Why do Zeiss's alpha level binoculars like the FL and SF have some of the best CA control of any binoculars? (7 Viewers)

[jackjack]

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 🤭.

as I always said, I do the review with my eyes then take photo as reference. so I didn't let photo to influence my test reults.

fankly, I see CA more u. real view then at the photo.

and of course, photo taken at diverse light situation muse be diffrent, but if two binoculars photo are taken at closest to same condition (30 ~ 60sec differ)
It is likely to represent at least the win and loses of the specific part of the binocular.
(expept brightensee unless it is taken at nigh time with same camera settings.)

My opinion stays put. Photo never can's say all the thing of the bino. but if taken in serious setting of the photographer it at least can be a breif reference of the bino. expecailly some optical parts such as distortion, FOV

And it is better then just saying things like 'I see this bino and I like it'

 

[GrampaTom]

Good grief!

Are they multiplying?

 

[Dennis Mau]

as I always said, I do the review with my eyes then take photo as reference. so I didn't let photo to influence my test reults.

fankly, I see CA more u. real view then at the photo.

and of course, photo taken at diverse light situation muse be diffrent, but if two binoculars photo are taken at closest to same condition (30 ~ 60sec differ)
It is likely to represent at least the win and loses of the specific part of the binocular.
(expept brightensee unless it is taken at nigh time with same camera settings.)

My opinion stays put. Photo never can's say all the thing of the bino. but if taken in serious setting of the photographer it at least can be a breif reference of the bino. expecailly some optical parts such as distortion, FOV

And it is better then just saying things like 'I see this bino and I like it'

Good point and good explanation! I like your photos that support your reviews. I agree with most of your conclusions. You're correct, your reviews are much better than most reviews which are just somebody's opinion.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes! It's strange, isn't it? Very frustrating in winter snow & sun. The 8x42 SF have lots of purple around the edge, the 8x32 SF don't but have the prism spikes. So hard to find the "perfect" binocular, regardless of cost it seems. For me the 8x42 SF would have been perfect if they just shrunk the FOV down by 5-10%. I guess there's room for improvement with the next iteration of Zeiss models.

How do they eliminate CA? By using the best glass types in the objective and oculars, by using optical designs that eliminate the CA. Very difficult to get peripheral (lateral) CA out with wide-field oculars. Difficult to get central CA out without the most expensive glasses in the objective

"How do they eliminate CA? By using the best glass types in the objective and oculars, by using optical designs that eliminate the CA. Very difficult to get peripheral (lateral) CA out with wide-field oculars. Difficult to get central CA out without the most expensive glasses in the objective."

Good point! What optical designs in your opinion will aid in the reduction of CA? How would the 8x42 SF benefited from shrinking the FOV down by 5-10%?

 

[The Kingfisher]

Why didn't you like the Zeiss SF? It handles CA better than the Nikon EDG and the Leica Noctivid.

I do not like the color rendition in the Zeiss SF 8x42. To my eyes the colors are yellow. Whites are dirty yellow and is always present. CA in the Noctivid is only prominent i certain situations..and when it is it is also clearly visible in my Nikon EDG 8x42. I also thought that the Leica Noctivid was sharper i center than the Zeiss SF..and had better contrast, 3D-effect and depth of field. The Leica also handles flare incredible well.

 

[PatR]

Good grief!

I have run out of brick walls to bang my head against.

 

[Dennis Mau]

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

I went and compared my FL 8x32 and SF 8x42, and you are exactly correct! Thanks!

 

[Dennis Mau]

I do not like the color rendition in the Zeiss SF 8x42. To my eyes the colors are yellow. Whites are dirty yellow and is always present. CA in the Noctivid is only prominent i certain situations..and when it is it is also clearly visible in my Nikon EDG 8x42. I also thought that the Leica Noctivid was sharper i center than the Zeiss SF..and had better contrast, 3D-effect and depth of field. The Leica also handles flare incredible well.

Great comment. Very helpful. I agree on the Noctivid. Thanks, for your insight.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Jackjack. What do you like better, a Zeiss SF 10x32 or Zeiss FL 10x32? Thanks!

 

[jackjack]

Jackjack. What do you like better, a Zeiss SF 10x32 or Zeiss FL 10x32? Thanks!

Unfortunately, I haven't seen 32mm SF yet

 

[james holdsworth]

A long thread about a characteristic which is largely user dependant.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Here is an excerpt from a Scopeviews review on the Zeiss SF 10x32 where he observed almost no CA in the SF 10x32, which is exactly what I observed. I also agree closely with Allbinos results on CA in binoculars. These are two good examples that CA is not largely user dependent, and the binocular itself can make a significant difference.

Zeiss 10x32 Victory SF Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

Chromatic Aberration

"These smaller SFs are essentially free of chromatic aberration. The objectives generate no false color, something you can see focusing through layers of silhouetted branches.

Then there are the eyepieces, which are often a source of false color off-axis. But here, most unusually, there is almost no false color in the distorted edge part of the field, where other Zeiss models have a lot.

The upshot is that a crow’s black feathers silhouetted against a bright cloudy sky are unspoiled by purple or green fringes. Panning through branches, there are no flashing false colors to distract and annoy. Use in the brightest conditions, over snow or bright water, induces no contrast-reducing purple wash.

An internal focusing lens is known to make false color worse, so is that why Zeiss have ditched it in favor of moving objectives for these newest SFs? If so, it worked ..."

 

[Ignatius]

A long thread about a characteristic which is largely user dependant.

I am beginning to wonder whether trolls can feed each other.

 

[Tringa45]

I am beginning to wonder whether trolls can feed each other.

And whether the OP is tolerated because he keeps plugging one of BF's sponsors?
That can backfire if the proponent has a negative image.

 

[hopster]

Dennis,
Have you ever had the SF and NL 8x32 side by side?

Sum of the parts rather than written specs, I found the NL a nicer binocular in use.
Albeit compared only briefly, the NL was nicer to hold and focus, and their view, well, a bit nicer, getting a zing score of 9.5, the SF scoring 9.3 zing 😉 .
Sample of one of each of course.


(I'd love to have three of each mounted on six tripods, hidden in such a way you can only see the ocular glass; and actually try to differentiate the views. Guessing it would be interesting as a self assessment)

Subjective differences often melt away or become difficult to confirm consistently in such blind tests. I have extensive experience of this using ABX testing in audio from many years ago. Scripting and placebo are powerful psychological effects. I don't mean to say that useful differences between audio or optical devices don't exist because they clearly do, but prior knowledge amplifies their significance by a huge amount, leading to phrases like "huge difference", "chalk and cheese" etc. Sometimes it is because the person involved subconsciously wants to confirm the wisdom of their purchasing decision even if they vociferously deny it.

 

[hopster]

Well, I think i'm pretty much there.
The Zeiss HT8x42 is the only binocular that has stopped my shopping around. I am no longer looking for the next best bino!!!
It's good at everything, maybe not the best at everything, but for me has no real weak spots.
Works in all light conditions, good at glare control, good control of CA, incredible brightness on dull days, superb quality build and warranty.
I'm left wanting nothing more.
I am done

I like it a lot too, just lacking a bit at the red end of the spectrum otherwise it would be my go-to optic.

 

[hopster]

I am as many else sensitive to CA, but my latest buy was a Leica Noctivid 8x42. Leica is known for show more CA than some other brands like Swarovski, Zeiss, Nikon and Kowa. But I have to say that in "normal" birding situations CA is not prominent at all in the Noctivid. Not more than in my Nikon EDG 8x42. But when it"s cloudy and there is a bright soft light from the sun I can clearly see CA. I do not like that at all. This is not only a Leica issue though. In such weather and lighting even my Nikon EDG gets a prominent CA. If I remember correctly my old Swarovski SLC 8x42 also struggle with CA in such weather and lighting conditions. I have had a Kowa Prominar 8,5x44 which is one of the best when it comes to handle CA, but even this one is not CA free in certain weather/lights. I hate when my new Noctivid shows prominent CA in some specific situations, but all the other time I use it is a very very nice binocular (as the Nikon EDG is). I have tried a Zeiss Victory SF 8x42. Maybe it show less CA than a Leica Noctivid, but instead it does not have good colours (white is dirty yellow 100% of the time). With much better colour rendition, contrast, flare/glare control..and to me also a sharper centre I choose the Leica Noctivid over the Zeiss SF anyday (even if CA is more prominent in certain situations). With this I will say..even if I do not like prominent CA in a binocular CA is just one thing among others when choosing a binocular.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[hopster]

NV is better bino. but compared to Zeiss and Swarovski's improvement During the same timelength and price(Swaro EL -> ELSV -> NL), (Zeiss TFL -> HT -> SF) Leica didn't have that much improvement in diversity and optically.

amd 10x42 NV's CA and brightness, sharpness is worse then 8x42 even regarding the magnification difference.
so If you have your result in 8x42 NV, 10x42 NV's comparison result is different.

I agree (and many others have said the same) that the 8x NV is a better overall optic than the 10x. Certainly less CA.

 

[Hermann]

Subjective differences often melt away or become difficult to confirm consistently in such blind tests. I have extensive experience of this using ABX testing in audio from many years ago. Scripting and placebo are powerful psychological effects. I don't mean to say that useful differences between audio or optical devices don't exist because they clearly do, but prior knowledge amplifies their significance by a huge amount, leading to phrases like "huge difference", "chalk and cheese" etc. Sometimes it is because the person involved subconsciously wants to confirm the wisdom of their purchasing decision even if they vociferously deny it.

In one word (or rather two): Confirmation bias.

Hermann

 

[GrampaTom]

And whether the OP is tolerated because he keeps plugging one of BF's sponsors?
That can backfire if the proponent has a negative image.

Worth thinking about...
Do we dare discuss?