New Zeiss Victory HT 8x54 review from Allbinos (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

Arek has just added a review of the HT 8x54 at: Carl Zeiss Victory HT 8x54 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
In the review there is also a link to a table of the main optical specifications for the previous Zeiss 8x56 offerings.
And as usual there is also a transmission graph.

Gijs has also previously tested the transmission of the HT 8x54, and has also compared some previous generation Zeiss 8x56’s,
at: Verrekijker testen | House Of Outdoor & Optics
• The HT 8x54 test is from March 2016 'Test van 8x56 kijkers van Leica Swarovski en Zeiss . . . '
• And the comparative Zeiss 8x56 test is from April 2012 'Test rapport van 56 mm kijkers en kijkers met ingebouwde afstandmeter'.

As we know, both Arek’s and Gijs’ testing is internally consistent - though not directly comparable - especially in relation to transmission values at specific frequencies.
However, it's still interesting to compare the two (and as can be seen Arek’s measurements extend well beyond 675 nm).


John

 

[Tringa45]

However, it's still interesting to compare the two (and as can be seen Arek’s measurements extend well beyond 675 nm).

Total internal reflection in the Abbe-König prisms - no dielectric coatings.

John

 

[etc]

I have the 10x54, which is a perfect match.

 

[sidpost]

What is the scoop on VICTORY HT's in today's market?

Do the HT's still compete with the "field flatner" models well in field of view, color or lack of color, and similar performance measures? Or, have something like the Zeiss SF moved up in their relative position to other competitors and the HT's.

I still hope to try a pair of Zeiss HT bins but, I have heard for example the newer Zeiss SF's have improved and are more competitive to the Swarovski and Leica competitors. In my case, the Leica NV eyebox and eye relief are a hard pairing to use with my glasses and my eyes but, other people don't seem to report this concern. The view to my eye from the NV's is very lovely though.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Got me wondering... why don't the HT's get much love these days?

 

[Troubador]

Got me wondering... why don't the HT's get much love these days?

Probably because they are perceived as instruments for hunters.

Lee

 

[William Lewis]

And the slc '56 is cheaper, possible better built (it certainly feels better built - especially the eye cup mechanism), with a larger exit pupil, more eye relief and a flatter field as well as being a similar size and weight and having a locking diopter and a better case.

 

[Dennis Mau]

And the slc '56 is cheaper, possible better built (it certainly feels better built - especially the eye cup mechanism), with a larger exit pupil, more eye relief and a flatter field as well as being a similar size and weight and having a locking diopter and a better case.

The SLC probably feels better built to you because it is over 20% heavier than the Zeiss HT 8x54. That is why Zeiss made an 8x54 just like the SFL 8x40. It is a much lighter and easier binocular to use and carry than the SLC. They reduced the aperture by 2 mm but increased the transmission, so the HT is actually brighter than the SLC even with the smaller EP, has a flatter transmission graph and most importantly transmits higher in the purple and orange area of the light spectrum where our rods are most sensitive. The colors on the HT are also absolutely neutral because of this. The SLC does have a flatter field, but after having both of them, the HT is sharper on-axis to my eyes like so many Zeiss are. The Zeiss is designed with a less flat field to achieve the ungodly sharp on-axis view it has. The diopter on the HT works just fine, and I actually prefer the case over the huge, overdone Swarovski case. Also, the focuser on the HT is much smoother than the SLC, as is the case with so many Zeiss. I have a LNIB sample of the Zeiss HT 8x54 for sale in the classifieds, and the only reason I am selling it is I don't do much birding in low light anymore, so I use my Swarovski NL 8x32 most of the time. Here are some transmissions graphs of the HT, showing its superior performance over the SLC in low light. Just as Zeiss says the HT is the highest transmitting binocular and best performing binocular in low light there is, and they are correct. You will not beat an HT in low light.

"The Conquest HD performs like a typical pair of Zeiss binoculars – its transmission is excellent for yellow-green light, with a bit lower values for blue-purple and orange-red light. The constructors of the Victory HT focused on the flatness of the transmission graph - its maximum value doesn't exceed 92%, but you land above 90% both for purple and orange light, a brilliant performance overall. You gain doubly, with crystal-clear images without any coloring and a great comfort of nighttime observations because our rods are more sensitive to blue-green light than our cones (the rods reaching the peak of their possibilities at 500 nm wavelength and the cones – at 550 nm). It seems the coatings of the Victory HT can be easily described as outstanding."

 

[Conndomat]

Got me wondering... why don't the HT's get much love these days?

Maybe because the old FL 8x56 is still the better pair of binoculars?!

Tests of the Zeiss 8x54 HT

I’ve finally finished assembling star-test and other images from the Zeiss 8x54 HT I spent some time with. There are too many images for one post, so I’ve decided to make 5 separate posts. Anybody with comments please wait until all 5 are up. Thanks. The first two images are star-test...

www.birdforum.net

Andreas

 

[William Lewis]

Good luck with the sale Dennis and a very merry Christmas.

 

[chill6x6]

Got me wondering... why don't the HT's get much love these days?

I have the HT 8X54. It's a nice binocular no doubt and I don't have any issues with it. My main issue is large objective binoculars in general. I'm not convinced they offer much as a birding binocular to offset the added weight and size.

 

[Ignatius]

Probably because they are perceived as instruments for hunters.

Lee

Nothing is more fun than repurposing equipment intended for hunters and the military, simply because it is usually excellent quality, very reliable, and fulfils equal or very similar requirements.

