Why would you buy a Zeiss HT over an SF? (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Mau]

Dennis

This appears to be a single question but actually it is several disguised as only one.

HT has two bridges.
SF has three bridges.

Which one(s) are you asking about?
Or are you asking about the HTs array of bridges vs the SFs array ie each binocular's total system?

And are you talking about strength in terms of compression, angular impact or torsion?

Not that I know the answer to whatever question you were asking but it is as well to be aware that simple engineering questions often aren't simple.

And its usually not advisable with engineering to consider one aspect in isolation. If dropped onto a stone floor HT might suffer different damage from an SF. For example its armour is quite solid so the impact might transfer to the optics and cause collimation issues whereas the SF's impact-absorbing armour might prevent this.

Would the quality of HT and SF be improved if they had metal eyecups? Instinct might say yes, but if they fell and landed heavily on the metal eyecups and the shock was transmitted to the optics instead of cracking a plastic eyecup then one might say 'lets stay with the plastic'.

Lee

I feel the same about the eye cups. At least you could easily replace them. I preferred the armour on the SF versus the HT. I preferred the ergonomics on the SF versus the HT. Which ones ergonomics do you prefer?

 

[Troubador]

I feel the same about the eye cups. At least you could easily replace them. I preferred the armour on the SF versus the HT. I preferred the ergonomics on the SF versus the HT. Which ones ergonomics do you prefer?

I still love the HT's handling to bits but the weight distribution of SF means the handling is better still. This factor particularly comes into play when watching behaviour for extended periods. I can hold the SFs steadier for longer.

However I still think HT is a significant step forward from FL for handling.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Thanks for that clarification. It is nice to have a "Poop Expert" on Bird Forum.:-O

My relationship with the poo of farm animals started many years ago when I was about 13. We lived in the country and a herd of cattle roamed the fields nearby on a rotation basis. In early November when fireworks were in the shops me and a pal would get half a dozen 'bangers' and having lit one we would stuff into one of the many cow pats in the field across the road and then run like blazes to escape the 'blast radius'. :eek!:

The 'fall-out' resulting from the mini-explosion inside the poo was sometimes spectacular and you had to be quick on your feet to get out of the way. :-O

Lee

 

[Dennis Mau]

My relationship with the poo of farm animals started many years ago when I was about 13. We lived in the country and a herd of cattle roamed the fields nearby on a rotation basis. In early November when fireworks were in the shops me and a pal would get half a dozen 'bangers' and having lit one we would stuff into one of the many cow pats in the field across the road and then run like blazes to escape the 'blast radius'. :eek!:

The 'fall-out' resulting from the mini-explosion inside the poo was sometimes spectacular and you had to be quick on your feet to get out of the way. :-O

Lee

Hmmm interesting. Instead of a "Pipe Bomb" you made a "Poop Bomb"!

 

[Troubador]

Hmmm interesting. Instead of a "Pipe Bomb" you made a "Poop Bomb"!

LOL thats a good one Dennis :-O

Lee

 

[mayabird]

Can someone show the schematic why the objective lens of the Zeiss HT is not aligned to the eyepiece? Shouldn't roof prisms binoculars have them aligned?

 

[Troubador]

Can someone show the schematic why the objective lens of the Zeiss HT is not aligned to the eyepiece? Shouldn't roof prisms binoculars have them aligned?

Take a look at the pic which shows Zeiss FL and HT as if they are joined. The both have Abbe-Koenig prisms and if you look closely you can see the the top face of the prisms, where the light exits to go to the eyepieces, is slightly offset from the face at the bottom where the light enters on its way from the objective lens.

The more commonly used Schmidt-Pechan prisms are aligned in the way that you suggest.

A-K prisms pass the light using internal reflection (which is very efficient) S-P prisms need a reflective coating on one face, which is not as efficient although modern dielectric coatings have made it nearly so.

Lee

 

[mayabird]

Take a look at the pic which shows Zeiss FL and HT as if they are joined. The both have Abbe-Koenig prisms and if you look closely you can see the the top face of the prisms, where the light exits to go to the eyepieces, is slightly offset from the face at the bottom where the light enters on its way from the objective lens.

The more commonly used Schmidt-Pechan prisms are aligned in the way that you suggest.

