bradshrike
Guest
Who has a pair?
What's the concensus?
Any and all input appreciated...
What's the concensus?
Any and all input appreciated...
-
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.
ZEISS 8x32 VICTORY T FL ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bradshrike
- Start date
FrankD
Well-known member
Brad,
I am glad you brought this up...not because I am planning on buying a pair....heaven knows I do not have the funds right now....but rather because I hear so much about the 8x42 and 10x42 and next to nothing about the 8x32. Does the change in roof prism design affect the optical quality of the image provided? Is it noticeably dimmer than the 8x42? In my case it is sheer curiousity but I am sure there are some folks out there who may be considering the purchase.
I am glad you brought this up...not because I am planning on buying a pair....heaven knows I do not have the funds right now....but rather because I hear so much about the 8x42 and 10x42 and next to nothing about the 8x32. Does the change in roof prism design affect the optical quality of the image provided? Is it noticeably dimmer than the 8x42? In my case it is sheer curiousity but I am sure there are some folks out there who may be considering the purchase.
henry link
Well-known member
I've evaluated two pairs of the 8x32 FL's. Most recently I borrowed a pair for two days last week. I didn't consider either pair to be a very good sample for testing. The image looked OK, but both revealed defects when star tested. The pair last week had one seriously miscollimated barrel and pinching in the other barrel.
I can say I few things, however. The light transmission of this last pair was completely indistinguishable from my 8x42 FL in sunlight, in spite of the prism difference. The first pair had looked slightly dimmer. The eye relief is shorter than specified. I measured it at just over 14mm from the rim of the eyecup when fully screwed down. The off-axis performance is somewhat different from the 8x42. There is a bit less astigmatism (a good thing), a bit more field curvature (harmless in my view) and a little less pincushion distortion (not bothersome to me in either one). Overall I think the Zeiss is optically very similar to the Nikon 8x30 EII, and I mean that as a compliment.
I can say I few things, however. The light transmission of this last pair was completely indistinguishable from my 8x42 FL in sunlight, in spite of the prism difference. The first pair had looked slightly dimmer. The eye relief is shorter than specified. I measured it at just over 14mm from the rim of the eyecup when fully screwed down. The off-axis performance is somewhat different from the 8x42. There is a bit less astigmatism (a good thing), a bit more field curvature (harmless in my view) and a little less pincushion distortion (not bothersome to me in either one). Overall I think the Zeiss is optically very similar to the Nikon 8x30 EII, and I mean that as a compliment.
bradshrike
Guest
Frank, I'm looking to replace my Leica 8x32 BN's... they're very good bin's and it'll take a lot of glass to make this a worthwhile step up. I really need to find a pair to look for myself, for sure... certainly hope this thread gets some input...
bradshrike
Guest
henry link said:
Henry, looks like we're posting simulatneously... is the the view quite clear to the edges or is there a small "sweet spot?"
henry link
Well-known member
Brad,
No, it is not clear to the edge, but I don't see that in any binocular. Off-axis it is similar to the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL and the Nikon 8x30 EII. Better, in my opinion, than the 8x42 FL with a little bigger sweet spot and lower astigmatism outside the sweet spot. Still it's not what I would call a really low astigmatism binocular like the Nikon 8x32 SE. Remember, I have yet to see a really good specimen, but I doubt that the edge performance in a cherry pair will be any better than the best barrels I've already seen. I do think it will be much brighter and more color neutral than your Leica Trinovid.
Henry
No, it is not clear to the edge, but I don't see that in any binocular. Off-axis it is similar to the Swarovski 8.5x42 EL and the Nikon 8x30 EII. Better, in my opinion, than the 8x42 FL with a little bigger sweet spot and lower astigmatism outside the sweet spot. Still it's not what I would call a really low astigmatism binocular like the Nikon 8x32 SE. Remember, I have yet to see a really good specimen, but I doubt that the edge performance in a cherry pair will be any better than the best barrels I've already seen. I do think it will be much brighter and more color neutral than your Leica Trinovid.
Henry
FrankD
Well-known member
Henry,
Your comments stirred more questions in my mind. For starters, I am not attempting to take away from the quality of Zeiss products or the FLs in particular but I am discouraged to hear of such product variation in such a high end binocular. Would you consider this to be common quality control at this price point?
