Zeiss SF - Allbinos review (1 Viewer)

[Troubador]

Hi Lee,

This is why I'm an advocate for determining true instrument characteristics. We know that the Globe Effect is not seen by everyone or at least is not bothersome to everyone, but we also know what kind of instrument distortion causes it. What I want from a review is accurate representation of the distortion, not the reviewer's reaction to it.

The same is true for color bias. I expect disagreements about what different people see. Show me the measured transmittance spectrum and/or a comparison photo of a neutral surface and the same surface photographed through the binocular and I'll have a better idea about what to expect.

Henry

Hey Henry
Can't argue at all with your post and when there are anomalies, unusual characteristics and possible shortfalls in performance compared with manufacturer's claims, then the only thing that can really shed light on these are investigations and analysis by folks like you and Typo and Vespobuteo and Gijs (with apologies to other expert commentators that I have left off to avoid a too-long list).

The information gathered and the subsequent analysis is frequently fascinating but doesn't necessarily help the average nature observer who cannot translate arc-seconds or line pairs, micro-contrast, sharpness vs resolution vs perceived sharpness, or transmission graphs, or photographs taken through binoculars accompanied by deep discussions about how these images might have been affected by the light source or the camera's white balance etc etc etc into what they can expect in the field. You said in your post that you would have a better idea what to expect (given these analyses) but what about John Doe? Giving John Doe an accurate assessment of the distortion will not necessarily give him any idea at all about whether he will be troubled by it even if it gives you a better idea of what to expect. Hearing from some observers that they were not troubled by the globe effect and from others who were at least tells the reader that there is no predicting what their reaction will be and that the need to try the bins themselves and make up their own minds.

So this doesn't reduce the need for people to present their own subjective assessments of instruments when used for the purpose for which they were intended: nature observation in the field. And if these assessment turn out to have some contradictions in them then it only reinforces the need for folks to try these instruments and make their own judgement about them.

Really we need both objective evaluations and subjective assessments.

Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

I am not saying there is no truth in what you say CJ (don't forget it was me that mentioned painting into corners) but I think you are treating the concept of customer choice as unimportant.

When HT came out I bought one and railed against the notion that it was for hunters because it is a fine instrument and has given me some great experiences in nature observation. The idea that there was another instrument coming along that would be tailored towards nature observation didn't sound credible to me at the time. Well, I got that one wrong and what we have now is HT with its special capability in low light and SF with its special handling qualities that make holding it up for extended periods easy, modestly faster focuser (that Zeiss makes too much fuss about, I agree) and super-wide field of view. Hunters don't need these SF attributes but they do like low-light performance.

Actually the HT/SF combo isn't that much different to the SLC/EL choice that Swaro gives customers, except that Zeiss has given their 'SLC' high transmission glass and given their 'EL' great handling and super-wide FOV. In the end both Swaro and Zeiss have given customers a choice and that is surely a good thing.

Lee

Lee, I am very disappointed by this post of yours (there you've got me sounding all like Jerry :eek!: )

And while you are entitled to your opinion, I'm going to give it to you straight --- Jerry-like :t:

You are completely incorrect in your assumption that I am "treating the concept of customer choice as unimportant." In fact perhaps I understand far more about strategic marketing and product conception, design, investmestment/return, manufacture and placement than you realize .....

Sadly, I find your statement and post (unintentionally or not) to be almost disingenuous and furphy-like .....

The two distinct markets and USP's of the HT and SF do not preclude the inclusion of more HT glass in the SF. The Leica UVHD+ upgrade to include HT glass prism and resultant several % transmission increase (especially in the bluish part of the spectrum) clearly demonstrate the benefits of this. The SF could clearly use more transmission up to 500nm. That would result in a better SF (more transmission, better colours, better white balance, and better user feedback - no green ham :eat: ) that surely is needed at the 2&1/2+ grand ask (>$3K out here) ........ :scribe:

