The Kingfisher
Well-known member
I have just looked in the Noctivid 10x42 briefly when I bought my Noctivid 8x42. So the 8x is my preference.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Why do Zeiss's alpha level binoculars like the FL and SF have some of the best CA control of any binoculars? (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dennis Mau
- Start date
I have reviewed 8x42
and now reviewing 10x42 NV with 10x42 UVHD+ and Trinovid bn
thats where result came from.
NV 8x42 and 10x42 differs a lot more then just additional magnification.
8 is significantly superior in optics but 10 has traditional amber color satuation of Leica.
I wonder why the NV 10x42 is worse than the NV 8x42? How did the Leica 10x42 BN and 10x42 UVHD+ do?
I saw a little CA in the center and on the edge in the Habicht 8x30, but none in the Zeiss SF 8x32 or Zeiss SF 10x32.
just my thought
leica quoted the transmission lower then 8x42(91/92) it is just 1 percent but almost all of the bino in same series and same lense size have same quoted tranmission.
maybe NV failed to do it.
NV 8x42's sharpenss is same or bit superior then Zeiss CHD 8x42. bit lower then NL but enough acceptable. but NV 10x42 is bit below CHD 10x42 significant differ with EL / NL
I have compared two same 10x42 NV in addition, central Sharpness is same in all 4 tubes.
I really like NV 10x42's color satuation, but it is clearly least sharp and bright between after 2010 alphas. (NV, HT, ST, EL, NL)
NV 8x42 is sharper then SF 8x42 but NV 10x42 is less sharp then SF 10x42
fl indeed was sensational bino intrmerms of ca. 32 is short, wide and bright but control ca like champ. one of my favorite 32mm
The Kingfisher
Well-known member
I have never owned a 10x42 and only tried a few, because I think 8x42 often is the best choice for me. But this time I actually concidered a 10x binocular because I already have the Nikon EDG 8x42 and some other binoculars with 8x mag. Therefore I tried the Noctivid 10x42 briefly, but found that I liked the 8x42 better. I thought it had a more "wow factor" when I looked thru it, but I can not say that the color rendition was better than in the 10x42. The 8x42 felt a little bit sharper and had less (or no prominent) CA though when I compared them looking on a tree/leaves against a bright sky. I agree that the Zeiss SF (8x42) was less sharp than the Noctivid 8x42..because I tried and compared that one as well and thought so too.
I wonder if it is because of the moving-objective focus that makes the Zeiss SF 10x32 so good at CA control? (From Scopeviews)
www.scopeviews.co.uk
"One of the many interesting things about reviewing bino’s is finding unexpected design features. Although these 32mm SFs seem like (and are marketed as) a scaled down 42mm SF, optically and mechanically they’re different.
Like the larger SFs, these employ a long-focal-length doublet with an Ultra-FL ED glass crown, instead of the usual triplet, to reduce weight. But instead of focusing with a moving lens behind the objective, here the objectives themselves move on a carriage behind a thin optical window. Those promo’ images aren’t photoshopped, the pink circles at the barrel ends look flat because they are!
Moving-objective focus isn’t new - most Canon IS bino’s work that way. But it is unusual in a top-line Alpha bino. Advantages might include better false color suppression (the focusing lens can be a source of chromatic aberration). The downside is another optical element in the light path, perhaps explaining part of that 2% loss in transmissivity compared with the 42mm model.
Perhaps it also explains the exceptional T* coatings: Zeiss’ signature pink, but even darker. And it doesn’t stop there. Shining a bright light into the objectives, there isn’t a single reflection that isn’t dark pink, perhaps the first time I’ve seen such complete coatings.
Here, T* means something different from T* on a Conquest HD, whose pink coatings are noticeably more reflective (see below). As a an aside, I recently compared the 8x42 Conquest with the 8x42 SF and found a much more subtle difference in their objective coatings.
The lenses have micro-ridge-baffled rings, but internal baffling seems minimal, which is ... baffling, because stray light suppression seems good."
Zeiss 10x32 Victory SF Review
"One of the many interesting things about reviewing bino’s is finding unexpected design features. Although these 32mm SFs seem like (and are marketed as) a scaled down 42mm SF, optically and mechanically they’re different.
Like the larger SFs, these employ a long-focal-length doublet with an Ultra-FL ED glass crown, instead of the usual triplet, to reduce weight. But instead of focusing with a moving lens behind the objective, here the objectives themselves move on a carriage behind a thin optical window. Those promo’ images aren’t photoshopped, the pink circles at the barrel ends look flat because they are!
Moving-objective focus isn’t new - most Canon IS bino’s work that way. But it is unusual in a top-line Alpha bino. Advantages might include better false color suppression (the focusing lens can be a source of chromatic aberration). The downside is another optical element in the light path, perhaps explaining part of that 2% loss in transmissivity compared with the 42mm model.
Perhaps it also explains the exceptional T* coatings: Zeiss’ signature pink, but even darker. And it doesn’t stop there. Shining a bright light into the objectives, there isn’t a single reflection that isn’t dark pink, perhaps the first time I’ve seen such complete coatings.
