zeiss sf 8x42 vs zeiss ht 8x42 (6 Viewers)

[Paultricounty]

Equal to or better? In which way?

I was referring and guessing about brightness, but I think Henry just cleared that up. I will tell you I was I was shocked how bright the vortex UHD is, especially after comparing to the HD, then to the Nocs and EL’s. Also I didn’t buy them thinking they’d be brighter, I just was curious how good the UHD was after being dissatisfied with the HD models.

Paul

 

[hopster]

For those here who own 8x42 HTs, can I ask how far past infinity they should be able to focus with relatively normal vision i.e. either good or else a small amount (~ -2.5) of shortsightedness. Is it quite tight or is there a lot of leeway like most bins I have tried? I'm trying to work out if there is a fault with this particular pair as Scott98 suggested (hopefully one that can be resolved simply) or whether it is built into this particular design.

If it has been sitting in a shop for at least 5 years occasionally being demonstrated then I would have thought this was an easier life than out in the field being bumped and and swung around and rained on.

 

[dries1]

There is minimal difference between the FL and HT with respect to transmission. I spent time with the 10X42 HT and have the FL 10X42. Both are high in transmission.
With respect to the sample HT in the shop, it likely had focus with slag from the beginning. There are examples of many premium glass from all the major manufacturers which are faulty out the gate. Additionally it has been there for five years, so another possibility of why it is still in the shop.

 

[hopster]

So, any other recommendations from the experienced people here for an 8x42 AK prism bin in the same kind of quality bracket as the HT or FL, but currently available (and maybe with better QC)? I think the Vortex Razor UHD is one though I read some reports saying it has more CA than average and that puts me off, along with the slow focuser. I am starting to think that I also want to avoid field flatteners and that I should look through a Habicht 10x40 when I get the chance. It seems inevitable that the edges will be softer/worse without field flatteners, but maybe that is necessary to get other qualities in the image (or does the SLC buck that trend)? Tobias Mennle certainly seems to think so, but on his website he also says that he 'fell out of love' with the HT and FL 8x42s because the aberrations at the edge were too great and affected his ease of view over time. Do other HT/FL users agree with this? Would the Habicht have the same character?

Maybe focusing on AK prism bins is too limiting but there does seem to be a similar sparkle and transparency (and dare I say it 3D) to porro bins which I have not seen in the best SP bins, including SLCs and NLs with their superb clarity and field width.

 

[Paultricounty]

So, any other recommendations from the experienced people here for an 8x42 AK prism bin in the same kind of quality bracket as the HT or FL, but currently available (and maybe with better QC)? I think the Vortex Razor UHD is one though I read some reports saying it has more CA than average and that puts me off, along with the slow focuser. I am starting to think that I also want to avoid field flatteners and that I should look through a Habicht 10x40 when I get the chance. It seems inevitable that the edges will be softer/worse without field flatteners, but maybe that is necessary to get other qualities in the image (or does the SLC buck that trend)? Tobias Mennle certainly seems to think so, but on his website he also says that he 'fell out of love' with the HT and FL 8x42s because the aberrations at the edge were too great and affected his ease of view over time. Do other HT/FL users agree with this? Would the Habicht have the same character?

Theres a lot there to unpack. The UHD is one of few AK bins currently available on this level , the QC on the Vortex and zeiss is very good and both companies stand behind their products. CA correction in the UHD is excellent and one of the best in that area. The focuser based on stats is slow, slower than most with around 2.5 revolutions from a very near focus of about four feet (excellent) to infinity. But because it’s not linear it’s very misleading, close focus to around twenty five feet takes about two turns of the focuser travel , from there to infinity, which is range most binoculars are used is a little over a half a revolution, therefore the focuser is quite fast in practical use.

You can glean something’s from good reviews, but you can’t see and feel for yourself. The reviews give you a general bases of the quality levels and what objective and subjective (which are many) of the particular bino. To me , over the years I’ve come to the conclusion that most reviews kind of narrow down the price range of something, because each binocular in a price point are about the same , give or take on attributes being slightly different in one anther. I wonder why your hooked on AK prisms, there’s not much of a difference from the SP roofs.

Maybe focusing on AK prism bins is too limiting but there does seem to be a similar sparkle and transparency (and dare I say it 3D) to porro bins which I have not seen in the best SP bins, including SLCs and NLs with their superb clarity and field width.

