Zeiss SF - Allbinos review (4 Viewers)

[henry link]

Sorry Gijs, I misread my ruler. I've made corrections in the original post and changed the text.

While I'm at it, I've been meaning to ask if you could include internal lines in your graphs. Your measurements are a great service to us, but I find myself frequently struggling to line up wavelengths with transmission percentages.

Thanks,

Henry

 

[henry link]

Thanks for your points, Ed. I agree.

Henry

 

[james holdsworth]

I just think that Allbinos have always tested binocs from an astro perspective - favouring low coma, zero distortion etc. and never from a birding perspective.

That's why there are several models that have tested poorly for Allbinos that I find very favourable in the field. Why test 8 and 10 x bins for stargazing as that was definitely not what they were designed to do.....

 

[The-Wanderer]

More points means less good!

"Still the overall image is worse than that of the Victory HT model because its loss of blue light was significantly smaller. It might be caused by Abbe-Koenig prisms which don’t demand any reflective coating but also by simpler optical system – in the Victory HT you deal with one element less in the optical axis."

I just do not understand Allbinos - the numbers trash the overall image?

 

[Vespobuteo]

More points means less good!

"Still the overall image is worse than that of the Victory HT model because its loss of blue light was significantly smaller. It might be caused by Abbe-Koenig prisms which don’t demand any reflective coating but also by simpler optical system – in the Victory HT you deal with one element less in the optical axis."

I just do not understand Allbinos - the numbers trash the overall image?

No, that is not my impression, the quote relates to the transmission figures.

It also says further down:

"The only binoculars which can compete with the Victory SF on the market are the Swarovski EL Swarovision and the Nikon EDG."

If a potential color-cast would be disturbing, only you can decide.

 

[A2GG]

More points means less good!

"Still the overall image is worse than that of the Victory HT model because its loss of blue light was significantly smaller. It might be caused by Abbe-Koenig prisms which don’t demand any reflective coating but also by simpler optical system – in the Victory HT you deal with one element less in the optical axis."

I just do not understand Allbinos - the numbers trash the overall image?

I read the review as overall very positive. It got an excellent review...at least that is my interpretation.

 

[Chosun Juan]

More points means less good!

"Still the overall image is worse than that of the Victory HT model because its loss of blue light was significantly smaller. It might be caused by Abbe-Koenig prisms which don’t demand any reflective coating but also by simpler optical system – in the Victory HT you deal with one element less in the optical axis."

I just do not understand Allbinos - the numbers trash the overall image?

No, that is not my impression, the quote relates to the transmission figures.

It also says further down:

"The only binoculars which can compete with the Victory SF on the market are the Swarovski EL Swarovision and the Nikon EDG."

If a potential color-cast would be disturbing, only you can decide.

Heya Wanderer, I agree with Vespo and GG, at this level of performance the bar is effectively set relatively higher as minor flaws are nit picked. So while the numbers assigned by Allbino's to various categories (eg. transmission and whiteness of image) do not greatly diminish the image seen, they do serve to distinguish the performance against the direct top competitors, ie. SV, EDG, HT, and even UVHD+ etc ...... :cat:

The SF, while posting some excellent scores in categories and overall, seems to be distinctly lacking in transmission at both ends of the visible range, especially in comparison to the 'crystalline' view of the SV. A look at the transmission curves tells the tale and shows why Allbino's scored each the way they did.

SV. Over~90% transmission from 420nm to 655nm.
SF. Over 90% transmission from only 485nm to 635nm.
http://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html
http://www.allbinos.com/304-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_SF_10x42.html

The SV also has S-P prisms, so merely by the SF not using A-K prisms as in the HT, is not where the answer lies. No matter what people see with their eyes ( valid for them) the figures don't lie (caveat! well I think the Allbino's transmission figures seem rubbery sometimes, particularly when they have S-P bin transmissions so high, and the HT so low compared to what Zeiss themselves posted - but let's just deal with them at face value for their relativity among brands, though understanding that there is a margin of error in those figures that can't be ignored). Even the figures Gij's measured show a similar 'shaped' curve for the SF.

Hahahaha :-O none of this of course explains why I see a distinctly unpreferable bla, 'muddy' olive-brown view through the Swaro SLC (sorry Ed ! in comparison to the 'crystalline' SV, and the 'clarity' of the HT ....... oh well :brains: :h?: 8-P

I hope to be able to give my A/B Mark I eyeball evaluation between the top dawgs at Birdfair (Oz) .......

It looks to me like the SF needs HT type glass to boost transmission (reduce loses in the bluish part of the spectrum, and coatings re indexed to also reduce loses in the reddish part of the spectrum too) - why something that goes for $2500+ doesn't have all of the finest state of the art spec is beyond me - people are being moreorless 'ripped off' for the sake of silly marketing differentiation. For some people this will be an issue, for others not ..... No doubt some others will disagree ....... :smoke:


Chosun :gh:

 

[[email protected]]

Heya Wanderer, I agree with Vespo and GG, at this level of performance the bar is effectively set relatively higher as minor flaws are nit picked. So while the numbers assigned by Allbino's to various categories (eg. transmission and whiteness of image) do not greatly diminish the image seen, they do serve to distinguish the performance against the direct top competitors, ie. SV, EDG, HT, and even UVHD+ etc ...... :cat:

The SF, while posting some excellent scores in categories and overall, seems to be distinctly lacking in transmission at both ends of the visible range, especially in comparison to the 'crystalline' view of the SV. A look at the transmission curves tells the tale and shows why Allbino's scored each the way they did.

