I don't dig any of the negative reviews or comments up. This one came from Sanjay and all the other complaints came from Bird Forum members about the Zeiss SF.
-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
New Zeiss Victory SF !!!!!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chosun Juan
- Start date
I challenge you again to find a review as negative as this one on the Zeiss SF on the Swarovski SV.
Sanjay Naithani
Well-known member
I can also sacrifice extra FOV for the want of superior image quality. Image quality is the no 1 priority.
Sanjay Naithani
Sanjay Naithani
Steve C
Well-known member
The service that Swarovski has is their Crown Jewel. It will cover up lots of marketing and QC issues. If Zeiss, Leica, and Nikon ever get that figured out, the alpha thing might go any of several directions, all including increased sales for the others. You can buy good items (any sort of item) lots of places from several manufacturers. Good service is something a company either understands or does not.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I feel great sorrow for Dennis, as he is forced to wear that glare-monster around his neck. I'm sure others don't openly point and mock, but I'm also sure they all laugh and snicker after he has passed.
What a weight to bare - the fact that the bin he is using is clearly flawed and held in such contempt. The only recourse is to sell up to something less flawed - but what could that be?
What a weight to bare - the fact that the bin he is using is clearly flawed and held in such contempt. The only recourse is to sell up to something less flawed - but what could that be?
Theo98
Eurasian Goldfinch
Good advice, Lee! The SF wasn't out yet when I glassed and fell for the seductive 10x50 SV. As per your advice, I'll make that comparison as soon as that opportunity arises! :t:
Ted
GLOBETROTTER
Well-known member
Hi to everyone !!!!
I would like to share something about optics with all of you.
At the beginning in the early stage of production all binoculars are almost the same, the optical designers for an specific model has an overall idea of the instrument that they want.
They play with powerful optical software to get what they want, changing kind of glass lens ratios etc etc.
The seven SEIDEL aberrations comes then into play and how to deal with is the job of the optical designer.
Seidel aberrations are 1 spherical aberration.
2 sharpness errors.
3 coma
4 astigmatims.
5 curvature of field.
6 distortion.
7 CA longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration
3 CA
HERITAGE
Every manufactures has strong points that make them famous for.
Zeiss has been famous always for his superb sharpness on center of FOV, bright optics and big FOV.
Now there is a huge discussion about who is sharper, more defined,brighter etc etc.
As photographer i can say......it doesn't matter !!!!!!!
what makes good or better Desing is the character of optics, if SF is a little bit softer or lowest in contrast is nor a FLAW is the character of optics given by Zeiss to enhance other strong point as maximum brightness who affect in some degree to contrast and less definition in order to give a more gentle and realistic view very pleasant to the eye, as also Binomania says on his review.
Optical computation is very very difficult always a compromise, Zeiss go for a very realistic view, so a harsh view was not the goal for the optical team.
Is worse ? NOT, is the designer decision thats all.
Leicas has a very Harsh view ? well they boost contrast, sharpness and definition in order to get it, a very shocking view just because if the heritage of their optical designs also in photography. Sharp transition from in focus to out of focus areas in order to give a great separation subject and background.....the same can be found on his binoculars.
Are better than ZEISS....really not, just different some people will like some not.
PHOTOGRAPHY world.
Binoculars are peanuts.....A leica M lenses goes from 2000 till 11000 euros and Zeiss from 1000 to 5000 euros.
On photography forums there are fanboys of each brand and everybody refers to reviews to talk about optics but i never never found the fanatic loyalty to a brand like here, ZEISS is the best and thats all.
Any kind of discussion is not possible........COME ON !!!!
First think to do is try by yourself, in photography is very easy to make a photo with a lens and review it on big hight quality and calibrated monitors, with binoculars is not so easy.
Zeiss is able to produce THE BEST LENSES ON DSLR world today with his OTUS line, ultra sharp,contrasty, with great definition and the lowest CA on market.A clinical lenses design for studios and comercial photography.
Also has another line like the Sonnar design who has a more gentle rendering very realistic and able to pick up details on shadows for a good B&W conversions............
This kind of character can be found also.....YES ON SF BINS !!!
I would like to share something about optics with all of you.
At the beginning in the early stage of production all binoculars are almost the same, the optical designers for an specific model has an overall idea of the instrument that they want.
They play with powerful optical software to get what they want, changing kind of glass lens ratios etc etc.
The seven SEIDEL aberrations comes then into play and how to deal with is the job of the optical designer.
Seidel aberrations are 1 spherical aberration.
2 sharpness errors.
3 coma
4 astigmatims.
5 curvature of field.
6 distortion.
7 CA longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration
3 CA
HERITAGE
Every manufactures has strong points that make them famous for.
Zeiss has been famous always for his superb sharpness on center of FOV, bright optics and big FOV.
