• 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)

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Hi Vespobuteo

I am intrigued to know why you have recommended the 8X32. As I have already said, I am a 10X man and have been for many years. I do not want an 8X pair of binos.

Also, as I have already said, as part of testing binoculars before buying the EL 10X50, I tested the EL 10X32, which I found less good than the EL 10X 42, which in turn was less good than the EL 10X50.

I purchased the EL 10X50 after a much Internet research and over 3 hours of side by side testing. That is not to say that I have made the right decision, which is why I am curious to know why you think the 8X32 is the right pair for me. You may be right!!

However, I am delighted with the EL 10X50 and, on the face of it, the 8X32 seems to tick none of my boxes!!

Rolstone
I understand your desire for 10x. You can see more detail especially if you are lucky enough to be able to hold the binocular steady as you say. 10x doesn't have the DOF like an 8x but at the end of the day it shows you more of the bird and has more reach at long distances. It is logical that you liked the 50mm best. It is simply going to outperform a 42mm.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Hi there!
As an owner of a SF 10x42 I'm trying to be as objective as possible. Dennis, there's bad reviews even on the best products. Such reviews are often tainted by people's personal likings. Sometimes reviews can help when deciding on what to buy, sometimes not. Most reviews of the Zeiss Victory SF are very good.
As for "fogged up oculars", this is neither a problem nor a fault by Zeiss. If circumstances are right, every ocular can fog up. Sometimes just one ocular fogs up, e.g. when the other has been lying in the sun, heating up.
"Rusting hinges": as far as I know there has been one report of something like rust on one Victory SF. So using the plural is already over-exaggerated. By the way, we do not know the exact conditions leading to the rusting hinge, maybe (and now I'm over exaggerating) it had been lying in saltwater for a couple of weeks. Conclusion: NOT a real problem.
"Staining": again, we do not know the exact cause for those barely visible brownish stains that one user experienced. Maybe someone with self-tanning lotion on their hands touched the SF, who knows. Nothing but speculation. As long as there are not hundreds of reports of stained armoring this is - again - NOT a real problem.
"Flecks" inside the optics: as long as they don't interfere with the optical quality, not a problem. Also, if you look for dust particles, you'll find them. Take any highly expensive telephoto lens, shine a flashlight through it and you'll be surprised how many particles are in there. If you don't like dust in your optics, don't look for it.
Loose armor: I don't know how many reports of loose armor there have been, but I guess this has been an issue with early production units. I've handled 3 Victory SFs, and none had loose armor. Conclusion: not a problem (anymore).
Low contrast: let's just use a different term for that: higher dynamic range. Wow, sounds cool. Must be a nice feature. Where other binoculars are only able to resolve black parts of the image, with the Victory SF you see more details in those former black areas. It's all up to your personal likings, and NOT A PROBLEM.
Finally, "broken parts": sometimes, when you drop something, it breaks. Big deal. Maybe HighNorth was just unlucky, and it dropped exactly in that way that made it brake. Of 1000 drops, this could have been the one drop that was exactly right (or wrong) to destroy the pairs of binoculars. AND nevertheless Zeiss took care of that by sending out a replacement for free. Problem? I don't think so.