SV. Over~90% transmission from 420nm to 655nm.
SF. Over 90% transmission from only 485nm to 635nm.
http://www.allbinos.com/223-binoculars_review-Swarovski_EL_10x42_Swarovision.html
http://www.allbinos.com/304-binoculars_review-Carl_Zeiss_Victory_SF_10x42.html

The SV also has S-P prisms, so merely by the SF not using A-K prisms as in the HT, is not where the answer lies. No matter what people see with their eyes ( valid for them) the figures don't lie (caveat! well I think the Allbino's transmission figures seem rubbery sometimes, particularly when they have S-P bin transmissions so high, and the HT so low compared to what Zeiss themselves posted - but let's just deal with them at face value for their relativity among brands, though understanding that there is a margin of error in those figures that can't be ignored). Even the figures Gij's measured show a similar 'shaped' curve for the SF.

Hahahaha :-O none of this of course explains why I see a distinctly unpreferable bla, 'muddy' olive-brown view through the Swaro SLC (sorry Ed ! in comparison to the 'crystalline' SV, and the 'clarity' of the HT ....... oh well :brains: :h?: 8-P

I hope to be able to give my A/B Mark I eyeball evaluation between the top dawgs at Birdfair (Oz) .......

It looks to me like the SF needs HT type glass to boost transmission (reduce loses in the bluish part of the spectrum, and coatings re indexed to also reduce loses in the reddish part of the spectrum too) - why something that goes for $2500+ doesn't have all of the finest state of the art spec is beyond me - people are being moreorless 'ripped off' for the sake of silly marketing differentiation. For some people this will be an issue, for others not ..... No doubt some others will disagree ....... :smoke:


Chosun :gh:

"The SF, while posting some excellent scores in categories and overall, seems to be distinctly lacking in transmission at both ends of the visible range, especially in comparison to the 'crystalline' view of the SV"

I agree with Chosun on the transmission graph's. There is a huge difference between the SV and the SF at both ends of the visible range.That alone is why they ranked the SV above the SF. That would really affect the "crystalline" view of the binocular. If you look at the EDG transmission graph it is below 90% up to 600 nm also. That is probably why it appears dark compared to the SV. It is easy to see why the SV has such a nice view by the transmission graph. Flat as a board across the whole visible spectrum and always above 91% transmission.

 

[SuperDuty]

These two (8X SF, 8.5X SV), are both listed on eBay from the same seller, same ending time. I'll be interested to see what happens, the SF should bring somewhat more.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/322197168116?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

http://www.ebay.com/itm/322197164200?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

"The SF, while posting some excellent scores in categories and overall, seems to be distinctly lacking in transmission at both ends of the visible range, especially in comparison to the 'crystalline' view of the SV"

I agree with Chosun on the transmission graph's. There is a huge difference between the SV and the SF at both ends of the visible range.That alone is why they ranked the SV above the SF. That would really affect the "crystalline" view of the binocular. If you look at the EDG transmission graph it is below 90% up to 600 nm also. That is probably why it appears dark compared to the SV.

 

[ceasar]

"The SF, while posting some excellent scores in categories and overall, seems to be distinctly lacking in transmission at both ends of the visible range, especially in comparison to the 'crystalline' view of the SV"

I agree with Chosun on the transmission graph's. There is a huge difference between the SV and the SF at both ends of the visible range.That alone is why they ranked the SV above the SF. That would really affect the "crystalline" view of the binocular. If you look at the EDG transmission graph it is below 90% up to 600 nm also. That is probably why it appears dark compared to the SV.

I don't believe that a binocular with 95% trans. @430nm is brighter than a binocular with 95% trans. @ 570nm or one with 94% trans. @ 680nm.

Nor do I believe that anyone can see the difference in brightness among them.

 

[[email protected]]

The overall image of a binocular is going to be better and appear brighter if the transmission is higher across the spectrum. That is one reason the HT has a better, brighter image than the SF. It is transmitting higher in the blue part of the spectrum. As quoted from Allbino's.

"Still the overall image of the SF is worse than that of the Victory HT model because the HT's loss of blue light was significantly smaller. It might be caused by Abbe-Koenig prisms which don’t demand any reflective coating but also by simpler optical system – in the Victory HT you deal with one element less in the optical axis."
"It’s clear that in the middle of the visible spectrum both pairs of binoculars have results on almost the same level but the new Victory HT fares better for blue light so the overall amount of light delivered to your eye is higher."

