New Zeiss Victory HT 8x54 review from Allbinos (2 Viewers)

[sidpost]

I have no animosity towards Henry. He is very knowledgeable about binoculars and optics, but I don't feel he knows enough about the HT's total design parameters to be making suggestions for improvements. Binocular design is extremely complex and if you change one thing you could be affecting the performance in another area. His suggestion to change the focusing element from a singlet to a doublet is foolhardy. I am not making excuses for Zeiss or the HT, I am just trying to explain why the HT might have some some CA and SA. No binocular is perfect. None of the alpha binoculars are perfect, including the SF, NL or Noctivid. I don't think the HT deserves the bad rap Henry is giving it. If Henry thinks he can design a better low light binocular than the HT, he should do it. He could put Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica out of business! I would be first in line to buy one. Not everybody shares Henry's opinion on the Zeiss HT. My point is, don't discount the Zeiss HT because Henry Link says it is a "dog" because you might be missing out on your favorite binocular. Here are some comments from optics4birding.

"The HTs were really worth the wait because they are fabulous! They are, if anything, even brighter than the FLs, and that’s just the beginning."

"There’s no way to describe that brightness, but we can illustrate it. Two of us were out birding at dusk one evening when a large group of geese flew into the pond in front of us. The one of us using the Victory HTs could easily pick out the 3 Greater White-fronted Geese mixed in with the Canada's as they splashed in for a landing. Once on the pond, where it was even darker, the HTs were still easily picking out the three different geese. The other person was using Victory FLs and couldn’t make them out, but when we exchanged binoculars, there they were! Simply put, the light throughput of the HTs is so good that it allows you to see things that even other excellent binoculars just can’t pick out."

"The HTs have slightly better than average depth of field and average field curvature. We feel that the HTs have better field edge performance than the FLs did. That “soft” portion of view at the field edge is smaller on the HTs than it was on the FLs. The HTs also are notably better than average on color aberration, which is to say we see less of it."

" We think the Zeiss Victory HT is a fabulous binocular, whether you want to use it for birding, hunting, or general nature watching. The brightness and clarity of the view is breath-taking, the ergonomics are excellent, and the ease of use is superb."

Zeiss Victory HT Binoculars Review

Read our Zeiss Victory HT Binoculars Review to discover their exceptional brightness, premium optics, and ergonomic design for superior birding and outdoor viewing.

www.optics4birding.com

Zeiss Victory HT 8×54 – Binoculars Today

binocular.ch

In addition to all this, there are BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE IN OUR INDIVIDUAL EYES to further complicate things.

I am very sensitive to eye relief so, that has a huge effect on some bins that are too short for my facial and eye structure!

Specifically, I have a LOVE/HATE relationship with Leica NV bins. Lovely to use but, due to my facial structure are really hard to get a placed properly for a good image.

In terms of the Zeiss HT aruguments ... It is a bit like buying a pickup and complaining it doesn't handle as well a Corvette or ride as smooth as a Cadillac.

 

[sidpost]

I really don't think the great majority of birders know, or indeed care, what make/model binoculars the shooting fraternity use. More likely the "archiving" of the HT series might be an indicator that the wide FOV and (possibly) better edge performance of the SF are more valued by more of the people who actually buy them (as opposed to tire kicking or talking about them on Birdforum) than absolute brightness - not likely to be a serious factor in most birding given that the SF transmission figures are already very good - and colour rendition.

The vast majority of people buying bins in the $2K and up range are relying on "word of mouth" and random reviews because they are not optical engineers, or engineers generally, and don't have a frame of reference to compare two premium binoculars except maybe inside a building which tells me very little.

Where and how you use your bins also plays a big role. I'm in my mid-50's so, would an 8x56 bin a good option for me and worth the extra weight and bulk? I actually have a pair of Steiner 8x30 bins that have really surprised me overall and only cost ~$250. Sometimes, the "best tool" is not the one with the "best specs".

