Good point. Lightweight, comfortable to hold, easy to find your eyes, easy to find a bird. An excellent handling binocular.
Haha, your binocular collection has very wide fields if the FLs are the most tunnel vision.
-
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.
I never met a 7x I liked until I met the Zeiss FL 7x42. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Thotmosis
Well-known member
I have both 7x42 and 8x56 and love them but they have quite strong distortion. In my specimens in the 7x in the upper and lower part of the view, not really bothersome but in the 8x56 in the left and right part of the view it’s very noticible. In the center they are as sharp as it gets but if you don’t like strong pincushion you will not like this binoculars. Build quality is old skool Zeiss but as @henry link and @mwhogue stated the adhesive used can become slightly “problematic”. But i noticed this also last week in my Leica 10x32 BN. In both my Zeiss 8x30 BGA “Safari” and 15x60 BGAT the rubber is still rock solid.
EDIT: My Zeiss 8x30 is BGA not BGAT
EDIT: My Zeiss 8x30 is BGA not BGAT
Last edited:
Isthatascratch?
Member
I have had the 8x32’s and now have 20 year old 8x42’s which look new…I was unsure about the composite but feel similarly good about it now. And, there’s this:
Endurance test of 8x42 binoculars - Final results and summary - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.www.allbinos.com
These results make me wonder why people are still so confident in leica. I know that full submersion is a rare accident, but it speaks also to the integrity of the company, as noted in the report.
I found the compact FL 8x32 really lovely to hold and was 15 years old and I sold it and bought a fairly early EL 8 x 32 WB which may have been improved on since but is still excellent. I just got the FL 8 x 42 as well and that is great as the light fades and that is almost mint for 20 year old! The great thing is these are great value now!The Conquest HD 10x56 is a very good big eye binocular. I have compared it to the FL 10x56 and the FL is only slightly better and probably not worth the difference in price, and besides they are hard to find.
The biggest difference between the FL 10x56 and the Conquest HD 10x56 is the FL controls CA a little better because of it's higher fluoride content glass.
Your SFL 8x40 will outperform the little FL 8x32 in low light, but I think the FL 8x32 has a little more rugged build quality, so it depends on how you use your binoculars. The SFL is certainly the more modern binocular.
Binoculars rankings - 8x56 - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
Zeiss concentrated on center field sharpness in the FL's and deliberately designed some pin cushioning in the optical design to avoid rolling ball when panning.
It seems to have worked because Zeiss binoculars are some of the sharpest binoculars I have seen on-axis from the Conquest HD to the SF and have very little rolling ball.
True flat field binoculars like the Swarovski EL have considerable rolling ball when panning and can be a dealbreaker if it bothers you. For that reason, even the Swarovski NL has a slight bit of pincushion now to avoid rolling ball.
The newer Zeiss SF have less pincushion than the FL, but more than the Swarovski NL's to avoid rolling ball. Optics are all about tradeoffs in the end. You can't have everything.
I am impressed with the low level of distortion in the FL 7x42. Comparing it directly to the Nikon HG 8x42 it has less distortion with sharper edges and the Nikon is supposed to have a field flattener.
Last edited:
I agree the Zeiss FL 7x42 has a huge FOV IMO.
I think you are better off buying a slightly older alpha rather than a newer mid-priced binocular because you can almost get them for about the same price and a lot of these used older alphas are like new because people don't use them a lot. Often times the build quality and optics are going to be at a higher level also.
Last edited:
Isthatascratch?
Member
I agree, in fact all those mentioned were under the price of a new equivalent Zeiss conquest or Swarovski CL
Declan Joseph Deasy
Member
Where does the SF 8x42 fit in this discussion? Is it worthwhile upgrading to it from a SF 8x32 for birding at dusk and on dull winter afternoons on the sea shore?
CharleyBird
Well-known member
Haptically I'd compare them:
NL x42 good
FL 7x42 better
E2 8x30 best
Optically the reverse.
Why are you selling your E2? Surely at our age (heading for 70) a light weight porro that sits comfortably in hand with easy focus and wide field of view is ever more desirable?
Isthatascratch?
Member
How do you find it at dusk ? i haven’t tried the 42 but have found the 32 performs very well.
Dennis
There is more field curvature with the 7X42. Not noticeable unless I'm looking for it nor distracting in normal use. Very little of it in the 10x32.
Mike
John A Roberts
Well-known member
In relation to the view of the FL 10x32 vs that of the FL 7x42 . . .
The FL 10x32 eyepiece has 2 extra lenses, for a total of 7; compared to what’s known about the rest of the FL series - with a maximum of 5 lenses *
See the cross section images of various models in posts #37 to 39 at: Zeiss: Collection of cross-section and cutaway images
And while there's not an image of the 10x32, as noted Zeiss specifically commented on the construction in relation to optical aberrations:
* The FL 7x42’s eyepiece will be no more complex than that of the 8x42 and 10x42 versions shown in the link, and may even have 1 less lens;
as is the case with the Leica BA/ BN and Ultravid lines. See posts #19 and 21 at: What’s your favorite 7x42 binoculars
John
The FL 10x32 eyepiece has 2 extra lenses, for a total of 7; compared to what’s known about the rest of the FL series - with a maximum of 5 lenses *
See the cross section images of various models in posts #37 to 39 at: Zeiss: Collection of cross-section and cutaway images
And while there's not an image of the 10x32, as noted Zeiss specifically commented on the construction in relation to optical aberrations:
* The FL 7x42’s eyepiece will be no more complex than that of the 8x42 and 10x42 versions shown in the link, and may even have 1 less lens;
as is the case with the Leica BA/ BN and Ultravid lines. See posts #19 and 21 at: What’s your favorite 7x42 binoculars
John
The SF 8x42 will perform better than the SF 8x32 in those low light situations because of it's bigger exit pupil.
Last edited:
Haptics are personal and vary a lot between users of the binocular. Some people hate the ergonomics of a porro and some love them, but you are entitled to your opinion. Haptically, I would rank them FL, NL, and E2. I have the FL 7x42 best because I like the feel and warmth of the composite body and the small ribs, and I like the fast, smooth Zeiss focuser.
FL 7x42 best
NL x42 better
E2 8x30 good
Optically, I would rank them FL, NL and E2. I like the FL 7x42 the best because it is the brightest, controls CA the best, is the sharpest on-axis, has excellent contrast and controls glare the best. The FL and NL are without a doubt better optically than the E2 because they have better contrast and have more pop than the E2. The E2 has a dull view compared to a top alpha because of less contrast. The NL suffers from veiling glare IMO, but not everybody sees it.
FL 7x42 best
NL x42 better
E2 8x30 good
I am selling the E2 because even though it is a good binocular with a huge FOV for its price point, it lacks the contrast, pop and brightness of an alpha roof. The FL 7x42 is only 26 oz. so it is only a few ounces heavier than an E2 and I like it's haptics and optics better.
Last edited:
Interesting John. Thanks for the post. It is true that a binocular like the FL 10x32 can be totally different from say an FL 8x42 in its optical design. Here is an excerpt from a review on the SF 10x32 by Lee, describing how it is different from an SF 8x42.
Review: Zeiss Victory SF 10x32
Introduction Well it’s a few months since I reviewed SF 8x32 so it is about time I had a look at the 10x32, and one has been obtained on loan for a few weeks. SF 32 has been around for a while now, but I sense that it is not widely understood how much of a development from SF 42 that it...
www.birdforum.net
"In my interview with Thomas Steinich of Zeiss ( Interview with Zeiss Senior Optical Scientist ) you can find hints at how developing a 32mm unit is not as simple as making the lenses a little smaller in diameter. If you look at the images of the internals of SF 32 on the Zeiss website, and of sectioned SF 42s on the internet, you would be struck by the following differences. SF 42 has an eyepiece consisting of 3 doublets and a singlet, whereas SF 32 appears to have 5 doublets and 1 singlet. At the objective, SF 42 has a fixed doublet and a moving singlet focusing lens, but SF 32 has a fixed singlet objective and a doublet focuser. In other words, SF 32 is significantly different from the 42. The 10x32 has a field of view 8.3% wider than the 10x42 (yielding an area of view 17.4% bigger) and eye relief has increased from 18mm to 19mm. It is not easy to pull off both of these at the same time, so I guess that explains some of the complexity of the eyepiece."
Last edited:
That is good to know. Interesting that two identical model binoculars with different magnifications and apertures vary in field curvature. I just ordered an SF 10x32, so I will be interested to see if it has any field curvature.
Last edited:
CharleyBird
Well-known member
At the moment we are both in good health, heck I use my diminutive 10x32 Leica roof a lot and it took a while to learn & warm to; also the heavyish 12x50 though I rarely take that far from the house.
As yet, no rheumaticky fingers to limit hold, adjustments and focus; no mini strokes or minor heart attacks to limit weight.
About 5 years ago I wrote about the last years of my parents who both loved watching birds. From about age 75 to 90 they both used a Zeiss 8x30 porro, and no roof of any size, weight, magnification or quality could tempt them to change. My experience was both amusing and sad, and a valuable lesson.
I'd be keeping the E2. There's nothing else quite like it.
The FL 7x42 is the most intuitive binocular I've ever used. Hand it to a complete newbie as I did and they'll simply work and get a wow for the view.
But...
They're only 7x which is low magnification; too low for most of my birding and I rarely take either of my 7s.
Interestingly the FL are haptically no better and probably not as good as the 7x42 dialyt. Zeiss shortened (consumer pressure to downsize?) and bulked out (to waterproof?) the FL, so the balance is not as nice.
I think the shortening would have affected the optics design but you'd need an expert to comment on how it would have affected the field of view and possibly brightness.
For me the FL view is only just beaten by the NL because the colours in the NL are as natural as I've ever seen. My 2005 pre-LotuTec is very slightly washed out in a side by side comparison.
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
Did you mean you ordered an FL 10x32? That was the binocular Mike said has very little field curvature. Indeed the FL 10x32 behaves almost like if it had field flatteners. Concerning the view thru the FL 7x42, to my eyes it has too much pincushion distortion, which was probably the compromise Zeiss chose to prevent RB for such a wide FoV.
PeterPS
The same occurred to me when testing the FL 7x42 and 10x32 yesterday. In response to yours, I just compared the FL 10x32 to the SW FP 10x32. Zero field curvature in the SW for all practical purposes and the FL is not at all far behind.
Yours has piqued my interest so when I have a chance I will compare field curvature in the 7x42 FL, UV HD + and Nikon EDG II.
Mike
I always found the Zeiss Dialyt 7x42 like many older binoculars to be dim and lacking contrast compared to newer glass like the FL 7x42, probably because of less advanced coatings. The Dialyt is cool looking and the handling is nice, but they lack the pop of the newer alpha binoculars similar to the E2.
The NL has more neutral colder colors and Zeiss has slightly warmer colors like a Leica but not quite as saturated. It just depends on what you prefer.
The E2 offers the biggest FOV available at its price point even though there is a lot of edge fall off, and it has that stereoscopic view of a porro. It is a well-made, nice little binocular that works well for a lot of people.
It is just on the dull side, and it lacks contrast and brightness compared to a Habicht 8x30 W or Nikon SE 8x32 or certainly an alpha roof. The Nikon SE 8x32 is a definite step-up in the quality of view, and Nikon designed it to be.
