Why would you buy a Zeiss HT over an SF? (2 Viewers)

[SuperDuty]

The 10's have more horsepower, but with both at twenty yards, not moving closer with the 8.5, looking at the base of a silver maple, the 8.5 easily resolves more micro details in the bark. If I moved closer to compensate, it would be even more pronounced.

That's interesting. Although those 8.5 SV's are a very sharp binocular. My 8x32 SV appears sharper than my 10x50 SV but I can see more detail with the 10x50.

 

[Troubador]

Thanks for the effort, Lee.

You can find out more than you want to know about the low dispersion glass types in the Schott catalogue here:

http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/download/schott-fluoro-phosphate-glasses-may-2014.pdf

I don't think anything new has been developed since N-FK58 XLD in 2014. Only one or possibly two types in the catalogue are reasonable candidates for the original marketing term "FL". FK51A and PK52A were the only truly extra low dispersion types in the catalogue when the original Victory FL appeared in 2004 and only FK51A is a fluoro-crown, the stuff that is sometimes called Fluoride glass.

N-FK58 XLD, with an Abbe# above 90, falls into a category of glass types that is sometimes called UD (ultra low dispersion) to distinguish them from ordinary ED (extra low dispersion). That's why I wondered whether "Ultra-FL" might be marketing code for FK58.

Certainly makes sense for HT glass types to be used in the SF where they're appropriate.

Henry

You're welcome Henry and if I cast some further light on this I will.
Cheers Lee.

 

[Troubador]

Thanks for that Lee. That is good to know. That is impressive both FL and HT glass probably in combination in the eyepiece to complement each other and create that superb image in the SF. I think the SV's also have a combination of those types of glass in the eyepiece. That is why they are both high dollar.

Wrong Dennis, wrong, wrong, wrong. But in a right way. o

They are both top dollar, not just high dollar!! :t:

But don't lets forget the many middle and lower priced stuff that offers fantastic performance compared with in the past.

Lee

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

Well I've just tried a friends Zeiss SF pair of Binoculars and all I can say is my Zeiss 8x42 Binoculars are sharper and brighter than the SF pair of Binoculars. So in my opinion the Zeiss HT Binoculars are far superior than the Zeiss SF Binoculars.
Ian.

Wishful thinking,maybe

 

[IAN JAMES THOMPSON]

Wishful thinking,maybe

I can confirm that I found the HT Binoculars brighter and sharper than the SF in my opinionn. And you shouldn't run down someone's opinion because it's different to yours.
Ian.

 

[Sandy Leng]

"My HT seems to have more 3D than the porro's in my collection"

C'mon.

Tis true Dennis, if I compare my 8x42 HT with my 8x30 Nikon E11 and Swift Audubon 804, the HT more than holds it's own in the 3D department.

It was the awesome 3d view that persuaded me to buy the HT when comparing back to back with the top offerings from Swarovski and Leica

Sandy

 

[Dennis Mau]

Tis true Dennis, if I compare my 8x42 HT with my 8x30 Nikon E11 and Swift Audubon 804, the HT more than holds it's own in the 3D department.

It was the awesome 3d view that persuaded me to buy the HT when comparing back to back with the top offerings from Swarovski and Leica

Sandy

I didn't notice the pronounced 3D effect when I tried the Zeiss 10x42 HT. I wonder if it is just in the 8x42 HT. Could be. A roof rivaling a porro for 3D. That is a new revelation in my eyes. After trying them both I am like Lee in that I don't really think the HT is competing at the same level as the SF because there is a significant price difference between the two. The SF to my eyes is a superior binocular. I believe the marketing is like the Swarovski SLC and the Swarovski SV with the HT being the SLC equivalent and the SF being the SV equivalent. To most people the SV is superior to the SLC and is considered Swarovski's top binocular and I feel the Zeiss SF is Zeiss's top binocular also with the HT a rung down the food chain from it. The SF definitely has a more expensive complex eyepiece for example and like the SV better ergonomics than the HT and it is lighter at least in feel and has a much larger FOV..

 

[Theo98]

I didn't notice the pronounced 3D effect when I tried the Zeiss 10x42 HT. I wonder if it is just in the 8x42 HT. Could be. A roof rivaling a porro for 3D. That is a new revelation in my eyes.

To me, when I was comparing side by side the 10x42 SLC's, HT and UVHD+, I ended up purchasing the SLC. Recalling the session inside and outside, all three 10x42's were similar in a their stereopsis 3D effect...All were very nice in that regard!

