Why are Zeiss so sharp on-axis compared to other binoculars? (2 Viewers)

[Dennis Mau]

Every time I try a Zeiss from a Conquest HD to an SF, I am blown away by how sharp on-axis they are. In comparison to a Swarovski they do have more pincushion probably to control RB but on-axis they are amazingly sharp and aberration free.

Does Zeiss concentrate on on-axis sharpness at the expense of some distortion at the edge, or is it their excellent CA control that makes them so sharp.

In reviews on the best binocular at the $1000 price point, everybody always says the Zeiss Conquest HD is the sharpest and I have noticed this myself.

The new Zeiss FL 7x42 I just purchased is amazingly sharp on-axis and clear or aberration free, and it is very noticeable.

Henry Link has always commented on how sharp his Zeiss FL 8x56 is in the center and how it lacks any optical aberrations. Is it a design decision by Zeiss to go for on-axis sharpness, or is it just the quality of high fluoride content glass they use?

 

[claves_10]

I have to admit that zeiss Binos give a sharp image and the focus wheel is a delight. I believe that Zeiss has nail it since they started production of the Sf series, if not mistaken back in 2014. Than years gone by and even Swarovski that recently presented the NLs, if not mistaken again 2020 and Zeiss still can be proud of their work and almost not worrysome of the competition.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I have to admit that zeiss Binos give a sharp image and the focus wheel is a delight. I believe that Zeiss has nail it since they started production of the Sf series, if not mistaken back in 2014. Than years gone by and even Swarovski that recently presented the NLs, if not mistaken again 2020 and Zeiss still can be proud of their work and almost not worrysome of the competition.

The Zeiss Conquest HD, FLs and SFs are all ungodly sharp. I believe it is a Zeiss trait because they concentrate on the center of the image, and they don't worry about a little pincushion on the edges.

I notice my FL 7x42 and SF 10x32 are both sharper on-axis than most of the other binoculars I have had, including the NLs. Swarovski's are probably more popular, but Zeiss as you say doesn't worry about the competition.

 

[A2GG]

I think the sharpest binocular I’ve owned was the FL 8x32. Zeiss is very good in this aspect.

I recall the Nikon premiere SE 8x32 porro was also razor sharp.

 

[Maljunulo]

Anyone have resolution numbers for any of these models?

(or any objective data)

 

[Dennis Mau]

I think the sharpest binocular I’ve owned was the FL 8x32. Zeiss is very good in this aspect.

I recall the Nikon premiere SE 8x32 porro was also razor sharp.

Yes, you are correct. Those are two of the sharpest binoculars I have had. The SE 8x32 porro and FL 8x32 are razor sharp. I wonder why? I just ordered another FL 8x32 from Japan because I liked them so much. Not only that, but I got them for $1100. Not to bad. I think it might be superb CA control. Neither the SE or FL have much CA at all.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Anyone have resolution numbers for any of these models?

I wonder if resolution is not the only reason they seem so sharp. Could it be resolution or lack of CA? I am not sure, but I know what I am seeing. Every time I try a Zeiss I think dang this thing is really sharp.

 

[Robert Moore]

I have the Zeiss 10x42 HT and it is sharp. I also have the 10x42NL and the sample I have is even sharper than my Zeiss. It is the sharpest of any binoculars I have ever had past or present.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I have the Zeiss 10x42 HT and it is sharp. I also have the 10x42NL and the sample I have is even sharper than my Zeiss. It is the sharpest of any binoculars I have ever had past or present.

I had the Zeiss HT 8x42 and the HT 8x54, and although they were one of the brightest binoculars I have ever had, IMO they were less sharp on-axis than the FL and SF.

They had more CA than the SF or FL, which definitely affects resolution negatively. If you are getting more color fringing around an object, it has to affect resolution. CA makes objects less sharp, especially around areas of high contrast. The HT had a lot of fall off at the edge also, especially the HT 8x54.

I had the NL 10x42 and although it had practically no pincushion or field curvature and very sharp edges, it was not as sharp on-axis as the FL or the SF. For me, it also had considerable veiling glare at the bottom of the FOV, especially in backlit situations.

And no matter where I adjusted the eye cups on the NL I couldn't get rid of the glare, but I don't think spectacle wearers experience this same type of glare, so it may not be a problem for you.