Second, since you mentioned that one of the 32 mm was not noticeably dimmer than its larger sibling then I am curious as to what you think the intended superiorit of the Abbe-Koening prisms might be? In other words, if you can get the same brightness out of a smaller and more compact prism design then why go with the larger one?
Thanks.
Your comments stirred more questions in my mind. For starters, I am not attempting to take away from the quality of Zeiss products or the FLs in particular but I am discouraged to hear of such product variation in such a high end binocular. Would you consider this to be common quality control at this price point?
Second, since you mentioned that one of the 32 mm was not noticeably dimmer than its larger sibling then I am curious as to what you think the intended superiorit of the Abbe-Koening prisms might be? In other words, if you can get the same brightness out of a smaller and more compact prism design then why go with the larger one?
Thanks.
henry link
Well-known member
Frank,
I can't say whether Zeiss is doing a worse job of assembling their binoculars than the competition. I've star tested 5 pairs of FL's, mainly because I've been keenly interested in them. I have star tested no Leica Ultravids or Nikon LX/HG's and only my own Swarovski EL. In a star test my pair of 8x42 FL's is spectacularly good by binocular standards. The right barrel is the best I've ever seen and also has the highest actual resolution I've measured in any binocular with an objective of 50mm or less, essentially diffraction limited, so I know Zeiss can do it right. I would guess that most of the defects I see in star testing the FL's don't rise to the level of obvious visibility in normal use and that Zeiss would consider them to be within their tolerances. However, two severely miscollimated barrels I've seen were bad enough to cause coma on star images and would probably cause at least a subtle visible degradation in daylught use.
In the days before dielectric mirror coating you could count on an Abbe-Koening or a porro having 5-7% higher light transmission than a Schmidt-Pechan with silver coating. My experience with the FL's tends to confirm Zeiss' light transmission figures indicating only a 2% average difference between the FL's with AK prisms and those with dielectric coated SP prisms. I know that's too small a difference for me to see. However, I think sample variation could cause some 42mm FL's to appear slightly brighter in daylight compared to some 32mm FL's.
Henry
I can't say whether Zeiss is doing a worse job of assembling their binoculars than the competition. I've star tested 5 pairs of FL's, mainly because I've been keenly interested in them. I have star tested no Leica Ultravids or Nikon LX/HG's and only my own Swarovski EL. In a star test my pair of 8x42 FL's is spectacularly good by binocular standards. The right barrel is the best I've ever seen and also has the highest actual resolution I've measured in any binocular with an objective of 50mm or less, essentially diffraction limited, so I know Zeiss can do it right. I would guess that most of the defects I see in star testing the FL's don't rise to the level of obvious visibility in normal use and that Zeiss would consider them to be within their tolerances. However, two severely miscollimated barrels I've seen were bad enough to cause coma on star images and would probably cause at least a subtle visible degradation in daylught use.
In the days before dielectric mirror coating you could count on an Abbe-Koening or a porro having 5-7% higher light transmission than a Schmidt-Pechan with silver coating. My experience with the FL's tends to confirm Zeiss' light transmission figures indicating only a 2% average difference between the FL's with AK prisms and those with dielectric coated SP prisms. I know that's too small a difference for me to see. However, I think sample variation could cause some 42mm FL's to appear slightly brighter in daylight compared to some 32mm FL's.
Henry
Last edited:
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
Lil' birdie landed on my window sill and told me that FL glass makes a difference only in binoculars 10x or greater or in objective lenses 40mm or greater. That Zeiss 8x32 is neither, and i wonder if it is better than it's competitors.
Sc0tty
Well-known member
I've owned a pair of 8x32 FL for a few months. I tested 2 samples of each of the top four 8x32 roofs and came to the conclusion the Zeiss were the brightest and sharpest. They are not the best in every respect, but my aim was to get the sharpest and brightest - which they are, in my opinion.
Rich.
Rich.
