Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Maljuno, post 80,
That is a wise decision.
Gijs van Ginkel
That is a wise decision.
Gijs van Ginkel
-
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 SF 8X32 after 8 weeks of use... (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter chill6x6
- Start date
I think the theory espoused in post 78 is precisely what goes on - and not just with binoculars.
I guess the Wise One would keep the bins with which they were previously reasonably satisfied for some years, and occasionally use them to remind themselves of new criteria for excellence.....then you could start the whole adjustment again!
There's a lot of beauty in common birds that we tend to overlook because they are so commonplace. There's a bird feeder not far from my flat that is popular with goldfinches (European goldfinch, Carduelis carduelis) which I've viewed with most of my binocular collection and each time found myself admiring their beauty and vivacity. Even something as plebeian as a feral pigeon can show beautiful iridescent hues on its neck - and I honestly believe it isn't necessary to look through something as undeniably excellent as a SF to notice it.
7X35 Trinovid vs. 8X32 SF....hmmmm
As you probably know, I like both binoculars. For sure both binoculars come across as being manufactured in a first class manner. Both binoculars are optically excellent. Both are both excellent birding binoculars. Both REALLY could be ones primary pair. Two things give me a little pause when giving an all out recommendation of the 7X35 Trinovid, lack of armoring and waterproofness. Now neither has been an issue for me I don't know if either would ever BE an issue BUT the potential is there. No doubt I'm a little more cautious/careful with the Leica than some of my other binoculars. But ease of use really ranks among the best I have. One if the beauties of the Leica 7X35 is its simplicity and overall it has been an issue-free binocular. Now on the other hand the SF 8X32 is more the birding binoculars and it's designed that way form the start. The most FOV of any 8X32 in the market. Waterproof and armored. I have to admit that overall it's probably the better absolute birding instrument. I'm still in the early stage of SF 8X32 ownership so more info on it will be forthcoming.
Any specific questions that you may have?
As you probably know, I like both binoculars. For sure both binoculars come across as being manufactured in a first class manner. Both binoculars are optically excellent. Both are both excellent birding binoculars. Both REALLY could be ones primary pair. Two things give me a little pause when giving an all out recommendation of the 7X35 Trinovid, lack of armoring and waterproofness. Now neither has been an issue for me I don't know if either would ever BE an issue BUT the potential is there. No doubt I'm a little more cautious/careful with the Leica than some of my other binoculars. But ease of use really ranks among the best I have. One if the beauties of the Leica 7X35 is its simplicity and overall it has been an issue-free binocular. Now on the other hand the SF 8X32 is more the birding binoculars and it's designed that way form the start. The most FOV of any 8X32 in the market. Waterproof and armored. I have to admit that overall it's probably the better absolute birding instrument. I'm still in the early stage of SF 8X32 ownership so more info on it will be forthcoming.
Any specific questions that you may have?
Mac308
Well-known member
Chuck, thanks for your reply. As you may know from my scribblings here, I was quite excited for the 7x35 Retrovid when it was announced several years back. Initially Leica was going to release it with rubber armoring, and I just assumed it would be waterproof too. Wrong on both counts!
I had been lobbying the Big 3 for a 7x32/35mm binocular for a log time. I owned a Swarovski 7x30 SLC back starting in 1997 and just loved it, but eventually moved into better optics (a series of Leica 8x32's). BUT, I prefer a 7x35!
Anyway, now I think my initial prejudice against a non-armored, non-waterproof bin is waning. As long as I can get drop down ocular covers and a better Leica BN-style objective cover to fit the 7x35 I think I'll be an owner.
I suppose the one question I have is why would you consider the Zeiss 8x32SF more of a birding bin than the 7x35 Retrovid... is it just an armoring/waterproof thing, or something more?
I had been lobbying the Big 3 for a 7x32/35mm binocular for a log time. I owned a Swarovski 7x30 SLC back starting in 1997 and just loved it, but eventually moved into better optics (a series of Leica 8x32's). BUT, I prefer a 7x35!
Anyway, now I think my initial prejudice against a non-armored, non-waterproof bin is waning. As long as I can get drop down ocular covers and a better Leica BN-style objective cover to fit the 7x35 I think I'll be an owner.
I suppose the one question I have is why would you consider the Zeiss 8x32SF more of a birding bin than the 7x35 Retrovid... is it just an armoring/waterproof thing, or something more?