Now there is a huge discussion about who is sharper, more defined,brighter etc etc.
As photographer i can say......it doesn't matter !!!!!!!
what makes good or better Desing is the character of optics, if SF is a little bit softer or lowest in contrast is nor a FLAW is the character of optics given by Zeiss to enhance other strong point as maximum brightness who affect in some degree to contrast and less definition in order to give a more gentle and realistic view very pleasant to the eye, as also Binomania says on his review.
Optical computation is very very difficult always a compromise, Zeiss go for a very realistic view, so a harsh view was not the goal for the optical team.
Is worse ? NOT, is the designer decision thats all.
Leicas has a very Harsh view ? well they boost contrast, sharpness and definition in order to get it, a very shocking view just because if the heritage of their optical designs also in photography. Sharp transition from in focus to out of focus areas in order to give a great separation subject and background.....the same can be found on his binoculars.
Are better than ZEISS....really not, just different some people will like some not.
PHOTOGRAPHY world.
Binoculars are peanuts.....A leica M lenses goes from 2000 till 11000 euros and Zeiss from 1000 to 5000 euros.
On photography forums there are fanboys of each brand and everybody refers to reviews to talk about optics but i never never found the fanatic loyalty to a brand like here, ZEISS is the best and thats all.
Any kind of discussion is not possible........COME ON !!!!
First think to do is try by yourself, in photography is very easy to make a photo with a lens and review it on big hight quality and calibrated monitors, with binoculars is not so easy.
Zeiss is able to produce THE BEST LENSES ON DSLR world today with his OTUS line, ultra sharp,contrasty, with great definition and the lowest CA on market.A clinical lenses design for studios and comercial photography.
Also has another line like the Sonnar design who has a more gentle rendering very realistic and able to pick up details on shadows for a good B&W conversions............
This kind of character can be found also.....YES ON SF BINS !!!
perterra
Well-known member
I dont think anyone said Zeiss is the best, I think they said Zeiss is as good in their opinion. I dont think I heard anyone discounting other brands other than Denco, and thats normal, he posts more on the Zeiss forum about how his Swaros are superior to Zeiss than he does on the Swaro forum.
I dont read all of his posts, but at some point he will quote a poor review of the Zeiss and end his post with HA HA. It's who he is, he only feels good if he can run down others choices while building his own up. You just stumbled in to a Denco cess pool.
I challenge you to find among the hundreds of actual user reviews of the Swarovision a review as negative as this one was on the Zeiss. You say I put down Zeiss while building up Swarovski which is not true. On the contrary you want to brush away or disregard any review that shows Zeiss SF's in a negative light. I don't disregard any review or comment on either. This fellow who has used the Zeiss SF for 6 months had some important things to say about them and it should not be shoved under the carpet. It is great that Sanjay caught this review.
Last edited:
Let me be honest, I have not read every one of the 114 pages on this thread but here is my take.
I have recently retired and promised myself a really good set of binos. They had to be 10X because they are what I am used to and I am lucky enough to have rock steady hands. The usage will be 50% bird watching and then predominantly country views (I am a keen long distance walker). I do not know much technically about binos but I am a hugely experienced user having had my first set when I was 10 or 11 and since then 12 or so pairs; Minolta, Nikon, Opticron, Chinon amongst others.
I did a great deal of Internet research and set off to try various pairs at Lakeside Optics on Chew Valley Lake just south of Bristol, UK. LO gives you the opportunity to compare various binos against each other outside looking out over a lake, with lots of birds, at distant hills and into a neighbouring wood. LO does not hassle you and gives excellent advice and only when you ask for it. I think that they are brilliant, having never even heard of them before.
I had decided to compare the Leica Ultravid Plus, the Swarovski El and the Zeiss Victory SF. To be honest I thought that I would walk away with a pair of SF. In any case, I quickly ruled out the Leica because I just did not like the focusing. I preferred the SF to the EL 10X42 because of the greater lightness and faster focusing. Optically I felt that it was a better pair of binoculars to use. The improved ergonomics counted for very little with me. Quite honestly I have never found any halfway decent pair of binos uncomfortable to use and the way that I hold binos causes me no problem with the focusing nearer to the eye lens. A big gconcern was that I just did not think that the SF was as well built as the SV EL. By way of comparison, I also tried a set of Nikons but they were just not in the same league. I also tried the EL 10X32 but it was not as good as the 10X42.
Finally, very much as a long shot, I tried the EL 10X50 and they literally blew my breath away. So clear, so bright, such superb colours and this applied looking into the darkness of the wood and across the lake. What astonished me was that,when looking at birds in bright light, for example on the wing or on a lake on a bright day, how much clearer their colours were.
