine tune it with ease once I'm on target. The SE is a tad slow but allows for an absolutely perfect final adjustment. How's the FL?

Weight and Handling characteristics.


TIA
John

 

[AlanFrench]

The eye relief on all 3 FL models is 16mm. Binoculars with an eye relief of 15mm should give spectacle wearers a full field of view. The FL's come with high eyepoint eyepieces, with 4 various settings (still 16mm ER). This could be an advantage for spectacle wearers as frames and lens come in differing sizes. Even non spectacle wearers whose own facial dimensions are different (deep set eyes etc) can benefit from the 4 settings available.

15mm of eye relief may not allow all eyeglass wearers to see the entire field. With my old, larger glasses, it would not. With my new, smaller, glasses, which sit closer to my face, I can. There also seems to be some variation in how various companies measure eye relief.

Clear skies, Alan

 

[Leif]

15mm of eye relief may not allow all eyeglass wearers to see the entire field. With my old, larger glasses, it would not. With my new, smaller, glasses, which sit closer to my face, I can. There also seems to be some variation in how various companies measure eye relief.

Clear skies, Alan

Part of the problem is that most companies seem to measure eye relief from the rear lens surface. However this is often recessed with respect to the end of the eye tube when in the down position. This explains why the Swift Audubin 8.5x44 has only about 13mm of true eye relief whereas the manufacturer quotes a lot more. I found the eye relief on the 8x42 FL to be excellent, though I wear small eyeglasses with thin lenses. However I was told that the eye tubes were prototypes. No doubt Andy Bright will have more pertinent comments to make. (A not so subtle hint!)

 

[Andy Bright]

I'll post something more useful in the next day or two. Eye relief is genuinely ample... I'm not a spectacle wearer but two pepole who are have commented that these binos provided excellent views.
Someone wanted me to compare to the SE's but I've only experienced the 8x32, so i just can't do a realistic comparison.

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Hey, Andy, don't you have every model of every brand of binocular on hand just so you can do these comparisons?

 

[Pileatus]

I'll post something more useful in the next day or two. Eye relief is genuinely ample... I'm not a spectacle wearer but two pepole who are have commented that these binos provided excellent views.
Someone wanted me to compare to the SE's but I've only experienced the 8x32, so i just can't do a realistic comparison.

Andy,

The SE comment is from me and I use the 8X32 SE also. That's my optical standard and, since you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about. If the FL rises to the SE optical level, it will sell like hotcakes. If the practical ER is on par with the SE, I'll be happy with it.

Thanks for the comments on eye relief!

John

 

[mak]

15mm of eye relief may not allow all eyeglass wearers to see the entire field. With my old, larger glasses, it would not. With my new, smaller, glasses, which sit closer to my face, I can. There also seems to be some variation in how various companies measure eye relief.
Clear skies, Alan

Alan.

I will stick to my comments with confidence. As far as how does a company measure eye relief, you too could do it. Perhaps I should say that as a general rule 15mm is sufficient for spectacle wearers to receive full field of view. High eyepoint eyepieces means eyepieces with eye relief suitable for spectacle wearers.

mak

 

[Jonathan B.]

Andy,

The SE comment is from me and I use the 8X32 SE also. That's my optical standard and, since you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about. If the FL rises to the SE optical level, it will sell like hotcakes. If the practical ER is on par with the SE, I'll be happy with it.

Thanks for the comments on eye relief!

John

John,

Last autumn I submitted my comments to this forum on my comparison of SE 8x32 to Ultravid 7x42 and 8x42. After several years of looking for a roof-prism bino whose performance matched the SE, I found it in the Ultravid, which you should compare to the FL when it is available. I bought the 7x42, and every time I put it up to my eyes I am just as amazed as I am by the SE. I too am anxious to see the FL, but I predict that in many ways its optical performance will be almost indistinguishable from the Leica.

 

[Andy Bright]

I can confirm that the FL's present a full image to all three spectacle wearers that have used my 10x42's so far.... way ahead of the 10x42EL, ahead of the 10x42 Leica Ultravid and someone said marginally better than the Nikon HG's. I can't begin to comprehend the issues effecting spectacle wearers, so I'm really not the best person to comment on that.

What I can say is that, to my testers (birders) and myself, the 10x42 FL's outperform all the competition in terms of brightness and contrast of image (some achievement when both aspects negate eachother to some extent). Colour neutrality was total, with no colour cast detected by anyone. Sharpness and resolution was as good as anyone had seen in a pair of binos, though it was hard to seperate any of the leading RP binos here.
Everyone mentioned the impressive depth of field.

