• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Why do Zeiss's alpha level binoculars like the FL and SF have some of the best CA control of any binoculars? (1 Viewer)

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Why do Zeiss alpha level binoculars like the FL and SF have some of the best CA control of any binoculars? Zeiss alpha binoculars like the FL and SF have some of the best CA control of any binoculars. Swarovski's have good CA control, but Zeiss FL'and SF's are usually a little better. They must be using similar grades of Schott glass in these alpha level binoculars, so why do Zeiss seem to edge out most of the competition when it comes to CA?

The Zeiss SF 8x32 and SF 10x32 are particularly good at controlling CA because I see almost no CA in the center or on the edge in either of them, and I have never seen that before in the dozens of binoculars that I have tested for CA. I use a similar subjective method of testing for CA that Allbinos uses, so it is not perfect, but it should give you an idea of how well a particular binocular controls CA. Allbinos also agrees that some Zeiss models like the SF 8x32 have the best CA control they have ever seen, so is it the glass or something in the optical design of the binocular, like more ED lenses in the optical train?

From Allbinos
"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."

 
Last edited:
Why do Zeiss binoculars seem to have some of the best CA control of any binoculars? Zeiss binoculars in general seem to have some of the best CA control of any brand of binoculars, especially the SF's and FL's. Swarovski's have good CA control, but Zeiss are usually a little better. They must be using similar grades of Schott glass in these alpha level binoculars, so why dos Zeiss seem to edge out most of the competition when it comes to CA?

The Zeiss SF 8x32 and SF 10x32 seem to be particularly good at controlling CA because I see almost no CA in the center or on the edge in either of them, and I have never seen that before in the dozens of binoculars that I have tested for CA. I use a similar subjective method of testing for CA that Allbinos uses, so it is not perfect, but it should give you an idea of how well a particular binocular controls CA. Allbinos also agrees that some Zeiss models like the SF 8x32 have the best CA control they have ever seen, so is it the glass or something in the optical design of the binocular, like more ED lenses in the optical train?

From Allbinos
"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."

"Seem to have some of..."

Perhaps it 'seems' so because you currently own 'some' ?
 
"Seem to have some of..."

Perhaps it 'seems' so because you currently own 'some' ?
I do own some, but it is a fact that the Zeiss FL and SF control CA better than almost any other binocular if you check the CA results on Allbinos. Also, I have tested many myself and I agree with their results because I see almost zero CA in the center and on the edge for example on my SF 10x32 and I have never seen that before on any binoculars.

Usually I will get a little color fringing, at least on the edge, so that is why I was wondering what is Zeiss doing different to achieve such spectacular CA control. If you read Allbinos results on CA for many Zeiss binoculars, they say the same thing. What I am asking is what is Zeiss doing differently than Swarovski that keeps them ahead of Swarovski in CA control.

" We haven’t found a better transmission, coma correction and chromatic aberration correction level in any other 42 mm class device."

"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."

"What are the assets of the Zeiss, then? It corrects better chromatic aberration, its apparent field of view is wider and the areas near exit pupils darker."
 
Last edited:
Dennis,
Have you ever had the SF and NL 8x32 side by side?

Sum of the parts rather than written specs, I found the NL a nicer binocular in use.
Albeit compared only briefly, the NL was nicer to hold and focus, and their view, well, a bit nicer, getting a zing score of 9.5, the SF scoring 9.3 zing 😉 .
Sample of one of each of course.


(I'd love to have three of each mounted on six tripods, hidden in such a way you can only see the ocular glass; and actually try to differentiate the views. Guessing it would be interesting as a self assessment)
 
Dennis,
Have you ever had the SF and NL 8x32 side by side?

Sum of the parts rather than written specs, I found the NL a nicer binocular in use.
Albeit compared only briefly, the NL was nicer to hold and focus, and their view, well, a bit nicer, getting a zing score of 9.5, the SF scoring 9.3 zing 😉 .
Sample of one of each of course.


(I'd love to have three of each mounted on six tripods, hidden in such a way you can only see the ocular glass; and actually try to differentiate the views. Guessing it would be interesting as a self assessment)
I had the NL 8x32 and 10x32 and SF 8x32 and 10x32 side by side for a long time and compared them closely. Ergonomics is just personal preference. I like the rearward weight balance of the SF's, they are an ounce lighter, they have better CA control, regular strap lugs and I prefer the smoother focuser of the SF. I did like the sharper edges of the NL versus the SF, but I couldn't tolerate the veiling glare in the NL's in the lower part of the FOV.

People that wear glasses don't seem to see the glare in the NL's and some people can reduce it with careful eyepiece adjustment, but I never could. The SF and NL each have their own pluses and minuses, and choosing one or the other comes down to personal preference. Glare and CA control are two of the most important criteria in a binocular I choose, and the SF is superior in those areas, and that is why I prefer it.