This whole process took about 90 minutes and I then left to think things over for 3 days and then spent another hour principally comparing the SF 10X42 against the EL 10X50. I left having paid for the EL. However, there was still a niggling doubt and so I took the EL 10X50 back to compare yet again against the SF. After another hour, I left totally satisfied that I had made the right decision.
What would have happened if Zeiss made an SF 10X50? I frankly do not know. If I had not come across the EL 10X50, thanks to this forum, and so it was the EL 10X42 versus the SF 10X42, what then? In all honesty, it would have been a really tough decision. My preference for the optical performance of the SF against the better build of the EL. Bear in mind that I want these binos to last me the rest of my life. It would have been very close but possibly just the SF. However, in my opinion, the EL 10X50 is in another league. I have used them a huge amount now over tha last 4 weeks and I remain totally delighted with them.
My thoughts for what they are worth.
Rolstone
I have recently retired and promised myself a really good set of binos. They had to be 10X because they are what I am used to and I am lucky enough to have rock steady hands. The usage will be 50% bird watching and then predominantly country views (I am a keen long distance walker). I do not know much technically about binos but I am a hugely experienced user having had my first set when I was 10 or 11 and since then 12 or so pairs; Minolta, Nikon, Opticron, Chinon amongst others.
I did a great deal of Internet research and set off to try various pairs at Lakeside Optics on Chew Valley Lake just south of Bristol, UK. LO gives you the opportunity to compare various binos against each other outside looking out over a lake, with lots of birds, at distant hills and into a neighbouring wood. LO does not hassle you and gives excellent advice and only when you ask for it. I think that they are brilliant, having never even heard of them before.
I had decided to compare the Leica Ultravid Plus, the Swarovski El and the Zeiss Victory SF. To be honest I thought that I would walk away with a pair of SF. In any case, I quickly ruled out the Leica because I just did not like the focusing. I preferred the SF to the EL 10X42 because of the greater lightness and faster focusing. Optically I felt that it was a better pair of binoculars to use. The improved ergonomics counted for very little with me. Quite honestly I have never found any halfway decent pair of binos uncomfortable to use and the way that I hold binos causes me no problem with the focusing nearer to the eye lens. A big gconcern was that I just did not think that the SF was as well built as the SV EL. By way of comparison, I also tried a set of Nikons but they were just not in the same league. I also tried the EL 10X32 but it was not as good as the 10X42.
Finally, very much as a long shot, I tried the EL 10X50 and they literally blew my breath away. So clear, so bright, such superb colours and this applied looking into the darkness of the wood and across the lake. What astonished me was that,when looking at birds in bright light, for example on the wing or on a lake on a bright day, how much clearer their colours were.
This whole process took about 90 minutes and I then left to think things over for 3 days and then spent another hour principally comparing the SF 10X42 against the EL 10X50. I left having paid for the EL. However, there was still a niggling doubt and so I took the EL 10X50 back to compare yet again against the SF. After another hour, I left totally satisfied that I had made the right decision.
What would have happened if Zeiss made an SF 10X50? I frankly do not know. If I had not come across the EL 10X50, thanks to this forum, and so it was the EL 10X42 versus the SF 10X42, what then? In all honesty, it would have been a really tough decision. My preference for the optical performance of the SF against the better build of the EL. Bear in mind that I want these binos to last me the rest of my life. It would have been very close but possibly just the SF. However, in my opinion, the EL 10X50 is in another league. I have used them a huge amount now over tha last 4 weeks and I remain totally delighted with them.
My thoughts for what they are worth.
Rolstone
Last edited:
Can't you read Dennis?
I am not interested in digging up dirt on Swarovski products. Remember those issues you called design flaws in EL? Well I am ashamed I mentioned them because for a brief moment I dropped down to your level.
Carry on with your childish attempt to cover your insecurity, because its not working.
Lee
Very nice observations. The Swarovski 10x50 SV is getting quite a reputation. I would imagine if Zeiss made a 10x50 SF it too would be excellent. The laws of physics are always there and it is impossible for a 42mm binocular to compete with a 50mm giving equal coatings and prisms. I am glad you are happy with it. I tried one and I thought it superior even to my 8x32 SV. A lot of birders don't want to carry the weight but if that doesn't bother you the view is gorgeous. I now because I just compared the SV 10x50 to the SV 8x32 at Cabella's. Actually the SV 10x50 can be held pretty steady also because of it's weight.
Strange, how defensive we get. We are just discussing two fine alpha level binoculars and it seems some get emotional over it. I don't think I am getting childish at all but I guess you are entitled to your opinion.
