Super-bins Shoot-out: Zeiss SF8x42 meets Swarovski 8.5x42 (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

Excellent review, Lee! Thanks for posting it.

Those cutaways certainly reveal how different the SF is in terms of balance. I need to seek one out to see what it's like.

I take it you didn't notice much difference between 8x and 8.5x? It's subtle but I generally like the extra oomph of the 8.5x, especially for distance.

Mark

Thanks Mark.

No I didn't see much difference 8x vs 8.5 except in regard to the texture of the out of focus background. Its what photographers call bokeh and it does give a different feel when you are just gazing around the view. When concentrating on a target of course you don't notice the background. I won't attempt to describe the difference, you need to try the SFs yourself.

Lee

 

[jgraider]

Given the amount of trash talking about size/weight of birding glass in various forums on this board, I'm shocked nobody has commented on the extreme size of the SF. My SV is big enough, and bigger than most any other 10x42 roof I've had or used. I wouldn't buy an SF based solely on this.

 

[Torview]

What difference did you notice? :smoke:

HN

I don`t want to hijack Lee`s great thread mulling over issues that don`t appear to be visible on the latest examples I tried.

On a personal note, I still think the SF is too big, like Lee I find the eye cup action only good enough at £2k, but the view is top drawer.

 

[Troubador]

JG and Torview
Nice to hear from you guys.
You raise a good point about the SF's length.

Its only 1/3 of a wine cork longer than the EL but everybody sets their own limits for things like length and weight and this 16mm or 0.6" will be too much for some

For me weight is most important as this is what my neck feels, not the length.

Lee

 

[james holdsworth]

In regards to size, it does have an impact for me on usage. I find, when doing my field surveys, I almost always take the 8x32 Conquests - small, light, quick focus - really gets the job done and I feel I can bang them around a bit more.

Now, if I really want to enjoy the view - mostly pleasure birding and bugging - it's HT's all the time.

 

[jgraider]

Great review though Lee, well done and much appreciated.

 

[Troubador]

In regards to size, it does have an impact for me on usage. I find, when doing my field surveys, I almost always take the 8x32 Conquests - small, light, quick focus - really gets the job done and I feel I can bang them around a bit more.

Now, if I really want to enjoy the view - mostly pleasure birding and bugging - it's HT's all the time.

James
Its pretty much the same for me actually. Since I got the 8x32 Conquests they have done more work than my other bins. This is likely to change when we go to North Uist in the Western Isles in a few weeks time as the big views there look so good through a 42.

Lee

 

[brocknroller]

Hi Brock

Thanks for your comments and observations which I always value.

Here are a couple in return.

With regard to edge sharpness I didn't quite say they were exactly equal. What I found was that they both were as sharp as I think anyone has a right to expect, showing fine feather details right to the edge. Could the Swaro be sharper at the edge than the Zeiss? I think it would take different test methods than what I was doing and IMHO have no relevance to normal viewing. I find it pretty tough to squint at the field edge while avoiding tilting the bins and for goodness sake they were both showing more detail than I need at the edge.

As James has said several times (I paraphrase) its nuts that an assessment of a bins optics boils down to the sharpness of the last x% of the field of view.

Both of these bins are sharp at the margins. What more do you need? :smoke:

During these shootouts I like to try to find the best in all the bins and I hope I did justice to the EL. At the end I gave precisely the reasons for my choice and everyone else will make their own mind up based on their personal priorities. If I had found something disagreeable about the SFs optics then I would have been as frank with my criticism about it as I have about the SF's eyecups and the Conquests rainguard in last year's 15x56 review. Zeiss certainly doesn't get everything right in my opinion, although I think they did get it right with the field of view. Note that I don't prioritise 148m at 1km field of view because its a Zeiss FOV, but because I like a big FOV, period.

As for the Swarovski not standing a chance of coming out on top, well, they have done it before. In 2003 I traded my Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 in for an EL 8.5x42 because I thought it was better.

On the commercial side you have mentioned several times in the past that probably nobody is going to swap their EL for an SF. Thats a big assumption and I can't imagine what objective data you base that on. But that isn't the point I really want to make here. People are buying new ELs all the time. The market for ELs and othe premium bins hasn't dried up. Those people doing the buying now have a wider choice.

As for what Swarovski will produce in reply, we are all interested to see that.

Lee

Troubledor,

Dr. Dobler was with Swaro back in 2003, too. Everybody makes mistakes. I'm sure he won't hold it against you.