 
Last edited:
I don't give high trust to all bino result.
I only look at transmission curve for color fidelity(not the transmission amount), FOV, weight, Close focus.

zeiss TFL & SF have been leading the market of their era in trems of CA correction.
especially at perephery which is a nice competitor agains Kowa genesis (but I put Zeiss CA control above Kowa because Zeiss delivers significantly higher brightness.

But unfortunately, & SFL didn't get close to correcting CA like those to.

and more unfortunate fact is that SF 8x42 fail to control CA on the edge. so. Ironically, SF 10x42 show total less amount of CA then lower magnification 42mm.

Zeiss HT, SF is not a glare free bino compared to Leica NV and Nikon EDG, but as it is the biggest falls of Swaro EL & NL, Zeiss is still more then two steps above of that part.

I really don't like strong yellow - green hue of SF 10x42, so I'm not planning to own it.
but I have to admit, it is the only non Swaro bino to compete against Swarovski EL & NL (
Optically & Ergonomically)

haven't seen any 32mm SF or even heard of possible Korean user.
Distributor said they sell couple of them but it doesn't appeared even once in Korean forum or second hand market.

sf 10x42 digiscope

20230701_120823.jpg
20230326_123926.jpg
20230324_114028.jpg20230324_104049.jpg
the yellowish green hue make white flower look green
20230324_110117.jpg
but, it enhance the contrast of yellow and green and black
one of the best bino for late spring & summer forest.
 
Last edited:
Dennis,
Have you ever had the SF and NL 8x32 side by side?

Sum of the parts rather than written specs, I found the NL a nicer binocular in use.
Albeit compared only briefly, the NL was nicer to hold and focus, and their view, well, a bit nicer, getting a zing score of 9.5, the SF scoring 9.3 zing 😉 .
Sample of one of each of course.


(I'd love to have three of each mounted on six tripods, hidden in such a way you can only see the ocular glass; and actually try to differentiate the views. Guessing it would be interesting as a self assessment)
comparing 8&10 42mm of SF & NL,
NL is clear winner optically because of the significantly larger FOV (6.8 / 7.6) at 10, (8.5 / 9.1) at 8.

but 32mm, (7.4 / 7.5) at 10, (8.8 / 8.5) at 8 can add nice power to SF in battle with NL
 
Why do Zeiss binoculars have some of the best CA control of any binoculars? Zeiss binoculars in general have some of the best CA control of any brand of binoculars, especially the SF's and FL's. Swarovski's have good CA control, but Zeiss are usually a little better. They must be using similar grades of Schott glass in these alpha level binoculars, so why do Zeiss seem to edge out most of the competition when it comes to CA?

The Zeiss SF 8x32 and SF 10x32 are particularly good at controlling CA because I see almost no CA in the center or on the edge in either of them, and I have never seen that before in the dozens of binoculars that I have tested for CA. I use a similar subjective method of testing for CA that Allbinos uses, so it is not perfect, but it should give you an idea of how well a particular binocular controls CA. Allbinos also agrees that some Zeiss models like the SF 8x32 have the best CA control they have ever seen, so is it the glass or something in the optical design of the binocular, like more ED lenses in the optical train?

From Allbinos
"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."

I can answer that, even though it’s a leading assumptive question, and I’ll be brief. Zeiss does not have some of the best CA control anymore than others. It comes down to the models , not the brand. You know better D. ✌🏼🙏🏼
 
comparing 8&10 42mm of SF & NL,
NL is clear winner optically because of the significantly larger FOV (6.8 / 7.6) at 10, (8.5 / 9.1) at 8.

but 32mm, (7.4 / 7.5) at 10, (8.8 / 8.5) at 8 can add nice power to SF in battle with NL
That is a big reason I bought the SF 10x32. The 7.5 degree FOV. That and the exceptional CA control.
 
I don't give high trust to all bino result.
I only look at transmission curve for color fidelity(not the transmission amount), FOV, weight, Close focus.

zeiss TFL & SF have been leading the market of their era in trems of CA correction.
especially at perephery which is a nice competitor agains Kowa genesis (but I put Zeiss CA control above Kowa because Zeiss delivers significantly higher brightness.

But unfortunately, & SFL didn't get close to correcting CA like those to.

and more unfortunate fact is that SF 8x42 fail to control CA on the edge. so. Ironically, SF 10x42 show total less amount of CA then lower magnification 42mm.

Zeiss HT, SF is not a glare free bino compared to Leica NV and Nikon EDG, but as it is the biggest falls of Swaro EL & NL, Zeiss is still more then two steps above of that part.

