New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)

[ceasar]

I still feel that everyone else is still chasing Swarovski for the optical quality. It see,s what Swarovski has achieved 5 years ago with EL SV, ZEiss is trying to achieve that now with SF and still seems not at par. Weight balance and ergonomics, all seems to be very subjective and to me is not too great a stuff. SF is nothing but to make one like EL and off course 5 year time is long enough to catch up and add some funda of weight balance.

I can be wrong here but that's what I feel.

Sanjay

Sanjay,

You are giving Swarovski too much credit for innovation.

They made their version of a Flat Field binocular years after Nikon had it.

For everyday use Nikon introduced the Flat Field first in their 10x42 SE Porro prism in 1995 and put it in the 8x32SE and 12x50SE a couple of years later. Then in 2000 or so they put it in their HG Roof prism binoculars. The 8x42 and 10x42 and 8x32 and 10x32 HGs all had flat fields and shortly thereafter some people began complaining about seeing "Rolling Ball" in the 8x42s and 10x42s. :king:

Bob

 

[Sanjay Naithani]

Sanjay,

You are giving Swarovski too much credit for innovation.

They made their version of a Flat Field binocular years after Nikon had it.

Nikon introduced the Flat Field first in their 10x42 SE Porro prism in 1995. Then in 2000 or so they put it in their HG Roof prism binoculars. The 8x42 and 10x42 and 8x32 and 10x32 HGs all had flat fields and shortly thereafter some people began complaining about seeing "Rolling Ball" in the 8x42s and 10x42s. :king:

Bob

Hmmmmmm. Seems Swarovski knows how to market well. But all I am trying to say that SF just seems to be catching up with these guys and that too so late in game. Let's see who brings next game changing innovation.

Only reason I mentioned Swarovski since to me it looked as if all comparisons were happening regards to SV only.

Sanjay

 

[perterra]

Hmmmmmm. Seems Swarovski knows how to market well. But all I am trying to say that SF just seems to be catching up with these guys and that too so late in game. Let's see who brings next game changing innovation.

Only reason I mentioned Swarovski since to me it looked as if all comparisons were happening regards to SV only.

Sanjay

And there lies the key to Swarovskis success. They have excellent optics, great service, but I dont find myself in awe of them.

 

[ceasar]

Hmmmmmm. Seems Swarovski knows how to market well. But all I am trying to say that SF just seems to be catching up with these guys and that too so late in game. Let's see who brings next game changing innovation.

Only reason I mentioned Swarovski since to me it looked as if all comparisons were happening regards to SV only.

Sanjay

Yes.

There is no question that Swarovski knows how to market their products!

Bob

 

[jan van daalen]

Yes.

There is no question that Swarovski knows how to market their products!

Bob

And know what after sales means!!

 

[PeterPS]

And know what after sales means!!

Agreed! Zeiss customer support is very good but Swaro's is the best (my experience).

 

[ceasar]

And know what after sales means!!

They know how to run a business and make money. They aren't giving that great after sale service away for free, you know, no matter how much people are led to believe it.

It is factored into the original price. If, say, 99% of the people have no problems with their Swarovski Optic then Swarovski is way ahead of the game! Who knows how much of that original sale price is insurance for after sale service?

Bob

 

[Sanjay Naithani]

Yes.

There is no question that Swarovski knows how to market their products!

Bob

Swarovski has strong brand all over the world. Since they have huge presence in fashion market so I think they know better than any of the competition about building strong brand.

Sanjay Naithani

 

[Sanjay Naithani]

They know how to run a business and make money. They aren't giving that great after sale service away for free, you know, no matter how much people are led to believe it.

It is factored into the original price. If, say, 99% of the people have no problems with their Swarovski Optic then Swarovski is way ahead of the game! Who knows how much of that original sale price is insurance for after sale service?

Bob

Don't confuse cost with the prices and value. In the products driven through strong brands there is always a premium involved in it.

customer sees value and that is the reason they pay for it. It is not always actual value but more important is perceived value. If despite all problems customer is still loyal to brand and pay for it, Swarovski has achieved in terms of building its brand in the market.



