zeiss sf 8x42 vs zeiss ht 8x42 (4 Viewers)

[hopster]

Sorry to resurrect this old thread but I am also deciding between Zeiss SF and HT 8x42 as I have two options to buy at a good price.

Has the discussion on their relative strengths and weaknesses matured over time, maybe more time spent with the SF Mk II? I think I also noted a touch of greenish emphasis in the SF albeit in a very nice image, but many aspects of it (including the balance and focus in particular) are excellent. Does the HT have more sharpness/transparency and less CA in the sweet spot? It's not easy for me to look through them side-by-side to compare before I exercise the credit card.

 

[james holdsworth]

I have both an HT and SF. The SF is technically superior, with the best micro contrast I’ve ever seen, but lacks the pop and dynamic views given by the HT. HT is more colour neutral, with whiter whites and more macro contrast and, to my eyes, looks obviously brighter.

I think the trade offs to go flat field are unnecessary, producing annoying side effects. HT remains my all time favourite view.

 

[Canip]

Does the HT have more sharpness/transparency and less CA in the sweet spot?

Yes to central sharpness / brightness (to my eyes). Not sure about CA, I would rate them about equal.
Like James, I have both SF and HT (in several sizes, including 8x42); if I had to give one away, I would keep the SF as the better overall package.

 

[Scott98]

Not everybody likes allbinos.com, but I noticed they rated the 8x42 SF very highly on astigmatism, a little higher than HT's, and I can see it when I do astronomy. The star images are extremely tight, clean points, the best I've seen in any binoculars. Same with contrast - it shows up in astronomy as the darkness of the sky background. Outstanding.

There are some things I don't like about them, the eyecups don't come up high enough. And the outer 5% of the FOV gets a little squirrely, some false color is lurking out there and some distortion. I would have cropped off that outer 5%. But the overall "cleanliness" of the optics is super high, the color correction in the central 95% of the FOV is essentially perfect. Allbinos rated them a little higher on c.a. too. These are the reasons I decided not to buy used 8x42 HT's to compare against them when I had the chance. The handling of them and the focuser is my favorite of all binoculars as well.

For me the green thing was over-rated. I would described the color tone as cooler and my EDG 7x42 slightly warmer. But it's such a small thing. The colors of birds through the SF are extra-vivid and beautiful to my eyes, I think they have phenomenal color rendition. The only reason I would try the HT is to maybe get a little less rectilinear distortion, you can see a lot of it in the SF while panning. Not sure about the HT's.

But the 8 and 1/2 degree field of the SF is nice to have. It's so good for astronomy I'll never sell it. You can look at the full moon or a streetlight and not see any kind of scatter, stray light, or false color...just a super clean and bright optical train.

 

[hopster]

This gentleman is a photographer with a strong interest in binoculars and has a theory about the importance of a natural 3D view and how the move to field flatteners by all the major manufacturers may be harming this aspect of the visual experience.

3D view and flat fields

He is clearly a Leica fan but feels that the Noctivid is a let-down, in particular because of them joining this trend.

NV review

He describes the image from very flat fields (e.g. the NL?) as being almost 'cartoon like' and missing the depth dimension. Perhaps he has a point? He describes the HT as having a far more 3D view than the SF because of the lack of field flattening and therefore the inevitable distortions at the edge, but seems to feel that this trade-off is more than justified. Having said that, he does give the Mk II SF high praise in the update section at the start of page.

8x42 comparisons

I wonder if this should be another point to consider when comparing the two. His website contains some interesting discussions and also some lovely pictures of natural subjects.

 

[Canip]

This gentleman is a photographer with a strong interest in binoculars and has a theory about the importance of a natural 3D view and how the move to field flatteners by all the major manufacturers may be harming this aspect of the visual experience.

3D view and flat fields

He is clearly a Leica fan but feels that the Noctivid is a let-down, in particular because of them joining this trend.

NV review

He describes the image from very flat fields (e.g. the NL?) as being almost 'cartoon like' and missing the depth dimension. Perhaps he has a point? He describes the HT as having a far more 3D view than the SF because of the lack of field flattening and therefore the inevitable distortions at the edge, but seems to feel that this trade-off is more than justified. Having said that, he does give the Mk II SF high praise in the update section at the start of page.