CA!! o.k., It can still crop up so hasn't be eradicated entirely, but the effects are minimal even when trying your very best to find it, one tester couldn't find any and he is usually the first to complain about CA My own feeling was that CA was less than that of all other binos I have tried ... including that of the 8X32 Nikon SE's (that's the only time I'll refer to the SE's as I'm just not going to compare across magnifications, others have done that and paid the price). What CA presented itself did not spill over as far and had less of an effect on the subject than other models, this was agreed by all users.

I'm not going to bother with the meaningless optical performance of the peripheral edge of view, other than to say that the typical edge distortion isn't much different to any other bino and doesn't have any impact for the real world user.

As for non optical aspects:
There were no major complaints, one tester didn't like the feel of the rubber armouring and the grip ridges could've gone up to the eyepieces a bit further (helping grip by the focus wheel) but that was as much as i got in terms of negativity. Everyone liked the large, two finger wide, focus wheel, which had loosened up a bit since i first received the binos. The focus wheel fell easily to the fingers.

The feel of a bino is strictly down to each user, Zeiss seems to have taken the sensible route of not having any thumb recess/stops so no one should have a problem there. The ridged body will be handy for those wearing gloves on cold days.
In fact the whole appearance of the FL's seem to conjure up memories of distant Dialyts, certainly an improvement over the previous Victory models.... and someone tell Zeiss we don't need any silly triumphant macho names for our binos, FL will do very nicely.

The rapid focussing was liked by all. I must admit that I'd never lost any sleep over some of the slower focus wheel gearing of my Swaro' EL's, typical birding distances are covered by a 1/4 turn on most binos anyway but I'm getting the hang of these 'progessive focus' types, especially handy for tracking birds moving away or towards you. The focus wheel needs only travel from 10 o'clock to 1 o'clock to cover almost every situation (5m to miles!)

The novel four position eyecups is a nice touch, I prefer the eye-cup just one click back from full extension. No one had a bad word to say about this feature, all feeling that having variable eyecup settings was a step forward in getting more people a perfect view... even if they have the facial features of a Klingon

Dipotre adjustment (Yawn) was fairly typical, a central click stop but infinite positions +/- 4dpt.

All the rest is pretty much specs that you can read anywhere, weight and all that.

In conclusion, these 10x FL's do seem to be top of the 10x pile at the moment but there's no huge leap in optical quality from the competitors... high end binos just aren't like that, there's no quantum leaps to be made... even when CA vanishes altogether it won't be a massive progression to most as it's just not a problem for most users now.

 

[Pinewood]

In conclusion, these 10x FL's do seem to be top of the 10x pile at the moment but there's no huge leap in optical quality from the competitors... high end binos just aren't like that, there's no quantum leaps to be made... even when CA vanishes altogether it won't be a massive progression to most as it's just not a problem for most users now.

Andy,

I am pleased to read your comments. I will take it that the mechanics of the other FL models will be the same: armour, focus wheel, eyecups, etc. Of course, I am awaiting some word about the optics of the seven and eight power glasses, but I guess that I won't expect anything extraordinary.

Have you put it in your fridge or submerged it in water? Seriously, I sometimes observe the heavens in really frigid weather, like -10 degree celsius, and I sometimes get caught in truly filthy weather.

Many thanks,
Arthur Pinewood

 

[Curtis Croulet]

Yes, Andy, please put them in the fridge and see how they do with the cold. Now, I live in Calif., and cold weather isn't a problem where I live (Arthur would laugh at what we call "cold"), but my Eagle Optics RPC can get pretty stiff even on what passes for a chilly day here, and I certainly expect to take my binos to the mountains and other snowy areas of the country. Otherwise, your review is great, particularly that it's not just your opinion, but that you had other people test them, too. Looking at the pictures, I too wondered why the ribbing didn't go back to the focus knob. I have to say that the Leica Ultravid are very similar in shape to my EORPC, even the thumb indents, and I've become very comfortable with the latter.

 

[Andy Bright]

Thanks guys,
I think I'll run them in for a bit longer before I subject them to the freezer test. Don't even think about asking me to stick them in the oven for half an hour to emulate desert temps
They are fully submersible, but to what depth/pressure, I'm not sure.

 

[mak]

I hope Andy does not put his bins in the fridge. I would strongly advise anyone not to do this.

Is this the ruffled feathers thread.