Do the owners of both Zeiss SF and Swarovski EL/NL feel they are uncomfortable for the different color cast? (2 Viewers)

[Elkhornsun]

I bought the Zeiss but quickly returned them as I disliked the color distortion. If you want a lighter and more compact binocular I highly recommend the Swarovski 8x25 and 10x25 Pocket Mountain binoculars that me wife and I use. These inside their case fit in a jacket pocket or a water bottle sleeve in a fanny pack and their carry case has a Velcro secured way to quickly attach it to a belt. My wife uses the 8x25 and I use the 10x25 and they are the most often used away from the house.

I do not buy binos with 20mm objectives. Those with 25mm objectives are not that much larger and still very compact and provide up to 56% more light transmission than ones with 20mm objectives.

When carrying a scope or a camera and lens the Swarovski 10x25 binos that weigh 12.4 ounces are hung from my neck when not being used. I find this works very well and I sacrifice little compared to using my larger binoculars.

 

[Maljunulo]

Actually threads like this one, informative as they can be, always swerve into areas of pure subjectivity, where everybody seems to be looking for either Unicorns or maybe even Nirvana. Neither is to be found. We are seeing through mechanical optical systems that agree to one degree or another with our own DNA powered optical system.

All threads do so, because each of us sees with a different pair of eyes, coupled with a (presumably) unique brain with its own signal and image processing.

There is absolutely no way to convey what we see to another human being.

We can all agree that light with a wavelength of 700 nm is “red” but neither of us can show the other what red looks like to us.

Therefor, it is all objective …. until you add an observer.

 

[Paultricounty]

I’ve always found some of these conversations about people seeing an unacceptable amount of color hue in upper end modern binoculars fascinating.

When speaking specifically about the Zeiss SF’s, I’ve handed over 30 people these binoculars over time to beginners to relatively advanced observers , many with a good deal of knowledge about Binoculars and Optics. I can’t remember one time that anybody said the image is too green. Nobody even said they notice any green. Most can’t even see green when shown side by side with a swaro of the same configuration. I’ve even gone as far to ask them, do they see any green in the image.

I would suggest that it would seem that this unacceptable amount of green perception is very rare , and would only be noticeable to a fraction of the users of these binoculars.

Now in comparison I’ve also handed many of these people vintage binoculars , some of which clearly have a yellow or green appearance the minute you put them up to your eyes. I’d say the majority of the same people when asked if they see a difference from what their unaided eyes see , they notice that yellow or green on the vintage bins.

 

[Nethero]

I’ve always found some of these conversations about people seeing an unacceptable amount of color hue in upper end modern binoculars fascinating.

When speaking specifically about the Zeiss SF’s, I’ve handed over 30 people these binoculars over time to beginners to relatively advanced observers , many with a good deal of knowledge about Binoculars and Optics. I can’t remember one time that anybody said the image is too green. Nobody even said they notice any green. Most can’t even see green when shown side by side with a swaro of the same configuration. I’ve even gone as far to ask them, do they see any green in the image.

I would suggest that it would seem that this unacceptable amount of green perception is very rare , and would only be noticeable to a fraction of the users of these binoculars.

Now in comparison I’ve also handed many of these people vintage binoculars , some of which clearly have a yellow or green appearance the minute you put them up to your eyes. I’d say the majority of the same people when asked if they see a difference from what their unaided eyes see , they notice that yellow or green on the vintage bins.

I understand where you are coming from. And good god does it take a critical eye (probably developed from reading this forum) but eventually once you notice something “off” it can never be unnoticed (at least by me). I thought the 10x42 SF’s made whites yellower (very slight tint) than what my naked eyes saw and 10x42 HT’s make whites more green/blue. This forum has helped me learn so much about optics but also poisoned me to something I don’t think would have ever been a problem for me 5 years ago.

 

[Maljunulo]

I understand where you are coming from. And good god does it take a critical eye (probably developed from reading this forum) but eventually once you notice something “off” it can never be unnoticed (at least by me). I thought the 10x42 SF’s made whites yellower (very slight tint) than what my naked eyes saw and 10x42 HT’s make whites more green/blue. This forum has helped me learn so much about optics but also poisoned me to something I don’t think would have ever been a problem for me 5 years ago.

