So....SF 8X42 has arrived... (1 Viewer)

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Vespobuteo, post 138,
Upon visual testing of the SF compared with the SV I could not detect real differences in color reproduction judging form the way white surfaces showed up in the binocular images, so I was curious how the transmission spectra would look like. I add the data we found.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

James, post 133,
I forgot to react on your remark with regard to the transmission of the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt. You are obviously surprised by its relatively high transmission compared with the Leica's. The Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 production was stopped, if my information is correct, when Zeiss started the Victory FL production, and this Dialyt specimen is from just before that ime, so 2003 or 2004.
The high 7x42 transmission is not strange if you compare it with the 90% transmission of the 6x42 Nautic Dialyt, which was introduced in 1988 (first model with phase correction coatings). Troubadour-Lee showed a picture of it somewhere in this topic.
I add for your information the spectra from the HT 8x42 and the FL 8x42 and a list of transmission numbers for the Ultravid and Ultravid HD-plus.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[chill6x6]

A few optics pics while out birding....

So in picture one in order Zeiss SF 8X42, 10X42 HT, 10X42 SV, 8X42 UV HD+, Trinovid 8X42, and SV 8X32.


Picture TWO shows the 10X42 HT and 8X42 SF...


Picture THREE shows the size of the 8X42 SF compared to the 8X42 Trinovid and 8X32 SV.

 

[NDhunter]

So in picture one in order Zeiss SF 8X42, 10X42 HT, 10X42 SV, 8X42 UV HD+, Trinovid 8X42, and SV 8X32.


Picture TWO shows the 10X42 HT and 8X42 SF...


Picture THREE shows the size of the 8X42 SF compared to the 8X42 Trinovid and 8X42 SV.

Those are nice pics, and from what I have found bigger is better.

I suppose you agree, that seems to be the common thought on those
who have tried them.

Jerry

 

[Pileatus]

So in picture one in order Zeiss SF 8X42, 10X42 HT, 10X42 SV, 8X42 UV HD+, Trinovid 8X42, and SV 8X32.


Picture TWO shows the 10X42 HT and 8X42 SF...


Picture THREE shows the size of the 8X42 SF compared to the 8X42 Trinovid and 8X42 SV.

Pic 3 shows an 8X32 SV.

 

[ceasar]

Pic 3 shows an 8X32 SV.

I thought so. It is a pretty big 8x32.

 

[chill6x6]

Pic 3 shows an 8X32 SV.

Too many 42s! Fixed it!

 

[chill6x6]

I thought so. It is a pretty big 8x32.

It is THAT! In more ways than one! :t:

 

[chill6x6]

Those are nice pics, and from what I have found bigger is better.

I suppose you agree, that seems to be the common thought on those
who have tried them.

Jerry

I agree, in most cases. I'll tell you that SV 8X32 is SWEET.

 

[[email protected]]

So in picture one in order Zeiss SF 8X42, 10X42 HT, 10X42 SV, 8X42 UV HD+, Trinovid 8X42, and SV 8X32.


Picture TWO shows the 10X42 HT and 8X42 SF...


Picture THREE shows the size of the 8X42 SF compared to the 8X42 Trinovid and 8X32 SV.

The 8x42 SF is large but it feels LIGHT. I don't have a problem with large if it is light. When I picked up the SF for the first time it shocked me how light it felt. It felt like a toy binocular but it isn't no toy at $2500.00! It must be a HG magnesium. Nice pictures. The 8x32 SV looks like a baby. It is nice to see them side by side for comparison. Nice set of binoculars there!

 

[Pileatus]

The 8x42 SF is large but it feels LIGHT. I don't have a problem with large if it is light. When I picked up the SF for the first time it shocked me how light it felt. It felt like a toy binocular but it isn't no toy at $2500.00! It must be a HG magnesium. Nice pictures. The 8x32 SV looks like a baby. It is nice to see them side by side for comparison. Nice set of binoculars there!

It's probably filled with helium to make it lighter. :bounce:

 

[Troubador]

The 8x42 SF is large but it feels LIGHT. I don't have a problem with large if it is light. When I picked up the SF for the first time it shocked me how light it felt. It felt like a toy binocular but it isn't no toy at $2500.00! It must be a HG magnesium. Nice pictures. The 8x32 SV looks like a baby. It is nice to see them side by side for comparison. Nice set of binoculars there!

Actually the SF is just 2 ozs lighter than an EL SV 8.5x42. This is a useful reduction but not dramatic.

The feeling of lightness comes from the main weight of the instrument falling within your hand, instead of a significant proportion of it being at the objective lens ends of the optical tubes.

Lee

 

[Pileatus]

Actually the SF is just 2 ozs lighter than an EL SV 8.5x42. This is a useful reduction but not dramatic.

The feeling of lightness comes from the main weight of the instrument falling within your hand, instead of a significant proportion of it being at the objective lens ends of the optical tubes.

Lee

All one has to do with the SV is grip it closer to the eyepiece by cupping the bin similar to the way one does with a closed bridge model. I've never put my fingers in the opening between the tubes and I never will...except to carry it around when it's not around my neck. Holding any bin toward the front end loads the muscles in a most uncomfortable manner. YMMV

 

[Troubador]

All one has to do with the SV is grip it closer to the eyepiece by cupping the bin similar to the way one does with a closed bridge model. I've never put my fingers in the opening between the tubes and I never will...except to carry it around when it's not around my neck. Holding any bin toward the front end loads the muscles in a most uncomfortable manner. YMMV

I never used to grip bins around the barrels either until I got an HT and found this method really comfortable and even more so on SF.