Then there are the issues of different facial structures and eye biology. Add eyeglasses and contacts and the factors affecting our individual experiences become very hard to compare in general.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dennis, post 59,
Your statement that the Zeiss 8x54 outperforms the Swarovski SLC 8x56 in low ligh tis not correct, look at the very small transmission differences between those bioculars in the low light spectral region where the eye is most sensitive and moreover the exit pupil of the SLC 8x56 is a tiny bit larger.
With this kind of strong statements you do not help binocular users or future customers
Gijs van Ginkel.

 

[forent]

Ok, 10x is not 8x but in 2019 I wrote:

Last year I was in search of the ultimate Nachtglas. For a whole week I compared four binos literally night and day: Swarovski SLC 10x56 HD, Zeiss Victory 10x54 HT, Zeiss Conquest HD 10x56, and Leica Ultravid 10x50 HD+. (I did not care for other makers than the Big Three, sorry.) The Swarovski came out first, both optically und ergonomically just wonderful. A close second - to my surprise - was the least expensive Zeiss Conquest. The Leica was superb optically with beautiful rich colours but a little bit too dim and I did not like the eye cups. The Zeiss HT was (to me!) a disappointment, especially the lack of edge sharpness, in fact optically not up to the Conquest - maybe a bad copy, who knows. Moreover I did not like the focuser and the diopter adjustment. BTW the black Zeiss armor collects dirt like piano laquer.

Hence I easily decided for the Swarovski and could not be happier. But that's just me, your mileage may vary.

 

[Dennis Mau]

In addition to all this, there are BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE IN OUR INDIVIDUAL EYES to further complicate things.

I am very sensitive to eye relief so, that has a huge effect on some bins that are too short for my facial and eye structure!

Specifically, I have a LOVE/HATE relationship with Leica NV bins. Lovely to use but, due to my facial structure are really hard to get a placed properly for a good image.

In terms of the Zeiss HT aruguments ... It is a bit like buying a pickup and complaining it doesn't handle as well a Corvette or ride as smooth as a Cadillac.

Exactly. Zeiss HT designed the HT 8x54 primarily for low light use for hunters or anybody that wants to observe in low light, and it does that better than almost any other binocular. It is, like the Corvette, a specialist.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Dennis, post 59,
Your statement that the Zeiss 8x54 outperforms the Swarovski SLC 8x56 in low ligh tis not correct, look at the very small transmission differences between those bioculars in the low light spectral region where the eye is most sensitive and moreover the exit pupil of the SLC 8x56 is a tiny bit larger.
With this kind of strong statements you do not help binocular users or future customers
Gijs van Ginkel.

Your own transmission tests show at least a 2% difference in transmission between the two. Unless you are really young and your eyes are dilating to 7 mm in most cases, especially in the daytime, the HT's are going to appear brighter than the SLC. That 2% higher transmission will help you more than the 2 mm of aperture. Most people are not going to be able to take advantage of the 7 mm EP of the SLC versus the 6.75 mm EP of the HT but they will notice the difference in transmission. That is why Zeiss decreased the aperture of the HT by 2 mm and increased the transmission with Schott HT glass and better coatings. They produced a binocular that is 20 % lighter than the SLC, but will still be brighter. As Zeiss says, the HT's are the brightest premium binocular in the world, and they are correct.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Ok, 10x is not 8x but in 2019 I wrote:

Did you compare them all in low light? That is where the HT shines!

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dennis, posts 66 and 67,

It will not surprise you that I do not share your conclusions. I wish you a Happy New Year.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Canip]

Most people ……. will notice the difference in transmission.

2% difference in transmission? NOBODY will notice that, dear Dennis, you could not be more wrong!

 

[forent]

Did you compare them all in low light? That is where the HT shines!

As I wrote:

(...). For a whole week I compared four binos literally night and day: (...)

In our part of the world we have low light at night. And sorry, in low light as well as in daylight the SLC 10x56 shone brighter on me than the 10x54 HT.