I am extremely happy with my Victory SF. In my opinion, it's the best pair of binoculars I have ever used, better than the Swaro SV 10x50 or any other pair. But that's just me, others may like a Swaro or Leica better, for whatever reason.
So Dennis, please stop reporting on all those made-up "problems" of the new Zeiss. Buy one, don't buy one, I don't care, but if you want to report something, let it be reports of you actually using it!
Thanks for reading. Now I'm off birding!
I still think it unusual for one ocular to fog up because in a lot of birding I have never had it happen. Not saying it couldn't but just unusual. I don't think the Zeiss SF were left in salt water and I believe it is a problem if they rust that easily. It could be that they are rusting from the salt air but that IS a problem for someone living near the coast. The people that had staining said they were not wearing tanning lotion and I personally would not like my $2500 binoculars to develop a stain. None of my binoculars even my less expensive ones have ever STAINED. The staining is a problem if it happens to only a few people. There is something wrong with the armour. Flecks may not be a problem , as far as, the optical performance but they should not be there on a binocular as expensive as the Zeiss SF. None of my binoculars have ever had flecks inside them and if they did I would say it is a lack of QA by the manufacturer. There have been quite a few complaints of loose armour on the Zeiss including this users. No binocular should have loose armour and it remains to be seen if the problem has been solved. A lot of people would consider low contrast a problem or weak point of the binoculars. I personally would because I really appreciate good contrast so if somebody says a binocular has low contrast it is a red flag for me. Others may differ. I feel the drop by HighNorth that cause his binoculars to break might be due to some weakness in the SF construction. I really don't think all binoculars would have broken that easily but that is my opinion. And to conclude I am NOT the one reporting all these problems. These are all different people reporting different problems. I am just commenting on them and I don't feel the problems should just be ignored. And lastly I don't think these are "Made Up" problems. Did HighNorth make up the rusty hinges? Was the staining just somebodies illusion? I don't think so.
 

perterra

Well-known member
I still think it unusual for one ocular to fog up because in a lot of birding I have never had it happen. Not saying it couldn't but just unusual. I don't think the Zeiss SF were left in salt water and I believe it is a problem if they rust that easily. It could be that they are rusting from the salt air but that IS a problem for someone living near the coast. The people that had staining said they were not wearing tanning lotion and I personally would not like my $2500 binoculars to develop a stain. None of my binoculars even my less expensive ones have ever STAINED. The staining is a problem if it happens to only a few people. There is something wrong with the armour. Flecks may not be a problem , as far as, the optical performance but they should not be there on a binocular as expensive as the Zeiss SF. None of my binoculars have ever had flecks inside them and if they did I would say it is a lack of QA by the manufacturer. There have been quite a few complaints of loose armour on the Zeiss including this users. No binocular should have loose armour and it remains to be seen if the problem has been solved. A lot of people would consider low contrast a problem or weak point of the binoculars. I personally would because I really appreciate good contrast so if somebody says a binocular has low contrast it is a red flag for me. Others may differ. I feel the drop by HighNorth that cause his binoculars to break might be due to some weakness in the SF construction. I really don't think all binoculars would have broken that easily but that is my opinion. And to conclude I am NOT the one reporting all these problems. These are all different people reporting different problems. I am just commenting on them and I don't feel the problems should just be ignored. And lastly I don't think these are "Made Up" problems. Did HighNorth make up the rusty hinges? Was the staining just somebodies illusion? I don't think so.

But for some reason someone can post that they like their SF, and you pop in and drag all this crap in with you. North had some issues, North owns a Swaro, North has said even with the problems it's still the one he turns to. But you don't even acknowledge those comments. Running everyone elses binocular down doesnt make you are your swaro look any better. Nope, there's an agenda behind your postings.

Like I said, buy one, then when you post it wont be speculation. But I do understand not everyone can afford something like an SF.
 

Torview

Registered User
Supporter
Tell Torview and Perterra to get over there quick we need to defend the SF.

[

Not sure where you`v read me defending the SF, if you were`nt aware I bought an SV 8x32.

Early samples I tried did`nt blow me away, I think its too big, and it does`nt feel as premium given the price as the SV to me.

But, its ok for me to write these findings because I`V TRIED SEVERAL.

Any opinion you post on the SF until you`v tried one is not helpful to anyone looking to buy, although you seem to assume you`re doing the world a great service.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
But for some reason someone can post that they like their SF, and you pop in and drag all this crap in with you. North had some issues, North owns a Swaro, North has said even with the problems it's still the one he turns to. But you don't even acknowledge those comments. Running everyone elses binocular down doesnt make you are your swaro look any better. Nope, there's an agenda behind your postings.

