• 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)

Yes, that is exactly what I ment. If Noctivid 8x42 would have prominent CA in the center all the time whereever you look it had been a "no no" for me. But it has not in most situations/lightings. Not to me at least. But such threads like this may make people believe that Noctivid 8x42 can not handling CA at all. I tried a Nikon HGL once..and that one had serious issues with handling CA if I remember correctly. Do you think the old Nikon HGL and the Leica Octivid 8x42 handles CA equal..or does the Nocticid 8x42 show more or less CA than the old Nikon HGL?
Those are my thoughts exactly. I’m sensitive to CA, but not overly sensitive. Regardless of hand picked reviews and opinions about CA in Noctivids compared to the other alphas, real life on the ground is what counts. Like you, I’d be one of the first people to send these back if CA was not only intrusive, but if it showed up in the center during the daily observing constantly like some here will have you believe. I’ve sent back multiple binoculars that I felt CA was unacceptable, from Zeiss, Swarovski, Nikon and Leica (Trinovid HD).

And for my own insecurities of whether I’m trying to overlook too much CA in a Noctivid, I’ve had dozens of people try them over the last two years, and I can only remember to three times that people even mentioned CA, and that’s after I’ve asked them to look for it. Most of them are awestruck by the image
 
I am working on you. I have to talk you out of those NV's. Way, way too much CA!

On star tests, the HT showed a lot of spherical aberration and the FL was much better. I have always thought the on-axis view of the FL is superior to the HT. Here is a thread on it on Bird Forum.

Tests of the Zeiss 8x54 HT

Interesting.... because both myself and my friend, who owns a mint FL8x42, agree that the HT is a smidge above.... not much in it, but we both see the HT as the better view.
But that's just using our eyes, no testing or project work ;):D,
But we also both prefer the design and feel of the FL.
 
Here is a thread from Cloudy Night's comparing the HT's to the FL's. (Erik Baker is the moderator and an expert on binoculars)


"A few weeks ago, I finally got a call from my dealer that the first pair of Zeiss Victory HT's had arrived in his shop: the 8x42 HT's I had ordered months ago. All excited, I found my way to the dealer within a few hours. On opening the box and taking the magnificent HT's out, I found out that it was a pair of 10x42 HT's. Oops. The dealer agreed to let me take them home for some testing under the stars. If I liked them, I could buy them. If not, I could return them and wait for the 8x42 HT.

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. Hmm.

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. Since I already tested 8x32 FL's and 8x42 FL's with the same AFOV and TFOV as the still unavailable 8x42 HT's and found those FOV's still on the small side for my taste, I decide to take a different approach. I'll share that below, but first a picture of the Zeiss 10x42 HT's and 10x32 FL's."


Attached Thumbnails

  • 5672493-DSC_8910.jpeg
Now, about the different approach I decide to take to find a suitable companion to the 10x32 FL's:

After considering and testing a 12x56 Zeiss Victory, a 10x56 Zeiss Victory FL and a Swaro 12x50 EL and 15x56 SLC binos, I decided that I would leave the higher magnifications to my tripod mounted Nikon 18x70"s. I discovered that I was looking for another pair of hand-held binoculars to enjoy the heavens. A pair optimized for wider-field views and superb brightness. In the past, I already tried the legendary Zeiss 7x42 Dialyts. A fine pair indeed, but out of production. And I wanted to buy new, since the used "mint" ones for sale turned out to be not so mint when examined in person.

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.

Included is a picture of my new Victory FL's: the 7x42 FL and 10x32 FL.

Attached Thumbnails

5672540-DSC00626.jpeg

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.

One more pic of the 10x32 FL and 10x42 HT's. When comparing with the 32's, you can see that the 10x42 HT's are longer than the 7x42 FL's. The 7x are also the shortest of the 42 FL's."

Attached Thumbnails

5672557-DSC_8907.jpeg
 
Last edited:
There’s no “pattern” just a reluctance to put my account at risk.

Or sometimes to not disrupt someone’s thread.