Sanjay

 

[PeterPS]

They know how to run a business and make money. They aren't giving that great after sale service away for free, you know, no matter how much people are led to believe it.

It is factored into the original price.

Isn't that true for any company? Vortex and Vanguard also have an excellent customer support; they sell bins that have a lower price than Swaro's but I am sure their price includes the cost of after sales support, otherwise they would go bankrupt.

Back to the Zeiss SF thread......

 

[[email protected]]

Ok so one negative review from an unknown user outweighs all the positives...........seems right to me !

Yes, to me one negative review is very important. I have found on Amazon.com that reading the negative reviews about an item is more important than all the positive reviews. My experience has shown me the negative reviews are often times the HONEST ones. There are hundreds of reviews on the Swarovision but I challenge you to find review that is as negative as this review was about the Zeiss SF. The lack of contrast in the Zeiss SF seems to be a common complaint so I would say it could be a problem.

 

[Troubador]

I still feel that everyone else is still chasing Swarovski for the optical quality. It see,s what Swarovski has achieved 5 years ago with EL SV, ZEiss is trying to achieve that now with SF and still seems not at par. Weight balance and ergonomics, all seems to be very subjective and to me is not too great a stuff. SF is nothing but to make one like EL and off course 5 year time is long enough to catch up and add some funda of weight balance.

I can be wrong here but that's what I feel.

Sanjay

Hi Sanjay

First let me say that Swaro EL is a magnificent instrument and that in many ways Zeiss is indeed trying to catch up. The question is, has Zeiss caught up?

SF is not like EL at all. Physically we can say that it has three bridges not two like EL. Inside the optical arrangment is very different.

For me SF has overtaken EL in two areas: Field of view and handling.

SF field of view is 24% larger in area than EL. Only you can decide if this is important to you.

You mention that the handling improvement is subjective, but actually it is not. See the picture below and there is an EL SV and SF cut in half so you can see the inside. The SF is on the right and you can easily see how the weight of the glass components have been moved closer to the eyepieces when compared with the EL. When you pick up SF you will immediately notice this difference. For me it means I can continue holding the bins upto my eyes for longer periods of time and steadier too. Again this is something that may or may not be important for you.

Both SF and EL are sharp binoculars and arguments about which is sharper near the edge of the field of view are meaningless in my opinion. Both are sharp at the edge. Both are sharper in the centre than at the edge. And don't forget that the SF field of view is 24% bigger in area.

You need to try SF and EL together and decide which suits you better. To some people the choosing may come down to 8.5x magnification of EL versus the big field of view of SF. For me, if I want a bigger magnification than 8x, having an extra 0.5x is not enough, I would then use a 10x. Field of view is important for me so you can guess I like SF a lot.

Do try them both before you decide.

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

Hmmmm
Here are a couple of professional reviews:

http://www.birdwatchersdigest-digital.com/birdwatchersdigest/july_august_2015#pg1
http://www.binomania.it/recensione-zeiss-victory-sf-il-re-del-birdwatching/

And here is a review from an experienced amateur:

An experienced amateur’s review:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=307596

Or you could browse these remarks from owners:

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.

Surely the finest 8x42 roof currently available.

the sharpness of our 10x42 SFs is equal to our 10x42 Swaro SVs.

I find that the SF has very natural colours and brightness

SF has an edge as sharp as they come

Did a comparison between SF 8x42, SV 8,5x42, FL 7x42 and SV 8x32 today.
The overall winner to me is clearly the SF:s.

I use my SF 8x42 for astronomy, and I haven't noticed any central astigmatism.

OMG! The field of view is amazing—much wider than my Nikon.

The weight distribution is a huge improvement—because they naturally tilt upwards, they feel lighter than they really are.

The more I used them, the more they impressed me. And then, of course, there's the Zeiss optics. Brilliant, yes. At the end of the weekend, I really did not want to give them back.