Different strokes for different folks.

Lee

 

[chill6x6]

I can TELL the SF is lighter than the HT/SV, but only slightly so....and it's a non-issue.

IMO, if the weight of a 27.5oz to 30oz binocular is an issue for whatever reason, probably best to drop back to a 32mm SV at 21oz....problem solved.

 

[Troubador]

I can TELL the SF is lighter than the HT/SV, but only slightly so....and it's a non-issue.

IMO, if the weight of a 27.5oz to 30oz binocular is an issue for whatever reason, probably best to drop back to a 32mm SV at 21oz....problem solved.

Excellent advice Chilli.
Unless you want a 42.
I wouldn't think anyone chooses one bin over another on the basis of 2 ozs up or down, but in principle I would like to see weights come down by 2ozs rather than up.

Lee

 

[[email protected]]

All one has to do with the SV is grip it closer to the eyepiece by cupping the bin similar to the way one does with a closed bridge model. I've never put my fingers in the opening between the tubes and I never will...except to carry it around when it's not around my neck. Holding any bin toward the front end loads the muscles in a most uncomfortable manner. YMMV

Good tip.

 

[elkcub]

James, post 133,
I forgot to react on your remark with regard to the transmission of the Zeiss 7x42 Dialyt. You are obviously surprised by its relatively high transmission compared with the Leica's. The Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 production was stopped, if my information is correct, when Zeiss started the Victory FL production, and this Dialyt specimen is from just before that ime, so 2003 or 2004.
The high 7x42 transmission is not strange if you compare it with the 90% transmission of the 6x42 Nautic Dialyt, which was introduced in 1988 (first model with phase correction coatings). Troubadour-Lee showed a picture of it somewhere in this topic.
I add for your information the spectra from the HT 8x42 and the FL 8x42 and a list of transmission numbers for the Ultravid and Ultravid HD-plus.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs,

I'm curious as to whether you have spectral comparisons for various Dialyt 7x42 production runs. Several people have commented that the coatings didn't seem to vary, and for that reason suggest that it's a waste of money trying to upgrade the T*P issue with the later T*P*. Comment?

Ed

 

[elkcub]

Kimmo,

For me at least, different colour biases have strengths and weaknesses in different light conditions. A warmer balance appears to give me better colour rendition and contast under bluer skies in the middle of the day and and a cooler balance is better for the redder light later in the day. It seems to play a part in sharpness perception as well, but it's much harder to figure out the rules that apply, and seems to vary with the nature of the target. I really don't know how it works more generally but when I've done side comparison with a couple of others we seem to get agreement.

I prefer to match a binocular to the light conditions as best I understand it rather than stick to the same one all the time, but that may not be the answer for everyone.

David

David,

I should have remarked about this interesting post earlier. Although my general attitude corresponds quite closely with Kimmo's (#124), I also have little doubt that intelligently matching one's binoculars with the viewing conditions might well enhance overall performance (and also justify having lots of binoculars to choose from. )

I wonder, however, if your impression of 'sharpness', which physically relates to the edge gradients in the image, isn't also potentially influenced by differences in lateral CA. Independent of color balance, such differences might well be expected in an age when HD glass of various types has been incorporated into the designs. Still, of course, that explanation doesn't refute the practical value of selecting the instrument according to the lighting conditions.

Just a thought.

Ed

 

[typo]

David,

I should have remarked about this interesting post earlier. Although my general attitude corresponds quite closely with Kimmo's (#124), I also have little doubt that intelligently matching one's binoculars with the viewing conditions might well enhance overall performance (and also justify having lots of binoculars to choose from. )

I wonder, however, if your impression of 'sharpness', which physically relates to the edge gradients in the image, isn't also potentially influenced by differences in lateral CA. Independent of color balance, such differences might well be expected in an age when HD glass of various types has been incorporated into the designs. Still, of course, that explanation doesn't refute the practical value of selecting the instrument according to the lighting conditions.

Just a thought.

Ed

Ed,

As I'm sure you know, perceived sharpness reaches it's peak in the 5 to 10 arcminute range. For photography the classic targets are images of spilled coins or fallen leaves. Likewise with binoculars fairly informally patterned targets can vary in their perceived definition at spacial frequencies around an order lower than their effective resolution.

A few months back I reviewed the Kite Bonelli 2.0. It had an excellent effective resolution, but lacking ED glass, the CA could have been better. Indeed, in one comparison the Zeiss FL had less fringing, but the Bonellis appeared sharper. It was most easily demonstrated viewing pebbles on the shore at a distance to give an apparent 5-10' range in sizing. These were a mixture of greys and earth colours. The difference appeared reduced on other patterned targets with different colour mixes. It may have changed again as the ambient light changed as I've noted on other occasions. I don't know if this kind of response can be predicted from MTF analysis, but I suspect colour may need to be taken into consideration. I'm yet to be convinced it's an intentional part of binocular design at present but, never the less, differences appear between models and between samples of the same modlel it seems.

I must admit I've been in the habit of calling effective resolution sharpness, but here I'm referring to quite a different property. It can be quite confusing.

David