Roger Vine's Zeiss 20x60S review (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

Roger has just posted a review of the remarkable mechanically stabilised Zeiss 20x60S at: Zeiss 20x60 S Review
Thanks to tmichaelbanks for noticing this at: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/789335-new-zeiss-20x60-review/

For an idea of its size compared to an SLC 15x56, see a image from spiritusmentis at:

https://flic.kr/p/23XVgjx

For the details of its optical construction, see an image from Henry in post #11 at: High end porro's

For an appreciation of its mechanical complexity see the original patent, along with an image from the patent superimposed over the binocular,
and an image of a unit with the hood off (originally from Zeiss?).
The two images are from Paul Knight’s no longer available 'Notes on Zeiss 20x60S Stabilised Binoculars’.

And see the technical data from Zeiss at: ZEISS 20x60 S | Unique mechanics and optical performance


John


p.s. It seems that an image with a Flickr address automatically loads into the text field.

 

[adhoc]

The section on CA runs as follows. Could someone (perhaps RV if reading this) please explain what is meant by the words I have underscored, thanks.

Chromatic Aberration

I noted some false colour on high contrast targets, but it’s not generally intrusive. Crows in high branches do show feathers rimmed with purple and green. Much of the apparent false colour is from the eyepieces, though: focusing through there isn’t much at all. Overall, the air-spaced doublet objectives do their job surprisingly well.

 

[Mark9473]

It means going from a bit inside the focus point to a bit outside, or vice versa, in other words checking CA on objects slightly behind and in front of the plane of focus.

 

[adhoc]

Thanks. Sorry if I'm dense, but does that mean CA (as detected by RV) is: (a) at the exact focus point not noticeable; a bit inside and outside it present but not too bad, or (b) at the focus point and a bit inside and outside it present but not too bad?

 

[james holdsworth]

I’ve said it a few times…this is a 30 year old design. Considering what Zeiss was able to do back then, just think what a modern version could be…..smaller, lighter, better glass and coatings, better eyepieces etc.etc

 

[Binastro]

Roger Vine's review is good but misses some points.

He does not describe the superior packing case that holds the aluminium case
This case does not have g meters as some of the very highest quality optics have. If the g force with these is exceeded the optics are rejected by the end user.

I think that the stabilizer uses magnets, and this may mean the binocular does not last 'forever'.
I don't know how long these magnets last.
The binocular warranty used to be 5 years, it may now be 10 years.

I think that the Russians have basically copied the design and claim their versions last longer than the Zeiss.
I don't trust these Russian claims or their quality.

From memory, I thought the field was curved and one could refocus edge stars, bur I'd have to look again.

I have always thought the Zeiss 20x60S to be the finest quality binocular with flaws, such as the button needing pressure, bulky and heavy if one is not strong.
That is why I use the Canon 18x50 IS even though it isn't as good, but better than nearly anything else.

I found the Zeiss 20x60S fine for astronomy.

Repairs are expensive, but probably in line with original cost.

Regards,
B.

 

[tenex]

Why is easily noticeable astigmatism still found in a binocular with this price tag? Or even in FLs, for that matter. (And I have to say I've never seen a 20x60 in the field, not even "on a polar cruise". What applications simply don't permit a tripod?)

 

[quincy88]

These behemoths have always intrigued me. I find it highly doubtful I'll ever even see a pair, but I do enjoy reading about them. A weird relic of an earlier time that persists in the Zeiss line up. Very cool.

 

[John A Roberts]

I've located two interesting images . .

One from Zeiss showing a disassembled unit.

And one showing a unit held upside down, using its weight to help maintain constant pressure on the IS activation button.
It’s from drshr at: at: Zeiss and other High Power Stabilized Bino Review - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights
See the comments both from him and Jae.


John

 

[dlp755]

I've located two interesting images . .

One from Zeiss showing a disassembled unit.

And one showing a unit held upside down, using its weight to help maintain constant pressure on the IS activation button.
It’s from drshr at: at: Zeiss and other High Power Stabilized Bino Review - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights
See the comments both from him and Jae.


John

I briefly had a Canon 10x30 IS II for eval. The top-center-mounted activation button was a PITA to reach/hold.

So I did the same as drshr, and inverted them in use. Much better ergonomically, but still a field hack, not ideal.

That particular Canon experienced no mechanical problems in doing so, but would extended inverted usage impair the function of such Canon (or Zeiss) IS bins?

 

[Troubador]

Why is easily noticeable astigmatism still found in a binocular with this price tag? Or even in FLs, for that matter. (And I have to say I've never seen a 20x60 in the field, not even "on a polar cruise". What applications simply don't permit a tripod?)

Its a relic from the distant past: about 30 years old. Applications that don't permit tripods are mainly those where the owner doesn't wish to carry one .

Lee

 

[John A Roberts]

Further to what I indicated in the original post, Paul Knight’s extensive 'Notes on Zeiss 20x60S Stabilised Binoculars', is again available.
It can now be found at: Notes on Zeiss 20x60S Binoculars


John

 

[james holdsworth]

Still amazes me that, given how long these have been out there, Zeiss hasn’t been able to create a modern version…smaller, lighter and perhaps mechanically simpler. I’m sure the existing tech has evolved some in 30 years.

 

[Binastro]

Re. post #12.

Thanks John for the interesting read by Paul Knight.

I would comment that a main source of image movement is a person's breathing, which seems to be missing from his reports.

I saw Jupiter's belts with the Zeiss 20x60S. I didn't find the image too bright.
If it is too bright, a bit of cirrus cloud works wonders.
To split double stars, thin variable cloud or a bit of twilight also works wonders.

The Pleiades sketch has a minor fault, in that one star is definitely drawn too bright.

I am pleased that an old 20x60S still works, as I don't know how long the magnets last.

I did not find difficulty using it at 45 degree elevation.

But I had no difficulty hand holding the 1975 selected Japanese Celestron 20x80 at 2.5 kg.

Now, unfortunately I cannot use heavy binoculars, although the Canon 18x50 IS is not a problem.
This is the lighter version of a Zeiss 20x60S, that I chose as the Zeiss was for me basically a one handed hold due to the button pressing. It can be held upside down.
However, the large Canons don't need the button held down.
The Canon 18x50 IS also had tiny star images, although the image quality of the Zeiss is better.

I found the Zeiss had a bigger fall off off centre, but this may be because I had little accommodation, and I can easily detect small changes in focus.

The Zeiss 20x60S is probably the best binocular I have used, but for me not the most practical.

So far as build quality the Hensoldt 16x56 Nacht Dialyt comes close, but this is really old from about 1955.

The 12x50 Leica Ultravid is also well made.

Regards,
B.

P.S.
I have seen Titan in a hand held 10x25 binocular from town.

I would expect the Zeiss 20x60S to pick up Rhea and Iapetus, two other Saturn moons, from a dark site.
Possibly even Tethys and Dione from a really dark site with someone with excellent vision.