Zeiss SF is almost 10 years old........ (1 Viewer)

[dorubird]

Binoculars like Swarovski EL with angular distortion, do not have linear distortions (they have parallel lines to the edges being very good for observing objects with regular shapes)... But the price paid is the reduction of the angular distance between the objects on the edges. On the edges, they have lower magnification than on the center, the difference in magnification being more visible. This is immediately perceived as a globe effect when you translate the image, even if the "barrel" distortion is not present, the lines being straight on the edge of the eyepieces. It basically deforms objects on the edges more like "shrinking" it proportionally, not by "bending" it. On the other hand, with Zeiss Victory SF, the balance between linear and angular distortion leans a little towards linear, being in practice, according to studies, the best ratio between angular and linear distortion. This removes the glob effect successfully for most people (see Holger Merlitz study in the link) while keeping minimal linear distortion. This good balance aspect between the two types of distortions is a great advantage of the SF series for most users (of course we can see exceptions, depending on the functioning of everyone's eyes, but most average users do not have distorsion problems with SF)

Distortion of the new Zeiss Victory SF: A paradigmatic shift on the binocular market?

 

[Rufus1401]

I would like to see Zeiss do a good, old fashioned porro, made with all the new fandangled optics. 8 by 56 or 9 by 63. Something like that.

 

[Ignatius]

I would go for such a Zeiss porro with screw-in eyecups and proper ER in any of 7x42/7x35/6x40/6x32 like sheet off a shiny shovel. THAT would give a humungous finger to the Austrian competition who have not updated their porros, except for coatings, since about nineteenhundredandfrozentodeath.
But the market forces dictate the death of porros and anything below 8x. All hail the market.

 

[wllmspd]

I would like to see Zeiss do a good, old fashioned porro, made with all the new fandangled optics. 8 by 56 or 9 by 63. Something like that.

Like a tweaked up Doctor (ex zeiss jena) Nobilem?

Peter

 

[Paultricounty]

Binoculars like Swarovski EL with angular distortion, do not have linear distortions (they have parallel lines to the edges being very good for observing objects with regular shapes)... But the price paid is the reduction of the angular distance between the objects on the edges. On the edges, they have lower magnification than on the center, the difference in magnification being more visible. This is immediately perceived as a globe effect when you translate the image, even if the "barrel" distortion is not present, the lines being straight on the edge of the eyepieces. It basically deforms objects on the edges more like "shrinking" it proportionally, not by "bending" it. On the other hand, with Zeiss Victory SF, the balance between linear and angular distortion leans a little towards linear, being in practice, according to studies, the best ratio between angular and linear distortion. This removes the glob effect successfully for most people (see Holger Merlitz study in the link) while keeping minimal linear distortion. This good balance aspect between the two types of distortions is a great advantage of the SF series for most users (of course we can see exceptions, depending on the functioning of everyone's eyes, but most average users do not have distorsion problems with SF)

Distortion of the new Zeiss Victory SF: A paradigmatic shift on the binocular market?

It seems then that the Leica noctivid has done a good job in both linear distortion and angular distortion. Not quite as flat as the SF but still substantially better panning qualities.

Paul

 

[exup]

The SF was well studied back in 2015 by Henry and Kimmmo.

Here are field distortion profiles and further down the thread are resolution values across the SF field:

Encounters with Zeiss 8x42 HT and SF

EL it is then! Thanks!

www.birdforum.net

 

[tenex]

Yes, like most people I think finding the right balance is the goal, a modest amount of pincushioning in traditional terms, though SF/NL have a more complex profile that tries to avoid any impressions of distortion at all. I've briefly tried them myself and had no panning issues, but was curious what Scott's were. I share his overall preference for simpler optical design, but have never used SF/NL long enough to know whether I'd experience all his annoyances too.

 

[Pinewood]

Hello.

The SF line was introduced about eight years after the FL series. In between the Conquest HD appeared, of almost alpha quality, but of more traditional construction, appealing to those critical of the FL's fiberglass reinforced polymer. Given marketing techniques and the likelihood that the SF had some planned obsolescence, something new must be under consideration by Zeiss. I would hope that Zeiss may be likely to think in terms of optical improvement.

Image stabilisation, and now digital interface are likely next steps but there are a lot of conservative bird watchers, nature observers and hunters who may not be interested in such innovations. I am of the opinion that keeping things simple is a good design principle.

Stay simple,
Arthur

 

[Patudo]

Binoculars like Swarovski EL with angular distortion, do not have linear distortions (they have parallel lines to the edges being very good for observing objects with regular shapes)... But the price paid is the reduction of the angular distance between the objects on the edges. On the edges, they have lower magnification than on the center, the difference in magnification being more visible. This is immediately perceived as a globe effect when you translate the image, even if the "barrel" distortion is not present, the lines being straight on the edge of the eyepieces. It basically deforms objects on the edges more like "shrinking" it proportionally, not by "bending" it.