Like I said, buy one, then when you post it wont be speculation. But I do understand not everyone can afford something like an SF.
I would not buy one sight unseen for sure with all the problems reported. If I looked at one and was blown away by the optics then maybe but it doesn't sound like outside of the bigger FOV and better balance it doesn't offer anything more than any of the alpha's.
 

perterra

Well-known member
I would not buy one sight unseen for sure with all the problems reported. If I looked at one and was blown away by the optics then maybe but it doesn't sound like outside of the bigger FOV and better balance it doesn't offer anything more than any of the alpha's.

I dont know, North seems to think it offers something.
 

Sanjay Naithani

Well-known member
There is no point of fighting over which is best. What is best today may not be tomorrow. I am sure ZEiss, Swarovski and Leica are all great brands with great products. We will have to wait and see which one of them would be liked the most by users. Only time to come will determine this.sales number will be on way to see that in future. I strongly feel that consistency in quality is still to be most desired from all three brands.

Sanjay
 

HighNorth

Well-known member
Here is the review:

User: J.JIMENEZ
IP 193.152.x.x
Date: 2015-07-29 14:22:22
Owner since: 6 months
Price: 2200 euros
User profile: Amateur

Cons: Low contrast compared to LEICA AND SWAROVSKI. Low definition, distant birds and letters are not very well defined, the outline of objets are not so clear. Too bright view on sunny days. The view looks a little bit overexposed killing the contrast. Feels weak, Rubber armour not very well glued to binocular body more and more feel it loose.
Pros: Hue field of view. The same detail can be seen with zeiss leica and swarovski so identical resolution but lower quality with objets outline definition.
Summary: Better for cloudy days and low light conditions.


My biggest concern with this review is his saying distant bird and letters not well defined. The binocular feels weak and the rubber not being glued to the body comment are not good either. Hmmmmm.

I don't share this assessment at all.

HN
 

Houdiny

Well-known member
If I looked at one and was blown away by the optics then maybe but it doesn't sound like outside of the bigger FOV and better balance it doesn't offer anything more than any of the alpha's.

Then why don't you go to a store and try them out? Reading about "all those problems" and persisting on their existence without having actually experienced "those problems" on your own is very strange behavior.
If you like the SF in the store and IF (and that's another big IF) you experience any kind of problem (there might even occur new and actual problems on your binoculars that you can tell the rest of the world about, that's something, innit?) after you've bought them, I'm sure Zeiss will help you out and make it right. So no worries.
I've compared the Victory SF to the Swarovski 10x50 and 10x42 binoculars and found it to suit my needs better. You make having a bigger FOV sound like it was no big deal, but it is! It's just great and it makes using the SF a real joy. The sharpness of the SF and the Swaro SV 10x42 was equally good. Colors were just a tad warmer (but still very accurate) on the Zeiss if I recall correctly.
Additionally, the lighter weight made the Zeiss the better offer.
There's just one thing I liked better on the Swaros, the eyecups. (Although the eyecups on my model seem to be better than the ones on that particular unit, the clicky stops feel more accurate on my SF).
Do yourself the favor and stop finding excuses for not buying the SF before you've actually tried them. No hard feelings, right?

All the best,
Martin
 

HighNorth

Well-known member
I know some will say this is a minor aspect yet I would appreciate an answer from those who have used the SF for some time: I believe such long bins will bounce and swing quite a bit at the end of a neck strap carried around one's neck, but I might be wrong (I have tried the SF 10x42 but only in a shop and without any neck strap or harness). Peter.

I have tried the SFs with the Swarovski harness, and the length has no impact on bounce or swing. I actually find that the added weight of the bin makes it less likely to bob around than my 8x32 EL SV, which is lighter (and also shorter by the way). Once I tried jumping up and down with the 8x32 on the harness, and it nearly hit me in the face! ;)

HN
 

Kammerdiner

Well-known member
...
Once I tried jumping up and down with the 8x32 on the harness, and it nearly hit me in the face! ;)

HN

Better than dropping it on a stone floor I guess. ;)

I predict Dennis will get a 10x50 SV, rave about it, then decide it's too heavy (remember the 8x56 FL episode?) then get an 8x42 SF, and rave about that for a while, and then...well that's as far as I can go. Some things remain a mystery. Whatever happens, he's fun to have around.

