Why are Zeiss so sharp on-axis compared to other binoculars? (3 Viewers)

[Cest]

I received a Zeiss Conquest 8x32 yesterday. At the lower price it seemed like the time to get one. Sharp? Oh yes. I am very impressed. Extremely clear and sharp views. A real keeper.

Btw, like many I don't like the lens guards that much. Any suggestions on off brand guards, the o ring type, that will stay on reasonably well?

 

[Maljunulo]

Point of order.

The binocular didn’t resolve more, you could see better when the image wasn’t jiggling around.

 

[Robert Moore]

My 8x42 Zeiss SF had more CA then even the 10x42 EL that I compared at a birdforum members house last year. I have had both the 8 and 10 x SF and don’t agree that the SF has better CA than the NL.

 

[Rg548]

I received a Zeiss Conquest 8x32 yesterday. At the lower price it seemed like the time to get one. Sharp? Oh yes. I am very impressed. Extremely clear and sharp views. A real keeper.

Btw, like many I don't like the lens guards that much. Any suggestions on off brand guards, the o ring type, that will stay on reasonably well?

Opticron are usually the best.
However, when you get used to the Conquest ones, I think they are very good.
Place them on the end of the binocular lightly, and then press them down on a flat surface, or you palm, until they sort of click in, they stay put, and don't come off.
I actually like them, they do their job of protecting the lenses, and they are also on my HT's.

 

[Cest]

Opticron are usually the best.
However, when you get used to the Conquest ones, I think they are very good.
Place them on the end of the binocular lightly, and then press them down on a flat surface, or you palm, until they sort of click in, they stay put, and don't come off.
I actually like them, they do their job of protecting the lenses, and they are also on my HT's.

I sort of like the o ring ones in case it rains. So Opticron has some that work? Which ones?

 

[Rg548]

I sort of like the o ring ones in case it rains. So Opticron has some that work? Which ones?

They do many, you will need to measure the diameter, and get the nearest ones.
From memory I think they do a few for each objective size, as in 32mm small and large.
Google should find them

 

[Dennis Mau]

I received a Zeiss Conquest 8x32 yesterday. At the lower price it seemed like the time to get one. Sharp? Oh yes. I am very impressed. Extremely clear and sharp views. A real keeper.

Btw, like many I don't like the lens guards that much. Any suggestions on off brand guards, the o ring type, that will stay on reasonably well?

The Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 like the Zeiss FL and SF is very sharp, and you notice it compared to other binoculars. It is even sharper on-axis than the Nikon MHG 8x42.

Amazon.com

 

[Dennis Mau]

Point of order.

The binocular didn’t resolve more, you could see better when the image wasn’t jiggling around.

Exactly.

 

[Binastro]

It is true that an IS binocular should probably be compared to a tripod mounted standard binocular.

But I think most users hand hold their 10x binoculars.

In practice I have found that the Minolta 8x23 AF binocular at 10m to 15m distance in bright light is sharper than any other 8x standard non IS binocular.
This is for following a moving subject.
It locks on pin sharp, while a standard binocular cannot be focussed so precisely.

Whether a 10x standard binocular can be sharper in this instance compared to the Minolta 8x23 AF binocular, I am not sure.

The reason I don't use it more is that it is large for an 8x23, and it uses battery power, which may not last long if used as an only binocular.
But it is a pity this technology wasn't continued as cameras have autofocus and IS and benefit from both.

Regards,
B.

 

[Dennis Mau]

My 8x42 Zeiss SF had more CA then even the 10x42 EL that I compared at a birdforum members house last year. I have had both the 8 and 10 x SF and don’t agree that the SF has better CA than the NL.

I have compared many SF's and NL's myself for CA and the SF and the FL always beat the NL and EL and Allbinos agrees. The SF 10x32 has the least CA I have ever seen on any binocular I have tested, and the FL 7x42 is close. Swarovski's generally have more CA on the edge than Zeiss's do. Zeiss has more fluorite in their glass. Zeiss owns Schott so they get first shot at the best glass. Swarovski gets the leftovers.

Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 - 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 SF 8x32 - 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 8x32 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 SF 8x42 - 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

Swarovski EL 10x42 Swarovision - 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, Ernst Abbe and Otto Schott – A Winning Team

What led to the collaboration between Carl Zeiss, Ernst Abbe and Otto Schott? How did the ZEISS company and the Carl Zeiss Foundation originate? Who played which role in the company? In a company portrait, we explain the origins and highlight the biographies of all the significant players.

www.zeiss.com

"Also chromatic aberration correction result, one of the best in the whole history of our tests, is achieved despite such a wide field of view. If you don't like CA effects, the Victory SF 8x32 is definitely your pair of binoculars because it fares distinctly better than all binoculars produced by its main rival, Swarovski. Swarovski binoculars have noticeable problems with chromatic aberration on the edge of the field, which is often narrower than the field of the Zeiss."

 

[NatureLover123]

I can confirm that my SF 10x42 and SF 10x32 are ultra sharp in the center. The 42 has a slightly bigger center area that’s sharp when you are in perfect focus, but the 32 has on the other hand the bigger FOV and has also under very hard conditions no CA in the center.

So from a CA perspective the 32 is a small bit on top over the 42. The 32 is a younger design. I think the blur pattern of the 32 is explicitly designed that way to support comfortable panning with the bigger FOV.

I would like to see a new 10x42 with the tech of the 10x32.

Resolution wise I think they are in the same league.

I love both bins.

I didn’t have the chance yet to compare them side by side with NL pures, but as far as I could see at the dealer, the NL pures are sharper to the edges by design, at a cost of maybe not that perfect CA control. Its just a guess… I could not compare them yet if the center of the NLs is at the same level as SFs, but I think Swarowski did also a good job for the center.

 

[ArchStanton]

The Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 like the Zeiss FL and SF is very sharp, and you notice it compared to other binoculars. It is even sharper on-axis than the Nikon MHG 8x42.

Amazon.com

Is the Zeiss Conquest HD 8 x 32 sharper than the 8 x 42 version?

 

[Dennis Mau]

Is the Zeiss Conquest HD 8 x 32 sharper than the 8 x 42 version?

No, but the 8x32 Conquest HD is more popular because it is smaller and lighter and has a larger FOV. You won't notice the difference in the daytime as far as brightness between the two. If I was buying one, I would get the 8x32.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I can confirm that my SF 10x42 and SF 10x32 are ultra sharp in the center. The 42 has a slightly bigger center area that’s sharp when you are in perfect focus, but the 32 has on the other hand the bigger FOV and has also under very hard conditions no CA in the center.

So from a CA perspective the 32 is a small bit on top over the 42. The 32 is a younger design. I think the blur pattern of the 32 is explicitly designed that way to support comfortable panning with the bigger FOV.

I would like to see a new 10x42 with the tech of the 10x32.

Resolution wise I think they are in the same league.

I love both bins.

I didn’t have the chance yet to compare them side by side with NL pures, but as far as I could see at the dealer, the NL pures are sharper to the edges by design, at a cost of maybe not that perfect CA control. Its just a guess… I could not compare them yet if the center of the NLs is at the same level as SFs, but I think Swarowski did also a good job for the center.

Swarovski's NL's are close to the Zeiss SF's at controlling CA in the center, but not quite as good on the edge. The Zeiss SF 10x32 and 8x32 are about the best binoculars out there for CA control.

 

[ArchStanton]

No, but the 8x32 Conquest HD is more popular because it is smaller and lighter and has a larger FOV. You won't notice the difference in the daytime as far as brightness between the two. If I was buying one, I would get the 8x32.

Would there be any significant difference in brightness between the two on cloudy days under a tree canopy? I spotted my first Elegant Trogon recently with my Opticron Oregon 8x42’s and was wondering if i could have seen more detail with a brighter pair of binoculars. Thanks for the reply!