 

[Sandy Leng]

I didn't notice the pronounced 3D effect when I tried the Zeiss 10x42 HT. I wonder if it is just in the 8x42 HT. Could be. A roof rivaling a porro for 3D. That is a new revelation in my eyes. After trying them both I am like Lee in that I don't really think the HT is competing at the same level as the SF because there is a significant price difference between the two. The SF to my eyes is a superior binocular. I believe the marketing is like the Swarovski SLC and the Swarovski SV with the HT being the SLC equivalent and the SF being the SV equivalent. To most people the SV is superior to the SLC and is considered Swarovski's top binocular and I feel the Zeiss SF is Zeiss's top binocular also with the HT a rung down the food chain from it. The SF definitely has a more expensive complex eyepiece for example and like the SV better ergonomics than the HT and it is lighter at least in feel and has a much larger FOV..

I bought my HT's before the SF came out, and I haven't had the chance to look through one yet. I don't think I will ever need another binocular, and I don't want or need a bigger FOV, which is all the SF offers really.

On paper my E11 should have a much wider FOV than the HT, but my eyes see otherwise, and the HT has a surprisingly wide and immersive view.

Sandy

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

I am agree with Tobías about the HT:

Threedimensionality
of the images is exceptional and the best in any roof prism bino I have seen, although of course not matching a porro prism. The objectives are 6mm wider spaced than the oculars, this is the widest stereo base of all 8x42s on review. The Zeiss SF features 4mm, the Nikon EDG 2mm, the Ultravid 0mm.

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

The view thru SF compared against one leica ultravid both 8x42 the SF has by far better 3D

Looking side by side was very obvious.

Of course not as the same level of a porro binocular, this 3D or pop is part of zeiss heritage.

 

[Dennis Mau]

To me, when I was comparing side by side the 10x42 SLC's, HT and UVHD+, I ended up purchasing the SLC. Recalling the session inside and outside, all three 10x42's were similar in a their stereopsis 3D effect...All were very nice in that regard!

Yes ,a lot of people like the SLC but it is not Swaro's "Top Gun" the SV is. The SLC is for people that are bothered by RB and don't like flat fields and sharp to the edge optics.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I bought my HT's before the SF came out, and I haven't had the chance to look through one yet. I don't think I will ever need another binocular, and I don't want or need a bigger FOV, which is all the SF offers really.

On paper my E11 should have a much wider FOV than the HT, but my eyes see otherwise, and the HT has a surprisingly wide and immersive view.

Sandy

Don't look through an SF then. You will probably trade your HT in. The SF offers more than that. It feels much lighter in the hand than the HT, it has better ergonomics, and of course the bigger FOV which is sharp to the edge. I think if you got used to an SF your HT would feel tunnel-like in comparison. Just my observation when I compared them.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I am agree with Tobías about the HT:

Threedimensionality
of the images is exceptional and the best in any roof prism bino I have seen, although of course not matching a porro prism. The objectives are 6mm wider spaced than the oculars, this is the widest stereo base of all 8x42s on review. The Zeiss SF features 4mm, the Nikon EDG 2mm, the Ultravid 0mm.

" although of course not matching a porro prism" Thank you for that! I didn't notice a huge 3D image in the Zeiss 10x42 HT but maybe the 8x42 HT is different. I would think the objective spacing would be the same on both the 8x and 10x HT. My point is when I compared the 10x42 SF to the 10x42 HT the SF BLEW me away and the HT was like Eeegh aaah it's alright. Hence the thread why buy an HT? 3D image to me is not a big deal. I sold my Nikon 8x32 SE's because I like the roof image of my SV's better. I still did not see a big difference in 3D image between the SF and the HT. If I was going to buy a Zeiss I guarantee it would have an SF on it. After I tried the SF I said no wonder Lee likes these this is a great binocular. Honestly after all the criticism of the SF I would say if you can afford one buy it. You will not be disappointed.

 

[james holdsworth]

Dennis, as you seem to making the point that the SF is better due to the bigger FOV [as most every user of both the SF and HT would say they are optically similar - with caveats]......does that mean that you will be dumping your ''narrow'' angle 10x50 for an SF?

If both are optically great [SF and SV] whats the point of owning tunnel vision when you can own panorama? [lol]

PS - I assume you DO remember dumping endlessly on the SF, long before you had the chance to try one. You show a remarkable ability to forget what you have said in the past once you happen upon something that piques your interest.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Dennis, as you seem to making the point that the SF is better due to the bigger FOV [as most every user of both the SF and HT would say they are optically similar - with caveats]......does that mean that you will be dumping your ''narrow'' angle 10x50 for an SF?

If both are optically great [SF and SV] whats the point of owning tunnel vision when you can own panorama? [lol]

PS - I assume you DO remember dumping endlessly on the SF, long before you had the chance to try one. You show a remarkable ability to forget what you have said in the past once you happen upon something that piques your interest.

