Victory HT? Not much love for them in today's market? (1 Viewer)

[sidpost]

In my hunt for 15x60's, I keep looking at the Victory HT 8x54 and 10x54 bins. In Europe, excellent examples, the few I have found for sale, are ~$1,500USD, and new in the USA are ~$800 more.

I get these aren't the latest hotness but, they seem like really good bins. What am I missing? Are the newer flat field Swarovski, Leica, and Zeiss options really that much better for another ~$1,000? To me, the Victory HT's seem like a really good choice for dawn and dusk with fading light where normal bins go black in the shadows. Or, is it something else like a tough eye box for people like myself with glasses?

TIA,
Sid

 

[CSG]

As an owner of 8x42 HTs, I can say they are unequivocally the best binoculars I've ever used.

 

[jan van daalen]

Hi Sid,

IMHO these bins are the best for the job. Period.
But so is the SLC 8 and 10x56 and or the Meopta Meostar 8x56.
You just can't go wrong with them.

Jan

 

[Maljunulo]

In my admittedly limited experience (compared to many here) once you have seen "better" you don't want to go back.

There is always the possibility that your eyesight does not permit you to see the difference, rendering it irrelevant.

I wonder frequently about that when I read some reviews.

 

[tenex]

Some have been unimpressed by the HT 54 models, even compared with the previous FL 56, especially their performance in the outer part of the field. (This is quite obvious, so it's just a matter of how much you care.) See for example Roger Vine's review. I haven't seen the HT myself but can heartily recommend the SLC 56, which is not "flat field" but may have somewhat less curvature, and certainly lower aberrations.

 

[sidpost]

Hi Sid,

IMHO these bins are the best for the job. Period.
But so is the SLC 8 and 10x56 and or the Meopta Meostar 8x56.
You just can't go wrong with them.

Jan

Thanks Jan!

Looking at the specs and reviews, I think the minor price difference between an excellent gently used sample versus new Meostars in the USA is an easy win for Zeiss. Their weight and balance are attractive to me as are the relatively more compact physical dimensions.

Swarovski SLC's just didn't fit me very well in the few times I've tried them. I don't know if it was my glasses or the shape of my head or something else but, SLC's and I just didn't meld together very well. The few times I tried the EL's, they seemed to work much better for me.

These HT's also seem to be an easy win for my needs in low light conditions. I'm sure in overcast skies they are better than most but, for me though, they have advantages in dawn and dusk around trees where animals can be tough to spot.

 

[sidpost]

Some have been unimpressed by the HT 54 models, even compared with the previous FL 56, especially their performance in the outer part of the field. (This is quite obvious, so it's just a matter of how much you care.) See for example Roger Vine's review. I haven't seen the HT myself but can heartily recommend the SLC 56, which is not "flat field" but may have somewhat less curvature, and certainly lower aberrations.

Yes, they seem to a bit soft at the outer range of the FOV. On the flip side, I see a lot of comments regarding 'rolling ball' effects with the Swarovski's. Eye relief has been a problem in the past with the SLC's I tried as well. EL's seem to be better for eye relief.

 

[dries1]

Sidpost,

Have you tried a Swarovski 10X56 SLC?, they have generous eye-relief, or you could look into a slightly used FL in 8 or 10X56 which will be lower in cost than an HT 56.

Andy W.

 

[henry link]

I reviewed an early specimen of the 8x54 HT here.

Tests of the Zeiss 8x54 HT

I’ve finally finished assembling star-test and other images from the Zeiss 8x54 HT I spent some time with. There are too many images for one post, so I’ve decided to make 5 separate posts. Anybody with comments please wait until all 5 are up. Thanks. The first two images are star-test...

www.birdforum.net

I didn't like the optical performance at all. I found it markedly inferior to the 8x56 FL and there were some concurring opinions from others who test binoculars carefully (see post #27 for one example).

Things might be better now, but I would approach the 54mm HTs with caution. No predictions about the 54s should be made from experiences with the 42 HTs, which didn't have the same problems.

 

[sidpost]

Yes, I had to go back to 2016 or earlier on this site to find useful reviews for the HT's. On other sites, reviews are mixed due to application bias or obvious brand bias. On hunting-related reviews, they rate pretty highly. Astronomy not so well. For terrestrial terrain, they seem well regarded. Birders generally either have a strong preference towards Swarovski or Leica but, more open-minded reviews generally rate them as top tier alpha glass with caveats about each brand and the differences among them.

In 5 or more years, I would assume any perceived deficiencies in the early samples have been addressed in more recently manufactured units. Sharp FOV and issues with peripheral stars for example are probably still valid but, some minor complaints about various issues in the early samples have likely been addressed and are no longer a concern.

In general, I would say they are outclassed by the current generation of premium ~$3500 bins but, in the low $2K range, they seem to be competitive with other similar offerings. Whether their extra brightness matters is likely the biggest discriminator for most people unless they have a very specific application in mind like dedicated astronomy or birding.

With excellent examples in Europe apparently running ~$1500 converted with today's bad US Dollar conversion rates, so that puts them slightly ahead of new Meopta's and under similar gently used condition Swarovski EL's.

With their superior brightness, they do offer something not available in other similarly priced bins. And no, I'm not interested in 42mm versions, only the 54mm versions.

 

[SeldomPerched]

Yes, I had to go back to 2016 or earlier on this site to find useful reviews for the HT's. On other sites, reviews are mixed due to application bias or obvious brand bias. On hunting-related reviews, they rate pretty highly. Astronomy not so well. For terrestrial terrain, they seem well regarded. Birders generally either have a strong preference towards Swarovski or Leica but, more open-minded reviews generally rate them as top tier alpha glass with caveats about each brand and the differences among them.

