Why are Zeiss so sharp on-axis compared to other binoculars? (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Mau]

Yes, Den took what I had said and spun it into something that was not intended. If I was set on humping full size bins, it would not be a big deal. But since I'm the one that often comments on NV being a brick, I'll mention that I've always compared them to SFL's or at least 32's. They ARE in fact a brick compared to the 8x30's I more often take hiking/travelling ;-)

Leica Noctovid 8x42: 924g
Zeiss SFL 8x30 459g
A shocking 91g difference😄
A weight savings of over 50% at 465g

8x32FL are 550g and even the 8x40SFL at 641g are a significant difference.
Everyone is not as weight consicous. Luckily there are options to make everyone - even Den - happy (at least for a while ;-).

I love the size and weight of the 8x30's like the SFL, MHG and the CL-P but for some reason for me a 8x30 is a LOT more finicky than a 8x32 for eye placement, they are less bright, and usually they have more glare.

I would just as soon carry a few more ounces and have a more comfortable, glare free and brighter binocular.

 

[Binastro]

Because one binocular is found to be very good does not mean all of that make are very good.

Numerous selected quotes is just a way of showing how flawed the whole opinion is.

If the opinion was sound and correct, no quotes would be needed.

In a way it is surprising this ridiculous heading has actually brought up interesting posts, but certainly not by the OP.

Zeiss actually have had rather poor sharpness in some binoculars because the star images are bloated.

Personally, I have no desire at all to carry an 8x56 binocular just because stopped down it is very good.

Also an observer with 20/15 vision may think a binocular is very sharp, when an observer with 20/8 acuity thinks it is mediocre.

I don't know if binocular designers have a specific resolution parameter to work to.

Also sample variation means many binoculars are just not very good, even high priced ones.

Boosting does help with judging sharpness, but for most observations particularly hand held non IS binoculars the binocular doesn't need to be super sharp.

Regards,
B.

 

[Hermann]

Boosting does help with judging sharpness, but for most observations particularly hand held non IS binoculars the binocular doesn't need to be super sharp. [my emphasis]

Excellent point, and one many people here won't like.

But true.

Hermann

 

[Paultricounty]

Do you really think star testing and measuring resolution on a line pair chart at high resolution is meaningful for binoculars that are going to be used at low magnification? Even if one binocular has higher resolution when tested this way, will our eyes be able to detect the difference?

It’s meaningful if you want the truth about the optics. It’s objective measurement, not subjective opinion. I have learned over the years, and you should’ve as well, that physiology plays a large role on what somebody perceives (subjective) when they look through those binoculars. I might have the opinion that it’s Swarovski are the sharpest on axis.

I’m I to believe based on the title of your discussion, that your in possession of some Zeiss binoculars? Are you going to be selling something soon? Is there a possibility it might be a Zeiss product? 😂🤭✌🏼🙏🏼

It is scary that a tree of that size would be blown over by 50 to 60 mph winds. You would think it would have enough root structure to hold it, but I guess as if you say the ground was saturated, anything is possible. How tall was the tree and what type, if you don't mind me asking? I have some big trees in my yard that I might have removed.

 

[Paultricounty]

Nope. If anything goes up for sale, it will be that APM CF 6.5x32 porro I just ordered. I am thinking the eye cups are going to be way too big. You might see those in the classifieds because I am not sending them back to Germany.

lol. Keep me in that loop, I might be interested 😁✌🏼

 

[Dennis Mau]

Because one binocular is found to be very good does not mean all of that make are very good.

Numerous selected quotes is just a way of showing how flawed the whole opinion is.

If the opinion was sound and correct, no quotes would be needed.

In a way it is surprising this ridiculous heading has actually brought up interesting posts, but certainly not by the OP.

Zeiss actually have had rather poor sharpness in some binoculars because the star images are bloated.

Personally, I have no desire at all to carry an 8x56 binocular just because stopped down it is very good.

Also an observer with 20/15 vision may think a binocular is very sharp, when an observer with 20/8 acuity thinks it is mediocre.

I don't know if binocular designers have a specific resolution parameter to work to.