Honestly, when I read stuff like this, my head kinda hurts. All I know is that when I look through a SF I see a very generous sweet spot that in combination with the wide field of view, means that virtually all one sees is sharp - very similar to the 10x56 SLC of which my brother just recently said "it's not sharp all the way to the edge, but the sweet spot is so large that it doesn't matter". With the EL I see a smaller field of view that is sharp all the way to the edge, making up somewhat for the smaller FOV. The EL and SF seem very similar to look through and indeed also to handle (not a total surprise since Gerold Dobler was lead designer for both projects) and both are outstanding birding binoculars. The SF has a few more refinements but the EL 8.5 is still very impressive, one of the very few modern day classics (IMO anyway). I never had issues with either while panning. Maybe I'm a freak or something.

I haven't compared FL to SF extensively, but have seen enough of both to acknowledge the latter is superior, as it ought to be. The FL series are extremely good in their own right though, and a lot of FL owners (including myself) are happy enough not to want to shell out for the latest model. If you take two steps back to eg. the P model Dialyt series the improvements leap out at you; if you step back just one generation, not so much.

 

[Paultricounty]

Honestly, when I read stuff like this, my head kinda hurts. All I know is that when I look through a SF I see a very generous sweet spot that in combination with the wide field of view, means that virtually all one sees is sharp - very similar to the 10x56 SLC of which my brother just recently said "it's not sharp all the way to the edge, but the sweet spot is so large that it doesn't matter". With the EL I see a smaller field of view that is sharp all the way to the edge, making up somewhat for the smaller FOV. The EL and SF seem very similar to look through and indeed also to handle (not a total surprise since Gerold Dobler was lead designer for both projects) and both are outstanding birding binoculars. The SF has a few more refinements but the EL 8.5 is still very impressive, one of the very few modern day classics (IMO anyway). I never had issues with either while panning. Maybe I'm a freak or something.

I agree the SF has a few improvements overall from the EL, but the central image is no better. There is a wider FOV on the SF but its not sharp all the way to the edge, so the sweet spot is actually pretty close even the the SF has 466 ft at a thousand yards (the 8X32) compared to the the EL's 420 ft. Ergos are more subjective, both are excellent and it comes down to preference. The focuser is a little nicer on the Zeiss. As far being a freak for not seeing the globe effect, not at all. 90%+ everybody who's ever tried EL's with me, doesn't notice globe effect, Id say the freaks are the ones that see it

I prefer my EL's over my SF's, they're brighter, sharper and smaller.

Paul

I haven't compared FL to SF extensively, but have seen enough of both to acknowledge the latter is superior, as it ought to be. The FL series are extremely good in their own right though, and a lot of FL owners (including myself) are happy enough not to want to shell out for the latest model. If you take two steps back to eg. the P model Dialyt series the improvements leap out at you; if you step back just one generation, not so much.

 

[dorubird]

Honestly, when I read stuff like this, my head kinda hurts. All I know is that when I look through a SF I see a very generous sweet spot that in combination with the wide field of view, means that virtually all one sees is sharp - very similar to the 10x56 SLC of which my brother just recently said "it's not sharp all the way to the edge, but the sweet spot is so large that it doesn't matter". With the EL I see a smaller field of view that is sharp all the way to the edge, making up somewhat for the smaller FOV. The EL and SF seem very similar to look through and indeed also to handle (not a total surprise since Gerold Dobler was lead designer for both projects) and both are outstanding birding binoculars. The SF has a few more refinements but the EL 8.5 is still very impressive, one of the very few modern day classics (IMO anyway). I never had issues with either while panning. Maybe I'm a freak or something.

I haven't compared FL to SF extensively, but have seen enough of both to acknowledge the latter is superior, as it ought to be. The FL series are extremely good in their own right though, and a lot of FL owners (including myself) are happy enough not to want to shell out for the latest model. If you take two steps back to eg. the P model Dialyt series the improvements leap out at you; if you step back just one generation, not so much.

I also like the SF image and consider the resolution to be very good right up to the edges. But this has nothing to do with the type of distortion at the edge of the field of view, where SF is very well balanced.

And about SF vs EL:
I compared SF 10x42 with EL 10x42 and, in my experience, I saw a slightly better resolution in the central area with Zeiss. But overall the clarity was very similar because EL compensated with a little better contrast. EL was smaller but heavyer. For me FOV difference between them was big only when quickly switching the binos.