Optical comparison of Habicht 10x40 and HT (or FL) 10x42 (1 Viewer)

[hopster]

Hi hopster,

I have had, at the same time, all 10x42/40, the FL and Habicht (actual iteration), and HT and Habicht. Now, I have the Habicht alone....
In another post you participate, I wrote that, comparing the two samples I had, like the FL instead the HT because the unacceptable the milky veiling glare of the HT. A pity because, in my opinion, the HT is superior in all other ways specially its great ergonomics, focusing wheel and diopter adjustment design.
I must say these Zeiss (to me the FL but perhaps the HT to others) and the Habicht are different instruments. I like both.
The difference in brightness or light transmission is not significant to even mention it.
The control of the CA was superb in both Zeiss and is almost as good in the Habicht.
The central "sharpness" are great in Zeiss and Habicht. In my samples, the FL, a superb one!!!, had an unmatched sharpness or resolution!!! In all the Habicht I have had, various ages, the central resolution was also great!!
Now, the Zeiss have noticeable better short distance focusing and eye releif (not an issue for me because I don´t use eyeglasses).
I miss that FL and, if I find a good deal occacion on one, I will buy it.
In 2019, when I bought this late Habicht in Europe, I did compare some top roof ones: Zeiss SF, Swarovski EL, Ultravid HD+ and the Noctivid, all 10x42. The Leicas, both the UVHD+ and Noctivid really impressed me! I had forgotten that superb "rich" Leica view!!!! Along with a top lightweight 8x20/25, one of the Leicas will be my next, and last binocular I will buy.

Good luck!

PHA

Thanks very much PHA, lots of food for thought there.

For your 8x25 can I recommend the Zeiss Victory Pocket as the best option optically - better than anything else I have looked through. Unbelievably sharp and with a surprisingly bright and wide FOV for a pocket binocular. Also the single hinge design is much easier to use in my experience.

 

[PHA]

Thank you hopster!!

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks very much PHA, lots of food for thought there.

For your 8x25 can I recommend the Zeiss Victory Pocket as the best option optically - better than anything else I have looked through. Unbelievably sharp and with a surprisingly bright and wide FOV for a pocket binocular. Also the single hinge design is much easier to use in my experience.

If you don't wear glasses, the Zeiss Victory 8x25 has too much ER for the length of the eye cups, and it is essentially a floater. Avoid it unless you wear glasses, unless you want to get aftermarket eye cups.

 

[hopster]

If you don't wear glasses, the Zeiss Victory 8x25 has too much ER for the length of the eye cups, and it is essentially a floater. Avoid it unless you wear glasses, unless you want to get aftermarket eye cups.

I use rubber eye cups and they work very well. Actually I use them with all my bins, but they are particularly useful with the VP 8x25. I believe the outer diameter of the eye cup is 33mm but I can check. There are all sorts of options on eBay for ~£5.

I'm always surprised if people decide not to use this unique bin for that reason when such a cheap and easy solution is available.

 

[hopster]

So here is my story from today...

I went to a specialist birders binocular shop in the UK and after many weeks of research and trying out different optics I finally decided to buy something because it impressed me and was the right price - a second hand Zeiss HT 10x42 which they had. The external glass surfaces and focuser were pristine.

The sharpness and brightness is outstanding, the transparency is excellent, the colour balance is pretty neutral (maybe a bit less reds than the Noctivid) and there is almost no CA to be seen anywhere. Unlike many binoculars I look through they really impressed me (just like the HT 8x42). So I took them home (a 2 hour drive back) and when I got home I looked across the valley behind my house with a grey overcast sky and noticed to my surprise and horror that there are marks in the left telescope, about 85-90% out. Two quite large ones at 10 o’clock, one small one at 2 o’clock and another small one at 6 o’clock. The right telescope is perfect.

After a day taken off work, all that driving and the culmination of many weeks of research and other driving around to look at examples I was pretty disappointed, because the image itself is excellent – maybe even better than the 8x42. I first of all assumed the worst i.e. a fault in the prisms or lenses, but then I wondered if this was just dust inside? I am going to call the shop tomorrow to discuss this. I am sure he will refund me if necessary but after all the effort I was very happy to have found what I was looking for (they are pretty rare now), and so I am pretty disappointed at this outcome. If it’s a fault in the glass then I don’t think I can live with the distraction, if it’s dust then this is inconvenient but I guess it means that it can be dealt with in time and returned to a pristine state.