In 5 or more years, I would assume any perceived deficiencies in the early samples have been addressed in more recently manufactured units. Sharp FOV and issues with peripheral stars for example are probably still valid but, some minor complaints about various issues in the early samples have likely been addressed and are no longer a concern.

In general, I would say they are outclassed by the current generation of premium ~$3500 bins but, in the low $2K range, they seem to be competitive with other similar offerings. Whether their extra brightness matters is likely the biggest discriminator for most people unless they have a very specific application in mind like dedicated astronomy or birding.

With excellent examples in Europe apparently running ~$1500 converted with today's bad US Dollar conversion rates, so that puts them slightly ahead of new Meopta's and under similar gently used condition Swarovski EL's.

With their superior brightness, they do offer something not available in other similarly priced bins. And no, I'm not interested in 42mm versions, only the 54mm versions.

Sidpost, if you aren't already familiar with the 8x56 T*FL that Henry mentioned I will say I bought one unseen from a photographic shop in Germany via eBay two years ago on impulse.. lucky impulse it was too as the example was perfect and probably the best low light glass I have, and with a supremely easy view if you are OK with the typical 56 weight (1220g from memory; sorry I don't know the imperial measurements for that one). Also I didn't know at the time that this is the same glass that Henry has I believe not yet managed to find a better modern replacement for. So unless it has to be 54 rather than 56, say for reasons of weight, you might consider this an alternative worth trying if for any reason 54 fails to satisfy. Good old fashioned Zeiss quality, apparently from before some QC problems came to bear. (It may well be that various reorganizations and rationalizations have put those glitches behind them in the last year or more - I can't personally offer any knowledge on that.)

Good luck in your search.

Tom

Just checked - 2 lb 11 oz

 

[Chosun Juan]

It would be hard to go past the latest Swarovski SLC 10x56 with the A-K prisms.





Chosun 🙅

 

[sidpost]

The Zeiss 8x56 T*FL I held a very long time ago seemed like a real brick. I was in a building so, the optical quality was really lost on me as well.

The design of the HT's looks more comfortable for me to hold and, while only ~7oz lighter, with a more rearward CG seems to be easier to hold and use for longer periods.

 

[SeldomPerched]

The Zeiss 8x56 T*FL I held a very long time ago seemed like a real brick. I was in a building so, the optical quality was really lost on me as well.

The design of the HT's looks more comfortable for me to hold and, while only ~7oz lighter, with a more rearward CG seems to be easier to hold and use for longer periods.

I can't disagree with you on any of those points, to be sure. Though I have never held an 8x54 HT I do know the 8x42 HT is a really comfortable hold for my arms and hands with the bonus of a focuser that is if anything even better than that on the 56 FL, and that's saying something. Not everyone likes the HT handling with the more forward CG than that of the SF (but it works for those who have the right conformation to appreciate HT)!

 

[SeldomPerched]

It would be hard to go past the latest Swarovski SLC 10x56 with the A-K prisms.





Chosun 🙅

They would be a military grade trip hazard, I would think

 

[Conndomat]

Hi Sid,

as for me, I like the FL 10x56 better than the 10x54 HT!
The distortion and the astigmatism are not quite as present IMO, about 2% less transmission should hardly be noticeable, especially since the larger lenses compensate for this in the twilight.
The stray light suppression also seems to be a bit better in the FL.
The advantage of the HT is of course the lower weight, the SLC 10x56 is IMO the "roundest" binoculars, if you collect all the points it should be at the top.

means,
Andreas

 

[henry link]

In 5 or more years, I would assume any perceived deficiencies in the early samples have been addressed in more recently manufactured units. Sharp FOV and issues with peripheral stars for example are probably still valid but, some minor complaints about various issues in the early samples have likely been addressed and are no longer a concern.

I wouldn't assume that at all. I assume nothing has changed until I test the binoculars in the same way I tested them before and get a different result. I didn't consider my complaints minor and they were all about disappointing performance in the center of the field, not the edges.

I would say that even the pair I rejected would do as well as any 8x binocular for very low light terrestrial observation, a use that only requires a large exit pupil and high light transmission and is very tolerant of high aberrations.

 

[dries1]

I would gander that more FL 8X56/10X56 were sold than the HT in 54, (at least my conversation with one dealer confirmed this) Why? one may ask, perhaps the problems identified with the HT 54 are likely still present.

Andy W.

 

[Troubador]

The Zeiss 8x56 T*FL I held a very long time ago seemed like a real brick. I was in a building so, the optical quality was really lost on me as well.

The design of the HT's looks more comfortable for me to hold and, while only ~7oz lighter, with a more rearward CG seems to be easier to hold and use for longer periods.

Sid, the 42mm HTs have been discontinued, but the 54mm models are still in production. This says something positive about the 54s.

Lee

 

[sidpost]

I would really like to find a set of the HT 54's in stock somewhere that I could actually look through. It seems a fair number of people are very critical of them and a good number are very impressed.

I get Zeiss has apparently had some internal reorganization issues but, what good company hasn't? The real issue is did they transition to a better place?

If for example, the FL's are better optically, does it really matter if they don't fit the structure of my face and eyes or if the ergonomics are such I don't look forward to holding them every time I pick them up? A technically inferior set of bins that is a lot more "user friendly" has an advantage because it will be the one around your neck when you go out in the field versus the technically superior set left in the car or at home that is a pain to lug around and hold.