I agree with James that its nuts that an assessment of a bins' optics boils down to the sharpness of the last x% of the field of view. But as you know from reading these forums, for some birders that's exactly what it boils down to, even more so for amateur astronomers. Read some of EdZ's technical reports on Cloudy Nights where he measures edge performance in thousandths of arc seconds out at various points from the center using double stars to test resolution.

Of course, I would I expect that with stargazers, but it surprised me that this spilled over into birders. I wrote a post recently that recalled when I first came on BF and mentioned edge performance, I got jumped on and one member said something to the effect, "You simply center the bird, my boy."

As mentioned, my "big assumption" about most SV EL owners not changing brands over the SF (or from SLC to HT) is based on comments from Swaro owners on these forums and on Optics Talk and 24hrcampfire bin forums.

Swaro, more than any other brand, attracts very loyal fans (some might even say fanatical). You've been around long enough to have witnessed the battles I've fought with the Defenders of Absam. You got caught in a skirmish on the Leica forum when someone who shall not be named (Fox Mulder will name that man) made what you failed to see as exaggerated claims about Swaro bins. An elephant never forgets.

Until you can get "insider information" that suggests otherwise, I think it's fair to say that most Swaro owners are not fickle, and that's probably even more true of hunters than birders. Of course, there are some Swaro owners who go whichever way the wind blows, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

You and James are the main "cheerleaders" for Zeiss on these forums, but there are many more cheering for Swaros than Zeiss (although in thread count, Nikon is the "Egyptian cotton" of the bin forums, with 1,093 threads vs. 811 for Swaro and 886 for Zeiss).

Even though I find some Swaro fans annoying because they refuse to admit to any flaw, I have to admire Swarovski for creating that kind of blind loyalty in buyers. That's exactly what every company's marketing dept. wants, but Swaro manages to do it better than others.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the SF is "better" than the SV EL, since that is subjective, as you, yourself, admit, but a matter of how advertising and marketing can get inside buyers' heads.

When Mike was still posting on here, he admitted that Zeiss had some improvements to make in the way they marketed their products (remember the number of days late clock on Zeiss's website?). Maybe since they have, but it might be too little, too late.

Brock

 

[Steve C]

Lee,

Nice job, I enjoyed that. However I agree with James...add the Victory HT to the mix. People can believe this or not, but I'm going to get an alpha glass. Not so much because I think I need one, but to have as a point of reference for doing reviews.

So in spite of me being relatively unimpressed with the SV, that is the likely choice. Largely due to the Swarovski service reputation. I'll likely go SV 10x50. However, the SF (in spite of my chain pulling on High North's broken SF thread) is a strong contender. So is the HT. So a good comparison of the three would go a long ways. I rate chances right now of 40% SV, 35% SF, and 25% HT. The SLC may occupy some of the SV percentage too.

Who knows, I may even convert (OK don't hold your breath or anything)

 

[chill6x6]

Hi!
I enjoyed your review! I especially enjoyed the practical manner in which you compared the two in the same fashion many if not most of us do when using/comparing our own binoculars.

I go back and forth between my 10x42 HT and EL SV as to which I like best and usually end up just thankful that I am able to have both.

I WILL admit that I AM impressed with Zeiss's publication "beyond" that recently came to my house. If not familiar…it's a publication designed for those that enjoy birdwatching! Of course it's a little bit of advertising but also some enjoyable articles…

Again..well done review.

 

[Pileatus]

Lee,

Nice job, I enjoyed that. However I agree with James...add the Victory HT to the mix. People can believe this or not, but I'm going to get an alpha glass. Not so much because I think I need one, but to have as a point of reference for doing reviews.

So in spite of me being relatively unimpressed with the SV, that is the likely choice. Largely due to the Swarovski service reputation. I'll likely go SV 10x50. However, the SF (in spite of my chain pulling on High North's broken SF thread) is a strong contender. So is the HT. So a good comparison of the three would go a long ways. I rate chances right now of 40% SV, 35% SF, and 25% HT. The SLC may occupy some of the SV percentage too.

Who knows, I may even convert (OK don't hold your breath or anything)

The 10X50 SV is unlike all the others. It's a truly remarkable accomplishment.

 

[Steve C]

The 10X50 SV is unlike all the others. It's a truly remarkable accomplishment.

That is what I thought when I first looked at the SV line at the Swarovski display at the Winter Wings festival in 2011 (or whatever their introductory year was). I liked the fact it was not huge like some 50 mm stuff. It and the 12x were clearly the class of the display. That is why I'll in all likelihood go there first. I'm prepared to trade around to get what suits me. Still a chance a 10x42 SF will go first though.