I also had more CA on the edge with the NL 10x42 than either the FL or SF also. Zeiss undoubtedly control CA better than Swarovski's especially the FL and SF.

If you like a flat field binocular with sharp edges the NL definitely beats the FL or SF but IMO it is not as sharp on-axis, probably because Swarovski's optical design does not prioritize it like Zeiss does and Zeiss binoculars in general have less CA than Swarovski's do which means higher resolution.

From Allbinos.
"Also chromatic aberration correction result, one of the best in the whole history of our tests, is achieved despite such a wide field of view. If you don't like CA effects, the Victory SF 8x32 is definitely your pair of binoculars because it fares distinctly better than all binoculars produced by its main rival, Swarovski. Swarovski binoculars have noticeable problems with chromatic aberration on the edge of the field, which is often narrower than the field of the Zeiss."

 

[dorubird]

I also noticed that on the center of FOV Zeiss SF 10x42 resolves fine details more easily than Swarovski EL Swarovision 10x42. I tested them carefully on a resolution target. SF's detail resolving power was better than EL swaro. In the case of comparison between these two binoculars, I would not link the SF advantage of the resolution to the lack of chromatic aberrations, because chromatic aberrations were absent in the center in both binoculars. But the difference in glass, optical treatments, and most importantly the optical formula, are aspects that can make the difference in image definition here. But I must state that the differences were very subtle because the assembly images were very clear in both binoculars. The general contrast of the whole image (as an overall picture) seemed to me a bit better with EL. But when you focus on fine details, the resolution (the ability to resolve small details) is a bit better in SF.

 

[Sagittarius]

JMO, Zeiss doesn't try hard enough.
As the owner of Schott Glass, they should easily lead the world with the best binoculars that outshine all others but don't seem to worry about it.
Of course, I consider them right at the top for my purpose.

I remember reading somewhere that they have glass that far exceeds anything they now offer but it is way too expensive for most to consider buying.
If I remember correctly the glass alone would cost upwards of $7,000.00 for use in a binocular.

Does anyone here want to pay $10,000+ for a new Zeiss with super glass?
If I won Powerball or M.M., hell yes, I would.
Otherwise No!

I bet Dennis would pay that price! LOL

 

[Canip]

Does anyone here want to pay $10,000+ for a new Zeiss with super glass

I recently had a debate with a colleague.

I said that since we all are going through a process called „aging“ (I think), with a predictable effect on the sharpness of our eyes, we ought to buy cheaper and cheaper binoculars over time, everything else is utter waste. Therefore the advice to younger forum members should be „buy the best binoculars you can afford while you are young“.

He disagreed. His point: since our eyes are deteriorationg over time, we ought to buy better and better (likely more expensive) binoculars -as we do with stronger and stronger glasses - to compensate the loss of sharpness in our eyes.

I found that a ridiculous argument. Any comments?

 

[Dennis Mau]

I also noticed that on the center of FOV Zeiss SF 10x42 resolves fine details more easily than Swarovski EL Swarovision 10x42. I tested them carefully on a resolution target. SF's detail resolving power was better than EL swaro. In the case of comparison between these two binoculars, I would not link the SF advantage of the resolution to the lack of chromatic aberrations, because chromatic aberrations were absent in the center in both binoculars. But the difference in glass, optical treatments, and most importantly the optical formula, are aspects that can make the difference in image definition here. But I must state that the differences were very subtle because the assembly images were very clear in both binoculars. The general contrast of the whole image (as an overall picture) seemed to me a bit better with EL. But when you focus on fine details, the resolution (the ability to resolve small details) is a bit better in SF.

That is exactly what I am talking about, but I think the superior resolution is due to better CA control and that is due to higher content fluoride glass.

There are other binoculars with designs similar to Zeiss with similar pincushion and field curvature like Leica, but they don't resolve like a Zeiss so it has to be the difference in glass or possibly coatings.

The Zeiss FL and SF have those dark violet coatings that seem superior to anything I have seen before just looking at them and how resistant they are to reflections.

From Scopeviews Reviews.

"Perhaps the need to retain good transmission with more optical elements also explains the exceptional T* coatings: Zeiss’ signature pink, but even darker than usual. And it doesn’t stop at the optical window.

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 an aside, I recently compared the 8x42 Conquest with the 8x42 SF and found a much more subtle difference in their objective coatings."