8x42 comparisons

I wonder if this should be another point to consider when comparing the two. His website contains some interesting discussions and also some lovely pictures of natural subjects.

Thank you for these links, Hopster (Tobias Mennle is well known here and some if his findings have been discussed on this forum).

 

[hopster]

Thank you for these links, Hopster (Tobias Mennle is well known here and some if his findings have been discussed on this forum).

Thanks.

What's his name here, and if you have any links to those threads I would be curious to have a look.

 

[Conndomat]

Thanks.

What's his name here, and if you have any links to those threads I would be curious to have a look.

Hi,

Leica Noctivid 8x42 design flaws and review - owners please check

I have owned the Noctivid over a year now in which I have mostly used the Nikon EDG instead. The name seems program - the Noctivid is great in low or subdued light, but probably much more due to a strongly boosted contrast by skewing the transmission curve than due to more transmissive glass...

www.birdforum.net

Andreas

 

[Paultricounty]

This gentleman is a photographer with a strong interest in binoculars and has a theory about the importance of a natural 3D view and how the move to field flatteners by all the major manufacturers may be harming this aspect of the visual experience.

3D view and flat fields

He is clearly a Leica fan but feels that the Noctivid is a let-down, in particular because of them joining this trend.

NV review

He describes the image from very flat fields (e.g. the NL?) as being almost 'cartoon like' and missing the depth dimension. Perhaps he has a point? He describes the HT as having a far more 3D view than the SF because of the lack of field flattening and therefore the inevitable distortions at the edge, but seems to feel that this trade-off is more than justified. Having said that, he does give the Mk II SF high praise in the update section at the start of page.

8x42 comparisons

I wonder if this should be another point to consider when comparing the two. His website contains some interesting discussions and also some lovely pictures of natural subjects.

I wouldn’t base my purchase nor would I base which Binoculars I’m going to try out based on many of these reviews, been there , done that. Some have stopped me from trying out and buying specific binoculars for quite some time. I now have most of the Zeiss, Swarovski‘s, Nikon‘s and the Leica‘s, and I’ll tell you that for pure image beauty, none of them beat the Leica Noctivids. Every one of them will have some slight flaw when comparing to each other, but these SF, EL, NL (won’t mention UV’s because reviewer didn’t knock them) and Noctivids are the best binoculars made today in every optical and mechanical category. For me nothing beats the Noctivid, with NL’s a close second.

Things like glare may have lots to do with the individual. Of all my collection of binoculars the Noctivids handles glare about as good as anything on the market today. And I will ad that I’ve had side-by-side comparisons on multiple occasions with close to a dozen observers , and not one of them has made any complaints about glare in the Nocs , and two of those people are very sensitive to it.

 

[Maljunulo]

There seems to be a gulf between folks who just want to see better, and folks who want to “have a visual experience”.

I just want to see better.

 

[Paultricounty]

There seems to be a gulf between folks who just want to see better, and folks who want to “have a visual experience”.

I just want to see better.

I like to have a visual experience while seeing things better✌🏼

 

[Scott98]

It's true about trying them yourself. I read all the online comments to narrow it down to the ones I actually buy & try, but ultimately I have to try them myself. If they're new it's easy to buy & return. Gets more complicated when they're vintage or out of production like the HT's.

I wonder if the HT's are easier with eye placement? The SF's are sensitive to eye positioning. If the eyecup clickstops aren't just right for your face, you may have to use o-rings to get the height correct. Would be nice if the HT's were more tolerant. If I had the chance to buy them both used I would do it & sell one of them off. I bought my SF's new, so I know if they lost the comparo I'd take a big hit selling them.

 

[james holdsworth]

Never heard any complaints about fussy eye placement in the HT… very easy view for me as well.

 

[hopster]

OK so today I got a chance for a really thorough comparison at a helpful shop, all 8x42

• Zeiss HT
• Zeiss SF Mk I and Mk II
• Swaro rangefinder (EL I think?)

and I took my own VP 8x25 for reference. It was very interesting! Mostly overcast and humid with some brighter moments. Looking at a large complex lattice bridge structure ~1km away, surrounding trees and lampposts, seagulls, and hills inland with distant houses and surrounding forest (~3km?).