 

[NDhunter]

That is what I thought when I first looked at the SV line at the Swarovski display at the Winter Wings festival in 2011 (or whatever their introductory year was). I liked the fact it was not huge like some 50 mm stuff. It and the 12x were clearly the class of the display. That is why I'll in all likelihood go there first. I'm prepared to trade around to get what suits me. Still a chance a 10x42 SF will go first though.

Steve:

Good to hear your news, there are lots of binoculars that are
worth using, in all price ranges.
Someday, I would also like to try out the 10x50 SV.

You have mentioned the top glass is only a few % points better
than those priced lower, and that is true, but it is fun trying to see
why.

Jerry

 

[NDhunter]

Lee:

A very nice review, I enjoyed it. I hope to try the SF someday, maybe now they will
be in stock in some shops, if they get caught up with orders.

Jerry

 

[jgraider]

The 10X50 SV is unlike all the others. It's a truly remarkable accomplishment.

Is the 10x50 that much better than the 10x42? Other than slightly brighter?

 

[karmantra]

Lee,

Nice job, I enjoyed that. However I agree with James...add the Victory HT to the mix. People can believe this or not, but I'm going to get an alpha glass. Not so much because I think I need one, but to have as a point of reference for doing reviews.

So in spite of me being relatively unimpressed with the SV, that is the likely choice. Largely due to the Swarovski service reputation. I'll likely go SV 10x50. However, the SF (in spite of my chain pulling on High North's broken SF thread) is a strong contender. So is the HT. So a good comparison of the three would go a long ways. I rate chances right now of 40% SV, 35% SF, and 25% HT. The SLC may occupy some of the SV percentage too.

Who knows, I may even convert (OK don't hold your breath or anything)

Steve: Both Zeiss and Swarovski are now offering incentives to tempt you on a decision, Zeiss with a $150 rebate on their 10x42 HT ($2250 after rebate), Swaro with 10% off on the 10x50 SV ($2499), no discount on the Zeiss 10x42 SF ($2649). That 10x50 SV is now priced $80 lower than what the 10x42 SV were before the sale pricing!

 

[brocknroller]

Lee,

Nice job, I enjoyed that. However I agree with James...add the Victory HT to the mix. People can believe this or not, but I'm going to get an alpha glass. Not so much because I think I need one, but to have as a point of reference for doing reviews.

So in spite of me being relatively unimpressed with the SV, that is the likely choice. Largely due to the Swarovski service reputation. I'll likely go SV 10x50. However, the SF (in spite of my chain pulling on High North's broken SF thread) is a strong contender. So is the HT. So a good comparison of the three would go a long ways. I rate chances right now of 40% SV, 35% SF, and 25% HT. The SLC may occupy some of the SV percentage too.

Who knows, I may even convert (OK don't hold your breath or anything)

Steve,

Don't convert. My cousin left the priesthood to marry a missionary girl and their baby can turn its head 360* around, and she spits green pea soup.

What happened to your $1,000+ 9x44 Maven B2? Doesn't that fill the 10x50 space for you?

Also what kind of farming do you do? Most farmers in Pa. can't afford alphas. Diary farmers are particularly getting gouged now and are talking about dumping their milk to drive up prices.

If pot is your main cash crop and you can't say, I understand. :smoke:

Oregon was the first U.S. state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis, and among the first to authorize its use for medical purposes. Last year, Measure 91 was approved, legalizing non-medical cultivation and uses of marijuana.

<B>

 

[Steve C]

Steve,


What happened to your $1,000+ 9x44 Maven B2? Doesn't that fill the 10x50 space for you?

Also what kind of farming do you do? Most farmers in Pa. can't afford alphas. Diary farmers are particularly getting gouged now and are talking about dumping their milk to drive up prices.
<B>

OK a couple of things here. I will assuredly post more on the topic down the road, but I don't want to hijack the thread. I have and will most likely always have the Maven B2. It in fact is a major reason for this purchase. I am continually astonished at how blinking good that B2 is. Actually, I have that pretty well figured out...communicating that may be problematic. I have had some more time with a SV EL 10x42 and my impression of the two remains unchanged from the review. So in short, I'm having some difficulty at coming to terms with how good the Maven is. To really put that in perspective, I decided I had to get a recognized alpha, not just any, but one that suits me. Since I've yet to see an HT or SF or the Ultravid HD+,there is not a clear cut which one do I get choice. I guess I should have allotted a few percentage points of probability of purchase for the UV HD+. I have to have a few weeks side by side (alpha and Maven) to get that all properly sorted out.