Top Zeiss 8x42 SF Bottom Zeiss 8x42 Conquest HD

 

[Dennis Mau]

JMO, Zeiss doesn't try hard enough.
As the owner of Schott Glass, they should easily lead the world with the best binoculars that outshine all others but don't seem to worry about it.
Of course, I consider them right at the top for my purpose.

I remember reading somewhere that they have glass that far exceeds anything they now offer but it is way too expensive for most to consider buying.
If I remember correctly the glass alone would cost upwards of $7,000.00 for use in a binocular.

Does anyone here want to pay $10,000+ for a new Zeiss with super glass?
If I won Powerball or M.M., hell yes, I would.
Otherwise No!

I bet Dennis would pay that price! LOL

Zeiss owns Schott glass?? There you have it. If they own Scott Glass, you know they have privy to the best glass at the best prices. That right there is their secret to their superior resolution.

Hell yea, I would pay a measly $10K for a binocular with super glass. What binocular nut wouldn't?

 

[Dennis Mau]

I recently had a debate with a colleague.

I said that since we all are going through a process called „aging“ (I think), with a predictable effect on the sharpness of our eyes, we ought to buy cheaper and cheaper binoculars over time, everything else is utter waste. Therefore the advice to younger forum members should be „buy the best binoculars you can afford while you are young“.

He disagreed. His point: since our eyes are deteriorationg over time, we ought to buy better and better (likely more expensive) binoculars -as we do with stronger and stronger glasses - to compensate the loss of sharpness in our eyes.

I found that a ridiculous argument. Any comments?

I agree but once you are old enough to have cataract surgery and at some point everybody will you regain the sharpness of youth again even though you will still have presbyopia.

 

[agus_m]

I don't really know what to say in these threads. Have you compared Zeiss and Swaros binoculars with the aid of boosters?
Either people in the forum have really exceptional eyes or my eyesight is very bad (I don't think the latter is true). I was trying to compare the MHG 10x42 vs Nikon EII 8x30 with a resolution chart. Tripod mounted, through both binos, the square strip patterns of the USAF 51 chart looked like tiny dots. However, with the aid of one of the binoculars as a "booster", at 80X you could clearly see that the details in those tiny squares were still resolved.

So I find it hard to believe people without booster aid, would be able to say "this bino has a better resolution than this". Some people like Jackjack go further and have a full ranking of central sharpness: "EL 8x32 > Aurora 8x42 > CHD 8x42 > CHD 8x32 > MHG 8x42 > EDG 8x42". Not only the EDG would be less sharp than the EL, but it would be so obvious that you can still rank 4 binoculars in between.

I guess there could be a psychological effect involved in the perception of resolution. Perhaps at the same time you are right, and Zeiss binos are systematically sharper than the competition, but without objective tests this is pure speculation.

 

[Rg548]

Hell yea, I would pay a measly $10K for a binocular with super glass. What binocular nut wouldn't?

There's probably folk on this forum who haven't got a 'measly $10k' to spend on a car!!!

Besides, when I look through my HT's, which cost me £950.... I wouldn't even spend a 'measly $2k' to get the latest...
To my eyes HT's are as good as it gets...an absolute classic, designed to be the best they could do at that time, not built to company budgets. Same with the FL's.
As long as you're not bothered by flat field, and this weird obsession with sharp to the VERY edge.... who looks at the edge when viewing.... its human nature to centre the image. I have NEVER understood this.
But then I'm a guy who preferred Meostars to Pures, as a viewing pleaure, not a technical side by side analysis.

I'll pay one tenth of your 'measly 10k' and keep my astonishing HT's.

 

[Ignatius]

I recently had a debate with a colleague.

I said that since we all are going through a process called „aging“ (I think), with a predictable effect on the sharpness of our eyes, we ought to buy cheaper and cheaper binoculars over time, everything else is utter waste. Therefore the advice to younger forum members should be „buy the best binoculars you can afford while you are young“.

He disagreed. His point: since our eyes are deteriorationg over time, we ought to buy better and better (likely more expensive) binoculars -as we do with stronger and stronger glasses - to compensate the loss of sharpness in our eyes.

I found that a ridiculous argument. Any comments?