 

[tenex]

I guess I am defending the HT 8x54 because after trying it, I don't think it deserves the lemon status that Henry has given it.

It happens all the time that someone finds some specific disappointment with a binocular that will not have the same priority for everyone (although many here seem to share this one). That doesn't necessarily make HT 54 a complete "lemon" (a word only you have used), so no "defense" is needed; and in any case you're doing a horrible job, not from your own experience or expertise but random (generally unimpressive) citations from the internet. So feel free to just stop.

And happy new year.

 

[Swissboy]

It happens all the time that someone finds some specific disappointment with a binocular that will not have the same priority for everyone (although many here seem to share this one). That doesn't necessarily make HT 54 a complete "lemon" (a word only you have used), so no "defense" is needed; and in any case you're doing a horrible job, not from your own experience or expertise but random (generally unimpressive) citations from the internet. So feel free to just stop.

And happy new year.

Looks like I can still benefit from ignoring the fellow. Actually sad one needs to resort to such measures for one's own peace of mind.

Anyway, happy 2023 to all!

 

[Trinovid]

Looks like I can still benefit from ignoring the fellow. Actually sad one needs to resort to such measures for one's own peace of mind.

The forum became a lot more enjoyable for me once I no longer was able to see his posts.

 

[gweller]

The forum became a lot more enjoyable for me once I no longer was able to see his posts.

I understand perfectly..... but the problem is ignoring something doesn't make it go away!

 

[Trinovid]

I understand perfectly..... but the problem is ignoring something doesn't make it go away!

Yes, that's absolutely correct, but sometimes just walking to the other end of the bar can make the evening much more enjoyable!

 

[Dennis Mau]

2% difference in transmission? NOBODY will notice that, dear Dennis, you could not be more wrong!

I am not so sure about that. New research is showing our eyes are way more sensitive to light than previously thought, and they can detect down to 1 photon of light, meaning they are more sensitive to light than the best cameras. How many photons are there in a 2% difference in transmission? Quite a few! Who came up with this 2% difference in transmission is not detectable anyway?

Direct detection of a single photon by humans - Nature Communications

The detection limit of human vision has remained unclear. Using a quantum light source capable of generating single-photon states of light, authors here report that humans can perceive a single photon incidence on the eye with a probability above chance.

www.nature.com

 

[Dennis Mau]

It happens all the time that someone finds some specific disappointment with a binocular that will not have the same priority for everyone (although many here seem to share this one). That doesn't necessarily make HT 54 a complete "lemon" (a word only you have used), so no "defense" is needed; and in any case you're doing a horrible job, not from your own experience or expertise but random (generally unimpressive) citations from the internet. So feel free to just stop.

And happy new year.

My point is, you should try a binocular yourself and not rely on what somebody else says about it, even if they are very knowledgeable about optics. I didn't try the Zeiss HT for a long time because of the negative review Henry gave it, but you know what, when I tried it I found it to be a very good low light binocular. That is from my own experience. It is not perfect, but it does what it was designed to do very well. I think the defects he found are blown out of proportion in respect to the overall outstanding performance of the binocular. It might have some CA or SA, but I don't see it, and I don't think a normal user of the binocular is going to see it.

 

[Dennis Mau]

As I wrote:

In our part of the world we have low light at night. And sorry, in low light as well as in daylight the SLC 10x56 shone brighter on me than the 10x54 HT.

If you are young, the SLC probably will be brighter because of the bigger exit pupil in low light. If you are older and your pupils are not reaching their maximum dilation of 7 mm, the HT and SLC would probably appear the same.

 

[Conndomat]

That 2% higher transmission will help you more than the 2 mm of aperture. Most people are not going to be able to take advantage of the 7 mm EP of the SLC versus the 6.75 mm EP of the HT but they will notice the difference in transmission.

It might have some CA or SA, but I don't see it, and I don't think a normal user of the binocular is going to see it.

Who finds the error???

Andreas

 

[Dennis Mau]

Who finds the error???

Andreas

Andreas. I don't understand. Could you explain a little more?