Why are Zeiss so sharp on-axis compared to other binoculars? (2 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

I also heard really good word about SLC between Korean mania to.
some say that they are EL without field flattener

I have compared SLC 10x56 vs TFL 10x56 and found out SLC leads at central sharpness and color contrast.
so I'm really eager to see 42mm SLC myself

unfortunately, 42mm SLC is REALLY rare item in Korea because they don't lasted long on Korean distributor shop...
It only showed in Korean market just a couple of time and only a half a dozen member I know have owning or own SLC 42mm

but SLC 10&15x56 is at the shelves until now so many of the Korean members have it. especially 15x56.

"I also heard good things about the SLC between Korean mania too.
some say that they are EL without field flattener "

I think that is correct, maybe with slightly better transmission than the EL. The SLC's are very nice binoculars. Too bad Swarovski dropped the SL 42mm.

 

[jackjack]

Typical cheap Chinese binoculars have a lot of red saturation? Interesting. Thanks.

chinese porro bino from kunming united optics such as bw18 have been sold widley to Korean star watchers for many years.
it's price is around 100$ but it's overall optics are in par with nikon action ex.
those BW series porro prism has significant red hue

 

[jackjack]

Yes, I see the difference. I wonder if the HT color is bluer to enhance lowlight performance. I kind of like the blue sky in the HT picture a little more than the FL, but I wonder if it is a little over saturated and the FL is more real. Do you take these pictures from buildings?

Zeiss said that they use Schott HT glass for the brightness and color fidelity... I think it works eventually...

I take these at my room over 20 floor apartment.

I think HT's series color is bit undersatuated overally because of it's high brightness. especially at red and yellow color

best saturation - fidelity balance I seen in zeiss was SFL 8x40
and best saturation is diayt T*P* 7x42

 

[tenex]

I have compared SLC 10x56 vs TFL 10x56 and found out SLC leads at central sharpness and color contrast.
so I'm really eager to see 42mm SLC myself

It would be interesting to hear your comparison. SLC 10x42 is a great binocular with a slight warm cast; the 10x56 seems sharper to me and brighter, more neutral color and less saturated. (Really a quite different design despite the "SLC" name.) But these are subtleties, no one would find the 42 lacking in sharpness.

 

[jackjack]

It would be interesting to hear your comparison. SLC 10x42 is a great binocular with a slight warm cast; the 10x56 seems sharper to me and brighter, more neutral color and less saturated. (Really a quite different design despite the "SLC" name.) But these are subtleties, no one would find the 42 lacking in sharpness.

have you compared 42mm slc to nikon edg or leica UVHD? I wonder which on is warmer.
I guess EL will be cooler then SLC.

 

[tenex]

have you compared 42mm slc to nikon edg or leica UVHD? I wonder which on is warmer.
I guess EL will be cooler then SLC.

I expect so, though I haven't seen an EL for a while. As to which is warmer, that's hard to judge because the UV cast is closer to red while SLC 42 is more orange or amber. I haven't seen an EDG.

 

[[email protected]]

Zeiss said that they use Schott HT glass for the brightness and color fidelity... I think it works eventually...

I take these at my room over 20 floor apartment.

I think HT's series color is bit undersatuated overally because of it's high brightness. especially at red and yellow color

best saturation - fidelity balance I seen in zeiss was SFL 8x40
and best saturation is diayt T*P* 7x42

I agree on the saturation and fidelity balance of the SFL 8x40, but I had quite a bit of edge CA with those that bothered me. I had a Zeiss Diayt T*7x42, but it wasn't the phase coated model so it seemed a little dim to me in brightness, but the colors were very saturated. Likewise, I imagine the phase coated model is very good. Those are good photos from a 20-floor apartment! Thanks!

 

[[email protected]]

have you compared 42mm slc to nikon edg or leica UVHD? I wonder which on is warmer.
I guess EL will be cooler then SLC.

I found the SLC cooler than the EDG, UVHD and EL. Or ranked in coolness SLC>EL>EDG>UVHD. The SLC is cool in saturation, very bright and very sharp on-axis, but its edges aren't quite as sharp as the EDG or especially the EL. Like you said, the SLC is like the EL without a field flattener.

 

[Patudo]

NL has better color satuation but el has bit higher sharpness.

Thanks for going to the trouble of taking those photos jackjack, I appreciate it. The problem is I personally see very little difference in the images you posted, and they look like they are crops from a larger image. I would be interested to know if anyone who has both EL and NL could put them against a USAF resolution chart and see if one can really resolve smaller groups than the other. I appreciate this is academic, because when I tried them both were more than sharp enough for me, but it would be interesting to know if there are real differences in sharpness - although you then have to factor in sample variation, etc ...

