Is there a reason the Leica Noctivid is not in the running?
Myself, I've been considering switching to the Noctivid or SF from Swarovision 8.5s. I need a new pair of bins like
I need a new hole in my head, but have had the Swaros for a few years and I'm getting itchy for a new full size pair. Plus the focus wheel is somewhat irritating with differing force needed depending on direction (CW vs CWW) and the 2.5 turn range has resulted in a few missed birds.
Is there a reason the Leica Noctivid is not in the running?
As I recall, one of the most frequently mentioned gripes with the SF was the poor, 'plasticky' quality of the eyecups. Don't know if this still applies but it's worth looking into (pardon the pun) as they are your only interface with the binocular and their form and function are vitally important - perhaps more so than apparent weight, location of focus wheel etc.
RB
As you say there are the colour cast differences and these are valid considerations. Which one shows a better view of what you look at most/would like to look at?
Chosun :gh:
... As you say there are the colour cast differences and these are valid considerations. Which one shows a better view of what you look at most/would like to look at?
I thought the green ham colour cast of the SF was a given! :cat:...I think this is the one remaining question mark. The colour balance is the main difference I noticed between the two optically (other than FOV), and I'm not yet sure which I prefer. My impression was that I preferred the Swaro in certain light conditions, and the Zeiss in others. I've read a few complaints on BF and review sites about the 'unnatural' yellow/green cast of the SF, but as none of you has raised this as in issue in this thread, I assume this is not a problem for most people.
For me the Swarovski seems to cool, to blueish, the Zeiss a little bit to warm.
The differences would not be an issue for me, because the color differences between a sunny and a cloudy day, between staying in a wood and on the free field are much much bigger.
if you want sharp, neutral and bright why not consider the HT?
The only reason I haven't really considered the HT is that not many optics retailers stock them over here so I haven't been able to try one. The same goes for the Swarovski SLC. I do suspect that the SF would probably suit me better due to the handling and FOV, but I know I should probably make the effort to try an HT just to be sure. Its price (currently £500 less) would certainly be much easier for me to justify!
I like user reviews, not so much from those that have no experience with the binocular. :eek!:
So, take it as such. The eyecups are plastic, but work very well and just as intended. It is not an issue.
Jerry
Unfortunately 42mm HTs have been discontinued, so unless you can find one still on a dealer's shelf, it would have to be used.
Talking of used: https://www.focusoptics.eu/webshop/used-binoculars/zeiss-victory-sf-8x42-297/
And I can recommend the dealer.
Lee
I've been using SFs for the last 3 years and have used them hard on the islands off the west of Scotland in all weathers, including hours-long rain and hail. They have been knocked against rocks next to the sea, inundated with sea-spray, laid on in seaweed and bogs while I took ground-level photos and they have taken it all in their stride: no problems. I have no doubt a Swaro EL would do the same.
SF feels quite a bit lighter than an EL but actually it is not significantly lighter, it just feels that way due to the different optical train layout inside, see pic below with SF on the right. But the lighter feel of SF has made some folks think it is not as robustly built while it simply has IMHO a better balance in the hand.
Go with what your heart tells you is most appealing.
Lee
FYI Jerry, I have no axe to grind; I care not whether the OP goes for a Zeiss, Swarovski or any other marque, so long as he opts for whatever suits him best. I was merely providing info - as were others - to help him make an infiormed decision. If you take the trouble to search, there are numerous references to the 'flimsy' Victory SF eyecups in reviews on the web, including several threads on this forum. Your outburst was unfriendly, unwarranted and unhelpful and a typical 'fanboy' reaction.
RB
RB: I am not a fanboy of any brand of optics. I have read all of those
posts also, but I do have actual experience with the binocular. I do not recall any of those posts where there was an actual problem, but some were just commenting about the eyecup construction.
If you have a problem with that, then deal with it. :smoke:
Jerry
Lee,
From the photo of the cross sections it appears that the Swaro will have more weight at the objective end... have you (others) found the Zeiss easier to hold steady due to the weight distribution???
From the words in the opening post, the answer is: Zeiss SF. o
CG
ASP:
post 1...Your eyes and hands are the best qualified to decide.
That said, at the risk of stirring up Zeiss defense....
I generally buy a couple of brands and compare for a while, selling the losing bino at an acceptable loss rather than dinging the seller. Thus far, have kept the winning bino for normally, a very long time--decades type of thing. Currently my concern is not the SF as much as it is Zeiss corporate and the future direction the sport optics division may take. Will profits take a front seat to building the very best?
Can't speak to the UK. Here in the states having used both for their top of the line models, Swaro's customer service is second to none.