It was soon apparent that my favourite was the HT. There was a transparency or luminosity in the centre of the image that the SFs could not manage, and I think it was also a little sharper and certainly with more colour and higher contrast. There was also more sense of a 3D scene than any of the flat field binoculars. I was concentrating mainly in the middle 50% of the image as that is what I would do in everyday use for nature observations.

There wasn't much between the SFs except for the MK II having a better focus wheel and eyecups (those on the MK I were really rubbish) and maybe a very small difference in colour balance. The EL looked a little sharper and more transparent than the SFs. I have to say the SFs were very well balanced in the hands, felt light because of that and with a wide FOV (and the Mk II had a lovely focus wheel) but looked a little dull and 'blunted' somehow compared to the other 8x42s. They were also the fussiest for eye position.

I am not too bothered with the rolling ball issue that people complain about, but I think I am starting to see what people mean when they say that the flat field binoculars 'compress space' and look too, well 'flat' actually! Maybe a little synthetic?

There is only one fly in the ointment - but it's a big one. The HT focus wheel was very sticky indeed at infinity, almost like it was running into treacle inside, and to focus ~3km away I was right at the end of the travel and so the wheel would get stuck there. I am about -2.5 shortsighted but the guy who was showing me had good vision and was also quite close to the end of travel at 3km. I am wondering whether I would even be able to get focus at infinity for stars. I have never experienced this before but of course it makes them unusable in practice. They must have been in the cabinet for a long time unused because they were discontinued in 2018, so I have asked the shop to return them to Zeiss for a service and to see if anything can be done about it (perhaps some grease has congealed and blocked an internal channel of some kind?). If so, I'm interested in them, if not then I will have to look elsewhere. Has anyone else noticed this issue with HTs?

I felt some visual similarity between the HTs and quality porro bins that I have looked through over the years. I wonder if there is a transparency and luminosity present in either porro or AK prisms due their use only of internal reflections without a mirror surface? If so, and the HTs can't be persuaded to focus for me, then perhaps I should start to look at porros for my larger glass. The obvious contenders are the SW Habichts I suppose. I don't know the range in detail but from reading here I think { 7x42, 8x30, 10x40 }? Amongst all the praise for the image quality I have heard all sorts of concerns about glare, narrow FOV, stiff focus wheel. Any suggestions? I would use them without glasses and would like them to be waterproof enough that I don't worry if they get rained on. Or maybe a previous Zeiss (or other current) AK roof with good coatings in 8x42?

 

[Paultricounty]

OK so today I got a chance for a really thorough comparison at a helpful shop, all 8x42

• Zeiss HT
• Zeiss SF Mk I and Mk II
• Swaro rangefinder (EL I think?)

and I took my own VP 8x25 for reference. It was very interesting! Mostly overcast and humid with some brighter moments. Looking at a large complex lattice bridge structure ~1km away, surrounding trees and lampposts, seagulls, and hills inland with distant houses and surrounding forest (~3km?).

It was soon apparent that my favourite was the HT. There was a transparency or luminosity in the centre of the image that the SFs could not manage, and I think it was also a little sharper and certainly with more colour and higher contrast. There was also more sense of a 3D scene than any of the flat field binoculars. I was concentrating mainly in the middle 50% of the image as that is what I would do in everyday use for nature observations.

There wasn't much between the SFs except for the MK II having a better focus wheel and eyecups (those on the MK I were really rubbish) and maybe a very small difference in colour balance. The EL looked a little sharper and more transparent than the SFs. I have to say the SFs were very well balanced in the hands, felt light because of that and with a wide FOV (and the Mk II had a lovely focus wheel) but looked a little dull and 'blunted' somehow compared to the other 8x42s. They were also the fussiest for eye position.

I am not too bothered with the rolling ball issue that people complain about, but I think I am starting to see what people mean when they say that the flat field binoculars 'compress space' and look too, well 'flat' actually! Maybe a little synthetic?