They really are everything Zeiss says they are. And more.

delightful instruments and a pleasure to use. Optically they are stunning

SF is Sharp, very Sharp almost to the limit of FOV

SF has the most real color reproduction of any bin i ever tried (including my 10x42 SV )

Is very VERY well corrected for CA far away of my leica ultravid

for me SF is even better than SV

the best on this Zeiss is the 3D and Pop in the view…It has some of the character that only can be found in the best porro bins, For me this 3D and huge FOV are the big advantages of SF

The focus on the Swaro was excellent, but in my opinion, the SF was even better. can't remember a more precise and yet smooth focusing mechanism. the SF felt noticeably lighter than the Swaros, more so than the actual 45g difference in specs.

If something happened to your 10X42 Swarovision, would you replace it with another of the same or would you change over to the the Zeiss SF 10X42? Thanks, good question. In my opinion the SF has technical 2 pros which I like : it is sharper and has a larger FOV


The thing that will absolutely astound you is the pronounced 3d effect,the most i have ever seen in a binocular,bags more than my zeiss nobilem 10x50 porro.Makes everything else seem flat in comparison and leaves a very vivid impression ,you just want to keep picking them up and use them on anything.


The Nikon EDG is still an excellent binocular but I prefer the SF for some of the same reasons that I prefer the SF over the SV.
​

Hmmmm.

Lee

If I wanted to I could find a list of positive reviews about the Swarovision 10 times longer than your list but in all thoses reviews I have NEVER read a review of the Swarovision as negative as this one. I challenge you to find a review as negative as this one on the Zeiss SF from a known user like this one was. This guy sound like he knows what he is talking about also.

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Guys !!!!!!!

Good afternoon.

Well i was reading all the professional reviews and............whats the difference ?

Binomania says what i say before.....lowest contrast on SF

Other review say SF sharp to the edge ?? well sharper than previous victories it is but to the edge......be serious did you try it ?

SV has more corrected FOV and a gentle degradation towards the end and on SF this degradation is more pronounced......but has biggest FOV.

This unknow user (ME ) is a Semi professional Photographer who knows a little bit of optics.

I been using HIGH END bins all my life and my current bins are.

My lovely Zeiss Oberkochen 25 series 10x50 Binocular of the century.

Zeiss 10x40 bgat , zeiss 8x30 oberkochen

Carl zeiss jena nobilen spezial 12x50 and Carl zeiss jena 7x50.

Swarovski SV 10X42 and swarovski SLC 15X56 HD

Leica ultravid 8x42 BL already sold and waiting for an Leica ultravid plus 10x50.

Anybody think that i don't like ZEISS

I really trust your opinion Globetrotter. I can tell you know what you are talking about with your photography experience and all. You are a good contributor to Bird Forum.

 

[Sanjay Naithani]

Hi Sanjay

First let me say that Swaro EL is a magnificent instrument and that in many ways Zeiss is indeed trying to catch up. The question is, has Zeiss caught up?

SF is not like EL at all. Physically we can say that it has three bridges not two like EL. Inside the optical arrangment is very different.

For me SF has overtaken EL in two areas: Field of view and handling.

SF field of view is 24% larger in area than EL. Only you can decide if this is important to you.

You mention that the handling improvement is subjective, but actually it is not. See the picture below and there is an EL SV and SF cut in half so you can see the inside. The SF is on the right and you can easily see how the weight of the glass components have been moved closer to the eyepieces when compared with the EL. When you pick up SF you will immediately notice this difference. For me it means I can continue holding the bins upto my eyes for longer periods of time and steadier too. Again this is something that may or may not be important for you.

Both SF and EL are sharp binoculars and arguments about which is sharper near the edge of the field of view are meaningless in my opinion. Both are sharp at the edge. Both are sharper in the centre than at the edge. And don't forget that the SF field of view is 24% bigger in area.

You need to try SF and EL together and decide which suits you better. To some people the choosing may come down to 8.5x magnification of EL versus the big field of view of SF. For me, if I want a bigger magnification than 8x, having an extra 0.5x is not enough, I would then use a 10x. Field of view is important for me so you can guess I like SF a lot.

Do try them both before you decide.

Lee

Thanks for taking pain in explaining at length. I do agree that FOV is a big plus in ZEiss SF. All I am trying to say that this is an improvement ( there are still different version on it) over already existing product in the market. I don't think this is revolutionary change. I am not an optical expert so I will value feed back from more seasoned and experienced guys like you. I think Swarovski has same field of view (120 Mts) in their 10*32. Not sure why it was not reproduced in 10*42 El SV.