A-K prisms pass the light using internal reflection (which is very efficient) S-P prisms need a reflective coating on one face, which is not as efficient although modern dielectric coatings have made it nearly so.

Lee

So the Zeiss HT doesn't have any dielectric coating as it's not a normal roof?

Is there a Zeiss HT in the 32 mm format? The 42 appears to be so bulky.

 

[mfunnell]

So the Zeiss HT doesn't have any dielectric coating as it's not a normal roof?

Is there a Zeiss HT in the 32 mm format? The 42 appears to be so bulky.

There are 8x32 and 10x32 models in the older Zeiss FL line, which are still being produced. They use Schmidt-Pechan prisms, rather than the Abbe-Koenigs used in the larger FLs and HTs (the SFs use Schmidt-Pechan prisms). There are rumours that Zeiss will be coming out with 32mm bins in their SF line but for now they're just that: rumours.

The 8x32 FLs are excellent and quite compact little binoculars (as, I presume, the 10x32 FLs are as well).

All these binoculars have phase coatings (which I assume are dielectric) but A-K prisms don't require a mirror coating.

...Mike

P.S. You can see the full range of Zeiss binoculars here:

http://www.zeiss.com/sports-optics/en_de/nature/binoculars.html

 

[Troubador]

So the Zeiss HT doesn't have any dielectric coating as it's not a normal roof?

Is there a Zeiss HT in the 32 mm format? The 42 appears to be so bulky.

See Mike's reply: his reply is very helpful and accurate as usual.

And to answer your question about prism coatings, the HT doesn't need this. However I would call it a normal roof as this design has been around for decades. Perhaps you could say it isn't the same as the most 'common' roofs.

There isn't a 32mm HT because it was conceived as an instrument specialising in passing as much light as possible, so it performs really well at twilight in and in cloudy, dull conditions. A 32mm version would contradict this design goal.

Actually, in the hands, HT feels sleek and classic and not at all bulky.

Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

..... Is there a Zeiss HT in the 32 mm format? The 42 appears to be so bulky.

....... There isn't a 32mm HT because it was conceived as an instrument specialising in passing as much light as possible, so it performs really well at twilight in and in cloudy, dull conditions. A 32mm version would contradict this design goal.

Lee

Maya, the real reason there is no x32 HT is because Zeiss is too dopey.

There is at least a tangible 1%+ gain in transmission to be had with the use of HT glass as per the Schott catalogue transmission specs - even in the little x32's S-P prisms, with the biggest gains to be had in the bluish part of the spectrum. As per the x42 HT this allows the coatings to be retuned to give better transmission in the orange/red wavelengths as well, thus flattening out the typical Zeiss hill-like transmission graph and giving much better blue and red colour saturation whilst maintaining excellent colour rendition neutrality. Lee himself has waxed lyrical many a time on this wonderful colour improvement of the x42 HT over the superceded FL - the whole of the intangibles being greater than the sum of its parts.

To say that Zeiss didn't want to increase the light transmission of the little x32's because they are not purpose built low light binoculars is ridiculous. Many more people's pupils will dilate past 4mm thus limiting the brightness of the view through these binoculars, ..... making every % in transmission worthwhile, giving important concomitant gains in glare reduction as well. Category competitors - the Swarovski Habicht x30's are at 95-96% transmission according to some measurements. If a 1-2-3% gain is of no consequence then where do you draw the line ..... 5% less? 10% less? ridiculous% less? Exactly. It's a nonsense argument. Unless Zeiss are striving to be toward or at 100% they have work to do!

No matter what the apologists say this miss is a major fail from Zeiss - perhaps they were too busy with the x54 HT introduction problems and the extensive pre-production and component quality supply issues they had with the SF's. Forward thinking and progressive Alpha optical company - Leica has already jumped on precisely this HT glass into roof prism opportunity with their entire range - x50, x42, and x32's ! :eek!: :king: :t:

So much of an advance did Leica deem this HT glass addition that they specifically and officially renamed their model range from the UltraVid HD to the UltraVid HD+. The increase in light transmission has already been measured at a couple of % higher, and they have garnered widespread acclaim for their increased 'sparkle' and other barely perceptible improvements to the view.