Mark
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Then why don't you go to a store and try them out? Reading about "all those problems" and persisting on their existence without having actually experienced "those problems" on your own is very strange behavior.
If you like the SF in the store and IF (and that's another big IF) you experience any kind of problem (there might even occur new and actual problems on your binoculars that you can tell the rest of the world about, that's something, innit?) after you've bought them, I'm sure Zeiss will help you out and make it right. So no worries.
I've compared the Victory SF to the Swarovski 10x50 and 10x42 binoculars and found it to suit my needs better. You make having a bigger FOV sound like it was no big deal, but it is! It's just great and it makes using the SF a real joy. The sharpness of the SF and the Swaro SV 10x42 was equally good. Colors were just a tad warmer (but still very accurate) on the Zeiss if I recall correctly.
Additionally, the lighter weight made the Zeiss the better offer.
There's just one thing I liked better on the Swaros, the eyecups. (Although the eyecups on my model seem to be better than the ones on that particular unit, the clicky stops feel more accurate on my SF).
Do yourself the favor and stop finding excuses for not buying the SF before you've actually tried them. No hard feelings, right?

All the best,
Martin
I like the Swaro eyecups better than any binocular. Really there is no place around here to try a Zeiss SF out. Not even Cabella's carry them in stock.
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
I have tried the SFs with the Swarovski harness, and the length has no impact on bounce or swing. I actually find that the added weight of the bin makes it less likely to bob around than my 8x32 EL SV, which is lighter (and also shorter by the way). Once I tried jumping up and down with the 8x32 on the harness, and it nearly hit me in the face!

HN

I thought that the length combined with shifting the weight towards the oculars would make them bounce around, which might be irritating. Good to know that I was wrong! (or was it the Swaro harness that really helped?....)

Does anyone have any info (or speculation....) as to when the SF 32 will be out? It seems likely that the SF 50 will be out first.

Peter.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Oh, ok. You should visit Germany then! 😜 I guess the stores in every bigger city got them!
Figures. Not any of our sporting goods store out here carry any high end Zeiss. They have a few Conquest's and Terra's and that is about it but they have most of the high end Swaro's.
 

perterra

Well-known member
Figures. Not any of our sporting goods store out here carry any high end Zeiss. They have a few Conquest's and Terra's and that is about it but they have most of the high end Swaro's.

Cabelas Fort Worth has more Zeiss than they do Swaro. Didnt see an SF 3 or 4 months ago, but every other choice was there.
 

simple

Inglorious Bustards
I have tried the SFs with the Swarovski harness, and the length has no impact on bounce or swing. I actually find that the added weight of the bin makes it less likely to bob around than my 8x32 EL SV, which is lighter (and also shorter by the way). Once I tried jumping up and down with the 8x32 on the harness, and it nearly hit me in the face! ;)

HN


In actual fact the SF balancing means it sticks closer to your chest when running for rare! ....I've never had a bin that stuck like that before it makes for comfortable wearing as a result.
 