I really don't like strong yellow - green hue of SF 10x42, so I'm not planning to own it.
but I have to admit, it is the only non Swaro bino to compete against Swarovski EL & NL (
Optically & Ergonomically)

haven't seen any 32mm SF or even heard of possible Korean user.
Distributor said they sell couple of them but it doesn't appeared even once in Korean forum or second hand market.

sf 10x42 digiscope

View attachment 1599907
View attachment 1599914
View attachment 1599908View attachment 1599909
the yellowish green hue make white flower look green
View attachment 1599911
but, it enhance the contrast of yellow and green and black
one of the best bino for late spring & summer forest.
jackjack. Nice pictures! They certainly are green! You must have very lush forests in Korea. I agree with everything you said. You definitely know your binoculars. I have heard Zeiss favor the green end of the color spectrum to enhance low light performance and contrast. I don't know if it is true or not. It could be Zeiss coatings just favor the green end of the color spectrum, like Leica's favor the red. My Zeiss SF 10x32 has very little green tint, but my FL 7x42 definitely do. I don't find it disagreeable but rather kind of soothing and relaxing. Zeiss actually tints prescription glasses with a green tint because psychologically it is relaxing.

 

Attachments

  • zeiss-biochrom-portfolio.jpg
    zeiss-biochrom-portfolio.jpg
    97 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
On average, Zeiss without a doubt has the best CA control of any binoculars. Go down the list and compare Allbinos results, and you will see for yourself. Sure, there are some exceptions, but in general Zeiss is 'King' when it comes to CA. Swarovski is 'King' when it comes to edge sharpness.
No, it’s not on average, and there is much doubt in your statement about Zeiss and CA control. Allbinos is no more than entertainment on the topic of binoculars with some objective measurements and the rest subjective opinions of one person, maybe two. I’ve owned dozens of binoculars that allbinos did reviews. Ive had hands on , side by comparisons with multiple groups of observers and I can tell you for a fact that allbinos has been off more times than I could count. I do believe there are multiple reasons for that, testing procedures have changed, his individual physiological characteristics, possible unit to unit variation and so on. That being said SLC’s are better corrected than Zeiss Conquest’s, Terra’s and even SFL’s, EL’s are also much better, Kowa Genesis models are better than many Zeiss in that area, that’s just to name a few. The only Zeiss models that excel in the CA area are the FL’s ( which have other issues, edge distortion), SF’s and to an extent the HT’s. So no, Zeiss are not better in the CA area as a company than others.
 
No, it’s not on average, and there is much doubt in your statement about Zeiss and CA control. Allbinos is no more than entertainment on the topic of binoculars with some objective measurements and the rest subjective opinions of one person, maybe two. I’ve owned dozens of binoculars that allbinos did reviews. Ive had hands on , side by comparisons with multiple groups of observers and I can tell you for a fact that allbinos has been off more times than I could count. I do believe there are multiple reasons for that, testing procedures have changed, his individual physiological characteristics, possible unit to unit variation and so on. That being said SLC’s are better corrected than Zeiss Conquest’s, Terra’s and even SFL’s, EL’s are also much better, Kowa Genesis models are better than many Zeiss in that area, that’s just to name a few. The only Zeiss models that excel in the CA area are the FL’s ( which have other issues, edge distortion), SF’s and to an extent the HT’s. So no, Zeiss are not better in the CA area as a company than others.
I didn't really mean on average. I meant the Zeiss FL and SF are consistently some of the best binoculars for CA control, but there are other binoculars that are exceptional, like the Kowa Genesis. You are correct in that not all Zeiss binoculars are exceptional for CA control. The Conquest, Terra's and even SFL's are not the best for CA control. Thanks for waking me up!
 
Last edited:
jackjack. Nice pictures! They certainly are green! You must have very lush forests in Korea. I agree with everything you said. You definitely know your binoculars. I have heard Zeiss favor the green end of the color spectrum to enhance low light performance and contrast. I don't know if it is true or not. It could be Zeiss coatings just favor the green end of the color spectrum, like Leica's favor the red. My Zeiss SF 10x32 has very little green tint, but my FL 7x42 definitely do. I don't find it disagreeable but rather kind of soothing and relaxing. Zeiss actually tints prescription glasses with a green tint because psychologically it is relaxing.


Zeiss said so at the end of the blog post saying about T coating.
And it works nicely at nighttime.

but due to bit more blue light spectrum, it can be more stressfull to eye against strong light.
that's why Eastern militery bino use deep yellow color (because of snow) and many users praise Nikon EDG and leica bino's comfortness at day time.


Schott HT glass used in HT not only increase transmission but color fidelity.

so Ht have less green but more red then TFL.
and Leica UV HD+ have more blue then Leica UV HD

red - orange hue that leica gives reult in bit decrease of purple ~ green spectrum compared to red and orange spectrum.