Zeiss should have improved the 8x32 FL 2 years ago! They should have added HT glass, upped the FL spec glass to Ultra FL, re-indexed coatings, maybe an aspherical element in the existing design to try an reduce the off axis astigmatism and improve the randpupille, and replaced the fiberglass with lightweight high index carbon fibers in the polymer chassis matrix. Smaller, lighter dual density rubber armouring would complete a very very handy mid-life model upgrade. Better, Brighter, Lighter -- what's not to love? Several 'fashion' versions could be leveraged off this in all sorts of baby Ostrich and Hyena perforated leather casings! :eek!: It would have provided a substantial upgrade for next to no development dollars, enhanced competitiveness and market share, and provided handy breathing space for the gestation of the altogrther different kettle of fish x32 SF - hopefully not using early customers as beta-testers this time! :-C

In much the same way as Swarovski has a two-tier Alpha strategy in the x42 format (traditional SLC and flat field SV), Zeiss can do the same in x32 with the HT and on it's way SF. To say that the HT is a low light HunTers model and all the rest of the rah-rah-style marketing bunkum they have boxed themselves in with, is amatuerish nonsense -- they've already set the precedent with the FL's! B

Perhaps they need a good Strategic Director?! .... I'm not cheap, but by crikey I'll make you a ton of money! o

As a relevant link to this thread, I have long suspected that the Swarovski SV uses something like HT glass given their high blue transmission levels, tabletop flat transmission curves, and crystaline views (check the 10x42 SV transmission graph from Allbino's). Apart from the Zeiss x42's A-K prism 'clarity', I think the HT glass adds up to many advantages reported in colour rendition of the Zeiss HT over the SF with its reported greenish tint. In fact for the over $2500+ ask of the SF's it's surprising and disappointing they don't come with HT glass too .....


Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

Yawn!

Whatever opportunities Zeiss might have missed by not introducing an HT 32, their logic was clear: a 42 and then a 54.

Would an HT 32 have been nice?
You bet.

Whats the next 32 from Zeiss?
According to Stephen Ingraham last year, an SF 32, 'possibly' late this year, but no further confirmation has been forthcoming. And if it follows the pattern of the 42 it will contain both fluoride and high transmission lenses.

Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

Yawn! .....

Lee, my feelings exactly! :-O

Just because you can explain Zeiss logic (again! 28 different ways, unfortunately doesn't make it a strategically correct decision ...... :smoke:

Please stop 'apologising' for their lack of strategic insight - it's getting to the point where I want to *vomit*

I'd really much rather see a range of x50 SF's first - Zeiss is non-existent in that market segment ...... :cat:

..... if it follows the pattern of the 42 it will contain both fluoride and high transmission lenses .....

I know the SF is trumpeted as having an "Ultra-FL lens system", but I don't recall anywhere in the marketing guff claims of (HT) "high transmission lenses" as you say, unless I've forgotten about them in the SF's looooooooooong long gestation and early production bug fixing period ....... :h?:

Where pray tell o are the HT lenses if any?? :brains:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

Lee, my feelings exactly! :-O

Just because you can explain Zeiss logic (again! 28 different ways, unfortunately doesn't make it a strategically correct decision ...... :smoke:

I know the SF is trumpeted as having an "Ultra-FL lens system", but I don't recall anywhere in the marketing guff claims of (HT) "high transmission lenses" as you say, unless I've forgotten about them in the SF's looooooooooong long gestation and early production bug fixing period ....... :h?:

Where pray tell o are the HT lenses if any?? :brains:
Chosun :gh:

CJ
And just because you can explain (again) how Zeiss are wrong with their strategy (and I am not saying they are right) it doesn't mean you are right either. And I am sorry if my explanations nearly make you vomit, I must try harder.

Even better, you could keep things civil.

You don't know, and neither do I, how Zeiss have decided to use their available resources. HT 32s or no HT 32s, is not a question that exists in splendid isolation. There are undoubtedly other projects in the pipeline that Zeiss has prioritised.

As to the question of HT and FL lenses, I felt there was a gap in the information concerning SF in this regard and so asked the question and received a reply from Zeiss Wetzlar confirming that FL lenses and HT lenses, both made with Schott glass are specified for SF. And no, I didn't ask which lenses.

Now go away and don't come back until you are in a better mood.

Lee

 

[Steve]

FFS it's like a play ground in a remedial kids school in the binocular forum recently, some of you make it so unpleasant for others to debate and enjoy,so knock it off please> Im still angry at that idiot from the other night so seriously take heed, Im hitting the ban button without any mercy if you don't stop the constant bickering.