simple

Inglorious Bustards
I still think it unusual for one ocular to fog up because in a lot of birding I have never had it happen. Not saying it couldn't but just unusual. I don't think the Zeiss SF were left in salt water and I believe it is a problem if they rust that easily. It could be that they are rusting from the salt air but that IS a problem for someone living near the coast. The people that had staining said they were not wearing tanning lotion and I personally would not like my $2500 binoculars to develop a stain. None of my binoculars even my less expensive ones have ever STAINED. The staining is a problem if it happens to only a few people. There is something wrong with the armour. Flecks may not be a problem , as far as, the optical performance but they should not be there on a binocular as expensive as the Zeiss SF. None of my binoculars have ever had flecks inside them and if they did I would say it is a lack of QA by the manufacturer. There have been quite a few complaints of loose armour on the Zeiss including this users. No binocular should have loose armour and it remains to be seen if the problem has been solved. A lot of people would consider low contrast a problem or weak point of the binoculars. I personally would because I really appreciate good contrast so if somebody says a binocular has low contrast it is a red flag for me. Others may differ. I feel the drop by HighNorth that cause his binoculars to break might be due to some weakness in the SF construction. I really don't think all binoculars would have broken that easily but that is my opinion. And to conclude I am NOT the one reporting all these problems. These are all different people reporting different problems. I am just commenting on them and I don't feel the problems should just be ignored. And lastly I don't think these are "Made Up" problems. Did HighNorth make up the rusty hinges? Was the staining just somebodies illusion? I don't think so.

Loose armour - seen 6 samples never seen any problems with loose armour
Rusty washer - I dunno look more discolouration to me not rust, but it maybe a fault...perhaps.
Staining - can't see any staining here and I've been wandering through mud and shite most weeks, sweat and blood on them (yup!) is this really a problem, it didn't actually look that bad to me, just like sweaty paw marks!
Internals - yup my Swaro certainly had flecks of something in them, probably silicon or something, I wasn't very worried about that as it never effected the view (and yes that was from new!) my swaro scope has some too, nay bother! (actually my swaro scope has taken on a yellow hue too! but only in certain light!)
Contrast - not sure what people are saying here, my view is if you are in a rainforest (for instance) then the zeiss will significantly outperform the swaro as it has a clearer image with truer colours, but that is just personal preference, I tried them with swaro side by side on the rainiest of darkest days and concluded that I could see more colours more clearly than the swaro ...that was what I thought.
Dropping bins - drop a swaro right on the bridge like that and see what happens! can't fault the strength of these bins, they look pretty robust to me but I'm not about to check with a hammer, throw them on the floor or drive my x-trail over them!...if I do I'll check back!
Ocular fog - Can't believe this is even being debated! please stop! :eek!: This is a non issue as fogging happens for a variety of reasons - breathing! sweating! heating! ..........I can continue! if it ain't inside it don't matter (no coating will stop external fogging due to temp change etc).
Eyecups - just like the old FL (mostly), no problems with that. What I did have with the Swaro is the rubber bit linked to the metal bit (tech speak!) distorts a lot on the metal after a while and spins or worse still you look down and it's gone lying next to the Trogon you never saw!
Focus - I do however think there is some inconsistency in the focus, granted. I think some units can be a bit 'stiff' but I'm sure they break in, mine is easy going, but I know the model I tried had a little to much resistance for my liking but I could have lived with it, but I reckon folk will panic and send them back before breaking them in....from what I hear it moves about well after a bit of use....happy days!

I have experienced plenty of consistency problems in Swaro, can't say for Leica never had one, but Swaro are not beyond their own issues. I learnt from one major optic retailer that they have less issues with Zeiss than any other brand (not sure if this includes the SF's however) being sent for repairs and faults....take from that what you will!

If anyone was reading this and thinking of buying an SF they would be sorely mistaken thinking there were problems that swaro will never have, there is often a blind loyalty to the old faithful green machine! (I should say Swaro are very good too!....not as good as the SF for my needs though!;))
 

SuperDuty

Well-known member
I'm a satisfied green owner, but I will definitely take a look at the SF, as well as the 10X50 SV when the new local Cabelas opens. Higher contrast levels seem to always hide shadow details whether it be digital images, HDTV displays, optics, etc. On my plasma, to get the highest level of detail in dark areas, I always end up with a somewhat washed out look on quite a bit of material. Electronics might be able to overcome this, a non digital optical system, I'm not sure. It's always about tradeoffs.

Robert
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top