Just because I don’t agree with how a problem is(n’t) being handled, doesn’t mean I should become a nuisance.
Ah im sorry, I didn’t got the context of your post. Apologies.
 
Yes, that is exactly what I ment. If Noctivid 8x42 would have prominent CA in the center all the time whereever you look it had been a "no no" for me. But it has not in most situations/lightings. Not to me at least. But such threads like this may make people believe that Noctivid 8x42 can not handling CA at all. I tried a Nikon HGL once..and that one had serious issues with handling CA if I remember correctly. Do you think the old Nikon HGL and the Leica Octivid 8x42 handles CA equal..or does the Nocticid 8x42 show more or less CA than the old Nikon HGL?
I had a Nikon HGL, and it had a lot of CA, especially on the edge. Going from memory, I would say it was worse than the Noctivid 8x42 I had, but I still remember seeing edge CA on the Noctivid 8x42. I had a green one and it was a beautiful binocular. I really liked the contrast and saturated colors, so it is a matter of what your preferences are. The Noctivid does have a magic to it, and it has a unique view.

I really like my Zeiss FL 7x42, but it does have a slight green tint. I find it kind of relaxing, but it really bothers some people. Furthermore, I really like the on-axis view of the Zeiss SF's and FL's for some reason. I think it is because of their low CA and lack of aberrations like spherical aberration, even though the FL's do have some distortion and slightly soft edges. The FL's edges are not as soft as some people think, though. I was looking at them today and actually they are not bad.
 
Here is another review on the Noctivid 8x42 criticizing the CA control, but he tolerates it for the view. Noctivids are good binoculars, but CA control is not their strong suite.


"Till
4.0 out of 5 stars Superior low-light performance. Timeless, elegant design. Too much CA for the price.
Reviewed in the United States on September 23, 2019

Superior low-light performance. The relatively high weight should be seen in this context - yes, it's heavy for a 8x42, but still lighter than larger binoculars with similar low light performance. Sharpness and colors are great, but there's too much CA for binoculars in this price range. That's why I give it only four stars.
Another issue is that there are substantial differences between individual devices, both as far as optics and mechanics are concerned. I first got an 2016-11 production unit, later exchanged it for a 2019-03 unit, and the focus adjustment is much better (lighter). Another thing that should not happen in this price range.

Compared to Swarovski EL and Zeiss Victory SF, the Noctivid is smaller, and looks way, way cooler. A clean, minimalistic, classic design! Kind of like the rubber-clad Zeiss of the 1990s, which still look wonderful over 25 years later. Looks may not matter to you, but for me, they do - a device that I plan to use for decades should have a timeless styling... The subjective user experience of the Noctivid is wonderful. It's not something I can quantify - how quickly do I get something in focus, how does it subjectively look? Ultimately, that's the reason I like the Noctivid, and I am willing to deal with the CA. Your experience may vary, and the quality of the Noctivid you're looking through may unfortunately also vary, so it's best to look through the one you are planning to buy, before doing so."
 
Those are my thoughts exactly. I’m sensitive to CA, but not overly sensitive. Regardless of hand picked reviews and opinions about CA in Noctivids compared to the other alphas, real life on the ground is what counts. Like you, I’d be one of the first people to send these back if CA was not only intrusive, but if it showed up in the center during the daily observing constantly like some here will have you believe. I’ve sent back multiple binoculars that I felt CA was unacceptable, from Zeiss, Swarovski, Nikon and Leica (Trinovid HD).

And for my own insecurities of whether I’m trying to overlook too much CA in a Noctivid, I’ve had dozens of people try them over the last two years, and I can only remember to three times that people even mentioned CA, and that’s after I’ve asked them to look for it. Most of them are awestruck by the image
Even Dr. Gijs van Ginkel and the House of Outdoor reported CA in the Noctivid. Too many people say there is CA in the Noctivid. For anybody that is considering the Noctivid, I would recommend you try them first to see if the CA bothers you. It may or may not bother you, but it is without a doubt there. There is no denying it has more CA than a Zeiss FL or SF, but the Noctivid has other qualities that might make you like it better, just like any binocular.