Call my bluff if you like.

rant over

Steve x

Mods cut and paste this in any other thread if you see the children misbehaving.

 

[james holdsworth]

I asked this before of Mike Jensen - Zeiss sells way more 42 mm and up bins. than 32 and smaller - that's likely why the delay. Sure, the 32's are popular here but apparently not to the public at large.

 

[Hermann]

Yawn!

Whatever opportunities Zeiss might have missed by not introducing an HT 32, their logic was clear: a 42 and then a 54.

Would an HT 32 have been nice?
You bet.

Their logic may have been clear, at least to them. But it was faulty. They left the market for 32mm binoculars completely to their contenders. Not a bright idea at all, I'd say.

And if they come out with a 32mm SF at some stage that follows the same design pattern as the 42mm SF, with SP prisms and long tubes, I believe they'll be in for a difficult time. 32mm binoculars are usually bought for their low weight *and* their smallish size. A 32mm SF that's as long as the 42mm Ultravid HD Plus (or at least almost as long) will have a hard time getting a decent market share even if it comes with a low weight, considering that the Swarovision 8x32 is deemed to be a bit on the long side by quite a few birdwatchers. And if a 32mm SF comes out sometime at the end of the year, it'll be very late, especially if you take into account it will take some time to iron the bugs out. There was a time when you could could be sure Zeiss got a new binocular right from the start, but not anymore, I'm afraid.

Now, if they had gone for a 32mm HT with AK prisms shortly after the introduction of the 42mm HT, that would also have been a long binocular. But it could and should have been on the market for years now, and with the optical advantages inherent to that design (no need for dielectric coatings, slightly higher transmission) I'm quite sure it would have been bought by a good number of people. Especially if it had had decent stray light handling and a good focuser, something that's somewhat lacking in the Swarovision 8x32.

No, I don't really think Zeiss have got their strategy sorted out. And that's a shame.

Hermann

 

[Chosun Juan]

[EDIT]: Mod STEVE - I saw your post after I had finished typing this (so I hope this legitimate response of a gal defending her honour, and asking further questions is not the subject of your wrath). The true beauty and value of BF is that the ordinary public can share and discuss, probe, learn, and even briefly, wittily, banter and laugh, along with scientific fact, and robust debate even. Let me be crystal clear - I am not casting aspersions or accusing any specific individual. However, also on this forum are relevant, practising company executives, dealers, traders, technicians, repairmen, testers, bloggers, commercial interests, and others at less than arms lengths relationships - they consist of the current, the retired, the professional, and amatuer alike - as well as us ordinary folk who deserve the right to free speech so that this forum doesn't possibly start to head towards becoming something like a glorified advertorial, where the grey lines and content becomes inadvertantly blurred, and the thin end of the wedge starts down that slippery slope of covert influence by interested parties. Again let me be crystal clear - this is directed at no individual, nor insinuated. I and several others value the interaction here and the integrity of BF. Long may it be so.

CJ
And just because you can explain (again) how Zeiss are wrong with their strategy (and I am not saying they are right) it doesn't mean you are right either. And I am sorry if my explanations nearly make you vomit, I must try harder.

Even better, you could keep things civil.

You don't know, and neither do I, how Zeiss have decided to use their available resources. HT 32s or no HT 32s, is not a question that exists in splendid isolation. There are undoubtedly other projects in the pipeline that Zeiss has prioritised.

As to the question of HT and FL lenses, I felt there was a gap in the information concerning SF in this regard and so asked the question and received a reply from Zeiss Wetzlar confirming that FL lenses and HT lenses, both made with Schott glass are specified for SF. And no, I didn't ask which lenses.

Now go away and don't come back until you are in a better mood.