So if I were going to have ONE birding binocular to cover EVERY possible scenario it probably wouldn't be the Trinovid 7X35. And the main two reasons would be waterproofness and armoring. You all ready have an Ultravid so you have your waterproof binocular if you go birding where/when you might want more of a waterproof binocular. Most times of course it's not an issue. Don't get me wrong...I'm not downplaying how good of a binocular the Trinovid 7X35 is but it's not waterproof and I'm kinda careful with mine within reason not to mess up the finish.
Plingplang
Member
Allbinos has the SF 8x32 test published today: https://www.allbinos.com/index.php?test=lornetki&test_l=361
They top the ranking, but with some critical remarks.
They top the ranking, but with some critical remarks.
Plingplang
Member
Oh, and hello by the way. New to the forum.
Allbino's always has some critical remarks but....does the average person, or even 9/10 people really notice those same lab-test flaws in their birding experiences which Allbinos brings up? I never doubt the validity of the lab test itself and findings, but feel that for the average Joe, those tests are somewhat meaningless . For example:
Our first reservations concern its transmission graph......In this case a high number of elements in the optical system became another problem. OR....Distinct spikes, visible when you look at bright objects situated against dark background, are another problem.
What?....Who cares? Or is it just me........ Do I have any fellow practitioners out there who see the same?
Now for the third flaw, of "We didn't expect such a big set of binoculars, of course big for the 8x32 class of equipment,"...okay, got ya on that one as that is one that directly relates to 'in the field'....
Thanks to everyone who's reviewed these binoculars, even though they ended up costing me $2k. Nice to see the review from Allbinos, but as others have mentioned, some of what they say may not be an issue. One thing I completely fail to understand is this;
Cons:
Cons:
- truncated exit pupils
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
The EPs are not perfectly circular, and while the deviation from a perfect circle is very small (about 1-2%) it is visible in the photo on the site. Truncated EPs are caused by undersized prisms. Will that affect the view thru the binos? I do not think so, given the fact that it's only a very slight truncation..
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the heads-up and the link, and welcome to the BF! What's a bit curious about the ranking of the 8x32 binos is that Allbinos has never reviewed the Swaro 8x32 SV or FP. It would be interesting to see if, in their opinion, the SV/FP top the 8x32 category.
It’s surprising that Allbinos never got around to reviewing Swarovski’s #1 selling binocular. It’s like splitting hairs. The Zeiss is awesome with excellent correction of coma and aberrations. The Swaro’s only real flaw is the rolling ball with the most forgiving eye placement.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Pretty sure Henry has debunked this...truncated ep’s are the result of collimation, not undersized prisms.
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
Both undersized prisms and eccentric collimation rings are usually cited, so pick the one that you like. But I have to agree that the latter (possibly in combination with the former) appears to be the more likely cause for truncated EPs.
henry link
Well-known member
In Allbino's images of the exit pupil an undersized prism aperture would impinge on the objective light cone equally around its circumference and reduce the effective aperture, but the exit pupil would still be perfectly round, just smaller than it should be. Occasionally a prism will be too small for the prism aperture. In that case a straight prism edge will impinge on the edge of the exit pupil.
What causes the so call "truncated" exit pupils in the Allbinos images is lateral misalignment between the prism aperture and the objective lens and that is typically caused by the intentional introduction of eccentricity, either at the objective or eyepiece in order to collimate the binocular. Notice that the "truncation" is never the same in the right and left sides. It would also never be the same in different samples of the same binocular model. I suppose it could be argued that a proper sized prism aperture would be large enough to encompass the entire potential eccentricity that might be required for collimation, but I don't think that's ever done. This is just one of several examples in Allbino's tests that treat a sample variation as if it were a design characteristic.
What causes the so call "truncated" exit pupils in the Allbinos images is lateral misalignment between the prism aperture and the objective lens and that is typically caused by the intentional introduction of eccentricity, either at the objective or eyepiece in order to collimate the binocular. Notice that the "truncation" is never the same in the right and left sides. It would also never be the same in different samples of the same binocular model. I suppose it could be argued that a proper sized prism aperture would be large enough to encompass the entire potential eccentricity that might be required for collimation, but I don't think that's ever done. This is just one of several examples in Allbino's tests that treat a sample variation as if it were a design characteristic.
A very interesting (to me) point, and thank you for saying that.