At least I belive on the shape of the transmission graph (not the amount) allbino presents after 2014.
It is the part that I 90%+ agree with allbino.
 
I almost agree 100% with Allbinos results with my eyes, so I know they are accurate. The statement saying all Zeiss have excellent CA control is not true. The Zeiss FL, SF are the models that have excellent CA control, with the FL slightly better than the SF. The Zeiss Conquest HD doesn't have exceptional CA control, nor do Zeiss's lower end binoculars like the Terra. The SF 8x32, had the best CA control Allbinos has ever seen. The trouble with Swarovski's in general is they have good CA control in the center, but not on the edge. The Kowa Genesis are pretty good for CA control, but not quite as good as the Zeiss FL or the SF 8x32.
EL 10x32 have best CA in the edge between EL 10 power. in 10 power EL, periphery CA get strong as the lens diameter grow.
1000256409.jpg
(Edge CA of EL 10x50 left / EL 10x32 right)

but still, SF 10x42 have better CA control at edge compared to EL.
And CA spectrum is bit difftent compared to SF / NL&EL.

SF's CA shows more magenta and deep green compared to purple and yellowish green of EL & NL

periphery CA
10x32 EL / 10x42 SF
1000256413.jpg
 
Last edited:
I can answer that, even though it’s a leading assumptive question, and I’ll be brief. Zeiss does not have some of the best CA control anymore than others. It comes down to the models , not the brand. You know better D. ✌🏼🙏🏼
You're correct, for once! :LOL: I meant to say the SF and FL instead of all Zeiss binoculars. The Terra certainly aren't the best for CA control.
 
No, it’s not on average, and there is much doubt in your statement about Zeiss and CA control. Allbinos is no more than entertainment on the topic of binoculars with some objective measurements and the rest subjective opinions of one person, maybe two. I’ve owned dozens of binoculars that allbinos did reviews. Ive had hands on , side by comparisons with multiple groups of observers and I can tell you for a fact that allbinos has been off more times than I could count. I do believe there are multiple reasons for that, testing procedures have changed, his individual physiological characteristics, possible unit to unit variation and so on. That being said SLC’s are better corrected than Zeiss Conquest’s, Terra’s and even SFL’s, EL’s are also much better, Kowa Genesis models are better than many Zeiss in that area, that’s just to name a few. The only Zeiss models that excel in the CA area are the FL’s ( which have other issues, edge distortion), SF’s and to an extent the HT’s. So no, Zeiss are not better in the CA area as a company than others.
Zeiss CA differs a lot.

such as.

SF 8x42 has less Central CA then EDG 8x42

but
CHD 8x42 have more CA then MHG 8x42


I agree that TFL and SF have top CA control on their price point but HT & CHD & Terra ED don't compete well on their price point.

Kowa Genesis are well Known for CA control like their field scope. but Kowa BD2 10power don't even get close to average CA control of MIC under 500$ bin.

Swarovski NL is the top preformer in central CA but CL companion 8x30 even have more CA then leica ultravid 8x32

so. What I intend to mean is CA doesn't differ in brands but differ in model (can even differ in diffrent apature between same model series.)

CHD 10x32/ EL 10x32 CA comparison

centeral
1000256417.jpg

edge
1000256418.jpg
 
Last edited:

Zeiss said so at the end of the blog post saying about T coating.
And it works nicely at nighttime.

but due to bit more blue light spectrum, it can be more stressfull to eye against strong light.
that's why Eastern militery bino use deep yellow color (because of snow) and many users praise Nikon EDG and leica bino's comfortness at day time.


Schott HT glass used in HT not only increase transmission but color fidelity.

so Ht have less green but more red then TFL.
and Leica UV HD+ have more blue then Leica UV HD

red - orange hue that leica gives reult in bit decrease of purple ~ green spectrum compared to red and orange spectrum.

At least I belive on the shape of the transmission graph (not the amount) allbino presents after 2014.
It is the part that I 90%+ agree with allbino.
Interesting blog about the Zeiss T coating. Very good information!
 
EL 10x32 have best CA in the edge between EL 10 power. in 10 power EL, periphery CA get strong as the lens diameter grow.
View attachment 1599932
(Edge CA of EL 10x50 left / EL 10x32 right)

but still, SF 10x42 have better CA control at edge compared to EL.
And CA spectrum is bit difftent compared to SF / NL&EL.

SF's CA shows more magenta and deep green compared to purple and yellowish green of EL & NL

periphery CA
10x32 EL / 10x42 SF
View attachment 1599941
That is a big difference between the periphery CA 10x32 EL and the 10x42 SF.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top