Otto McDiesel
Well-known member
Richard Scott said:
I dissagree.
henry link
Well-known member
Otto McDiesel said:
Otto,
I think the lil' birdie got at least the second part wrong. The 8x32 FL has considerably less longitudinal CA compared to an achromatic 32mm binocular like the 8x32 SE (the one I happened to have on hand for comparison). It's quite obvious with the magnification boosted to 40x, which makes the longitudinal CA from the entire objective visible even in sunlight. At 40X the 8x32 SE shows a broad purple fringe at the edges of the white target I use. The 8x32 FL shows a much thinner fringe, perhaps 25% as wide.
Now, whether the reduction in CA is actually visible at 8x is more uncertain. Most daylight birding is done with 8X binoculars effectively stopped down to perhaps 20-25mm, which has the effect of reducing longitudinal CA compared to full aperture (more reduction in 42mm than 32mm bins). And the visible effect of longitudinal CA decreases with magnification, so even with an achromatic objective the effects of the CA will almost certainly disappear to the eye at some low magnification. My impression from a very good sample of the 8x42 FL is that there is a small improvement at 8x in contrast and sharpness at the center of the field, which I believe but can't prove, results from the lower CA. Whether there is a visible improvement or not will probably be endlessly debated with no resolution because at best the improvement is not very large and it could probably be completely erased by the presence of other defects in a below average sample.
Henry
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Brad_A said:
I briefly evaluated single specimens of 8x32, 8x42, and 10x42 FLs at Scope City, San Francisco a month or so ago. At the time, I also looked at a 7x42 Classic, and a Swaro 8x32. Among the Zeiss products I was mighty impressed by the 8x32 FL. Weight, handiness, FOV, brightness and clarity(stunning) were its strong points. I was not particularly impressed with the 10x42 for some reason, even though I like that configuration. I simply "wanted" the (rather expensive) 7x42 Classic, but restrained myself (or was it my wife?). The Swaro 8x32 was great, but did not overcome the bonding to my old 8x30 SLC Mk II.
So, I don't know if I'm adding to a consensus exactly, but if I were offered one of those binoculars I'd have picked the 8x32 FL. Alas, nobody did.
Ed
bradshrike
Guest
elkcub said:
Thank's for the replies gents.
I had the opportunity to look at the 10x42 Zeiss FL. I'm no fan of 10x bin's and don't look through them often but the FL's to my untrained 10x eyes were very nice. I didn't particularly like the housing... seemed pretty "cheap" but I suspect that's just a personal bias with no basis in reality. I have a chance to get a Zeiss 8x32 FL for "cost" but even still it's quite expensive.
Last edited:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
Brad_A,
I've posted my opinions/observations about the 8x32 FL on earlier threads and won't bother to repeat myself here other than to say that my asessment hasn't changed--I use this model for its combo of size, overall optical capability, close-focus and 52mm interpupillary (needed for sharing views w/my wife and son), but in the winter (when I'm usually by myself, and there are no butterflies) I use my Leica 8x32 BA (10 ft close focus). The Leicas are not quite as bright or as color neutral as the Zeiss, and have a bit less eye-relief, but they fit my hands better (so I can hold them more steadily) and I prefer their overall image quality because I strongly dislike the considerable astigmatism of the Zeiss outside their center sweet spot (Henry Link compares it to the 8.5x EL, but I judge it subjectively to be MUCH worse--the EL is actually my favorite full-size bino). You should try them for yourself. If you are looking for a top-end bino and can get these for under $900, they are certainly an attractive choice given that everything else now sells for more. If you like their ergonomics, and their astigmatism doesn't bother you, they are the obvious choice.
--AP
I've posted my opinions/observations about the 8x32 FL on earlier threads and won't bother to repeat myself here other than to say that my asessment hasn't changed--I use this model for its combo of size, overall optical capability, close-focus and 52mm interpupillary (needed for sharing views w/my wife and son), but in the winter (when I'm usually by myself, and there are no butterflies) I use my Leica 8x32 BA (10 ft close focus). The Leicas are not quite as bright or as color neutral as the Zeiss, and have a bit less eye-relief, but they fit my hands better (so I can hold them more steadily) and I prefer their overall image quality because I strongly dislike the considerable astigmatism of the Zeiss outside their center sweet spot (Henry Link compares it to the 8.5x EL, but I judge it subjectively to be MUCH worse--the EL is actually my favorite full-size bino). You should try them for yourself. If you are looking for a top-end bino and can get these for under $900, they are certainly an attractive choice given that everything else now sells for more. If you like their ergonomics, and their astigmatism doesn't bother you, they are the obvious choice.
