I just compared the Zeiss SF to the HT and really preferred the SF because it had a bigger FOV, sharper edges, better ergonomics and a faster focus which is nice for birding. For birding I feel it has a lot of advantages over the HT. It looks like a more modern binocular to me also. I know some say the HT is brighter but I could not see a significant difference between the two. I can't really understand why somebody would buy an HT over the SF for birding. Am I missing something?
-
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.
Why would you buy a Zeiss HT over an SF? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dennis Mau
- Start date
Troubador
Moderator
Objectively Dennis, I don't think you are missing anything, although Gijs's transmission graph that he posted on the other HT thread that is running does confirm its extra brightness.
But HT does have its own more classic feel to it when you pick it up. I have always said that its handling was a significant step over the FL.
Lee
When I did my research, the HT was perceived as a better option for hunters due to better low light performance. Birders prefer the SF due to more vivid colours.
I tried the Swarovision and I liked it, but the SF blew me away. The fov and "immersive" effect are fantastic.
I tried the Swarovision and I liked it, but the SF blew me away. The fov and "immersive" effect are fantastic.
Torview
Well-known member
The HT cost over 30% less so they`re not really competing with each other IMO.
However the HT is a superb instrument, it is brighter when it may really matter, it is a lot smaller, sharp edges don`t bother me, the HT is hardly fov challenged, so one may ask if the SF is worth the extra 30%.
However the HT is a superb instrument, it is brighter when it may really matter, it is a lot smaller, sharp edges don`t bother me, the HT is hardly fov challenged, so one may ask if the SF is worth the extra 30%.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Read Tobias's review of both of these if you need something to chew on. I haven't tried the SF, but the HT does have a sparkling view with great contrast that wows every time out.
I would be surprised if, without AK prisms and HT glass, the SF could replicate this view. Lee would know, owning both.
I would be surprised if, without AK prisms and HT glass, the SF could replicate this view. Lee would know, owning both.
Last edited:
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
Zeiss rrp for the 10x42 HT is £1,760.00. The SF £2.050.00 Difference of £290.
How does that work out at over 30%
suppressor
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
Same old tune Dennis. ALL top binoculars have one thing in common they are all good for birding. Having owned both the Hts and the SFs I did not find one better than the other for birding.
suppressor.
Torview
Well-known member
Clifton are selling the HT at 1399 gbp the SF seems to be over 2k most places.
The Zeiss website says the SF does have HT glass. It says both the HT and the SF have high quality Scott HT glass or HT/FL glass. The HT does have AK prisms ,whereas, the SF has SP prisms so that is probably the slight difference in transmission but 95% for the HT and 93% for the SF would be hardly noticeable I would think.
It makes sense that I would like the more expensive model. Your paying for that more complex 7 element eyepiece in the SF which gives you the bigger FOV and sharp edges. Think Televue Nagler eyepieces in astronomy. Big $$$.
IAN JAMES THOMPSON
Well-known member
Why did I buy a Zeiss HT last year? It's a superb model and I'm really enjoying going out birdwatching on a regular basis with my RSPB Local Group. I can't comment on the Zeiss SF as I've never used or tried out that model. But from what I've heard it's an excellent model as well.
I've just been out today at a local bird reserve using my Zeiss HT Binoculars today at dusk or practically dark watching a starling murmuration in there thousands overhead in a very dark sky and seeing those birds very very clearly in dark conditions using my HT Binocuars. I'm very pleased with my HT Binoculars as I'm sure those members of this forum with the SF model will be pleased as well, as they are both very good makes of binoculars.
Ian.
I agree that the HT's are very fine binoculars but the SF's have the advantage of a bigger FOV and sharper edges making for a more immersive view. If you don't care about these two features is that why you buy the HT and the fact that it is considerably less expensive?
I just think the bigger FOV, sharp edges, lighter weight and IMO better ergonomics make for a better birding binocular. They are both very good. IMO the SF is a little better but at a price I guess. To be honest the SF really impressed me to the point where I would like to own one but when I tried the HT it was like eeh it's all right but I wouldn't buy one. That's just my opinion on a cursory evaluation. I guess the point of this thread is to get some owners insight because you probably need to use the two binoculars longer in the field to see the strong points of the HT.
Dennis,
I for sure can't tell you! Flip a coin!
I admit I like them all. Great comments from the replies above. I honestly don't think there is a wrong decision between those two. Each has its own expertise IMO.
I CAN say that if someone told me I could only have ONE BIRDING BINOCULAR...it wouldn't be either. Why? Both are too big. Too big to backpack and too big to stick in luggage. The HT is big and the SF is bigger still. I'd probably go the SV 8X32 route or maybe a Leica 8X42. I'm not really sure one loses ANYTHING with the SV 8X32.
Exactly what are you looking for in a binocular?
I for sure can't tell you! Flip a coin!
I admit I like them all. Great comments from the replies above. I honestly don't think there is a wrong decision between those two. Each has its own expertise IMO.
I CAN say that if someone told me I could only have ONE BIRDING BINOCULAR...it wouldn't be either. Why? Both are too big. Too big to backpack and too big to stick in luggage. The HT is big and the SF is bigger still. I'd probably go the SV 8X32 route or maybe a Leica 8X42. I'm not really sure one loses ANYTHING with the SV 8X32.
Exactly what are you looking for in a binocular?
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
For much the same reason, if I were ever hit with a money-stick I'd probably go with a set of 8x32 FLs (which are enough smaller than the SVs that it makes a difference to me, and have other characteristics which suit me but might make others think more highly of Swaro or Leica or Nikon or yet other offerings).
I know, from the way I use my existing bins, that convenient portabality most often trumps "better". It would seem silly to spend a lot of money on binoculars I'll more likely leave behind, while being cheap about those I'll likely have with me.
...Mike
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Dennis, post 9,
The transmission differences between the HT and the SF are approx. 5% and that does make a difference in brightness in favor of the HT.
Gijs van Ginkel
The transmission differences between the HT and the SF are approx. 5% and that does make a difference in brightness in favor of the HT.
Gijs van Ginkel
Troubador
Moderator
I've tried before to compare the views from these two and I'm not sure if I have ever nailed it.
The views through both are obviously from the same 'family' and since they both use T* coatings (even if they are 'tuned' slightly differently, which I don't know) this shouldn't be surprising. So coming from a background of using an HT the nature of the view didn't surprise but the size of it did and the 'out-field' is sharper.
However HT has an advantage in brightness when the skies cloud over or it gets near twilight.
Lee
Last edited:
Troubador
Moderator
Dennis
Both SF and HT have Schott fluoride glass but only HT has Schott High Transmission glass. HT is designed to be Zeiss's high transmission twilight instrument so fitting this to SF would muddy the water as to what each instrument was designed to do, and the Germans don't like muddy water.
Lee
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
True, no HT-glass in the SF, but the SF have Ultra-FL glass, HT only have the plain ol' FL-glass...
It might be pure product segmentation as you say, or maybe Zeiss wanted a slightly different view in the SF:s. More optimized for daylight-viewing?
Troubador
Moderator
True, no HT-glass in the SF, but the SF have Ultra-FL glass, HT only have the plain ol' FL-glass...
It might be pure product segmentation as you say, or maybe Zeiss wanted a slightly different view in the SF:s. More optimized for daylight-viewing?
LOL.
Yes VB, don't lets forget the Ultra FL.
But I don't think this is different glass but rather that SF has several lenses made with Schott fluoride glass whereas I think FL and HT only have one. It is an Ultra FL lens system not glass.
Lee