I am not sure if your enthusiasm, or something else is clouding seemingly your objectivity, but I am finding what seems to me as the constant quasi-apologism, redirection and platitudes increasingly annoying :storm: I would be reluctant to put you on the "Ignore" list since no-one else is, and occasionally you say something interesting, informative, or even funny :-O

Your analysis of the SF and HT, and analogy to Swarovski is somewhat skewiff also ...... :h?:

To state it clearly for the benefit of the other folks on here .....
* Zeiss HT is an A-K bin with HT prism, with circle of condition optical design ('traditional' pincushion) ..... as such it offers reduced optical elements, 100% reflectivity prisms, hence maximal transmission brightness, and high mesopic light throughput.
* Zeiss SF is an S-P bin, with wide flat field optical design. The transmission will never be ultimately as high as HT due to the extra optical elements. It also lacks bluish transmission and better white balance due to no HT glass prism.

* Swarovski SLC is an S-P prism bin that is also a 'traditional'-like pincushion optical design with longer close focus distance as a cost cutting measure.
* Swarovski SV is an S-P prism bin with a flat field design. Gawd only knows what sort of glass is in these two, but the performance is impressive.

So there you have it. The choice is between pincushioned and flat field designs. Anything else is just pure marketing fluff and bunkum. It is ridiculous to say that hunters would not appreciate lighter weight (save those who need the extra clout for bludgeoning grizzlies to death :gn: ) , just as it is ridiculous to say that birders using an SF would not appreciate extra 400-500nm (bluish) light transmission to enhance mesopic vision for Falcon and emerging Nightjar observation etc in the twilight. *smoke*

Both Allbino's and Gijs show the benefits of HT glass prism in the Leica+ model upgrade, and also concur on the lower transmission in the bluish spectrum of the SF. This is irrefutable, and you would have earned far more kudos from me if you would have simply acknowledged that without the obfuscating arguments.

Perhaps a discourse on economics could have been mounted. My personal opinion is that buyers are being ripped off by the omission of HT prism glass from the SF. Here's hoping for an SF 2.0 with more HT glass, more transmission via re indexed coatings, a milder distortion profile tweak, and several other bits and bobs fixed up - sooner rather than later.

This has been a long time coming. Here's also hoping for a more balanced future *thumbs*


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Chosun, post 57,
I add some other spectra for your information, they look different from the ones tested by my fellow testers.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs, thank you - all of your data is much appreciated :t:

Additional grist for the mill never goes astray o


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

That Swaro 10x42 EL transmission curve from Allbinos is most likely not correct below 550 nm...Don't think that SUPER HT-glass was available at that point (2010/11). NORMAL HT-glass gives 2-3 % increase at the best in the blue spectrum.
:smoke:

Yeeeesssss-mmmaaayyyybe - Well certainly some strange things go on in Allbino-world, so that may be correct, but I would be hesitant to call it one way or another ...... :h?: :brains:

Let's not forget that Schott is not the only supplier of glass, and who knows what sort of cutting edge stuff may have emerged from "skunk works", and even may have been specially commissioned (and development paid for) by a competitor ! ...... :smoke:

The 10x graph does seem anomalous within the family though, and FWIW I detected no observable difference as far as that goes at a mass (daylight) testing of all SV formats .....:cat:

The SV's certainly seem to me (and from the transmission data) to exhibit vivid colours, balanced whiteness, and due to that and the micro contrast, what I term the 'crystalline' view ....

It certainly would be fascinating to know exactly what glass concoctions they have inside them ...... yes indeedy! :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[mfunnell]

and furphy-like .....

Hmmm... I doubt that the term "furphy" is much used in non-ANZAC countries.

Aside from that, I'm staying well out of this... :eek!:

...Mike

 

[Troubador]

CJ

I stand by my post and all power to your elbow if you want to disagree.

And nowhere did I state that hunters don't like lightweight or that birders wouldn't benefit from extra light transmission.

Could HT and SF be better? Of course they could. If SF could benefit from some extra blue transmission, why shouldn't HT get a much wider field of view?
Tell you what, they could both be improved by far better eyecups.