--AP
Last edited:
elkcub
Silicon Valley, California
Brad_A said:
I guess one point to add is that hi-end binoculars will probably not get less expensive, certainly not Zeiss. In that respect, an 8x32 FL bought at cost will look like a real bargain in a year or two — IF you really like the binoculars.
Let us know how it works out if you decide to buy one. Hopefully, you can examine one or two to get a real cherry.
Ed
sean davis
Member
Brad_A said:
Brad
I have both 8X32 and 8X42. Both pair have had problems and this can be read in earlier posts.
Both pair are optically very very good. No visible difference in image quality in daqylight. 8X42 is brighter when used as night vision but 8x32 is no slouch either.
I prefer the 8x32 becuase its more compact. Wife prefers 8x42 becuase they can be held steadier more easily.
Sean
Have you tried the Kowa 8x42 ? they are very good ,Zeiss optic quality is very overated not good and they are way overpriced too Get a Kowa or Nikon LX.
I just had the chance to use a pair of Nikon LX and Zeiss FL 10x42 for several weeks and I would give the optics battle to the Zeiss although it is very close and the Nikon is very good too ($300 cheaper.) What I really liked about the Nikon was the ease with which it focused.
I've also had het chance to look through a few other Zeiss. I can't realy undrestand anybody who calls them "not good." Expensive yes...but so much glass is today.
Cheers
Craig
As someone who has recently purchased a pair of 8x32 fl's after allot of consideration of the other top flight models on offer I thought I would add my 2p.
I chose the fl for its all round capability interims of handling and its fantastic image. I personally find the image to be very sharp and hugely bright for a 32. To me it’s just a wonderful bin to use all round.
A word on variance from sample to sample. I’ve now tried 7 or 8 examples of this binocular and each was remarkably consistent in both build and optical performance. I personally haven’t heard much from people I know about bad examples who have also tested them in different places.
When compared to the Swarovski El's there was no contest for me personally but that's a handling issue in the main...although I must add that I also feel the image of the Fl is crisper and lacks the degree of chromatic aberration found in the El.
The Leica BR was the main contender for me personally but issues with the feel of the focus (sorted on the HD models it seems) put me off and they are a little small in the hand for me. High quality image though and I found the HD's I tested this weekend to be top draw. I should add that I love the BN as well as to me it handles wonderfully but the weight and the outdated image (in terms of brightness mainly, it’s still a lovely image overall) meant that I had to pass it by when choosing.
The other contenders like the Nikons I didn’t get on with in terms of handling at all. Very nice image but it didn’t feel as natural or a bright as the Zeiss. One could however suggest that it was just as sharp if not sharper.
The above are just my opinions from the testing I did to end up with the right pair for me. To be honest I found the Ziess the best all round with lovely handling and a top draw image but it really is each to there own.
I chose the fl for its all round capability interims of handling and its fantastic image. I personally find the image to be very sharp and hugely bright for a 32. To me it’s just a wonderful bin to use all round.
A word on variance from sample to sample. I’ve now tried 7 or 8 examples of this binocular and each was remarkably consistent in both build and optical performance. I personally haven’t heard much from people I know about bad examples who have also tested them in different places.
When compared to the Swarovski El's there was no contest for me personally but that's a handling issue in the main...although I must add that I also feel the image of the Fl is crisper and lacks the degree of chromatic aberration found in the El.
The Leica BR was the main contender for me personally but issues with the feel of the focus (sorted on the HD models it seems) put me off and they are a little small in the hand for me. High quality image though and I found the HD's I tested this weekend to be top draw. I should add that I love the BN as well as to me it handles wonderfully but the weight and the outdated image (in terms of brightness mainly, it’s still a lovely image overall) meant that I had to pass it by when choosing.
The other contenders like the Nikons I didn’t get on with in terms of handling at all. Very nice image but it didn’t feel as natural or a bright as the Zeiss. One could however suggest that it was just as sharp if not sharper.
The above are just my opinions from the testing I did to end up with the right pair for me. To be honest I found the Ziess the best all round with lovely handling and a top draw image but it really is each to there own.