Lee

Lee, that's rather uncivilised and unsporting of you old chap! :storm: Throwing your toys out of the cot hardly substitutes for a well thought out, logical and cogent response ...... :smoke:

Of course I am correct - Zeiss could have been making tons more money all this time. :king: A good Strategic Director will not be limited by an existing status quo. Seemingly this is something that perhaps neither you nor Zeiss fully understand ..... I'm always available (for a price should Zeiss ever get fair dinkum (I love that phrase "fair dinkum"! about really generating an increase in profit and market share ....... o

HT glass (as specified in the Schott catalogue) as used in the HT's is used in a prism. I'm pretty certain that the SF's don't do this (even if market innovators Leica do on their UVHD+'s). There may (from memory of the catalog) be other types of HT glass suitable for use in lenses, or it may just be a loose marketing term, eg. (from the Zeiss website) "HT - High Transmission = lenses by Schott with very good transmission properties." It would be nice to know which grade of glass and where in the construction of the lens system it is used ...... otherwise it just becomes a meaningless bit of fluff ---- after all, I'm sure ALL binocular manufacturers would claim to be using glass of "very good transmission properties." . *teehee* :-O
Any further info you could supply would be much appreciated. :t:

Now please do try and be a bit more pleasant o old chap, I'd hate to send Tom Cruise around to tell you to "put your manners back in" :eek!: :eat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

I asked this before of Mike Jensen - Zeiss sells way more 42 mm and up bins. than 32 and smaller - that's likely why the delay. Sure, the 32's are popular here but apparently not to the public at large.

James, the Swaro x50 SV's have the field (flat) to themselves. They must be laughing all the way to the bank. 3

I would think a Zeiss x50mm SF range with a typically smooth, faster focuser, and that increases: FOV, CA handling, glare handling, light transmission% (using multiple Ultra FL and HT glass for lenses and S-P prisms, aspheric lenses etc - should nett over 94%), and ergonomics/balance, while significantly (100-150grms) reducing the substantial 1kg weight would be an absolute priority and a winner! :king:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Troubador]

[EDIT]: Mod STEVE - I saw your post after I had finished typing this (so I hope this legitimate response of a gal defending her honour, and asking further questions is not the subject of your wrath). The true beauty and value of BF is that the ordinary public can share and discuss, probe, learn, and even briefly, wittily, banter and laugh, along with scientific fact, and robust debate even. Let me be crystal clear - I am not casting aspersions or accusing any specific individual. However, also on this forum are relevant, practising company executives, dealers, traders, technicians, repairmen, testers, bloggers, commercial interests, and others at less than arms lengths relationships - they consist of the current, the retired, the professional, and amatuer alike - as well as us ordinary folk who deserve the right to free speech so that this forum doesn't possibly start to head towards becoming something like a glorified advertorial, where the grey lines and content becomes inadvertantly blurred, and the thin end of the wedge starts down that slippery slope of covert influence by interested parties. Again let me be crystal clear - this is directed at no individual, nor insinuated. I and several others value the interaction here and the integrity of BF. Long may it be so.



Lee, that's rather uncivilised and unsporting of you old chap! :storm: Throwing your toys out of the cot hardly substitutes for a well thought out, logical and cogent response ...... :smoke:

Of course I am correct - Zeiss could have been making tons more money all this time. :king: A good Strategic Director will not be limited by an existing status quo. Seemingly this is something that perhaps neither you nor Zeiss fully understand ..... I'm always available (for a price should Zeiss ever get fair dinkum (I love that phrase "fair dinkum"! about really generating an increase in profit and market share ....... o

HT glass (as specified in the Schott catalogue) as used in the HT's is used in a prism. I'm pretty certain that the SF's don't do this (even if market innovators Leica do on their UVHD+'s). There may (from memory of the catalog) be other types of HT glass suitable for use in lenses, or it may just be a loose marketing term, eg. (from the Zeiss website) "HT - High Transmission = lenses by Schott with very good transmission properties." It would be nice to know which grade of glass and where in the construction of the lens system it is used ...... otherwise it just becomes a meaningless bit of fluff ---- after all, I'm sure ALL binocular manufacturers would claim to be using glass of "very good transmission properties." . *teehee* :-O
Any further info you could supply would be much appreciated. :t:

Now please do try and be a bit more pleasant o old chap, I'd hate to send Tom Cruise around to tell you to "put your manners back in" :eek!: :eat:


Chosun :gh:

Your continuing curiosity is gratifying.

The info about SF containing both FL and HT glass from Schott came from Herr Dobler and, as I said, I didn't ask about which components.

I would agree the FL is now a bit long in the tooth even though it is competitive in performance and there is no doubt that Hermann is right about the market having moved on.

As for manners I am sure that in future we shall both be mindful of the need for courtesy at all times.

Lee