I am sure ZEiss SF will be liked by many and has its own quality. If I get chance, I will surely try this and update here.

Sanjay

 

[Troubador]

Hi Guys !!!!!!!

Anybody think that i don't like ZEISS

Its a mystery why anyone would think that.

The binomania review is headed SF: King of Bird Watching (don't blame me for this) so it doesn't take much thought to understand what binomania's conclusion was.

But you chose to represent this whole review by simply stating that the conclusion was that SF had the lowest contrast of the three bins.

What he said was:

the contrast it seemed less than Swarovski and Leica. Conversely I received a vision of the details more natural and a greater ability to "take out" the shades of gray. In fact at times it seems to be more and more contrasted light binoculars, because the latter only cuts the nuances, showing more clearly the light and dark.

And

Z is slightly softer, but it seems to provide better readability in dark areas, where you perceive albeit with difficulties of different shades of gray. This was proof that I was very busy and that you do not notice the mere practical use freehand. Difficult to declare a winner because the viewing experience provided depends on personal taste.​

So you didn't actually post accurately what binmania said about the question of contrast at all.

Yes, its a mystery why anyone would think you have some grudge against Zeiss.

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Sanjay

First let me say that Swaro EL is a magnificent instrument and that in many ways Zeiss is indeed trying to catch up. The question is, has Zeiss caught up?

SF is not like EL at all. Physically we can say that it has three bridges not two like EL. Inside the optical arrangment is very different.

For me SF has overtaken EL in two areas: Field of view and handling.

SF field of view is 24% larger in area than EL. Only you can decide if this is important to you.

You mention that the handling improvement is subjective, but actually it is not. See the picture below and there is an EL SV and SF cut in half so you can see the inside. The SF is on the right and you can easily see how the weight of the glass components have been moved closer to the eyepieces when compared with the EL. When you pick up SF you will immediately notice this difference. For me it means I can continue holding the bins upto my eyes for longer periods of time and steadier too. Again this is something that may or may not be important for you.

Both SF and EL are sharp binoculars and arguments about which is sharper near the edge of the field of view are meaningless in my opinion. Both are sharp at the edge. Both are sharper in the centre than at the edge. And don't forget that the SF field of view is 24% bigger in area.

You need to try SF and EL together and decide which suits you better. To some people the choosing may come down to 8.5x magnification of EL versus the big field of view of SF. For me, if I want a bigger magnification than 8x, having an extra 0.5x is not enough, I would then use a 10x. Field of view is important for me so you can guess I like SF a lot.

Do try them both before you decide.

Lee

Field of view and handling are no doubt important but the most important thing for me are the optics. I will accept a slightly smaller FOV and a little less perfect balance for a superior view. I would have to be convinced that the view in that bigger Zeiss SF FOV is better than the Swarovski before I would purchase one. I am not convinced yet.

 

[Torview]

Yes, to me one negative review is very important............ My experience has shown me the negative reviews are often times the HONEST ones.

I`v lost count of the negative "reviews" about you on here...............

 

[Troubador]

If I wanted to I could find a list of positive reviews about the Swarovision 10 times longer than your list but in all thoses reviews I have NEVER read a review of the Swarovision as negative as this one. I challenge you to find a review as negative as this one on the Zeiss SF from a known user like this one was. This guy sound like he knows what he is talking about also.

But you see Dennis, I don't dig around looking for negative reviews about other products because my motives aren't the same as yours. And your glee at this guy's opinion (to which he is entitled) and your sweeping to one side all of complementary views that I posted simply reveal to the world that you have an agenda that isn't in the best standards of what this forum is about.

Lee

 

[perterra]

Field of view and handling are no doubt important but the most important thing for me are the optics. I will accept a slightly smaller FOV and a little less perfect balance for a superior view. I would have to be convinced that the view in that bigger Zeiss SF FOV is better than the Swarovski before I would purchase one. I am not convinced yet.

So buy it, if you dont like it return it. Surely you have done that before?