And whats all this about customers being ripped off due to lack of HT glass in SF? Why isn't it a rip off that there is none in SLC or EL or EDG or whatever? Why isn't it a rip off that EL doesn't have the FOV that SF does? Why isn't it a rip off that Leica's HD+ only reaches 87.3% at 550nm while HT reaches 95% (according to Gijs's figures)? I have no problem with these bins and I have no problem at all with you disagreeing with the specifications of Zeiss bins and telling us all how you would improve them and make better product planning choices but you seem to get over-agitated when it comes to Zeiss bins. I don't know if some sort of unenthusiasm is getting in the way of your objectivity or there is some other reason.

Your phrase 'This has been a long time coming' reveals you have been wanting to provoke a confrontation for a long time.
Shame.
Now we are both disappointed.

Lee

 

[NDhunter]

I am not saying there is no truth in what you say CJ (don't forget it was me that mentioned painting into corners) but I think you are treating the concept of customer choice as unimportant.

When HT came out I bought one and railed against the notion that it was for hunters because it is a fine instrument and has given me some great experiences in nature observation. The idea that there was another instrument coming along that would be tailored towards nature observation didn't sound credible to me at the time. Well, I got that one wrong and what we have now is HT with its special capability in low light and SF with its special handling qualities that make holding it up for extended periods easy, modestly faster focuser (that Zeiss makes too much fuss about, I agree) and super-wide field of view. Hunters don't need these SF attributes but they do like low-light performance.

Actually the HT/SF combo isn't that much different to the SLC/EL choice that Swaro gives customers, except that Zeiss has given their 'SLC' high transmission glass and given their 'EL' great handling and super-wide FOV. In the end both Swaro and Zeiss have given customers a choice and that is surely a good thing.

Lee

Lee:

I agree with your entire post here. These are just facts, and you have
explained well all the great choices available on the market today.

Jerry

 

[jgraider]

Lee:

I agree with your entire post here. These are just facts, and you have
explained well all the great choices available on the market today.

Jerry

I agree with you and your comments Jerry. Lee nailed it IMO.

 

[Troubador]

Lee:

I agree with your entire post here. These are just facts, and you have
explained well all the great choices available on the market today.

Jerry

Thanks Jerry.
Much appreciated.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

I agree with you and your comments Jerry. Lee nailed it IMO.

And thanks to you too, pal.

Lee

 

[james holdsworth]

Agree with Lee completely.

There is bias shown here, consistently, but not by Lee. And, isn't it funny how [often] the bulk of the criticisms seem to come from people with no actual experience with the binocular they are slamming?

I have grown very tired of being told - by non-owner / users that there is no way I'm seeing what I say I'm seeing as the transmission graphs etc. etc. tell a different story. What Lee has always said was - try before you buy - and that's far better advice than all this arm-chair quarterbacking from folks that seem to like to inflame / agitate and otherwise opine about things they can't possibly know anything about, having zero practical experience.

 

[jremmons]

HT glass seems to be elevated to "ED glass" standards, as of late. Maybe all that 'sparkle' people brought up was actually just their optical nerves being burned from such high transmission optics...

 

[Chosun Juan]

..... but I think you are treating the concept of customer choice as unimportant.

Lee, unfortunately you are quite incorrect in your analysis, thinking (see my post#62, again , and your presumptions of my motivations - I seek to provoke nothing more than a step back toward more objective thought -- it seems my 'intervention' has been misconstrued and you have 'doubled down' on the obfuscation and inaccurate tangents in an effort to 'trump' any perceived slight ......

I think this quote from you is quite telling ......

If I was a product planner at Zeiss I would be wary of boosting the HT content of SF in case it competed with HT........

Say Whaaa?! :eek!: Are you so far in that you think that's 'Customer' service, rather than 'serving Zeiss' ....... Cop it on the chin, and move forward ..... it's not all things Zeiss that might agitate me, it's just what I find seems to be the continual misdirection and overt platitudes and promotion ......