Today was also my first chance to have a really thorough look through a Leica Noctivid, both 8x and 10x. I was again immediately impressed by the colour rendition, the contrast, the centre sharpness and the ability to ‘look into shadows’ and see shapes and textures better than most other optics (maybe not the HTs). It is also beautifully built. However….. I have ~-2.5 optical prescription and it seems that the Noctivid is another design (like the SW SLC and NL) that hardly provides enough focus leeway for me to get to infinity without glasses. So this means I may not be able to look at the stars with the naked eye – only wearing glasses – and working at long distances will have me almost right up against the focus end stop. The other problem is well-known; CA. I found that the CA can be eliminated (or at least reduced to a similar level to other alpha optics) by very precise eye positioning. However, this makes them very fussy to operate and I think this would become an annoyance in actual use. And if one does not position the eye very carefully the CA will undoubtedly make an appearance even in the centre with very thin lime green and magenta lines. What a shame! The image is so nice otherwise.

 

[Patudo]

There's nowt wrong with buying secondhand (all mine were) - but you need to remember they are sold "as is" and need to be checked thoroughly before you buy. Also, if you do a few searches on this forum, you'll find foreign objects have sometimes been reported even in brand new binoculars.

Zeiss will service your binocular. Contact Gary Hawkins at East Coast Binocular Repairs - he'll give you an accurate lowdown on costs, timeframe etc.

 

[lmans66]

Get the HT..... looks better if nothing else in my humble opinion. I know we brought up the Noctivid but in your situation and where you bird, I would get the HT.... best of luck, Jim

 

[hopster]

Get the HT..... looks better if nothing else in my humble opinion. I know we brought up the Noctivid but in your situation and where you bird, I would get the HT.... best of luck, Jim

I already did Jim! The 10x42. It is just superb, despite what I hope is just dust in the left telescope and which I am told will be sorted out for me at no charge as described in post #25.

The balance of extreme sharpness, brightness even in dim light, a natural 'transparency', even colour tone and an almost total lack of CA is beyond anything else I have looked through over the last few months - which has been basically everything at the top of the quality spectrum. I am not used to a 10x but it's remarkable what can be pulled into clear view. For extended viewing I am improving my holding skills, finding natural resting points and have discovered how well one of my telescopic walking poles works as a monopod - easy to set up and very stable. I tend to take one with me anyway so this is for free.

I have already seen Buzzards circling below me when on top of a hill, Kestrels hunting in a nearby field hanging motionless in the stiff coastal breeze, Chough digging for food, ships in the Bristol channel, individual cars on the other side of the channel in Devon (able to distinguish colour and size of each) and a clear moon last night covered in tiny craters and subtle textures - all with a clarity and ease which I have never experienced before with my own optics. I don't think it gets much (any?) better than this and so my search for a 10x is now officially over unless the left telescope artefacts are difficult to resolve.

There have not been many x42 optics that gave me such a 'WOW' factor whilst I have been doing my research. The 8x42 HT did and so did the 8x and 10x Noctivids. Their 'wow' was colour saturation, contrast (both of which were a little bit better than the HTs), the ability to 'look into shadows' and a very good central sharpness. However, I found that the CA even in the centre could become distracting unless the eye was positioned exactly right which felt like quite a hassle compared to the HTs where you can basically ignore this issue. Perhaps there is a Noctivid+ on the drawing board somewhere which would address this? I would like to look through that. I also think that the A-K prism provides a kind of unique transparency or immediacy, rather like a good Porro, which even the best S-Ps cannot quite manage.

I should give honourable mentions to some other models that I really liked. The Habicht 10x40 which also had that transparency and a very natural colour tone, though the lack of eye relief and difficult focus wheel could both be a practical challenge for me I think. Perhaps not quite as sharp as the HT over the central 80% usage area either - though I haven't compared them side-by-side. The Kahles Helia S (= late Swaro SLC) which had a very nice image though perhaps with less natural colour balance and a focuser that I didn't like. Also, the Opticron Aurora which in both 8x and 10x seems to provide a package that is smaller and cheaper than this rarified group and yet approximately comparable in some optical qualities. I think of it as Noctivid-lite; lighter, similar colour balance (though with less saturation and contrast), not quite the subtlety looking into shadows but at the same time less CA and easier eye positioning. I didn't yet find one with a really smooth focuser though.