 

[james holdsworth]

My HT remains my personal benchmark for brightness, sharpness / contrast and perfect colour fidelity. The much newer and far more complex SF that I own has its own advantages but, pressed, I’d take the view of the HT everytime.

 

[Tringa45]

The SLC does have a flatter field, but after having both of them, the HT is sharper on-axis to my eyes like so many Zeiss are. The Zeiss is designed with a less flat field to achieve the ungodly sharp on-axis view it has.

That's surprising as, IIRC, Henry noted significantly worse SA and CA on the 8x54 HT compared to the 8x56 FL. That has to be a design isue and not mere sample variation.

John

 

[Dennis Mau]

That's surprising as, IIRC, Henry noted significantly worse SA and CA on the 8x54 HT compared to the 8x56 FL. That has to be a design isue and not mere sample variation.

John

That may be true about the SA and CA, but I have had both the HT and FL 8x56's and I always preferred the HT because of the lower distortion and the flatter transmission curve, especially in the orange and purple part of the spectrum where are rods are most sensitive to light. This makes the HT brighter and absolutely color neutral. I think that is the big draw to the HT line. They have perfect color fidelity and excellent contrast. The biggest flaw of the FL 8x56 for me is it has too much distortion. No binocular is perfect in every area. The NL is a great binocular, but it can show glare in certain conditions. The Zeiss HT 8x54 was the precursor to the SFL 8x40. Zeiss decided that by reducing the aperture by 2 mm but increasing the transmission, they could produce a low light binocular that would outperform the FL 8x56 and SLC 8x56, but it would also be 20% lighter. You can say the HT has more SA and CA than the FL or SLC, but in the specific area it was designed for it outperforms both of them because of it's higher transmission and flatter transmission curve, and as a by product it has truer color fidelity and better contrast. Zeiss has succeeded in producing a better performing, as well as lighter low light binocular, and it is a worthy replacement for the now discontinued FL regardless of what the critics say.

Carl Zeiss Victory HT 8x54 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Victory 8x56 T* FL - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[William Lewis]

I have the HT 8X54. It's a nice binocular no doubt and I don't have any issues with it. My main issue is large objective binoculars in general. I'm not convinced they offer much as a birding binocular to offset the added weight and size.

Hi Chuck. It's great that you have the means to hold a wide collection of optics but even better a reflection on yourself that you take your time to share your experience as well as the photos of them with us.

As a general day time binocular, yes, smaller and lighter is better but when you can only really justify one premium binocular for most conditions (and uses) the new generation of '56/54's are quite compelling- if you can carry a kilo or so, they do do everything well in all lighting conditions with size and weight being the only compromise with even these being reduced with the latest models.

Will

 

[Conndomat]

That may be true about the SA and CA, but I have had both the HT and FL 8x56's and I always preferred the HT because of the lower distortion and the flatter transmission curve, especially in the orange and purple part of the spectrum where are rods are most sensitive to light. This makes the HT brighter and absolutely color neutral. I think that is the big draw to the HT line. They have perfect color fidelity and excellent contrast. The biggest flaw of the FL 8x56 for me is it has too much distortion. No binocular is perfect in every area. The NL is a great binocular, but it can show glare in certain conditions. The Zeiss HT 8x54 was the precursor to the SFL 8x40. Zeiss decided that by reducing the aperture by 2 mm but increasing the transmission, they could produce a low light binocular that would outperform the FL 8x56 and SLC 8x56, but it would also be 20% lighter. You can say the HT has more SA and CA than the FL or SLC, but in the specific area it was designed for it outperforms both of them because of it's higher transmission and flatter transmission curve, and as a by product it has truer color fidelity and better contrast. Zeiss has succeeded in producing a better performing, as well as lighter low light binocular, and it is a worthy replacement for the now discontinued FL regardless of what the critics say.

Funny I read something completely different from the allbinos evaluation!

The old FL has 2% higher transmission and the total score is also above the HT???

Something doesn't seem right here, either with allbinos or the HT...

Andreas

 

[gweller]

Funny I read something completely different from the allbinos evaluation!

The old FL has 2% higher transmission and the total score is also above the HT???

Something doesn't seem right here, either with allbinos or the HT...

Andreas

Me too! Reads to me as if the Conquest HD is much better value for the money....

''....The cheaper model prevails when it comes to coma, distortion, and blur on the edge of the field of view....." and

"... The Conquest HD prevails when it comes to the appearance of exit pupils and the area around them because the more expensive Victory HT has a problem with visible false pupils....."'

and the last paragraph of the review....

"The final verdict? Both pairs of binoculars fare equally well in our test. The more expensive Victory HT model officially got a higher score but the difference is so insignificant that it might be considered the margin of measurement error. We can end up this review with a kind of judgement of Solomon. If a wider field of view, smaller weight, and physical dimensions are your priority, you should get interested in the Victory HT model. If you are more tolerant when it comes to a narrower field of view, more significant weight and other dimensions the Conquest HD will suit you fine as it is, undoubtedly, an excellent piece of equipment as well. Moreover, you will be left with almost 1000 USD extra spending money in your pocket...'

 

[Conndomat]

Moreover, you will be left with almost 1000 USD extra spending money in your pocket...'

Yes, the HT is just 0.2% or 0.3 points ahead of the Conquest in allbinos, not really that good for a binocular that cost almost twice as much.

Andreas

 

[Tringa45]

Something doesn't seem right here, either with allbinos or the HT...

The Edsel of binoculars?