“A determined search for flaws will always find at least one.”
Me (some time ago)

 

[tian1227]

When I just had the SF, it looked great and I didn't really notice the green hue. But when I compared it against the SFL I could see the colors being different.

The test I did then was to look at clear blue sky through the binoculars and with the naked eyes. Since the magnification here doesn't matter (it will just be blue sky either way), you can then compare the color difference. With the SFL, the difference was much more minimal to me. With the SF the difference was noticable.

 

[tian1227]

I’ve always found some of these conversations about people seeing an unacceptable amount of color hue in upper end modern binoculars fascinating.

When speaking specifically about the Zeiss SF’s, I’ve handed over 30 people these binoculars over time to beginners to relatively advanced observers , many with a good deal of knowledge about Binoculars and Optics. I can’t remember one time that anybody said the image is too green. Nobody even said they notice any green. Most can’t even see green when shown side by side with a swaro of the same configuration. I’ve even gone as far to ask them, do they see any green in the image.

I would suggest that it would seem that this unacceptable amount of green perception is very rare , and would only be noticeable to a fraction of the users of these binoculars.

Now in comparison I’ve also handed many of these people vintage binoculars , some of which clearly have a yellow or green appearance the minute you put them up to your eyes. I’d say the majority of the same people when asked if they see a difference from what their unaided eyes see , they notice that yellow or green on the vintage bins.

Paul - could you try looking at clear blue sky with the SF and with naked eyes? I'll curious how much difference you see compared to me.. I know people's eyes and perceiving colors can be very different (even my left eye and right eye see colors slightly differently)

 

[Paultricounty]

When I just had the SF, it looked great and I didn't really notice the green hue. But when I compared it against the SFL I could see the colors being different.

The test I did then was to look at clear blue sky through the binoculars and with the naked eyes. Since the magnification here doesn't matter (it will just be blue sky either way), you can then compare the color difference. With the SFL, the difference was much more minimal to me. With the SF the difference was noticable.

To clarify for those who may have misunderstood me, i’m not saying that there is no color hue difference in current top of the line binoculars, on the contrary, to a trained eye these slight color differences can be seen if you look for it. What I was saying is that imo it is only on the very rare occasions and very few people will find color hue in the top of the line bins to be unacceptable.

I’d also ad that some of these perceived color hues in more cases than not are an aid to the image, not a hindrance.

I find that Leica and Nikons have a color hue that for me is easier on the eyes than Swaros or some Zeiss. But I also feel that the Zeiss coating that we call green enhances resolution on some objects. It’s more about image characteristics, for instance Leica for me enhances (saturation) colors of objects. Swarovski on the other hand seem to be more true to what my unaided eyes see. So it really does come down to what you like, but anyone saying that any of these top of the line alpha binoculars are unacceptable because of color hue, I think would be an extreme rarity. At least in my opinion and my experience with others.

Paul

 

[tian1227]

To clarify for those who may have misunderstood me, i’m not saying that there is no color hue difference in current top of the line binoculars, on the contrary, to a trained eye these slight color differences can be seen if you look for it. What I was saying is that imo it is only on the very rare occasions and very few people will find color hue in the top of the line bins to be unacceptable.

I’d also ad that some of these perceived color hues in more cases than not are an aid to the image, not a hindrance.

I find that Leica and Nikons have a color hue that for me is easier on the eyes than Swaros or some Zeiss. But I also feel that the Zeiss coating that we call green enhances resolution on some objects. It’s more about image characteristics, for instance Leica for me enhances (saturation) colors of objects. Swarovski on the other hand seem to be more true to what my unaided eyes see. So it really does come down to what you like, but anyone saying that any of these top of the line alpha binoculars are unacceptable because of color hue, I think would be an extreme rarity. At least in my opinion and my experience with others.

Paul

Agreed.. I did indeed found the SF (32mm) to have better contrast/resolution when compared to SFL. Even though I liked the neutral color and easier eye placement on the SFL (40mm), I can never forget the amazing detailed view on the SF.

 

[Paultricounty]

Agreed.. I did indeed found the SF (32mm) to have better contrast/resolution when compared to SFL. Even though I liked the neutral color and easier eye placement on the SFL (40mm), I can never forget the amazing detailed view on the SF.