Gijs van Ginkel
"One of the first things the persons invited for the introduction of the NV was the occurrence of Color diffraction, and I also saw it when I got NV samples to be tested (test published on the WEB--site of House of Outdoor)."
 
Any more of this nonsense and some individuals maybe taking a prolonged break from BF, use the ignore member feature if you have issues.
thank you for your cooperation.
Admin
 
Interesting.... because both myself and my friend, who owns a mint FL8x42, agree that the HT is a smidge above.... not much in it, but we both see the HT as the better view.
But that's just using our eyes, no testing or project work ;):D,
But we also both prefer the design and feel of the FL.
What do you prefer about the HT over the FL optically? According to Allbinos the FL's have better CA control, less astigmatism and the HT's have less distortion. The HT and the FL both have AK prisms and the HT may have slightly higher transmission, but not enough difference to notice.

 
Sorry, I don't want to appear rude, but I find it really very regrettable to waste our far too short lifespan on chaotic consumer decisions and not even be satisfied afterwards.
(y) And a further waste of time to keep talking about it incessantly on a forum, until people are bored and annoyed with one another as seems inevitable. I just saw some birder ask how to exclude this binocular section from BF's new posts feed, which it tends to dominate. Not exactly the image I'd like to be contributing to. Repetitive egotistical blather, banal first-world displacement activity, not some special mystique to binoculars as I once imagined, let alone nature or birding; it might as well be about wristwatches, cars, flashlights... (yes there are even forums for those)
 
Yes let us know. These are all magnifying optics which have to operate within the laws of physics and so trade-offs and imperfections are inevitable. I think that in general x32s will produce less CA than x42s but optics experts here might disagree.

Personally, an optic that produces a bit less CA on some targets but by comparison washes out colour and contrast everywhere would not be one that I wanted to use as my main glass. I'm looking at you SF! The NL and HT produce colours as close to the NV as I have seen in a roof prism, but the NL has practical problems with glare-resistance and - if you're unlucky - armour quality, and the HT lacks too much red in the image making things look rather cooler than reality to my eyes.
"Personally, an optic that produces a bit less CA on some targets but by comparison washes out color and contrast everywhere would not be one that I wanted to use as my main glass. I'm looking at you SF!"

The SF has more realistic colors and contrast and represents what you are actually seeing. It is not really 'washed' out. The Noctivid and most Leica's increase color saturation and contrast to enhance the view, but it is not as real. It depends upon your preferences. If you like a real view of the world get a Zeiss, but if you want the saturated colors and high contrast view of a Disneyland movie get the Noctivid.
 
This was a good thread about glass types used in binoculars and explains why the Zeiss FL and later the SF probably have such good CA control.


"Proper Fluorite Crystals (CaF2) are very difficult to make and work with, especially as the diameter increases. Canon use it, as do a few select Telescope makers. Almost any "FL" models use the highest grade of synthetic fluorite glass - i.e. optical glass 'doped' with fluorite. Some top level Schott (or perhaps even O'Hara FPL-53 or equivalent) FL glass is what your 8x32FL and other FL's use, along with the SF's and other high end 'alphas'. Other budget models use very ordinary ED glass indeed. Not all 'ED' glass is created equal ! 🐱"
 
Last edited:
What do you prefer about the HT over the FL optically? According to Allbinos the FL's have better CA control, less astigmatism and the HT's have less distortion. The HT and the FL both have AK prisms and the HT may have slightly higher transmission, but not enough difference to notice.

They are very similar, but HT's just look a fraction better, slightly cleaner, sharper, more contrast.... it's hard to nail it down, but we both agree it is a tad 'up'.
I have never noticed CA in the HT's, or FL's, but the HT's are slightly sharper towards the edge. FL's are fine in this regard too, for my liking anyway, not being a 'sharp to the edge' fanatic.
I would be happy with either, but I won't be searching out some mint FL's over my HT's.
We also have to take into account that Zeiss is unlikely to put out a new model that either doesn't stack up against the old one, or isn't an improvement.
A report I read, said Zeiss had indeed nailed it with the HT's after some concern over dropping the FL line, so people all see it different.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top