For example, you 'should' know that the EL SV in 8.5x clearly has more magnification than the 8x SF, and so the effective FOV's are actually within 5% of each other, however that fact seems to continually get lost in fog ..... nor could HT match the flat field SF's Fov without the addition of larger prisms etc and even more weight added to its portly frame ....

We don't quite know for sure what type of glass is in the SLC, SV, EDG, I have said many times it would be fascinating to find out :brains: , but according to Allbino's transmission testing, they clearly trump the SF up to ~500nm ...... :smoke:

A quick look at Adorama will show the SF priced at 300USD above the SV, and fully $1100 dollars above the SLC !! :eek!: ....... you could buy a heck of a lot of HT glass (a few % increase is better than nothing - yes? for that and still have plenty left over for a handsome profit :king:

I think we'd all like to know the mystery of why the Leica UVHD+'s transmission levels aren't higher, but according to Allbino's recent testing, it still easily trumps the SF up to ~475nm ...... you'd have to blinded by a heavy bluish mist not to see that ......

Perhaps version 2.0 will speak for itself, and not require so much airtime in defense to gloss over any shortcomings ....

The whole notion of wider Fov's is to be applauded, with the SF, and now, the Nikon MHG to follow, but so too is the move to higher transmission with the HT, and even the A-K Mavens, and better white balance too with the Leica UVHD+, SLC, and SV, etc, ........ Let's not forget that competition improves the breed and attempts to drown the Internet in alternative spin are counter-productive and ultimately futile ....... o

People may see what they see, and that's fine - binocular viewing is after all by definition a 'subjective' experience :-O , but let's not discount what the factual data is telling us - whether it pumps up our own brand, bin, or experience, or ...... not. :t:


Chosun :gh:

 

[Chosun Juan]

Agree with Lee completely.

There is bias shown here, consistently, but not by Lee. And, isn't it funny how [often] the bulk of the criticisms seem to come from people with no actual experience with the binocular they are slamming?

I have grown very tired of being told - by non-owner / users that there is no way I'm seeing what I say I'm seeing as the transmission graphs etc. etc. tell a different story. What Lee has always said was - try before you buy - and that's far better advice than all this arm-chair quarterbacking from folks that seem to like to inflame / agitate and otherwise opine about things they can't possibly know anything about, having zero practical experience.

James, Hahaha ha :-O ...... Welcome to the jungle ! :t:

Hop down off that high horse kemosabe - no-one's trying to tell you what you see, except the voices in your mind :brains: I don't think your personal experience (madness or not :bounce: , nor that of your neighbour's, should ever impinge on another's imagined madness in the subjective world of binocular viewing || - you'll never ever be able to see the same rainbow as me (o)< .... so let's just let the data do the talking, and be content in our own personal choices and world's .....

Use your favourite bins, or Use your Illusions .... 3

No need for shots across the bough, or friendly fire sniping ....... Put down your literary Guns :storm: and stop to smell the Roses :loveme:


Chosun :gh:

 

[elkcub]

Ahmen. :gn:

 

[Troubador]

overt platitudes and promotion ......

pumps up our own brand
Chosun :gh:

overt platitudes and promotion
pumps up our own brand


Platitudes? I’ll let others be the judge of that.

Promotion of own brand (with the subtext 'to the exclusion of others):

Yes, its well known that Zeiss bins suit me very well, but other folks on here may also have noticed things that you haven’t seen or have Chosen to ignore:

In 1979 I swapped a Dialyt for a Trinovid because the Trinnie’s internal focusing seemed a better design.

In 2003 I swapped a Dialyt for a Swaro EL because it had better optics, better handling and a better close focus.

I have referred to the EL as a design icon more times than I can remember and because of this model’s importance spent some time casting a light on Gerold Dobler’s involvement in it’s genesis.

Last year I spent some time defending Swarovski focusers against regular attacks from Brock and opened a thread on it specifically to explain why I believe he is wrong.

This year I have posted two positive reviews of Meopta products, and recently recommended someone who is looking for a 32 to consider either the Meopta MeoStar or Conquest HD.