Not sure what you mean by focusing on AK is too limiting, SP focus the same. The sparkle and transparency is more about the quality of the optics than what prism is used. Many SP bins are far nicer than some AK bins. The porro does give a more three dimensionality than than any roofs, but it’s not mind blowing, not quite like the big old vintage bins that are amazing in this area.

Paul

 

[hopster]

Maybe focusing on AK prism bins is too limiting but there does seem to be a similar sparkle and transparency (and dare I say it 3D) to porro bins which I have not seen in the best SP bins, including SLCs and NLs with their superb clarity and field width.

Not sure what you mean by focusing on AK is too limiting, SP focus the same.

Paul

Maybe I should have put that differently! I meant the 'focus' of my binocular search, not the physical mechanism.

M

 

[Paultricounty]

Maybe I should have put that differently! I meant the 'focus' of my binocular search, not the physical mechanism.

M

🤪 my bad. And yes your limiting yourself.

 

[hopster]

🤪 my bad. And yes your limiting yourself.

So you don't think that prisms with TIR like AK and porro produce a particularly 'transparent' image quality? I am starting to think that they do, but I could of course be simplifying matters/deluding myself. I don't believe I have seen any SP prisms with that particular 'tangible' quality, even the best like NL and SLC. I haven't looked through many Leicas though.

 

[Paultricounty]

So you don't think that prisms with TIR like AK and porro produce a particularly 'transparent' image quality? I am starting to think that they do, but I could of course be simplifying matters/deluding myself. I don't believe I have seen any SP prisms with that particular 'tangible' quality, even the best like NL and SLC. I haven't looked through many Leicas though.

I think a lot of these terms Are misused. There were a couple of discussions trying to get some kind of consensus on some of the terminology, but being some of it is subjective and some objective , They went down a rabbit hole. I know that AK and Porro prism binoculars could and sometimes do have a slightly higher light transmission when all things considered are equal, which they usually are not.

Again I’m not sure what you mean by that tangible quality course I don’t know the quality you’re talking about. I have most of these binoculars that we’re talking about , at least the newer ones and I don’t really see a tangible difference in AK or SP prism Binoculars. The AK can be slightly brighter , but there are other factors , like coatings, glass type and ocular design that go into that.

Have you tried NL’s, EL’s , SF’s?
I think if you compared any of those and of course the Leica’s against the UHD or any of the other high-quality AK binoculars , I think you’re fine they’re all relatively the same at this level. Yes one might be slightly brighter at dusk or dawn, once the sun is up there’s no true discernible difference, again when all things optically are on a similar level.

I hope that some food for thought.

Paul

 

[henry link]

I am starting to think that I also want to avoid field flatteners and that I should look through a Habicht 10x40 when I get the chance. It seems inevitable that the edges will be softer/worse without field flatteners, but maybe that is necessary to get other qualities in the image (or does the SLC buck that trend)? Tobias Mennle certainly seems to think so, but on his website he also says that he 'fell out of love' with the HT and FL 8x42s because the aberrations at the edge were too great and affected his ease of view over time. Do other HT/FL users agree with this? Would the Habicht have the same character?

The 8x30/10x40 Habitats and the Zeiss FL/HTs use very old eyepiece designs (Habicht - modified Erfle, HT/FL - modified Koenig) that date back about 100 years.

They all have what I consider to be the absolute maximum level of off-axis aberrations I can tolerate. The astigmatism is large enough to make field curvature essentially irrelevant since the curvature is hidden by the astigmatism. "Good" off axis sharpness is maintained to about 12-15º off axis and falls from there to a mush at the field edge, typical for old 60º eyepieces. The Habicht eyepiece is a little worse than the FL/HT for astigmatism, but has a more "modern" distortion profile with less pincushion. The center field in the Habicht is also inferior to the FL/HT due to higher longitudinal chromatic aberration and higher spherical aberration.

I don't share Tobias' preference for somewhat poorly corrected field curvature and off-axis astigmatism and high pincushion distortion. I consider that combination to produce a kind of "romantic" cinematic effect, not the neutral presentation I want from a low aberration visual instrument. That's something you'll have to decide for yourself.

 

[hopster]

I think a lot of these terms Are misused. There were a couple of discussions trying to get some kind of consensus on some of the terminology, but being some of it is subjective and some objective , They went down a rabbit hole. I know that AK and Porro prism binoculars could and sometimes do have a slightly higher light transmission when all things considered are equal, which they usually are not.