Also sample variation means many binoculars are just not very good, even high priced ones.

Boosting does help with judging sharpness, but for most observations particularly hand held non IS binoculars the binocular doesn't need to be super sharp.

Regards,
B.

I agree with that not everything Zeiss makes is great, just the SF's and FL's. The SFL is good, but it is a step-down from them, and it was meant to be, but on the other hand the SFL brings the advantage of a bigger aperture in a lighter package which appeals to a lot of people.

Numerous selected quotes are a way of supporting my hypothesis and theories with other people's opinions.

I would imagine Zeiss made some lemons 50 years ago, but they got their act together now with the FL and SF.

You missed the point that Henry made with the 8x56 FL post. He meant that since you are just using the sweet spot of the objective lens in the daytime when your pupils are dilated, you don't see the aberrations you normally would from the edges of the objective.

How many people have 20/8 vision? I mean, really, that is almost equal to an Eagle's eyesight.

Of course, manufacturers have a specific resolution parameter to work with among others. If they didn't most binoculars would have poor resolution.

Higher priced alpha level binoculars like the Zeiss SF and Swarovski NL do not have that much sample variation like the cheap MIC stuff.

If they did, they would fire the whole QA department at Swarovski and Zeiss. Consistency in QA is a lot of what you pay for when you pay $3000 for an alpha level binocular.

Every alpha level binocular at Swarovski, Zeiss and Leica are tested before they leave the factory and if they don't pass they are rejected.

Hand held binoculars don't need to be super sharp, but it sure is nice if they are because they are a lot more pleasant to look through. That is why I like the Zeiss SF and FL. They are super sharp, hand held.

 

[Binastro]

Fighter pilots typically have 20/10 to 20/6.5 binocular acuity.
The average is about 20/8.

Eagles 20/4.5.

B.

 

[Binastro]

Yes, the average birder probably has 20/30 vision.

They don't need super sharp hand held binoculars.

Although they probably feel better having such binoculars.

B.

 

[Maljunulo]

Yes, the average birder probably has 20/30 vision.
B.

Is there a source or a cite for that number?

 

[Dennis Mau]

Fighter pilots typically have 20/10 to 20/6.5 binocular acuity.
The average is about 20/8.

Eagles 20/4.5.

B.

So an Eagle can see at 20 feet what we see at 4.5 feet. Wow, that is good eyesight! Eagles have better color vision than us also. There were some Aborigines in remote Australia that are said to have vision 4x better than us because they could describe constellations that we need binoculars to even see.

What Is Eagle Eye Vision? - All About Vision

Learn about the eye anatomy and visual sharpness of eagles, how it compares to that of humans and if it is possible for people to have

www.allaboutvision.com

https://mspgh.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1991787/IEH-Newsletter-2015-May.pdf

 

[Binastro]

It is probably similar to the average eyesight generally.

One would have to ask an optometrist what the average acuity is.

However, many young people probably don't have eye tests.

I think schools have eye tests but they are very inaccurate.

With the wide use of mobile devices I doubt that eyes have improved.

Also people live longer, so this will bring the average down.

For a driving licence one needs 20/40 vision, but I think New York may be as low as 20/70 with restrictions.

Bus and truck drivers need better eyesight, as do commercial pilots.

Regards,
B.

 

[Patudo]

Is there a source or a cite for that number?

The Secret Diary of Horace Dall?

 

[Maljunulo]

Okay, if you say so.

 

[Binastro]

Horace Dall didn't have particularly fine eyesight.
In fact in his last years his eyesight failed.

Noted astronomers with fine eyesight are Barnard, Stephen O'Meara and Paul Doherty. Also Dawes and others.

I have had discussions with some astronomers with exceptional eyesight who have clearly said that their eyes have worsened with age.

However, it is the general population that determines eyesight averages.

There is of course a difference between healthy eyes and otherwise.

It is difficult to give an average, as those with damaged eyesight may well hide the fact, as it affects employment possibilities etc.

There are also countries where eye disease is common and untreated.

I have seen several sources where some hawks are said to have acuities of 20/2 or 20/2.5, which is better than eagles.

