For those people using or have tried the Victory SF in either 8x42 or 10x42 format, I'm curious as to what you thought about its size particularly length. Has the size of it bothered anyone? I haven't had a chance to hold one, but it looks very large in the pics that I have seen.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
SF's size (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter JWalck
- Start date
NDhunter
Experienced observer
It is quite tall, but bigger is better in this case, the great handling and balance of the Victory SF, makes it one of the best handling binoculars available.
I have spent time with them all, and this one is very good, so don't be bothered by length, it is not a factor at all if you are serious about a quality binocular.
I don't play favorites.
Jerry
I have spent time with them all, and this one is very good, so don't be bothered by length, it is not a factor at all if you are serious about a quality binocular.
I don't play favorites.
Jerry
GoldenBear
Well-known member
I owned one for about a year. Longish for sure, but the rearward weight puts the balance point right in one's hand. Makes them feel lighter than they actually are.
Never an issue when I have tried it. Large field of view requires large prisms. I actually think its size increases the perception of light weight, as you expect a large binocular to be heavier. I found its balance and handling to be exceptional, very natural and instinctive in hand. But as always you should try before you buy.
I upgraded my Conquest HD 10x42 to SF; whilst the latter are considerably longer, I was amazed to find that they were much easier to hold and use. They're about the same weight, so it's all about the balance, and the extra length is irrelevant (other than optically).
I also have an FL 8x32, which I was expecting to use when I wanted a smaller, lighter binocular but, in practice, I don't find them much easier than the SF, despite being 30% lighter. The FL is a bit chunky for 8x32, of course.
I also have an FL 8x32, which I was expecting to use when I wanted a smaller, lighter binocular but, in practice, I don't find them much easier than the SF, despite being 30% lighter. The FL is a bit chunky for 8x32, of course.
Mark9473
Well-known member
Length also gives inertia, which helps steady the view.
Same holds for weight. When going for a new small model, I found that I had problems holding a 10x32 steady compared to the corresponding 8x model. With the 10x42 I have no such problems. In my case, that concerns the FL models, but I presume that conclusion is more universal.
Robert Moore
Well-known member
I have a 10x42 SF and for me it is the best 10x I have had and I have tried them all. Not even a second thought about length is is so easy to hold still. Fantastic binocular.
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
Robert, I remember you wrote a few months ago - maybe longer than that - how impressive you found the SF. May I ask what other 10x42s you've tried and/or owned?
Perhaps foolishly I was put off SF by size over a year ago when trying out full size binoculars for almost the first time; looking back the view from them (they were the 8x though) was incredible.
How do you find the steadiness when handholding your 10x42 SF compared with 7 or 8x glass in general - that is if you use either or both of those sizes at all.
Thank you,
Tom
Robert Moore
Well-known member
I can hold all of them steady but just as Lee says I can hold the 10x SF longer than any of them. The sharpness, colors, and contrast are all to my liking. It is just an impressive binocular in my opinion. I compared it with the Swarovski 10x50 field pro and the resolution of the little 42 Zeiss was equally good.
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
Thanks, Lee -- that has been my impression from both the various posts on this forum and more especially from my memory of trying out the 8x42 SF on loan over a year ago. At the time I don't think I realized how special they were but remember thinking the detail observable on birds hovering over an open field was a lot clearer and sharper than I had been getting from my existing 'normal' binoculars.
All the best,
Tom
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
Thank you, Robert - I actually have the 10x50 EL SV Field Pro and it is very fine. But my experience with a borrowed 8x42 SF leads me to think I would find even the 10x easier to keep a steady hold of than other high power glass.
Here's a strange thing: if I hold the Field Pro to look through just as a dry test I feel I can't hold them still for long enough to do them justice... BUT if I am using them properly to observe a bird or other creature somehow by using them for real they are perfectly still and sharp.
This must be at least in part an illusion: do you ever share that feeling? Perhaps it's to do with overthinking it when just trying them out on a dummy run rather than concentrating on a creature being observed!
Whatever the answer, having got the 10x50 I am very impressed by it and am pleased to have bought it. But I know I would feel as or more pleased with the SF in some but possibly not all respects.
All the best,
Tom
Last edited:
Robert Moore
Well-known member
The advantage of the Zeiss is you would be able to view much longer without fatigue setting in. It’s excellent if you want to study behavior for long periods.
SeldomPerched
Well-known member
From your and Lee's comments this is a great and rare example of a 10x design being much easier than usual to hold still, because of the ingenious balance in the design. Thank you for this info.
Tom
While I really like the SF's balance and handling, I think this is perhaps stretching it a little. In most circumstances where one is expecting to observe for long periods, one instinctively seeks to brace one's elbows, whether against some convenient piece of structure or against your knees when seated - and in that situation most binoculars can be looked through for long periods. If one had to observe from a standing position, completely freehand, with no support available, I think yes, I might be able to keep a SF to my eyes longer than something else, but I'm not sure about much longer. That's just my personal thoughts, though. For a long stint involving a lot of scanning, I'm pretty sure I would take a top class 10x50 like the SV over any 10x42, except possibly the Canon 10x42 IS.
I agree about all of those strategies for steadying binos. Standing for extended periods with unsupported arms is to be avoided if at all possible. But sometimes when encountering otters off the west of Scotland, this is what happens and for sure I can hold SFs steadier for longer than other models. As for 'much longer', the extra length of time observing and the fewer occasions of lowering the binos before the otters have departed, are enough to be noticed and appreciated. Not sure if this justifies the term 'much' although it is very nice to be able to observe an otter right up to the moment it slips behind a rock and is gone, rather than having to lower the arms and miss anything due to the need to rest them.
Lee