 

[hopster]

Zeiss said that they use Schott HT glass for the brightness and color fidelity... I think it works eventually...

I take these at my room over 20 floor apartment.

I think HT's series color is bit undersatuated overally because of it's high brightness. especially at red and yellow color

best saturation - fidelity balance I seen in zeiss was SFL 8x40
and best saturation is diayt T*P* 7x42

I agree HTs are missing red somewhat but if that doesn't matter to you the 8x42 is an excellent glass in all other ways.

 

[jackjack]

I agree HTs are missing red somewhat but if that doesn't matter to you the 8x42 is an excellent glass in all other ways.

yes 8x42 HT is my favorite Zeiss bino and possibly favorite 8x42 bino I've ever seen

 

[Rg548]

yes 8x42 HT is my favorite Zeiss bino and possibly favorite 8x42 bino I've ever seen

That's nice to hear, and I do agree with you. Although I feel there is not quite as much love for the HT as some other Zeiss.
I am astonished at its' optical performance, and I have found the 8x42 to be the very best 'all round' bino I have ever owned.
Not too big, not too heavy, amazing low light, sharp as anything I have ever looked through, great build.
For the first time, I am not looking to change or 'upgrade'.
I am proud to own this incredible optical instrument.
Last of the alpha AK's

 

[Patudo]

Having tried the HT and SF side by side I have to admit that the wider FOV, better edge performance and handling of the latter won me over, outstandingly bright though the HT was.

That said, I'm surprised why the collector brigade don't have their hot and heavy breath all over the HT (or maybe they do!). Their status as the last Zeiss Abbe-Koening range alone would have done it, you'd think, let alone brightness/transmission, which binogeeks so often rave about. Maybe it's the perception (whether truly accurate I don't know) that the HTs had a more or less similar optical train to the FLs?

 

[Canip]

the HT ….. Their status as the last Zeiss Abbe-Koenig range …

Second last (the large Conquest HDX still feature AK prisms).

 

[jackjack]

Having tried the HT and SF side by side I have to admit that the wider FOV, better edge performance and handling of the latter won me over, outstandingly bright though the HT was.

That said, I'm surprised why the collector brigade don't have their hot and heavy breath all over the HT (or maybe they do!). Their status as the last Zeiss Abbe-Koening range alone would have done it, you'd think, let alone brightness/transmission, which binogeeks so often rave about. Maybe it's the perception (whether truly accurate I don't know) that the HTs had a more or less similar optical train to the FLs?

Indeed HT is very similer to TFL

AK prism, green color bias, lots of pincusion distortion.
compared to difference between and later made SF, HT / TFL seems like brother. much more similarities.

HT is brighter, better color fidelity, bit better edge sharpness and distortion, better ergonomic then TFL.
but TFL exceed HT on CA control

it can be a whole new upgrade to some one or minor upgrade to another. depends on the individual user.
My personal opinion is closer to minor upgrade

 

[Patudo]

Second last (the large Conquest HDX still feature AK prisms).

To a collector, made in Japan IS NOT ZEISS!!!!

 

[Maljunulo]

Should there be a separate collectors forum?

 

[jackjack]

To a collector, made in Japan IS NOT ZEISS!!!!

there are many Korean manias that have the same opinion 😀
legends say they all passed out when Zeiss introduce Terra ED....

 

[[email protected]]

Indeed HT is very similer to TFL

AK prism, green color bias, lots of pincusion distortion.
compared to difference between and later made SF, HT / TFL seems like brother. much more similarities.

HT is brighter, better color fidelity, bit better edge sharpness and distortion, better ergonomic then TFL.
but TFL exceed HT on CA control

it can be a whole new upgrade to some one or minor upgrade to another. depends on the individual user.
My personal opinion is closer to minor upgrade

I have had both the HT and the SF and you are correct that they are very similar, and it really comes down to personal preference which one you prefer. I don't consider the HT and upgrade over the FL, and in fact Allbinos has the FL ranked above the HT for many reasons. The HT may be slightly brighter, but not much because the transmission is very close.

The HT has 92.6% transmission compared to 91.4% on the FL, and 2% is generally considered the cutoff point when you can see a difference. So if there is a slight difference in brightness it is because the HT is stronger in the blue part of the spectrum than the FL where are rods are more sensitive to low light rather than overall transmission.

The HT might have slightly better edge sharpness, but again there is not much difference. Color fidelity is a matter of opinion because one persons preferred color fidelity is different from another persons. You're correct in that the FL has superior CA control than the HT and there is a considerable difference with the FL being the very best binocular available for CA control according to Allbinos.