Although 20/40 acuity is needed for driving licences, I have encountered drivers who clearly no longer meet this requirement.

Others may reach this requirement but have half of the field missing.

I don't have a problem with the average for birders of 20/30, although one would have to test hundreds at random in several countries to get a more reliable estimate.

I recall an instance where someone nearly blind was thrilled to see Venus through a telescope, however imperfectly.

Regards,
B.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Horace Dall didn't have particularly fine eyesight.
In fact in his last years his eyesight failed.

Noted astronomers with fine eyesight are Barnard, Stephen O'Meara and Paul Doherty. Also Dawes and others.

I have had discussions with some astronomers with exceptional eyesight who have clearly said that their eyes have worsened with age.

However, it is the general population that determines eyesight averages.

There is of course a difference between healthy eyes and otherwise.

It is difficult to give an average, as those with damaged eyesight may well hide the fact, as it affects employment possibilities etc.

There are also countries where eye disease is common and untreated.

I have seen several sources where some hawks are said to have acuities of 20/2 or 20/2.5, which is better than eagles.

Although 20/40 acuity is needed for driving licences, I have encountered drivers who clearly no longer meet this requirement.

Others may reach this requirement but have half of the field missing.

I don't have a problem with the average for birders of 20/30, although one would have to test hundreds at random in several countries to get a more reliable estimate.

I recall an instance where someone nearly blind was thrilled to see Venus through a telescope, however imperfectly.

Regards,
B.

Most authorities rank the Eagle as having the best eyesight, followed closely by the hawk. Here is a ranking of animals by their eyesight acuity.

90 Animals Ranked by Eyesight and How They Compare to Humans | LASIK by OCLI Vision

Have you ever wondered how animals see the world? As animals have evolved more complex bodies and behaviors, their eyes have also evolved to suit their survival needs. The team at Lasik by OCLI Vision has researched the wondrous variety of animal eyes to create the ultimate guide to how animal...

www.lasikbyoclivision.com

 

[A2GG]

I was just testing my SF 10x32 for CA, and it has the lowest CA in the center and on the edge of any binocular I have ever tested. Even slightly better than the former CA champion, the Zeiss FL.

Zeiss must use some expensive Schott ED glass in the SF. The low CA leads to a sharp on-axis almost crystalline view that is unmatched by any Swarovski I have tried, including the NL.

Allbinos agrees the SF 8x32 had the lowest CA of any binocular they ever tested. They are correct.

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

no, they said it has ‘one of the best’ results …

“Add to that a sensationally corrected astigmatism, distortion and coma. 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”

 

[Maljunulo]

I am wondering if the answer to this question is "They really aren't."

 

[Maljunulo]

My 8X32 SF is no "sharper" than my Habicht 8X30 W.

It obviously has a wider field of view, and it sees into shadows slightly better.

I can't see anything (fine detail, color shadings, etc) with the Zeiss that I can't see with the Swarovski.

 

[Richard D]

The Zeiss SF 8x32 is the best CA result at 9.4 in the history of Allbinos testing, and the Zeiss FL 8x32 with a CA result of 9.2 is the 2nd best! Find a binocular with a better CA score.

Are these still subjective scores rather than measured?

 

[Richard D]

I test all my binoculars with a similar method for CA and I have tested over 100 binoculars at least and the Zeiss SF 8x32 and 10x32 had the lowest CA I have ever seen, followed closely by the Zeiss FL 8x32. I concur exactly with Allbinos results. This is Allbinos method.

"CHROMATIC ABERRATION (10 points) - The chromatic aberration is estimated by our own observations, setting a contrastive object in the center of the field of view and moving it to the corner. Depending on our observations, binoculars can get here from 0 to 8 points for the center performance and -/+ 2 points for behavior at the edge."

How do we test binoculars? - Description of test methods and categories.

Binoculars tests, published on Optyczne.pl/Allbinos.com are conducted by a group of great optics enthusiasts with a lot of experience under their belts. We’ve handled about 500 pairs of binoculars so far plus several dozen of spotting scopes, telescopes, many eyepieces and plenty of other...

www.allbinos.com

So it's an estimate rather than measured.