Again I’m not sure what you mean by that tangible quality course I don’t know the quality you’re talking about. I have most of these binoculars that we’re talking about , at least the newer ones and I don’t really see a tangible difference in AK or SP prism Binoculars. The AK can be slightly brighter , but there are other factors , like coatings, glass type and ocular design that go into that.

Have you tried NL’s, EL’s , SF’s?
I think if you compared any of those and of course the Leica’s against the UHD or any of the other high-quality AK binoculars , I think you’re fine they’re all relatively the same at this level. Yes one might be slightly brighter at dusk or dawn, once the sun is up there’s no true discernible difference, again when all things optically are on a similar level.

I hope that some food for thought.

Paul

OK, yes I'm sure this has been discussed before many times. I am only reporting my own experience here and seeing if it is held more widely.

Yes I have tried all of those, and others from the top stables (though few Leicas) along with others like the Opticron Aurora which seems like an excellent 8x42 optically especially when considering the price. I am starting to feel a preference against binoculars with a very flat field for the same reason that Tobias does I think - though I recognise and respect the technical tour de force required to make them do it.

In particular, after initially being very impressed by the SF Mk 2 because of the handling and FOV it seemed a little 'dull' when directly compared to the HT. This was not so much brightness - though it was clearly a little brighter - but something else in the image about contrast, colour and 'immediacy'. Of course when one does not know what to measure one is left using subjective terms which makes it difficult to communicate unambiguously and can be unsatisfying, but that can also be valid especially if seen consistently or shared with others with no prior prejudice either way as these devices are designed to interface to the human brain via its visual interface. I have also seen these properties in some porro binoculars (though I have not yet tried the Habichts) but not usually in top quality SPs like SLC and NL despite their other excellent capabilities including brightness which I am sure can be measured accurately across the frequency range of light.

 

[hopster]

The 8x30/10x40 Habitats and the Zeiss FL/HTs use very old eyepiece designs (Habicht - modified Erfle, HT/FL - modified Koenig) that date back about 100 years.

They all have what I consider to be the absolute maximum level of off-axis aberrations I can tolerate. The astigmatism is large enough to make field curvature essentially irrelevant since the curvature is hidden by the astigmatism. "Good" off axis sharpness is maintained to about 12-15º off axis and falls from there to a mush at the field edge, typical for old 60º eyepieces. The Habicht eyepiece is a little worse than the FL/HT for astigmatism, but has a more "modern" distortion profile with less pincushion. The center field in the Habicht is also inferior to the FL/HT due to higher longitudinal chromatic aberration and higher spherical aberration.

I don't share Tobias' preference for poorly corrected field curvature and off-axis astigmatism and high pincushion distortion. I consider that combination to produce a kind of "romantic" cinematic effect, not the neutral presentation I want from a visual instrument like a binocular. That's something you'll have to decide for yourself.

Thanks Henry that is interesting technical substance. I'm sure it is easy to get seduced by a binocular with certain very noticeable qualities and then only over time realise that they or others become an issue. I did like the HT though!

Would you have a recommendation for a non- (or less-) flat field 8x42 binocular that suffers less off-axis problems than FL, HT or Habicht? The SLC perhaps? If it had porro or AK prisms and low CA I would be even more interested.

 

[henry link]

I think the SLCs have a very nice set of trade-offs. I can and have lived happily long term with FLs, even with their off-axis aberrations. Even though I've kept two pairs around as references, the Habichts are not for me.

 

[hopster]

I think the SLCs have a very nice set of trade-offs. I can and have lived happily long term with FLs. Even though I have two pairs, the Habichts are not for me.

Thank you.

Would you agree that porros and AKs have a certain visual characteristic of transparency or immediacy, or do you agree with Paul that it's more about the lenses and other aspects of the design?

 

[Conndomat]

I'm sure it is easy to get seduced by a binocular with certain very noticeable qualities and then only over time realise that they or others become an issue. I did like the HT though!

Hello,

it's a serious problem, store visits can only give a first impression but in the long run you can be wrong.

I think you should test binoculars for several days, example Zeiss FL 7x42, at the beginning I was enthusiastic, after a few days not anymore, example Zeiss FL 10x56, at the beginning I had big doubts now it is IMO one of the best 10x binoculars ever getting produced.
Actually I would have 2-3 other examples but I think you know what I mean?!

Andreas

P.S. Henry's suggestion of trying an SLC as an alternative makes a lot of sense, it's a good compromise between traditional design and flat field.

