Zolarcon said:
Hi BF,
Was surfing and ran across this about the new New Zeiss FL on B&H in NY, USA.
Read below (from B&H):
"The optics of the Victory T* FL series were created with elements of abnormal partial dispersion, a chunk of gobbledygook easily translating to the observer as the theoretical limit of razor sharp imagery free of color shift or chromatic aberration, the dreaded bane of bargain binoculars. When focusing upon a flat subject, the image is as sharp at the edges of the enormous viewing field as it is at the center. The broad focusing range goes from end to end in just a single rotation of the center focus dial, which also houses the dioptric correction."
So what is the deal are the rumors true do the new Zeiss FLs have a small sweet spot or are they like the Nikon HG- with its' edge to edge sharpness?
Thanks,
Carlos
Carlos,
The truth is no binocular has perfect edge-to-edge sharpness. The question each person should ask is what level of imperfection are they willing to tolerate. The SE, which you own, is extremely good in this regard and SE users are probably less willing than others to settle for less. That wonderfully large, crisp field of the SE is as relaxing as it gets. Unfortunately, the SE is not waterproof and many SE users buy an additional roof prism bin. Few roofs have the edge-to-edge sharpness of the SE, though some are very close.
Leica has the same edge sharpness marketing hype about the Ultravid and in some instances I see superb edge sharpness. At other times, it doesn't begin to compare with my SE on edge sharpness, primarily at close range. I think the Nikon LX and Swaro EL are very good on edge sharpness, but not perfect. The LX probably has the best edge sharpness, but I don't think its overall image is as sharp and crisp as the EL, and I would further argue that the Ultravid is crisper than the Swaro! That’s my opinion and why I bought it. However, both the EL and LX have better edge sharpness than the Ultravid, IMO.
Let me defer to FL owners for a moment. Many have reported on the FL edge sharpness issue and I believe it is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion. Some have reported seeing nothing and others say it’s obvious. Since I don’t believe our eyes introduce anomalies into a bin, I’ll conclude the FL, like every other bin, does not have perfect edge sharpness and that it’s only a problem for some people. I believe, as I have from the very beginning, that the curvature of each individual’s eye is a primary factor in whether or not one notices a drop off in sharpness. The second factor is user sensitivity to optical variations that can be physiological or behavioral in nature. Essentially, either you like the image or you don’t.
I remember the FL debate well and, in hindsight, it became ridiculous. People see what they see, at the moment, and that’s it. My left eye carries my weaker right eye and in one day of birding I often have perfect views followed by lousy views. I sometimes wondered why my SE seemed to work when the Ultravid began to fail me. After experimenting, the answer became crystal clear. The SE image in my left eye was so perfect it didn’t matter what my right eye saw…my brain received the information from the left and said “OK, I can work with that”. The fact that the SE is a wide porro and I have a narrow IPD is also a factor. I have ALWAYS preferred the view through a porro. The Ultravid, though it's a great bin, just couldn’t deliver the same exceptional image of the SE. Conclusion: For me, the SE is the better of the two. I do, however, prefer the relaxed view of the Ultravid. SE quality optics in an Ultravid body…now that would be something!
Whenever I use my Ultravid, I recall the admonition that edge sharpness doesn’t matter because you should “point your bin at the target”. As an SE user I could look around the image, but as an Ultravid user I happily point a little more often. I enjoy both bins a lot and I’m sure FL owners enjoy theirs. Get to a store and find one you can live with.
The rain has subsided so I’m going birding.
John