The HT does have less distortion than the FL, but the FL has way less coma and astigmatism to compensate. Another BIG advantage of the FL over the HT is weight because of its composite body. The HT 10x42 weighs almost 32 oz. , whereas, the FL 10x42 weighs 27 oz. which is a considerable difference.

Ergonomics is a matter of personal taste and I, for one, prefer the FL's ergonomics over the HT and greatly appreciate how comfortable and warm the composite body is on cold days. For hunting an HT may be preferred for it's slightly better transmission, but for birding where fine color nuances are important in identifying different species the much better CA control of the FL is more critical.

From the thread on Cloudy Night's. (By Erik Baker who is site administrator and very knowledgeable about binoculars and optics)

"Incidentally, I just bought a pair of Zeiss FL 10x32 a week ago from the same dealer. An incredibly sharp pair with a very wide AFOV and TFOV. And just so tiny and comfortable to hold. So I took those 10x32 FL's and the 10x42 HT's out for a first daytime test. Here is what I found:

The new HT's are beautifully made binos. And the view's bright, with an electrifying touch to the image. They are also a bit longish. The adjustable eyecups are the same as in the FL's, with a bit less resistance when resting in the stops. Focussing is light and responsive. Ergonomics are good. The AFOV and TFOV are less wide than in the 10x32 Victory. Amazingly, the 10x32 are a bit sharper during the day. Not quite as bright, but sharper. Difficult small details reveal themselves in the tiny 10x32's first. Hmmm.

Under the stars, the HT's are brighter, but the FL's images are tighter, more APO-with-nagler like stars. The viewing experience wider and more immersive. Edge of field correction better. And at 10x, the 32 FL's easily fit in both the Belt and Sword of Orion, while the 42 HT's can't quite manage that. I also tested the sharpness on a solid tripod with my Zeiss 3x12 mono to magnify the image to 30 times. Star images were noticeably tighter in the 10x32, with perfect, tight pinpoint stars. In the 10x42 HT, stars were not quite as tight and didn't quite have the nice intra- and extra-focal images the 10x32 showed.

Long story short, I decided not to buy the 10x42 HT's. However, I did find I really enjoyed the brightness of the 42 mm bino's and set out to find a bino that would team up with the 10x32 FL's and have better brightness and a wider TFOV. So I gave the Zeiss 7x42 Victory FL's a try. I found their brightness and contrast during the end of daylight staggering, loved the easy wide views and decided to take the plunge. What can I say? Wonderful bino's. Very comfortable to hold and view, And the views are just so wide and bright. Did I say bright? Yes bright! And very sharp, too.

With the new HT's entering the markets, Zeiss just removed the 42mm Victory FL's from their website. So I am very happy that I was still able to buy a pair brand new, unlike the Dialyts that were gone too early for me. The combination of lightweight, low 7x magnification, wide AFOV, staggering brightness, sharpness and contrast are perhaps soon no longer available new when Zeiss stops production of the 7x42 Victory FL's.

I will give the 8x42 HT's a try when they arrive, but chances are that they will not do as well in my stable as the 7x42 FL's. I like the ergonomics of the FL's better. They are a bit shorter hence better balanced, warmer to hold in the cold and their bigger TFOV is just wonderful. I also found the HT's image a bit surreal. Electrifying but also a bit "artificial", like light-emitting. Hard to describe but noticeable in real life. Especially low daylight dusk/dawn conditions. Not under the stars. No more nebulousity was visible because of this.

For hand-held observing, the 10x56 FL's delivered stunning images in their own right, I just couldn't hold their 1250 grams still for as long as I wanted. I loved the 6mm class exit pupil though. So I stepped down one size while maintaining that 6mm pupil. At 740 grams, the 7x42 FL's feel half the weight of their bigger brothers. Ad to that their low 7x magnification, large 6mm exit pupil, huge TFOV and superb optics, and you have a very bright and easy glass. They compliment the 10x32 FL's well."

Carl Zeiss Victory 10x42 T* FL - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Victory HT 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/406978-adventures-with-the-zeiss-victory-ht-and-fl/

https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Test-van-nieuwe-8x42-en-10x42-kijkers-o.a.-de-Leica-Noctivids-mei-2017.pdf

https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Test-van-Leica-Ultravid-HD-Plus-en-enkele-andere-7x42-kijkers-van-Swarovski-en-Zeiss-def-FEBR-2015.pdf

 

[Scott98]

Second last (the large Conquest HDX still feature AK prisms).

Many AK's still out there in 50mm & 56mm - Maven, Swaro SLC, Zeiss HT 54's, Vortex UHD 50, 56, etc. Actually Maven offers some in 44mm as well.

From looking through the SF 8x42's it's hard to imagine any reason why one would bring back AK prisms in a 42mm at this point....maybe the companies are trying to tell you something by switching to other designs