BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BruceH" data-source="post: 3250064" data-attributes="member: 106398">Lee ...  Happy Birthday and congratulations on the new Zeiss SF!!! :t:I had a opportunity a couple of months ago to make a quick comparison between  my Zeiss SF 10X42 with a very early Zeiss 8X42 HT.  This was in the Arizona high county, mid afternoon under a bright blue sky.  The immediate impression was how close they were on the core optical properties of color, brightness and apparent sharpness.  There was very little difference in the center view under these ideal viewing conditions.  After switching between them a couple of times, I thought the detail stood out just ever so slightly better with SF.  This may be due to the fact that the HT was a couple of years older so Zeiss has had an opportunity to tweak the coatings.  I think my impressions on the center view are very similar to what you saw. My comparison was brief compared to your more detailed study, but I think I have a good idea of how they compare considering I have used the HT in the past.  Also, I compared an 8X to a 10X so it is not quite apples to apples, but it is my understanding the 10X and 8X HT are very similar except for the magnification.  There are some things about the SF that make me favor it over the HT.  I mentioned these SF attributes in a post a couple of weeks ago and are in line with what you have said.  Four additional attributes of the SF that sell me over the HT are the wide field of view, the excellent balance, the flat field and the overall functionality of the focus system.  Additionally, Zeiss has had a chance to evaluate the feed back from the HT and make improvements.  One prime example is the changes to the diopter adjustment.  The SF now allows the knob to be locked in place which allowed Zeiss to reduce the turning friction of the knob.  Just because I favor the SF, that does not mean that it is better than the HT across the board.  It is a matter of what is the best tool for the job and what works best for the owner.  There are good reasons to choose the HT over the SF.  A technical argument can be made that the HT has the potential for a better center view.  It has AK prisms and does not have additional lens flatteners.  Some of our more eagle eyed members, such as James and David might pick up an improvement, but I did not notice it with my limited comparison that beautiful day.   Some folks can detect rolling ball and I am one of those.  However I do not see it in the SF 10X42 but I did see it in an 8X42 SF preproduction.  The rolling ball in the 8X did not seem severe enough to the point that it would stop me from buying one.    I have shown my SF 10X42 to a couple of people that are extremely sensitive to rolling ball and they did detect it but not to the point it would have prevented them from buying one.  Out of the two models (SF vs HT), I think the SF is a more general purpose and versatile choice.  However there are some good reasons to go with the HT and those are no rolling ball, potentially a brighter sharper center view and some money savings.  If I were looking for a binocular strictly for hunting or extreme detail work under the most adverse lighting conditions such as the case for a field biologist, then the HT would be an excellent choice.  One feature of the HT that is very impressive is how it handles glare.  It will be interesting to see over time if the SF can equal the HT in that regard.   If I were fortunate enough to have both an HT and a SF like our Birthday Boy, I would use the SF the majority of the time.  However for those days when I was after the utmost in detail or would be out in the most adverse lighting conditions, then I would grab the HT.  Lee, I am looking forward to reading how this all shakes out over time.  Enjoy your new SF!</blockquote>

Verification