I think the larger exit pupal and simpler eyepiece design has something to do with the more comfortable eye box. I understand what you mean about the more neutral image in the SFL, similar to what I see in many of the Swarovski’s. I’m very lucky with the 32SF, I have no issues with the eye box as some here have complained.

 

[Maljunulo]

I think the larger exit pupal and simpler eyepiece design has something to do with the more comfortable eye box. I understand what you mean about the more neutral image in the SFL, similar to what I see in many of the Swarovski’s. I’m very lucky with the 32SF, I have no issues with the eye box as some here have complained.

I found mine to be really annoying, until I figured out not to jamb them so far into my eye sockets.

 

[tenex]

And good god does it take a critical eye (probably developed from reading this forum) but eventually once you notice something “off” it can never be unnoticed (at least by me).

The only time I've ever been bothered by the color cast of a modern binocular was the reddish one of the Nikon SE, which seemed to create an oddly dull effect that most people never seem to notice or comment on. There must be a larger degree of individual variation here than one would expect.

 

[Paultricounty]

The only time I've ever been bothered by the color cast of a modern binocular was the reddish one of the Nikon SE, which seemed to create an oddly dull effect that most people never seem to notice or comment on. There must be a larger degree of individual variation here than one would expect.

Early version 8x32 501 or 502xxx? I had a similar experience.

 

[tenex]

Early version 8x32 501 or 502xxx? I had a similar experience.

This was an 8x32 at a Wild Birds store, probably around 2005, no idea of s/n. As I recall, it was the only bin they sold, not an optics shop at all.

My general impression is that variations in color cast seem very minor... but if "Zeiss green" strikes those it does the way "Nikon red" did me, it must be thoroughly unpleasant and I understand the complaints.

 

[Paultricounty]

This was an 8x32 at a Wild Birds store, probably around 2005, no idea of s/n. As I recall, it was the only bin they sold, not an optics shop at all.

My general impression is that variations in color cast seem very minor... but if "Zeiss green" strikes those it does the way "Nikon red" did me, it must be thoroughly unpleasant and I understand the complaints.

I get that, I noticed the red and darkness of that early SE as well. The revised later model SE’s are nothing like that early version with the reddish color hue. Id also say there’s a huge difference between the immediately noticeable reddish image of those old Nikons and the slight green in the modern Zeiss SF’s.

Btw, the only complaints I’ve heard about the green in SF’s being unacceptable is here on BF. Never heard a word about in field.

 

[adhoc]

Within Zeiss (only, please, for the moment!) majority perception seems to be: SFL neutral, SF greener. Addressing this to those who see SFL as neutral (and only those, please, for the moment!): how does Conquest and Victory Pocket (each) rate? Thanks. (Where I live it is impossible to try out binoculars.)

 

[henry link]

Hi adhoc, I photographed the difference in color transmission between an 8x40 SFL and an 8x42 Conquest in this thread.

Zeiss 8x40 SFL: A Few Tests

I recently had the opportunity to do a few quick tests of a local dealer's newly arrived Zeiss 8x40 SFL. Here are the results. Distortion: I brought along my usual target of small circles to test for angular magnification distortion as well as a grid pattern I view backwards through the...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Scott98]

Within Zeiss (only, please, for the moment!) majority perception seems to be: SFL neutral, SF greener. Addressing this to those who see SFL as neutral (and only those, please, for the moment!): how does Conquest and Victory Pocket (each) rate? Thanks. (Where I live it is impossible to try out binoculars.)

Hmmmmm......FWIW, I would say the SF are "cooler" and my Nikons "warmer". The word "green" wouldn't come into play. Bird colors are amazingly vivid and clear in the SF's.

Remember the SFL's are super nice glass but they do have some more false color toward the edges than the SF's. That's more impactful than any color tone difference for me. More of the FOV is sharp as you head toward the edges as well. Those are the things I would notice way before seeing any color difference.

 

[Maljunulo]

Bird colors are amazingly vivid and clear in the SFs.

This is my experience.

It is heresy to say it, but the SF made my EL SV look “muddy” in direct comparison.

 

[Canip]

It is heresy to say it ……

Heresy AND blasphemy - how dare you?