Why Does Zeiss Still Use 42mm HTs in their Marketing? (1 Viewer)

[Mark9473]

If only they could have made good eye cups on the HT for those who do not wear glasses and need functional eyecups.

I hesitate to find out about a 'problem' I wasn't aware of, but, just out of curiosity, what do you feel is wrong with the eyecups?
I also don't wear glasses when using binoculars and they work fine for me.

 

[dries1]

Mark this is clarified in post #19. I did not get on well with them, just my subjective opinion.

 

[dorubird]

In my opinion, the 42mm SF line is more versatile than the HT line as a whole tool, may be is why they chose SF to remain in the market. Even if it has a lower transmission than HT, SF light transmission it is not very low at 93%, even very good! Otherwise, in all other chapters SF it is a little better.

 

[Troubador]

Yes, and isn't it ironic that at the same time as Zeiss was designing the SF to look more like the EL, Swarovski was designing the NL to have a look more like the HT.

Take a look at Zeiss HT42. Compared with the prior model, the FL, Zeiss moved the focus wheel from the top of the hinge, split the hinge in two, creating two bridges, and put the focus wheel between the two bridges. This was a significant step both aesthetically and ergonomically. This feature of HT was adopted by SF with the addition of a third bridge and with all three bridges more gracefully integrated into the overall design. So with SF's triple bridge and focus wheel sited between the top two bridges I have difficulty in thinking SF looks anything like Swarovski's EL42 with it's focus wheel on top of the hinge and only two bridges. The only common aspect is the bridge by the objective but even these couldn't be more different with the Swaro's chunky bridge looking quite distinct from the SF's upward curving 'moustache' bridge. Once you step back and look at HT you realise that SF was a logical development of HT and of course came with a weight distribution that added significantly to the success of its ergonomics.

Now, NL discarded the objective bridge, and it does have a focus wheel moved from the top of the hinge, but I am struggling to see any resemblence to HT as NL still has a one piece hinge and bridge, has those slim-line waists, not to mention those hideous knobs on the side for strap attachment.

Lee

 

[CSG]

In my opinion, the 42mm SF line is more versatile than the HT line as a whole tool, may be is why they chose SF to remain in the market. Even if it has a lower transmission than HT, SF light transmission it is not very low at 93%, even very good! Otherwise, in all other chapters SF it is a little better.

Really? How so? Other than a wider FOV (good) I found the ergos are better on the HTs as is the light transmission and color clarity.

 

[dorubird]

1 light trasmission better in HT
2 FOV bigger in SF
3 eye relief smaller in HT
4 more blurring at the edge of the FOV in HT

and the following I think it is very subjective:
5 color fidelity I think it is the same (may be HT little mute)
6 for me SF have the best ergonomic and confort in the world (you get the impression that it is a much lighter binoculars due to the better balance in the hands)
These opinions are shared by many users

 

[quincy88]

Take a look at Zeiss HT42. Compared with the prior model, the FL, Zeiss moved the focus wheel from the top of the hinge, split the hinge in two, creating two bridges, and put the focus wheel between the two bridges. This was a significant step both aesthetically and ergonomically. This feature of HT was adopted by SF with the addition of a third bridge and with all three bridges more gracefully integrated into the overall design. So with SF's triple bridge and focus wheel sited between the top two bridges I have difficulty in thinking SF looks anything like Swarovski's EL42 with it's focus wheel on top of the hinge and only two bridges. The only common aspect is the bridge by the objective but even these couldn't be more different with the Swaro's chunky bridge looking quite distinct from the SF's upward curving 'moustache' bridge. Once you step back and look at HT you realise that SF was a logical development of HT and of course came with a weight distribution that added significantly to the success of its ergonomics.

Now, NL discarded the objective bridge, and it does have a focus wheel moved from the top of the hinge, but I am struggling to see any resemblence to HT as NL still has a one piece hinge and bridge, has those slim-line waists, not to mention those hideous knobs on the side for strap attachment.

Lee

Fair enough. They also come in different colors.

 

[Mark9473]

the addition of a third bridge and with all three bridges more gracefully integrated into the overall design.

Once you step back and look at HT you realise that SF was a logical development of HT

I am struggling to see any resemblence to HT as NL still has a one piece hinge and bridge

I'm sure you don't mind that I don't agree with any of that. Not that it really matters - de gustibus et coloribus etc...
I find the SF 42 just plain ugly and the SF 32 a design disaster with that third bridge up front.
Very happy that with the new SFL, Zeiss is returning to the HT design.

 

[mtn]

How many images of old models are Zeiss using in their marketing overall?

As someone who works on the technical side of a business but advises the marketing team, it would not surprise me if this was just a simple oversight, or perhaps someone on the marketing side didn't check in with whoever they should have before using these images. Sometimes the people responsible for imagery, webpages, etc., can be pretty disconnected from other segments of a business.

 

[CSG]

I'm sure you don't mind that I don't agree with any of that. Not that it really matters - de gustibus et coloribus etc...
I find the SF 42 just plain ugly and the SF 32 a design disaster with that third bridge up front.
Very happy that with the new SFL, Zeiss is returning to the HT design.

I'd ordered the 8x32 SFs some months ago and aside from their construction issues with my sample, I thought the ergonomics were terrible. Needless to say, they were returned same day.

 

[cycleguy]

8x42 HT was on my shortlist of "ones to try" then became unavailable. Saved me a bunch of money!

 

[NDhunter]

Perhaps I got some bad samples, glad they work for you.
I started to think perhaps Zeiss thought that if one dropped their binocular the eyecups were meant to act as the primary absorption of the impact (plastic and threaded on the thin side), so while eyecup is totaled after impact, the binocular never felt any impact in respect to prisms or internal lens.

Andy:
You are correct, Zeiss has said the very thing. Some years back when Mike Jensen was at Zeiss he posted and was
available on here. I really liked his availability and open communication, a great guy.
I asked him about the very tight fit of the cases. He said that they want users to put the eyecups down when using the bag.
This prevents the accidental collapse when they are forced down if handled roughly. I would agree, it is much easier to make them that way.
Replace an eyecup, rather than much more......that could go wrong.
Jerry

 

[SeldomPerched]

If only they could have made good eye cups on the HT for those who do not wear glasses and need functional eyecups.

Hear hear; that is the reason I sold mine in the end after three years of good use, as I preferred the build of the 7x42 T*FL and the look and colour were very similar. If anything the HT had an edge in colour saturation of warmer colours. The eyecups on the HT felt mushy. However a part of me still regrets selling them as they were so bright and revealing. In good daylight they seemed so bright they should have carried an eye-damage warning!

Tom

 

[St. Elmo]

"not to mention those hideous knobs on the side for strap attachment" My sentiments exactly.

 

[[email protected]]

I tried a Zeiss 8x42 SF side by side with a Zeiss 8x42 HT once. I much preferred the SF for the better CA control, less astigmatism, less distortion, less coma, way sharper edges, much bigger FOV and better ergonomics with the weight rearward design which makes the binocular feel lighter. The only advantage the HT has is maybe 2% better light transmission, which is hardly noticeable in normal use. I can easily understand why Zeiss discontinued the HT.