I expect to pick up another Meopta for review at Bird Fair and hope to establish a relationship with another brand so I can review their products too.

How many times do I have to say that the alphas, all of them, are like fine wines and choosing between them is like choosing a flavour that you like? I recently posted that there are many fine instruments available and they don’t all have a blue badge.

How many times do I have to say that Zeiss bins aren’t perfect and to make statements like this in my review of Terra 8x32 et al:
Quote I am going to lavish praise on the eyecups carried by the Terra, which although they have only two positions (fine at this price level) feel and move with a feeling of solidity and precision that puts to shame those on Zeiss’s top Victory models unquote.

However, that’s enough of that. And to round off, as one cricket enthusiast to another, have you heard this one?

This bloke goes to an England vs Australis test at Lords. It’s a sell out match and so he is surprised that there is an empty seat next to the old gent that is sat next to him. He leans over and asks the old timer ‘Is someone joining you later?, indicating the empty seat. ‘No’ is the reply, ‘That’s been my wife’s seat for 20 years. We’ve come to every test for 20 years and never missed one in 20 years. She passed away and now I am on my own and this is the first time I have been out without her’. Touched, the bloke says gently ‘ I am so sorry for your loss, but couldn’t a friend or one of the family come with you?’. The old timer looked at him and said ‘No’, with an expression of resignation. ‘They are all at the funeral’.

Boom boom.

Time to move on.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Agree with Lee completely.

There is bias shown here, consistently, but not by Lee. And, isn't it funny how [often] the bulk of the criticisms seem to come from people with no actual experience with the binocular they are slamming?

I have grown very tired of being told - by non-owner / users that there is no way I'm seeing what I say I'm seeing as the transmission graphs etc. etc. tell a different story. What Lee has always said was - try before you buy - and that's far better advice than all this arm-chair quarterbacking from folks that seem to like to inflame / agitate and otherwise opine about things they can't possibly know anything about, having zero practical experience.

James
Thank you for your kind support.

Lee

 

[Bwana1]

I love my SF's, and appreciate Lee's advice and helpful PM's...he's one of the good guys

 

[[email protected]]

:-O

Lee, This is precisely the problem ! :scribe:

Zeiss is out to serve it's own befuddled notions rather than provide the best of the best produckt to the consumer! :h?: Swarovski seeks to achieve the best, but then again, they're not stuck in a corner surrounded by wet paint ! :stuck:



Gijs, post#46 Judging by the Allbino's graphs, even though the 10x42 Leica UVHD+ with its HT glass prism doesn't quite reach 90% transmission in the blue, it does show a significant increase (+10% @400nm, +3% @425nm) over the Leica 10x42 UVHD (2nd rhs graph). Even accounting for measurement error, this is still a valid and worthwhile increase ..... Every little bit helps ! :t:
View attachment 593057 View attachment 593058

I agree with you regarding the Swarovski 10x42 SV (tr% graph below) ......... With its transmission 'way' over 90% in the blueish according to the Allbino's graph, it is clearly doing something very very special there, even trumping the Zeiss HT at that point ....... I would dearly, dearly love to know exactly what sort of secret sauce |:x| special glass concoction Swarovski is using there ??!!!
View attachment 593059


Chosun :gh:

" I would dearly, dearly love to know exactly what sort of secret sauce special glass concoction Swarovski is using there ??!!!"

I have asked Swarovski this question and your answer is correct. Their "secret sauce" is very special coatings coupled with very special, very high quality glass. You are correct Chosun in that the Swarovski transmission is phenomenal in that it is so flat and so high especially in the blue spectrum where our rods are coming into play in low light. What is really remarkable is the Zeiss HT has an AK prism and the Swarovski has a SP prism yet the Swarovski is still killing the Zeiss HT in low light.

 

[Troubador]

The EL has a very nice flat transmission curve but I am not sure 'killing' is quite the right word here. See Gijs's graphs below. Note however that the EL tested was from 2015 and Swaro's coatings may have changed since then.

Lee