Here, T* means something different from T* on a Conquest HD, whose pink coatings are noticeably more reflective (see below). As a an aside, I recently compared the 8x42 Conquest with the 8x42 SF and found a much more subtle difference in their objective coatings.
The lenses have micro-ridge-baffled rings, but internal baffling seems minimal, which is ... baffling, because stray light suppression seems good."
A 8x42 will often times have more wow factor because of the bigger FOV, and it can appear sharper than a 10x because of the lower magnification and usually a lower magnification like a 8x will have less CA than a higher power 10x in the came binocular. I don't think the SF 8x42 was actually less sharp than the Noctivid 8x42.
I think the Noctivid 8x42 appears sharp because of the greater contrast and color saturation. A lot of times binoculars will seem sharper when they are actually not. Try reading a resolution chart or fine lettering with both of them and see if you can read finer detail with the Noctivid 8x42 than you can with the Zeiss SF 8x42.
What surprises me is how good the SF 10x32 controls CA because it is a 10x and usually higher magnifications like 10x have more CA than 8x but the SF 10x32 has no CA that I can see even on the edge.
Last edited:
The Kingfisher
Well-known member
I agree with what you saying..and that was my thought too when I compared the NV 8x42 and the NV 10x42. If one will compare sharpness between binoculars it is also best to do so when the binoculars are on tripods and not handholding (wich I did). But a less sharp binocular on a tripod can be sharper compared to another bino when handholding them..and that is more important than how sharp a binocular actually is. I tried the Swarovski NL Pure 8x42 for many days at home and compared it to my Nikon EDG 8x42. On tripod the NL Pure was a bit sharper in center, but in the field I saw details better with the Nikon EDG. If I compare my new Noctivid 8x42 to my Nikon EDG 8x42 in the field (handholding) I can see some more details with the Noctivid. But I have to say that the EDG is a fantastic binocular as a package. It is truly up there with the Leica Noctivids, Swarovski NL Pure and Zeiss SF. It is just a matter of taste wich one to choose, I think. Personally the Nikon EDG 8x42 is my favourite binocular, but unfortunately I have some issues with the diopter, focus wheel and a loose rubber armoring wich Nikon probably not can fix (they told me so). Therefore I bought the Leica Noctivid 8x42 instead. I wanted one of the three "alpha brands" and do not like the Swaro NL Pure and the Zeiss SF (though it felt very nice in my hands). The Noctivid 8x42 show prominent CA in certain situations/weather/lighting, but so does also the Nikon EDG. In "normal" situations/weather/lighting I do not see any disturbing CA in the Noctivid 8x42. I think it handles CA perfectly fine in most cases.
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I would like to say again how much I do enjoy your bino opinions and posts. I do find that many posts (not just yours) with photos highlighting, in this case CA very misleading for multiple reasons. I’m out right now with the 32 EL and UV trying to duplicate visually what your photos are showing, and it’s just not happening. Later on we’re going to get a few other observers together with some of the others mentioned in this discussion and see if there is some kind of consensus on a few characteristics. In the past we’ve taken pictures (unprofessionally) with different cell phones and have noticed more times than not the differences the that the device is imparting. Seeing what I’m looking at through the binoculars right now with my eyes is dramatically different than the photos here. It’s just my opinion that the optical train of the photo equipment taking the picture is not reliable to real time observing. I’d think each photo and each device taking a photo could be similar ( if not less accurate) than the individual differences people observers, in this case CA which varies from person to person. Similar things can be said for glare , our resident bino expert (and my friend 😀) sees glare in every binocular, heck he even sees glare without binoculars 🤭.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Dennis, it has to be an individual thing, it’s not objective. I can easily see CA right now as I’m typing this in my 8x32 SF. Not exactly looking through the SF right now, because I’m looking at the iPad screen typing this 🤪✌🏼🙏🏼.
I believe you are correct that CA and glare varies from person to person because of different facial structures and eye sockets, different eyes inputting the image information and different brains interpreting the messages coming from the eyes and through the optic nerve. I mainly see glare in Swarovski NL's and the Habicht 8x30 W. There is a little glare in the EL's, but they aren't bad. Those are the only binoculars I have significant glare issues with.
I see a little more CA in the SF 8x32 than I do with the SF 10x32. For some reason for me the SF 10x32 is almost CA free. Maybe due to something in their optical design, as described in post #48 above.
Why didn't you like the Zeiss SF? It handles CA better than the Nikon EDG and the Leica Noctivid.
How do you like the SF 8x42 compared to the FL 8x32? Thanks!
Optically, Sf has more color satuation, larger fov, better edge sharpness, pleasent panning maybe tad brighter.
but FL leads on central sharpness, edge CA and compactness.
central sharpness differ more then I think so I prefer sharp and compact fl 8x32
his main complaint is the color renedition of SF. sf 8x42 has better color fidelity then 10x42 but still significantly less then 8x42 EDG, NV