Chickadee Whisperer
Active member
The Swarovski 10x50 EL does sound splendid, but to me falls short of the Zeiss 10x 42 SF in three important areas. The FOV isn't that different, but somewhat significant--345 vs. 360 feet. I do like to use close focus on insects, so that difference seems more significant, but wouldn't be the least bit significant for people who don't focus close (9.2 ft. vs. 4.9 ft.) But I'm 63, and do lug my camera equipment when birding, and do lots of long hikes, so the difference in weight is huge to me (35.2 oz vs. 27.5). And the Zeiss SFs were SO easy to hold steady. My original binoculars when I started out as a 20-something were 7x50s--they were a gift, so at that age, with nothing to compare them to, I didn't mind the weight at all, but boy do I notice a difference now.
My sense of the lower contrast, when I was using them last year, was that I could actually see differences between grayish forms in low light more easily than with higher contrast binoculars. I used to have 10x42 Leicas (don't remember the model--this was from around 2006), which were touted as being wonderfully high contrast. But my view seemed subtly distorted, like when I am using Photoshop and up the contrast--it doesn't take much before the image seemed unnatural. I can see people liking that somehow more intense view, but I like how the view through the Zeiss FLs I have now and the Zeiss SFs I tested seem so much more natural.
My sense of the lower contrast, when I was using them last year, was that I could actually see differences between grayish forms in low light more easily than with higher contrast binoculars. I used to have 10x42 Leicas (don't remember the model--this was from around 2006), which were touted as being wonderfully high contrast. But my view seemed subtly distorted, like when I am using Photoshop and up the contrast--it doesn't take much before the image seemed unnatural. I can see people liking that somehow more intense view, but I like how the view through the Zeiss FLs I have now and the Zeiss SFs I tested seem so much more natural.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
So, how long does the 8x32 SV have, before you ditch it, now that it has been exposed as a loser? Seems like you are pumping the 10x50 SV, your next acquisition?
I've said it before, Dennis has multiple personalities - personalities that do not communicate with each other, hence his inability to recall what he said or his inability to understand why / how he gets peoples backs up.
Pity the man.
I didn't bring up the 10x50 SV. Another member did saying they preferred them over the Zeiss 10x42 SF.
You guys must grow weary of defending your beloved Zeiss SF for bad reviews, fogged up oculars, rusting hinges, staining, loose armour,low contrast, flecks inside the binocular and broken parts. There seems to be thread after thread on problems from different people. Maybe I would do the same if I owned one like you do but the way I look at it why try and cover up the problems. If Zeiss sees these problems maybe they will correct them and then I can buy one. Heh, I admit it Swarovski's aren't perfect either. I am sure this feedback will get back to Zeiss and maybe they will work on these problems.
Last edited:
perterra
Well-known member
I think youre on to something here, why else would someone argue so hard about something they have never even tried.
Troubador: James. Somebody else found a defect in the Zeiss SF. We need to get over to Bird Forum ASAP.
Tell Torview and Perterra to get over there quick we need to defend the SF.
James : Was it Highnorth AGAIN? I am busy right now but I will get on the computer here in a few minutes.
Has Dennis seen it yet? What kind of defect was it this time?
Troubador : I guess some wahoo's hinge's are rusting. He is probably sweating all over it or something. No, I
don't think Dennis has seen it but he will be all over it soon so we need to act fast. Are the
problems never going to end with this darn Zeiss SF? This is starting to look bad for Zeiss and it is
going to hurt our resale. We need to bury this problem fast and list all the good things about the Zeiss SF. God
I wish I would have bought a Swaro.
James : Do you think we could hire a hit man and get Dennis wacked? We need to silence that darn
Globetrotter too. He keeps saying bad things about the Zeiss SF. That Sanjay isn't helping either.
All these people keep finding problems with the Zeiss. I wish they would shut up.
Troubador : Well meet me over at Bird Forum we need to amass an all out assault pronto. See you over there.
These are not quotes by these people. This is just an attempt at comedy and a way to diffuse any ill feelings over anything said in this thread.
Tell Torview and Perterra to get over there quick we need to defend the SF.
James : Was it Highnorth AGAIN? I am busy right now but I will get on the computer here in a few minutes.
Has Dennis seen it yet? What kind of defect was it this time?
Troubador : I guess some wahoo's hinge's are rusting. He is probably sweating all over it or something. No, I
don't think Dennis has seen it but he will be all over it soon so we need to act fast. Are the
problems never going to end with this darn Zeiss SF? This is starting to look bad for Zeiss and it is
going to hurt our resale. We need to bury this problem fast and list all the good things about the Zeiss SF. God
I wish I would have bought a Swaro.
James : Do you think we could hire a hit man and get Dennis wacked? We need to silence that darn
Globetrotter too. He keeps saying bad things about the Zeiss SF. That Sanjay isn't helping either.
All these people keep finding problems with the Zeiss. I wish they would shut up.
Troubador : Well meet me over at Bird Forum we need to amass an all out assault pronto. See you over there.
These are not quotes by these people. This is just an attempt at comedy and a way to diffuse any ill feelings over anything said in this thread.
Last edited:
