• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (2 Viewers)

Just to answer:
Lee - FOV isn't an issue to me for what I want from a binocular. I just thought others might appreciate a very basic comparison using both bins seconds apart and looking at the same objects. I'm more than happy with the Swaro SV FOV and on some occasions prefer a more limited FOV.

Bruce:
Strange as it may sound the colour saturation of both the SF and SV are fine for me, and if I had to choose any one I'd be content with either. But.....and for me....my real preference is the extra bit of saturation offered by the SV. I just think the SF is more neutral and 'realistic' - which is absolutely fine and many may seek that - but I prefer just that richer edge offered by the SV.

You can imagine the decisions between myself and my wife as to who is going to use which one when we go out.

I think in the end and avoiding any glamourising or exclamations that may be occurring for one over the other, they are both superb binoculars and any choice between them I'm sure will in the end be quite subjective. Maybe we should leave them as just being at the very top end of what's available, rather than one being 'better' than the other. I doubt if anyone would be disappointed owning either.

Hope that helps.
 
Troubador said:
Here are some random comments from the web about SF as a contrast with Dennis's selection:

Not only is the SF's field of view extraordinarily wide, but it's also sharp edge to edge.

Colour reproduction and contrast are also excellent.

The SF is really faster in focus: easy focusing on flying birds
-The balance and grip is excellent

Sharpness across the field of view- the 8x42 is outstanding

For me the SF is the perfect binocular

Got mine a few days ago I can say that the Victory SF 10x42 binoculars are exceptional.
- Optics are stunning
- The usability and focusing are fantastic
- very light

because of the balance and weight distribution of the SF it "feels"lighter and that is immediately obvious when you take an SF in your hands.

I was surprised by how light in weight the pair were, and well balanced they are, despite the length of the barrels

I consider the Victory SF 10x42 spectacular bins and I have never used anything better

However everything about the bino is flawless, Fast focus is a real delight to get on birds FAST! Flat field across the view Colors simply real

We have gotten no SF's returned from any customer for any reason

At this moment we received 6 SF's which are sold to very satisfied customers.
This last quote is from Jan and it tells us that:
Not 1
Not 2
Not 3
Not 4
Not 5
But 6 persons visited his store, tried out the SFs (unlike you Dennis) and wanted one and bought one.


Lee
Click to expand...
We know a lot of those statements are untrue and there are quite a few who would disagree with the rest.
 
Alexis Powell said:
Post-script addendum after having been censored:
Wow, I can't believe that my entirely serious and tastefully/academically/medically worded mention of the possible anatomical inspiration for the styling of the open-hinged SV and SV designs was deleted by a moderator. Have a look at Holger's photo. I thought Europeans were supposed to be less prudish than Americans. And I'm angry because I thought my observation had a touch of real socio-political value. It was, in fact, on topic. This thread is about everything real and speculative to do with the SF design.
Click to expand...

Oh no! What did I just miss? :-O I want to defend our European honour though; we are not prude! 8-P
 
AndyRB said:
Just to add to Lee's comments, in back to back comparisons with Swarovski 10x42 SVs in field conditions the 10x42 SF has a noticeably wider field of view e.g. with the SFs I could see a crow and a particular post together. Using the Swaros I could only see one of these at a time and had to turn my head to see the other. Not the most scientific of comparison but a very noticeable difference in day-to-day conditions.
Click to expand...
Was the crow and post both sharp in the FOV?
 
Troubador said:
Andy

Field of view isn't the be all and end all of bins to everybody but since we want to see as much as possible through our bins, getting a big FOV is a big bonus.

Lee
Click to expand...
I agree with you. For example, the Nikon 8x30 EII is not my personal favorite binocular even though it has a huge FOV. I think you reach a law of diminishing returns after 8 degree's. Comparing my SV to the EII I decided I would rather have a sharp to the edge 8 degrees FOV than 9 degree's with blurry edges. I have had some of these vintage porro's that have a 10 degree FOV and it is almost too much information to take into your eye. I think 9 degrees is about the limit for FOV if it sharp to the edge. I guess that is personal preference.
 
Last edited:
[email protected] said:
Just calm down and tell us if your objective covers fit and the eyecups work smoothly and the color saturation is good and the edges are sharp.
Click to expand...

Calm down??? I don't think I was getting excited?

Re the above, I think I've already mentioned this in earlier entries.

Time to back out of this forum now as it's getting a bit.............
 
[email protected] said:
We know a lot of those statements are untrue and there are quite a few who would disagree with the rest.
Click to expand...

Says someone who has never seen an SF; about statements from those who have seen or own one. :-O

The statements Lee so kindly put together seem correct to me based on the two experiences I had view the 8X and 10X SF. I might differ slightly in degree as some of this is subjective. Sharpness to the edge is interesting. I have read that about some of the Swaro EL SV models, but I have never seen one that was sharp to the edge, just close. Same is true for me in regards to the SF.
 
Troubador said:
A masterly intervention Mark. :king:
Welcome back.

Lee
Click to expand...

At your service, Lee. :t:

If the SF eyecups are like the FL cups I'd say there's nothing at all wrong with them. The FL eyecups have a lot of friction but they hold intermediate positions very well. Others, including the SV, are silky smooth but I wouldn't count on them holding a position between the stops. Take your pick.

The SV color is as neutral as I've ever seen, not "boosted" so far as I can tell. My FL is a little dull and washed out in direct comparison, not really more "neutral" or accurate. What the SF is like I don't yet know, but if it leans toward the FL, then I'd probably take the SV. I hope to see the SF soon so take that for what it's worth.

The SF edges are, I'm sure, plenty good enough. If Zeiss backed off the SV formula to placate the crazy rollingballers so be it. Makes no nevermind to me, as long as the edges are good enough and better than an FL, which I'm sure they are.

Mark
 
[email protected] said:
Just calm down and tell us if your objective covers fit and the eyecups work smoothly and the color saturation is good and the edges are sharp.
Click to expand...

Not only is the SF's field of view extraordinarily wide, but it's also sharp edge to edge.

Colour reproduction and contrast are also excellent.

Sharpness across the field of view- the 8x42 is outstanding

For me the SF is the perfect binocular

Yawn.

Lee
 
Lee's comments on the optics nicely sum it up, or at least the 10x42 for me. I'd add that the ergonomics, handling, feel, aesthetics - whatever else you want call that aspect are superb.

For me, perfect? This when it gets subjective - and, rightly so. Subjective is important.
 
Kammerdiner said:
At your service, Lee. :t:

If the SF eyecups are like the FL cups I'd say there's nothing at all wrong with them. The FL eyecups have a lot of friction but they hold intermediate positions very well. Others, including the SV, are silky smooth but I wouldn't count on them holding a position between the stops. Take your pick.

The SV color is as neutral as I've ever seen, not "boosted" so far as I can tell. My FL is a little dull and washed out in direct comparison, not really more "neutral" or accurate. What the SF is like I don't yet know, but if it leans toward the FL, then I'd probably take the SV. I hope to see the SF soon so take that for what it's worth.

The SF edges are, I'm sure, plenty good enough. If Zeiss backed off the SV formula to placate the crazy rollingballers so be it. Makes no nevermind to me, as long as the edges are good enough and better than an FL, which I'm sure they are.

Mark
Click to expand...

Yo Marko

HT has a better colour balance than FL, to my eyes. I wouldn't call Swaro colours over-boosted, not in the way that Leica is. Again thats to my eyes and there is nothing at all grotesque about Leica colours but I am convinced HT separates more shades of browns and gingers and oranges and reds than Leica. For example a hill in strong light and fall/winter colours has more shades to me through HT than Uvid. But hey, me and the missus never agree about blues and greens so maybe my colour perception is off.

The point about eyecups is a good one. I have pushed the luxury feel of Swaro SLC eyecups up several Zeiss noses in the past as something to aim for only to realise, now that I wear different spectacle frames, that stiff eyecups can maintain an intermediate position while SLC eyecups just slither (luxuriously) down to the next click stop.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
Yo Marko

HT has a better colour balance than FL, to my eyes. I wouldn't call Swaro colours over-boosted, not in the way that Leica is. Again thats to my eyes and there is nothing at all grotesque about Leica colours but I am convinced HT separates more shades of browns and gingers and oranges and reds than Leica. For example a hill in strong light and fall/winter colours has more shades to me through HT than Uvid. But hey, me and the missus never agree about blues and greens so maybe my colour perception is off.

The point about eyecups is a good one. I have pushed the luxury feel of Swaro SLC eyecups up several Zeiss noses in the past as something to aim for only to realise, now that I wear different spectacle frames, that stiff eyecups can maintain an intermediate position while SLC eyecups just slither (luxuriously) down to the next click stop.

Lee
Click to expand...

Yup, the Zeiss cups may feel a little plasticky but they work just fine.

You and the missus can't agree about the aesthetic subtleties of blues and greens?? My wife and I can't agree on breakfast most days. :-O

Mark
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Pauhana
Zeiss storefront says Victory SF 8x42 discontinued?????
Replies
4
Views
1K
Conndomat
Conndomat
mgp13
Zeiss Victory SF - damaged or is this normal?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Troubador
Troubador
C
Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 ages?
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
mgp13
mgp13
J
Focus Problem: Zeiss Victory SF 10x42
Replies
6
Views
2K
John-W
J
S
Swarovski EL vs Zeiss Victory SF
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
norway
norway

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top