Of course the SF, EL and NL provide a technical masterclass in wide FOV and sharpness too which immediately impress, but after a while the NL view seemed a bit unnatural and glary to my eyes, and the SF was a little too dull in terms of contrast and colour saturation compared to the HT and Noctivid despite the best handling of anything I tried.

 

[Kolyma]

Interesting! I have just found a used Zeiss 10x42 T*FL and a Swarovski EL 10x42 WB (the old one before Swarovision) and having a hard time to make a choice. Both are sold by different Stores. According to the EL seller the EL i better used because the coating of this Zeiss model is known for beeing an issue of release/“staining” - I have not found any info on that anywhere else. Do you know anything about that?
Also the EL had been serviced a year ago which is a plus.
I asked the store that sells the Zeiss but got no answer about the coating.
Which of these would You choose?
Both are the same second hand price.

 

[hopster]

For me they would both be lacking deeper reds in the image which robs it of natural warmth. I have realised now that I like the Leica/Meopta/Nikon 'house styles' where all the red is present. To generalise somewhat: Swaro tends to lose too much red and increase the blue giving a cool/clinical tone, Zeiss tends to lose both blue and red giving a slight green emphasis. Having said that, I did own the HT 10x42 which is very similar to the T*FL but a bit brighter, a better focuser, a little more blue in the image and maybe a bit more contrast too. A very good binocular actually, but still lacking red/warmth somewhat to my eyes. I'm not a big fan of the EL due to colour tone, glare performance, focuser and in the WB quite a bit of lateral CA. At least the armour won't fall off though! Some people love it though, as always.

It might be an option to consider the Meopta Meostar HD B1+ 10x42. Little/no CA, nice colour balance (recent ones are not too yellow like they used to be years ago), a good focuser, excellent build quality backed by a 30 year warranty and it might even be cheaper new than your two used options?

 

[tenex]

Interesting! I have just found a used Zeiss 10x42 T*FL and a Swarovski EL 10x42 WB (the old one before Swarovision) and having a hard time to make a choice. Both are sold by different Stores. According to the EL seller the EL i better used because the coating of this Zeiss model is known for beeing an issue of release/“staining” - I have not found any info on that anywhere else...

Can't be sure, but suspect he's talking about hydrophobic coatings on the outer lenses which cause water to bead off and are easy to clean. EL would have this ("Swaroclean"); FL might or not ("Lotutec") depending on age, indicated by a small arc added over the "10x42" label on the underside. It's a useful feature but opinions vary on how important.

These are interestingly different bins; most would quickly prefer one to the other, for handling as well as optical character. EL is sharp in the outer edges of the field; FL has not only some field curvature, but also aberrations giving blurry effects at the edge which some don't mind although I do. Otherwise FL is also excellent. Welcome to Birdforum, by the way.

 

[Kolyma]

Thank you both for the great response.
i will look into the Meopta.
Having used a Leica Ultravid BR 8x42 at least for 15 years I am used to the warmer white balance and colors so the transfer to a more cooler might not be the right thing for me, just as I prefer Fujifilm over Sony mirrorless cameras/lenses. But is it easier to notice a small bird in a autumn grass field with a cooler tone a dull day?
I have also found a used Leica Ultravid 10x50 HD which certainly is great but perhaps a bit big and heavy at 1000g for birding long hours?
New 10x42 ones I tried at local shop is
Leica Trinovid
Zeiss Conquest HD
Zeiss SFL 10x40, crazy lightweight <700g!
Khales Helia (surprised me, but a swaro right?)

There is also the thing with DOF and fokus quickness; the SFL was very fast to fokus - maybe to sensitive to eager finger movement ) if a rare birds comes into frame? Actually I don’t know what I prefer in the field…
Have a good day

 

[hopster]

Thank you both for the great response.
i will look into the Meopta.
Having used a Leica Ultravid BR 8x42 at least for 15 years I am used to the warmer white balance and colors so the transfer to a more cooler might not be the right thing for me, just as I prefer Fujifilm over Sony mirrorless cameras/lenses. But is it easier to notice a small bird in a autumn grass field with a cooler tone a dull day?
I have also found a used Leica Ultravid 10x50 HD which certainly is great but perhaps a bit big and heavy at 1000g for birding long hours?
New 10x42 ones I tried at local shop is
Leica Trinovid
Zeiss Conquest HD
Zeiss SFL 10x40, crazy lightweight <700g!
Khales Helia (surprised me, but a swaro right?)