I'm afraid I have to side with your colleague. As we age, our eyes might not be able to take advantage for example of 8x56s for scotopic observations, but a 10x56 will make up for that reduction in resolution in our older eyes. And since our eyes are already getting weaker, I am certain that viewing is better and eye strain lower if we select a top quality 10x56 with state-of-the-art coatings, the best glass available for lenses and prisms and assembled to the closest tolerances rather than some mediocre effort with run-of-the-mill glass, questionable coatings and BAK7 prisms knocked together by an unknown company for €111 special offer at the discount store.
However, I always let my eyes tell me what is best for them, not the €2500+ price tag.

My c€nt's worth - ymmv.

 

[Dennis Mau]

There's probably folk on this forum who haven't got a 'measly $10k' to spend on a car!!!

Besides, when I look through my HT's, which cost me £950.... I wouldn't even spend a 'measly $2k' to get the latest...
To my eyes HT's are as good as it gets...an absolute classic, designed to be the best they could do at that time, not built to company budgets. Same with the FL's.
As long as you're not bothered by flat field, and this weird obsession with sharp to the VERY edge.... who looks at the edge when viewing.... its human nature to centre the image. I have NEVER understood this.
But then I'm a guy who preferred Meostars to Pures, as a viewing pleaure, not a technical side by side analysis.

I'll pay one tenth of your 'measly 10k' and keep my astonishing HT's.

I like the HT's for low light because of their high transmission, but I think they have a little more CA than the SF and FL, which leads to slightly less sharp on-axis resolution.

The HT 8x54 I had was an excellent low light binocular, but it was always criticized for a lot of fall off at the edge. I am not sure why Zeiss designed it that way.

I would like to see a Zeiss SF 7x42 for low light with about a 10 degree FOV and a little less pincushion with slightly shaper edges than the HT 8x54.

 

[Binastro]

Firstly, I think a Canon 8x25 IS binocular with IS on will easily outresolve any Zeiss 10x binocular hand held, especially regarding unknown detail.

Secondly, as we get older a higher magnification will restore resolution, but it probably means using a tripod or again an IS binocular.

I used Mizar, an unequal double star with I think 14,4 arcsecond separation.

I could resolve it with the KOMZ 12x45, which is affected by rather inflated star images, probably because it is based on an old Zeiss design.

Then an old Canon IS 10x30 with IS off would also resolve Mizar.

Similarly, the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 would also resolve Mizar.

The Zeiss 20x60S resolved 6.5 arcsecond double stars with IS off as did the Yukon 30x50 folded refractor binocular
The Canon 18x50 IS resolved 8.5 arcsecond double stars with IS off.

I think the Takahashi 22x60 fluorite would do well.

In daytime hand held the KOMZ 12x45 repeatedly outresolved the Nikon 10x35 EII, which is no slouch.

The test of about 150 F14 Tomcat pilots gave an average acuity of 20/8 with a best of about 20/6.5.

The Aboriginal Australian tests run by a professor showed a normal range of 6/3 to 6/2 with a best of 6/1.5 and then an individual with 6/1.4 acuity i.e 20/4.7

My cousin had an acuity of around 20/7.5.
My acuity was until say ten years ago 20/15 with probably 20/13 when young, although I never measured it before I needed glasses at age 40.

I think only those with 20/6.5 or better would actually be limited by the best binoculars.

I very much doubt the premise here that Zeiss binoculars are better than other good binoculars.

It is more likely a long focal length objective binocular very well made will be better than a Zeiss.

I don't think $7,000 glass will make much difference either.

Basically all normal binoculars are too fast to give the best results, and our eyes vary from very good to very poor.

My Japan Celestron 1975 20x80 did very well with a Soviet 7x binocular half behind it. I.e 140x magnification.
The 20x80 was the best of three.

I did clearly see a Mercury transit using a safe filter on an exactly 3x coated opera glass.
Mercury was 12 aecseconds across and in the opera glass a tiny black dot.
I think I could have detected it with a good 2.5 opera glass.

I think that the Aboriginal Australian with 20/4.7 binocular vision could have followed Mercury with an optimum safe filter and no binocular had he known where to find Mercury.

As I say, I don't think Zeiss binoculars are better than the best non Zeiss binoculars.
This is a statement without evidence.

I think the best resolution would be with an inverted image long focal length 10x binocular with simple high quality eyepieces. and no prisms.

The Fujinon 14x40 stabilised binocular easily outresolved the Canon 10x42 L IS binocular, which surprised me, as the Canon binocular is very good.

Regards,
B.