There is only one fly in the ointment - but it's a big one. The HT focus wheel was very sticky indeed at infinity, almost like it was running into treacle inside, and to focus ~3km away I was right at the end of the travel and so the wheel would get stuck there. I am about -2.5 shortsighted but the guy who was showing me had good vision and was also quite close to the end of travel at 3km. I am wondering whether I would even be able to get focus at infinity for stars. I have never experienced this before but of course it makes them unusable in practice. They must have been in the cabinet for a long time unused because they were discontinued in 2018, so I have asked the shop to return them to Zeiss for a service and to see if anything can be done about it (perhaps some grease has congealed and blocked an internal channel of some kind?). If so, I'm interested in them, if not then I will have to look elsewhere. Has anyone else noticed this issue with HTs?

I felt some visual similarity between the HTs and quality porro bins that I have looked through over the years. I wonder if there is a transparency and luminosity present in either porro or AK prisms due their use only of internal reflections without a mirror surface? If so, and the HTs can't be persuaded to focus for me, then perhaps I should start to look at porros for my larger glass. The obvious contenders are the SW Habichts I suppose. I don't know the range in detail but from reading here I think { 7x42, 8x30, 10x40 }? Amongst all the praise for the image quality I have heard all sorts of concerns about glare, narrow FOV, stiff focus wheel. Any suggestions? I would use them without glasses and would like them to be waterproof enough that I don't worry if they get rained on. Or maybe a previous Zeiss (or other current) AK roof with good coatings in 8x42?

Hopster, do own any of those three or were they all store floor samples?

If you want bright and three dimensionality the 7x42 Habicht’s are the way to go.

Paul

 

[hopster]

Hopster, do own any of those three or were they all store floor samples?

If you want bright and three dimensionality the 7x42 Habicht’s are the way to go.

Paul

They were all shop floor samples Paul, with the SF Mk I and HT looking like they had both been there rather a long time.

I have been warned about the narrow FOV of the 7x42 being rather a let-down - what do you think? I was gravitating towards the 10x40.

I just noticed that Vortex do a Razor UHD in 8x42 which some people like a lot and it has AK prisms. Is this going to be in the same class as the HT?

 

[Scott98]

Sounds to me like the HT focuser needs servicing, I'm sure it will function better afterwards.

 

[Paultricounty]

They were all shop floor samples Paul, with the SF Mk I and HT looking like they had both been there rather a long time.

Sometimes those floor samples can be a little less than stellar depending how old and how banged around they might’ve been. One time at B&H I tried a Conquest 10x42 a buddy of mine was considering buying , I already owned one. He was surprised how lousy it came to focus, that’s surprised me considering that particular Binocular bino snaps in the focus real nice, specially with that incredibly fast focuser. When I tried it , it was way out of collimation. I’m not sure the differences , if any from the early gray SF’s and the newer black ones.

I have been warned about the narrow FOV of the 7x42 being rather a let-down - what do you think? I was gravitating towards the 10x40.

FOV is tight on the 7 Habicht’s, more than any other binos I own. But to me they are a specialty low light bino, that can be used at night , for limited use of course. In daytime in good lighting maybe not any brighter than any other alpha bino. The 10 with it’s more common FOV would possibly be a better all around bino.

I just noticed that Vortex do a Razor UHD in 8x42 which some people like a lot and it has AK prisms. Is this going to be in the same class as the HT?

The two brightest 8x & 10x 42’s I’ve ever tried and used are the Vortex UHD and the Zeiss FL. Both of which I’d guess are equal to or better than the HT.

Let us know what you choose. Good luck.

Paul

 

[Canip]

the Vortex UHD and the Zeiss FL. Both of which I’d guess are equal to or better than the HT

Equal to or better? In which way?

 

[henry link]

The two brightest 8x & 10x 42’s I’ve ever tried and used are the Vortex UHD and the Zeiss FL. Both of which I’d guess are equal to or better than the HT.

The Zeiss 8x42 HT is optically the very same binocular as the 8x42 FL, but with a little improvement to light transmission from the substitution of an unknown number of HT glass types and a change to the baffling structure behind the objective lens group.