This is essentially a freebie. It should not cost me any cash out of pocket. Over the last year or two, I've come in to possession lots of binoculars, binoculars that are dead bang good, useful instruments, but which I simply can't use. Ive spent more money than I really had at times, but spend it I did. The money I spent is money I consider as just that, spent, and now am glad I can use it here. SWFA has a trade in program which I have used before and am using now (unless some unknown gremlin pops up) and have sent the appraisal forms in. Have not heard back what more I may or may not need.

The incentives mentioned above are at least part of the timing as well, but I'd be doing this incentive or not.

We grow hay, grain, and Registered Angus cattle. We are certified Organic producers. There is a lot of $$$ that flow through the operation (or any agricultural production operation). The problem it always has to flow in somebody else's direction. First payment on the new Massey Ferguson/Hesston WR 9870 swather which was a steal with 100 engine hours on demo) at $150,000.00, as one example, of one of the many directions cash has to flow. Some balance left on the big John Deere 9750 grain combine too...there are others too.

I am disgusted to my core with pot, and legal or not, will have none of it.

 

[Troubador]

Troubledor,

Dr. Dobler was with Swaro back in 2003, too. Everybody makes mistakes. I'm sure he won't hold it against you.

I agree with James that its nuts that an assessment of a bins' optics boils down to the sharpness of the last x% of the field of view. But as you know from reading these forums, for some birders that's exactly what it boils down to, even more so for amateur astronomers. Read some of EdZ's technical reports on Cloudy Nights where he measures edge performance in thousandths of arc seconds out at various points from the center using double stars to test resolution.

Of course, I would I expect that with stargazers, but it surprised me that this spilled over into birders. I wrote a post recently that recalled when I first came on BF and mentioned edge performance, I got jumped on and one member said something to the effect, "You simply center the bird, my boy."

As mentioned, my "big assumption" about most SV EL owners not changing brands over the SF (or from SLC to HT) is based on comments from Swaro owners on these forums and on Optics Talk and 24hrcampfire bin forums.

Swaro, more than any other brand, attracts very loyal fans (some might even say fanatical). You've been around long enough to have witnessed the battles I've fought with the Defenders of Absam. You got caught in a skirmish on the Leica forum when someone who shall not be named (Fox Mulder will name that man) made what you failed to see as exaggerated claims about Swaro bins. An elephant never forgets.

Until you can get "insider information" that suggests otherwise, I think it's fair to say that most Swaro owners are not fickle, and that's probably even more true of hunters than birders. Of course, there are some Swaro owners who go whichever way the wind blows, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

You and James are the main "cheerleaders" for Zeiss on these forums, but there are many more cheering for Swaros than Zeiss (although in thread count, Nikon is the "Egyptian cotton" of the bin forums, with 1,093 threads vs. 811 for Swaro and 886 for Zeiss).

Even though I find some Swaro fans annoying because they refuse to admit to any flaw, I have to admire Swarovski for creating that kind of blind loyalty in buyers. That's exactly what every company's marketing dept. wants, but Swaro manages to do it better than others.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the SF is "better" than the SV EL, since that is subjective, as you, yourself, admit, but a matter of how advertising and marketing can get inside buyers' heads.

When Mike was still posting on here, he admitted that Zeiss had some improvements to make in the way they marketed their products (remember the number of days late clock on Zeiss's website?). Maybe since they have, but it might be too little, too late.

Brock

Yes Brock, I agree with almost all of your post.

I will correct you on one point though. I didn't 'admit' that the choice between SF and EL is subjective as the word 'admit' carries with it an air of reluctant concession, whereas I absolutely have always 'volunteered' that choice of bins depends on many personal preferences.

As to Zeiss's efforts being too little too late, you might expect me to say that its a little too early to make that call. These things go in cycles Brock, just like the fortunes of your favourite sports team. Go back two decades and everyone was walking about carrying Leica BA / BNs then bang, along comes Swarovski with the EL and Leica is now looking a bit like Tiger Woods. The once unassailable Leica is now spending time on the side-lines and Swaro is top dog. Being 'unassailable' just means you are a bigger target.

Zeiss's future depends not just on SF / HT but on the base that Terra and Conquest can build and at the moment that looks extremely promising.

Lee

 

[8x60deckmount]

I dont think the SF is too big .

I do have the 8x42 and here in Norway you normally get it at 20500 Nkr . But birders do normally get 10 % off when buying optics if they ask for good prices here at :
http://www.naturogfritid.no/default.asp?var=!var!&rstadv=J