 

[Dennis Mau]

Would there be any significant difference in brightness between the two on cloudy days under a tree canopy? I spotted my first Elegant Trogon recently with my Opticron Oregon 8x42’s and was wondering if i could have seen more detail with a brighter pair of binoculars. Thanks for the reply!

The 8x42 would be a little brighter, but you would probably be happy with the brightness of the 8x32. The Conquest HD 8x32 is a very bright binocular anyway, and the 8x42 would probably only give you 10 more minutes of observing time at dusk and dawn.

You have to decide how much of your observing is going to be under a tree canopy. If you are taking them to the Costa Rican rain forest, and you're observing is going to be mostly under canopy, I would recommend getting the 8x42.

On a cloudy day you would not see much difference between a 8x32 and a 8x42 as long as there is plenty of light because your eyes only dilate to about 4mm in the day which is equal to the exit pupil of a 8x32.

 

[ArchStanton]

The 8x42 would be a little brighter, but you would probably be happy with the brightness of the 8x32. The Conquest HD 8x32 is a very bright binocular anyway, and the 8x42 would probably only give you 10 more minutes of observing time at dusk and dawn.

You have to decide how much of your observing is going to be under a tree canopy. If you are taking them to the Costa Rican rain forest, and you're observing is going to be mostly under canopy, I would recommend getting the 8x42.

On a cloudy day you would not see much difference between a 8x32 and a 8x42 as long as there is plenty of light because your eyes only dilate to about 4mm in the day which is equal to the exit pupil of a 8x32.

I appreciate the information and explanation. I’m going to compare the two Conquests and other offerings at a birding festival tomorrow. I returned a pair of 8x32 Conquests a few months back and thought I’d give them another shot, especially since they’ve been marked down considerably. Thanks for the advice!

 

[tenex]

Anyone have resolution numbers for any of these models? (or any objective data)

I recently had a debate with a colleague...

Really, what good are subliminal suggestions?

And of course another issue would be sample variation or condition. I have seen a noticeable difference in sharpness in the same binocular before and after service.

P.S. I seem to be missing something about that debate; if one's vision got bad enough, wouldn't one simply wear glasses when using binoculars?

 

[Maljunulo]

Who is willing to take a shot at writing a working definition of “sharpness” to facilitate discussion?

(not I)

 

[Dennis Mau]

Who is willing to take a shot at writing a working definition of “sharpness” to facilitate discussion?

(not I)

Paul defined sharpness, contrast and resolution well in this posts. From this thread, Resolution sharpness and contrast..

"The use of these terms has come up so many times that I feel they are being misapplied or possibly misinterpreted by us users. When doing a review of an optic here is how I’ve been using the terms.

Resolution, to me means and how I've been applying it to optics, is how much detail I can see on an object. How many vanes can I see or discern on a wing feather.

Contrast is more a difference in luminance or color difference. An example here for me, I can see more detail, another vane on the feather with SF, but seem to see more coloration difference on each part of that feather better in an Ultravid or Noctivid. Here is where Leica seems to dominate to my eyes (always have to add the disclaimer, to me, to my eyes etc. etc.). It seems, to my small sphere or group, that is a consensus.

Sharpness is how crisp the image is or appears. This can be very subjective, but the sharpness in the image will usually add resolution and contrast compared to less sharp optics. Sharpness can and does help with seeing the small details. I know there are several methods to test this. The rise distance technique, MTF (modulation transfer function) and some algorithm testing. These tests are above my pay grade in optical knowledge.

It seems that these three terms are being used synonymously and in many ways rightly so, and can confuse a reader of a review. I think part of the reason is that each manufacturer's optical design, coatings and light transmission all play a role in each individual's eye/brain perception. Therefore, some people will be able to see a very perceptible resolution difference in Zeiss and others see very little when comparing to a Leica, as the contrast benefit in the Leica makes up in some degree for the better resolution in the Zeiss design.

Paul"