No, I would dump my 8x32 SV and buy the 8x42 SF. I like the 10x50 SV more than the 8x32 SV. I like the easy view of a 5mm EP. I have not seen any bargains yet on the SF's though. They remain sky high.

 

[cycleguy]

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?

Dennis,

Where on earth.. or at least on the front range did you do this? I have failed to find either of these binoculars anywhere Denver metro. Please advise.

Thanks,

CG

 

[Dennis Mau]

Dennis,

Where on earth.. or at least on the front range did you do this? I have failed to find either of these binoculars anywhere Denver metro. Please advise.

Thanks,

CG

Cabella's and Sportman's Warehouse. Cabella's in Thornton has the Zeiss 10x42 SF and Sportman's Warehouse in Thornton has the Zeiss 10x42 HT. The SF is not in the glass case at Cabella's. I think they keep it in a special locked vault or something. Online they showed stock on one and I asked the clerk where it was and it took him 15 minutes to find it under the center shelf. He was looking among all these green Swarovski boxes when lo and behold I saw this expensive looking blue and white box stashed among the green boxes. He pulled out this huge expensive looking box that just smelled German and said here it is. Upon opening it it revealed a very nice expensive looking case and there were the Zeiss SF's. All kidding aside they are very impressive binoculars. I hate to say this but Lee is right the Zeiss SF's are very nice but when is the price going to come down? I checked stock at all three Cabella's on the SF and now they are out of stock so some lucky birder bought them.

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

I am very happy because it seems that Zeiss hear to customers and they fix the problems shown by early samples of HT bins.

Well for me HT is not a second line Under SF just they have 2 options now in the hight end or top of the line.

In fact the HT was the premiun binocular of Zeiss taking responsibility to replace the FL and later on SF comes to the market trying to finish with Swaro supremacy.

THE HT IS NOW ANOTHER BINOCULAR !!!!!! WOW

First i will say never buy a binocular when first samples are available on market................;i returned an HT after one month of use and a SF after 9 months.

HT due to soft view on right tube; not able to get good focus at some distances ETC ETC

SF for the Crescent glare shown at both sides of FOV and SF green tint on his view and not stellar sharpness; was good but not at the same level of SV ; ultravid plus 10X50 or the last HT that i tryed.

On monday i went to a very popular store in Madrid; i am very good friend of one of the people in charge; i dint want to buy anything just talk with him and take a look to the new SWAROVSKI fieldpro versions.

SV8X32 was available in the store and by curiosity i told to my colleague to let me take a look to a sample of HT who was there as a demo unit.

This is not the HT that i had time time ago; amazing sharp......superb sharp; contrasty;total clarity; very bright but not in the way that brightness kills contrast and without the awfull Green tint or cast that my SF shows.

Coatings as i remember and cheking binonamia and tobias mennle photo samples now the front lenses looks a little bit darker less pink and the prisms have blue reflectios instead the reddish or pink or previous ones.

Diopternow is silky smooth my early sample of HT was difficult to turn and the focus is simply perfect there is no play at all when changing direction and that noise like a spring in tension is not there any more.

Really an amazing binocular.................;if they manage to do the same with the SF they will have a real winners.

The HT serial number was 3796396

All the best ....

 

[Troubador]

I am like Lee in that I don't really think the HT is competing at the same level as the SF because there is a significant price difference between the two. The SF to my eyes is a superior binocular. I believe the marketing is like the Swarovski SLC and the Swarovski SV with the HT being the SLC equivalent and the SF being the SV equivalent. To most people the SV is superior to the SLC and is considered Swarovski's top binocular and I feel the Zeiss SF is Zeiss's top binocular also with the HT a rung down the food chain from it. The SF definitely has a more expensive complex eyepiece for example and like the SV better ergonomics than the HT and it is lighter at least in feel and has a much larger FOV..

This is a tricky question Dennis and I don't believe I have ever said that HT is a rung down from SF. I certainly think they have different 'flavours' and its nice that we have that choice from Zeiss. Anyone that stands up and says I like my HT better than anything has got plenty to like. I still have my HT even though I have SF and have no plans to get rid of it.

But you are correct about the price of SF being higher and I think this is because it offers more in terms of FOV, handling balance, and size of sweet spot and also speed of focus. Does this make it superior to HT? For some people yes, but you know, not everyone likes the open bridge design and prefer something more classic and HT provides this and with an excellent optical performance too.

You could say Swaros SLC is a step down from EL SV but I doubt that anyone who uses an SLC actually feels that they are using an under-performing second tier instrument, and quite right too. Same with HT.

Lee