 

[henry link]

Thank you.

Would you agree that porros and AKs have a certain visual characteristic of transparency or immediacy, or do you agree with Paul that it's more about the lenses and other aspects of the design?

I don't think that question can be answered now. What's needed for a controlled comparison are two binoculars that differ by prism type only. The closest case now would perhaps be the Swarovski 8x42 SLC (or the Kahles version) vs the 8x56 SLC stopped down to 42mm. Every other comparison will have too many uncontrolled variables and even that one favors the 8x56 because its longer focal length should give it lower aberrations.

Like you, I have a soft spot for AKs and Porros. I suspect they probably are capable of superior images over S-P even though I don't know how to prove it, so I always perk up when a new AK appears and I'm hoping Leica will eventually see fit to make a Perger/Porro binocular without the ruinous effect of rangefinder optics on light transmission.

Henry

 

[Scott98]

If you're looking for ultimate clarity and contrast I don't understand why the SF's were dismissed so quickly. IMO they're the best for this. I would not worry about the AK prism thing, the prisms in the SF's are excellent. I would not want to swap my SF's for a Habicht, no way I'm giving up the velvety smooth focuser of the 8x42 SF for a stiffer one.

I absolutely love Nikon EDG binos, my 7x42 EDG is my favorite pair of binoculars and yet there is no temptation to get the 8x42 EDG. Because I have the SF. It's got an extra bit of sharpness and contrast that is amazing to me. I feel like I'd be moving backwards to get an HT or FL Zeiss, I think they have succeeded in advancing the optics with the SF's over prior models. I don't worry about what's inside the tubes - the quality immediately jumps out at me, just watching bees flying into the Torenia flowers on my porch.

 

[William Lewis]

On board with this, I prefer the image qualities of Porro's or ak prism bino's over Sp's. Sp's always seem a little flat transmission wise, lacking a little sparkle - even the best.

If I were deciding between them I'd go for a later FL in good condition, i just think the design is zeiss at its functional best, not such a fan of their newer offerings - bit too glitzy.

There are quite a few modern ak prism 8x42 but none from the Leica, zeiss, swaro or Nikon. Other than Leica though they all make good ak prism glass in 50 and above - you just might have to sell a kidney for the Nikon version...

Will

 

[Paultricounty]

Thank you.

Would you agree that porros and AKs have a certain visual characteristic of transparency or immediacy, or do you agree with Paul that it's more about the lenses and other aspects of the design?

Porros kind of yes, still not sure about what your describing, but they do have a different image personality, AK’s not so much.

I for one will not disagree with with Henry’s assessment of the design and optical characteristics of Habichts, but I will disagree when it comes to the overall image quality to my eyes. We seem to put up with many negative attributes in many binoculars, Habichts are not much different and are better in some areas the latest and greatest. I find the Habichts to be wonderful binoculars, and I’m in awe every time I use mine.

I’m finding hard to understand what you looking for. You e tried some of the best on the market , I’m sure you won’t find the perfect binoculars, if you do let me know because I’ll buy the whole line. Mostly we’re all looking to check as many boxes as we can and find something that has the least things we don’t like 🙏

 

[hopster]

On board with this, I prefer the image qualities of Porro's or ak prism bino's over Sp's. Sp's always seem a little flat transmission wise, lacking a little sparkle - even the best.

If I were deciding between them I'd go for a later FL in good condition, i just think the design is zeiss at its functional best, not such a fan of their newer offerings - bit too glitzy.

There are quite a few modern ak prism 8x42 but none from the Leica, zeiss, swaro or Nikon. Other than Leica though they all make good ak prism glass in 50 and above - you just might have to sell a kidney for the Nikon version...

Will

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees this! Otherwise I have an unbelievable offer on a SF Mk 2 which I could have just gone for but something is missing, for me anyway...

I'm considering this HT if the focusing can be made good as everything else was very nice. I spoke to the Zeiss service guy today and he sounds very competent and knowledgeable, and optimistic that it can be solved - so I'm hopeful. Then to haggling with the shop about the price on this 5 year old discontinued model which just sits in their cabinet and I'm sure they would like to convert into some cash.

Otherwise, perhaps a 2nd hand FL (or HT) or a Habicht. Or a look at a Vortex Razor UHD if I can find one. Or a careful comparison with a really good SP like the SLC or Kahles equivalent to test my hypothesis again.

Thanks for the input from everyone.