There is also the thing with DOF and fokus quickness; the SFL was very fast to fokus - maybe to sensitive to eager finger movement ) if a rare birds comes into frame? Actually I don’t know what I prefer in the field…
Have a good day

Let us know how you get on with the Meopta. If it has enough ER, you might be surprised how much you like it. I think of the HD models as cousins of Leica but cheaper and with less CA!

In terms of the weight of a big glass, I am increasingly taking my 12x50 out for the birding I do around here which tends to be at long distances and in the open. I have converted a walking pole into a customised monopod and I attach the binocular to the straps on my backpack so that the weight is taken on my shoulders like a harness. This means that I honestly hardly notice the extra weight at the end of a long day. Both of these are 'for free' because I would always take a backpack and walking pole anyway.

The Conquest I looked through did not impress me. In a direct comparison between the 8x's I preferred the image quality in the cheaper and smaller Opticron Aurora which is also available in 10x.

The Trinovids I have looked through (not the 10x42) had a bit too much CA for my liking, and the focuser did not feel great either.

The Khales Helia S is the most recent Swaro SLC in rather tasteless clothing. The 10x42 is an excellent optic if you like the slooow focuser and longer minimum focus. I would compare against the Meostar and see what you prefer, ideally over a period of time in various viewing situations and conditions. Without the S I believe it's a rebranded MIJ optic and I have not looked through it.

 

[Patudo]

For me they would both be lacking deeper reds in the image which robs it of natural warmth. I have realised now that I like the Leica/Meopta/Nikon 'house styles' where all the red is present. To generalise somewhat: Swaro tends to lose too much red and increase the blue giving a cool/clinical tone, Zeiss tends to lose both blue and red giving a slight green emphasis.

This is very personal/subjective though. I didn't realize there were differences in how people see things in terms of colour until it was pointed out here; then I realized one of my own eyes sees things a little greener, the other a little redder.

Also, from what I've seen, colour casts (if they can even be described as that) today are very much less pronounced than in older binoculars. The demand amongst birders for a more neutral image (to render plumage shades as accurately as possible) has, I think, been listened to in manufacturers whose products are aimed at that market.

I wonder whether some folks are more able to accommodate/more adaptable in this regard than others. I do notice changes in colour hue (albeit subtle) immediately upon going from Nikon to Swarovski etc but after a few minutes my eyes/brain seem to adapt to what I'm seeing.

 

[hopster]

This is very personal/subjective though. I didn't realize there were differences in how people see things in terms of colour until it was pointed out here; then I realized one of my own eyes sees things a little greener, the other a little redder.

Also, from what I've seen, colour casts (if they can even be described as that) today are very much less pronounced than in older binoculars. The demand amongst birders for a more neutral image (to render plumage shades as accurately as possible) has, I think, been listened to in manufacturers whose products are aimed at that market.

I wonder whether some folks are more able to accommodate/more adaptable in this regard than others. I do notice changes in colour hue (albeit subtle) immediately upon going from Nikon to Swarovski etc but after a few minutes my eyes/brain seem to adapt to what I'm seeing.

Yes one of my eyes is consistently a warmer colour tone (the right one I think).

The plots on Albinos and House of Outdoors correlate pretty well with what I see in terms of balance if not absolute level, so I don't think it's entirely subjective. It's closely related to frequency response plots of loudspeakers and microphones. I used to be a recording engineer and then a loudspeaker designer, and you could learn quite a lot about how a transducer would sound just by looking at a carefully measured frequency response.

I do miss red/warmth in binoculars that roll off too quickly at the longer wavelengths. Leica and Nikon don't, and neither do Meopta mostly. Too much at the shorter wavelengths (as in many Swarovskis which have a bump up below a notch at about 540 nm across various models) produce a blueish tone which I find too cool/clinical and a bit hard on the eyes in bright sunlight. It also makes grey waves, clouds and shadows bluer than seen by the naked eye, for me anyway.