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Dennis, post 31,
A little while ago I have presented the transmission spectrum of the Aus Jena 7x40 GA. It has a bright yellow coloured image presentation, a low blue transmission ( about 50% at 450 nm) and a bright image quality. Holger Merlitz has a calculated from this spectrum (and presented the results on BF) how the two sensitivity curves of the eye (cone vision and rod vision) fit in this spectrum. That does not seem to support your statement, that a few percent higher blue transmission is the cause of the brighter image of the Zeiss HT.
Actually when I compare the spectra of the SF and the HT, the transmission of the HT is considerably higher over the whole spectral range measured than that of the SF. From that I conclude that this is the reason the HT has a brighter image.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[elkcub]

...
Hahahaha :-O none of this of course explains why I see a distinctly unpreferable bla, 'muddy' olive-brown view through the Swaro SLC (sorry Ed ! in comparison to the 'crystalline' SV, and the 'clarity' of the HT ....... oh well :brains: :h?: 8-P

...
Chosun :gh:

Not to worry. Depending on how comparisons were made, aftereffects could have clearly muddied your crystalline perceptions. :brains:

Ed

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis, post 31,
A little while ago I have presented the transmission spectrum of the Aus Jena 7x40 GA. It has a bright yellow coloured image presentation, a low blue transmission ( about 50% at 450 nm) and a bright image quality. Holger Merlitz has a calculated from this spectrum (and presented the results on BF) how the two sensitivity curves of the eye (cone vision and rod vision) fit in this spectrum. That does not seem to support your statement, that a few percent higher blue transmission is the cause of the brighter image of the Zeiss HT.
Actually when I compare the spectra of the SF and the HT, the transmission of the HT is considerably higher over the whole spectral range measured than that of the SF. From that I conclude that this is the reason the HT has a brighter image.
Gijs van Ginkel

Our eyes perceive brightness based on colors and the time of day. In daylight our cones rather than rods are mostly used and they perceive red and yellow so red and yellow colors look brighter. In low light situations our rods are mostly used which detect blues and greens so blue and green colors look brighter. In many situations with binoculars more transmission in the blue spectrum will make objects appear brighter especially under low light. The Zeiss HT and the Swarovski SV have several % higher transmission in the blue spectrum so they would both be brighter than the SF in low light. Here is a more complete explanation.

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/color-perception-4/perception-4.htm

 

[elkcub]

Unfortunately, Mr. Bigelow doesn't understand that luminance is a physical measure not a psychological one.

Ed

 

[[email protected]]

These two (8X SF, 8.5X SV), are both listed on eBay from the same seller, same ending time. I'll be interested to see what happens, the SF should bring somewhat more.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/322197168116?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

http://www.ebay.com/itm/322197164200?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

I threw in a bid of $1450 for the 8x42 SF's just for fun but they went for $1672.

 

[Troubador]

It looks to me like the SF needs HT type glass to boost transmission

Chosun :gh:

Some elements in the SF optical system are in High Transmission glass but it is unclear which elements and how many.

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

Zeiss make camera lenses that have very high transmission in the red spectrum using T* coatings.
The number of lens elements are about the same, but there are no SP-prisms in a camera lens obviously.
But at least it proves that it's not T* that is the weak point here so I think the SF-transmission curve is a clear design choice from Zeiss. Mainly for maximizing contrast an minimizing effects from haze/UV light.
99.??% of the users won't notice any "cast" in the bins so it's probably a reasonable decision.

http://www.lenstip.com/179.9-Lens_r..._ZS_ZE_Ghosting__flares_and_transmission.html

 

[Troubador]

Zeiss make camera lenses that have very high transmission in the red spectrum using T* coatings.
The number of lens elements are about the same, but there are no SP-prisms in a camera lens obviously.
But at least it proves that it's not T* that is the weak point here so I think the SF-transmission curve is a clear design choice from Zeiss. Mainly for maximizing contrast an minimizing effects from haze/UV light.
99.??% of the users won't notice any "cast" in the bins so it's probably a reasonable decision.

http://www.lenstip.com/179.9-Lens_r..._ZS_ZE_Ghosting__flares_and_transmission.html

Interesting stuff VB but beware of drawing specific conclusions about T* based on one product and expecting them to be exactly applicable to another product. I believe T* is probably a family of coatings not just one coating and is probable tailored to suit different priorities and perhaps even different grades of glass in different products.

For example HT is an excellent all-round instrument but it has a special capability in low light (AK prisms and HT glass). SF is an excellent all-round instrument but I am sure it was not designed to compete with HT but to perform best in normal nature observing light levels. I would bet money on the T* coatings being different due to these different tasks.

Lee

 

[Vespobuteo]

Interesting stuff VB but beware of drawing specific conclusions about T* based on one product and expecting them to be exactly applicable to another product. I believe T* is probably a family of coatings not just one coating and is probable tailored to suit different priorities and perhaps even different grades of glass in different products.

For example HT is an excellent all-round instrument but it has a special capability in low light (AK prisms and HT glass). SF is an excellent all-round instrument but I am sure it was not designed to compete with HT but to perform best in normal nature observing light levels. I would bet money on the T* coatings being different due to these different tasks.

Lee

I believe I just wrote that...T* is whatever Zeiss design the coating to be...
and I also gave an example of it...camera lenses vs binoculars...
so I'm not sure what you are after?
:smoke::cat: