-
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? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
excuse me, what is OP stands for? BF is for birdforum, CN is for cloudynight is it right?
The Scopeviews binocular reviews agree that the Zeiss SF and FL are very good for CA control, with many of them having little or no CA. Surprisingly the newer 32mm SF's control CA better than the 42mm SF's probably because of the change in their optical design. Instead of an internal focusing lens, they are using moving objectives. Could that blue ring around the field edge he noticed in the SF 8x32 be the BROD? 
www.scopeviews.co.uk
"Chromatic Aberration
These deserve their “FL” designation because they are virtually free of CA – better than most other binoculars I have tested, apart perhaps from the very latest premium designs. To me, this really makes a difference in the view. Crows seen against a bright sky are a source of frustration no longer!"
www.scopeviews.co.uk
Chromatic Aberration
"The high-fluoride optics deliver false-color free views under most circumstances. Only extremes of contrast – black feathers against a bright cloudy sky – show just a residual trace of false color. Even the very latest HD designs struggle to better the FLs in this respect.
I’ve said it before: the absence of CA really makes a difference to the comfort and naturalness of the view when scanning tree-tops or hedgerows, anywhere with a lot of contrast. Even the best ordinary bino’s (e.g. Nikon HGs) coat branches and feathers with a thin line of yellow or green or purple which isn’t really there, edge rooflines with a shimmering edge as if they were glass-plated."
www.scopeviews.co.uk
Chromatic Aberration
"The 8x32 SFs are essentially free of chromatic aberration in normal use. Rooflines, branches, birds in the treetops – no contrast-robbing rim of false color here. However, very bright conditions generate a blue ring around the unsharp field edge when viewing with glasses, something I didn’t notice with the 10x32s.
To discover that these do still suffer a trace of false color after all, you have to wait for maximum contrast against a brilliant twilit sky. Then, I noticed just a trace when panning through layered branches in silhouette and around the feathers of a roosting Crow. There is a touch more false color in the distorted edge part of the field than I recall from the 10x32s, too.
Don’t misunderstand, though: false color is still lower than most other HD roofs."
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 ..."
www.scopeviews.co.uk
Chromatic Aberration
"These are almost false color free. Most would think they are. It takes determined viewing of silhouettes against a bright cloudy sky to find the faintest residual fringing. The only exception is the field edge, where the last 15% has a bit more. Still, false color is unlikely to trouble even the most picky."
www.scopeviews.co.uk
Chromatic Aberration
"The 10x42 SFs show very slight residual chromatic aberration in the highest contrast situations, but otherwise they are free from false color in normal use. Even panning through silhouetted branches reveals little. Only a very few binoculars, perhaps including the 10x32mm SFs, do slightly better.
Birds in high branches or on the wing are unpolluted by contrast- and detail- robbing false-color fringes. This makes a big difference. It actually makes long-distance IDs easier and is one good reason to choose a super-premium pair like these. It also makes them great for spotting and identifying planes at altitude."
Zeiss 8x32 Victory FL Review
"Chromatic Aberration
These deserve their “FL” designation because they are virtually free of CA – better than most other binoculars I have tested, apart perhaps from the very latest premium designs. To me, this really makes a difference in the view. Crows seen against a bright sky are a source of frustration no longer!"
Zeiss Victory 7x42 FL Review
Chromatic Aberration
"The high-fluoride optics deliver false-color free views under most circumstances. Only extremes of contrast – black feathers against a bright cloudy sky – show just a residual trace of false color. Even the very latest HD designs struggle to better the FLs in this respect.
I’ve said it before: the absence of CA really makes a difference to the comfort and naturalness of the view when scanning tree-tops or hedgerows, anywhere with a lot of contrast. Even the best ordinary bino’s (e.g. Nikon HGs) coat branches and feathers with a thin line of yellow or green or purple which isn’t really there, edge rooflines with a shimmering edge as if they were glass-plated."
Zeiss 8x32 Victory SF Review
Chromatic Aberration
"The 8x32 SFs are essentially free of chromatic aberration in normal use. Rooflines, branches, birds in the treetops – no contrast-robbing rim of false color here. However, very bright conditions generate a blue ring around the unsharp field edge when viewing with glasses, something I didn’t notice with the 10x32s.
To discover that these do still suffer a trace of false color after all, you have to wait for maximum contrast against a brilliant twilit sky. Then, I noticed just a trace when panning through layered branches in silhouette and around the feathers of a roosting Crow. There is a touch more false color in the distorted edge part of the field than I recall from the 10x32s, too.
Don’t misunderstand, though: false color is still lower than most other HD roofs."
Zeiss 10x32 Victory SF Review
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 ..."
Zeiss 8x42 Victory SF Review
Chromatic Aberration
"These are almost false color free. Most would think they are. It takes determined viewing of silhouettes against a bright cloudy sky to find the faintest residual fringing. The only exception is the field edge, where the last 15% has a bit more. Still, false color is unlikely to trouble even the most picky."
Zeiss Victory 10x42 SF Review
Chromatic Aberration
"The 10x42 SFs show very slight residual chromatic aberration in the highest contrast situations, but otherwise they are free from false color in normal use. Even panning through silhouetted branches reveals little. Only a very few binoculars, perhaps including the 10x32mm SFs, do slightly better.
Birds in high branches or on the wing are unpolluted by contrast- and detail- robbing false-color fringes. This makes a big difference. It actually makes long-distance IDs easier and is one good reason to choose a super-premium pair like these. It also makes them great for spotting and identifying planes at altitude."
Last edited:
jackjack. Why do you think Noctivid 8x and 10x differ so much in optics? Usually, different magnifications from the same model are at least similar in performance. I can understand why CA increases because it usually does with increasing magnification.
two changes stated by leica is magnification differ and transmission differ (91 by 10x42, 92 by 8x42)
there are no other clue in stats.
color fidelity is much better in 8x42. It somtimes happen in several series with diverse magnification. such as SFL 40mm, HT 42mm, SF 42mm, Fuji HC 42mm, EL 42mm which small magnification deliver better colorfidelity.
but the fidelity gap is bigger in NV.
I prefer 10's amber color personally, but optical perfection is more close to 8x42.
beside that, It is a mystery that 10x42 falls that much behind 8. so does 8x42 SF is less sharp then 10x42 SF.
Swaro delivers similar sharpness rate at every CL, EL, NL
(I mean they compete almost Identically between in their apature range. such as Every EL is sharp at same power + lens size NL, and Every NL is sharper then same power + lens size CHD and Ultravid)
but Zeiss & Leica often differs
Top 16 best binoculars on Allbinos for CA control, ranked from first to last. This will help you choose a binocular with low CA if you don't like CA.
www.allbinos.com
1) Zeiss FL 10x42 (CA 9.5)
2) Zeiss SF 8x32 (CA 9.4)
3) Zeiss FL 8x42 (CA 9.3)
4) Zeiss FL 8x32 (CA 9.2)
5) Nikon EDG 8x32 (CA 9.0)
6) Kowa Genesis 8.5x44 (CA 9.0)
7) Bushnell Forge 8x42 (CA 9.0)
8) Leupold BX-4 HD Pro-Guide 8x42 (CA 8.9)
9) Zeiss SF 10x42 (CA 8.7)
10) Zen Ray ED2 8x42 (CA 8.7)
11) Nikon EDG 10x42 (CA 8.6)
12) Swarovski NL Pure 12x42 (CA 8.5)
13) Bushnell Legend M10x42 (CA 8.2)
14) Steiner Nighthunter 8x56 (CA 8.2)
15) Zeiss SF 8x42 (CA 8.0)
16) Vortex Razor HD 8x42 (CA 8.0)
Binoculars rankings - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
1) Zeiss FL 10x42 (CA 9.5)
2) Zeiss SF 8x32 (CA 9.4)
3) Zeiss FL 8x42 (CA 9.3)
4) Zeiss FL 8x32 (CA 9.2)
5) Nikon EDG 8x32 (CA 9.0)
6) Kowa Genesis 8.5x44 (CA 9.0)
7) Bushnell Forge 8x42 (CA 9.0)
8) Leupold BX-4 HD Pro-Guide 8x42 (CA 8.9)
9) Zeiss SF 10x42 (CA 8.7)
10) Zen Ray ED2 8x42 (CA 8.7)
11) Nikon EDG 10x42 (CA 8.6)
12) Swarovski NL Pure 12x42 (CA 8.5)
13) Bushnell Legend M10x42 (CA 8.2)
14) Steiner Nighthunter 8x56 (CA 8.2)
15) Zeiss SF 8x42 (CA 8.0)
16) Vortex Razor HD 8x42 (CA 8.0)
Last edited:
there are some other between. I haven't found all but linkd some I remembers.Top 10 best binoculars on Allbinos for CA control, ranked from first to last. Six of them, or 60% are Zeiss SF's or FL's. FL's are probably first for CA control and SF are second.
Binoculars rankings - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
1) Zeiss FL 10x42 (CA 9.5)
2) Zeiss SF 8x32 (CA 9.4)
3) Zeiss FL 8x42 (CA 9.3)
4) Zeiss FL 8x32 (CA 9.2)
5) Nikon EDG 8x32 (CA 9.0)
6) Kowa Genesis 8.5x44 (CA 9.0)
7) Zeiss SF 10x42 (CA 8.7)
8) Nikon EDG 10x42 (CA 8.6)
9) Zeiss SF 8x42 (CA 8.0)
10)Vortex Razor HD 8x42 (CA 8.0)
Bushnell Forge 8x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
9 for CA
Bushnell Legend M 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
8.2 for CA
Swarovski NL Pure 12x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
8.5 for CA
Steiner Nighthunter 8x56 (2016) - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
8.2 for CA
Zen-Ray Optics ZEN ED2 8x43 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
8.7 for CA
Leupold BX-4 Pro Guide HD 8x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
8.9 for CA
I have seen many bino that reviewed in Allbino, some are lot diffrent from I expected.
even more then I really agree (8~90%) with the result.
so as I said before, I only view allbino for color fidelity according to transmission graph, FOV, Close focus.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
It was never my intention to say you let a photo influence test results. I was just offering my experience with what I see through the binoculars and then the differences I see in a photo taken moments after looking the optic.
lol, if you see more CA looking through that Leica than is in the picture, I’d would think it’s unusable 😂. But in a way I think you just supported my opinion, seeing the differences in visual and photographs.
If my Leicas showed that much CA in actual use, I wouldn’t own them. And if we’re trying to induce the worst case scenario of CA, under the worst lighting conditions , then imho, it’s not indicative of the overall usability of the optic, therefore the measurement is meaningless. Imo.
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Can someone tell me what’s the difference between 9.5, 9.4, 9.3 and 9.2? And can we find out if the minutia between these four ratings were all done at the same time side-by-side, under the exact same lighting conditions, and were multiple people in agreeance? One other question, would it be important to some that multiple test specimens be tested as well, you know , to make sure that there is no unit to unit variation ? 🤭✌🏼.Top 10 best binoculars on Allbinos for CA control, ranked from first to last. Six of them, or 60% are Zeiss SF's or FL's. FL's are probably first for CA control, SF's are second and EDG's a close third.
Binoculars rankings - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
1) Zeiss FL 10x42 (CA 9.5)
2) Zeiss SF 8x32 (CA 9.4)
3) Zeiss FL 8x42 (CA 9.3)
4) Zeiss FL 8x32 (CA 9.2)
5) Nikon EDG 8x32 (CA 9.0)
6) Kowa Genesis 8.5x44 (CA 9.0)
7) Zeiss SF 10x42 (CA 8.7)
8) Nikon EDG 10x42 (CA 8.6)
9) Zeiss SF 8x42 (CA 8.0)
10)Vortex Razor HD 8x42 (CA 8.0)
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I agree with everything he said as well, except the part about 3-D and DOF. 😉
The comparison of CA and glare in my review is indeed the senario of close - to - worst lighting condition and object. so in many normal uses it will be less severe then which is stated in my review.
So always post the abberation with at least reference bino that taken at same time (average 30~60sec differ)
as the review photo insists, in same (practically)lighting condition with same angle in every uses, EL has significant less CA then UV at the center of the image
thats how I line up the binos. at least useing some referance that have side by side comparison with many other bino in diffrent situation.
Last edited:
I wonder allbino themselves can tell.
8x32 tfl is reviewed more then 10 years before then Razor UHD. their reviewing standard can easily be changed during those time.
(10x42 Tfl review written in 2010 doesn't even have a transmission graph)
there are no such thing like Prefect Review since no bino made in same factories are 100% same.
Even Two leica NV 10x42 and Two Victory HT 10x42, Two 10x32 EL I compared side by side have slightly diffrent view between individual tubes.
Not to mention cheap MIC binos.
I have seen about 7 10x42 SRBC and 5 12x50 SRBC
and about 15 of the BW8 8x32
. none them are perfectly same 😗
so If someone buy 100 of the each bino and choose best one to compare, it still can't be 100% right. because 101th sample may be closer to perfection 😉
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Exactly my thoughts. Thank you 🙏🏼
every reviewer inculding me won't have 100% confidence on their every reviews
I have written 164 reviews in South Korean forum. inculding over 10 reviews that are written multiple time (updated from the old ones) for more accurent information
but still, I'm not 100% sure of every part that I insists.
It is impossible to compare evey 164 bino at at the same lighting situation, maintaining same eye condition 😀
just trying to be as accurate as I could. and give many information on the reivew easy enough for novice readers to understand.
pity that come commercials review in wedsite and youtubes don't even give it a try...
Last edited:
Thanks for that! I didn't look closely at those lower ranked binoculars because I didn't think they would have good CA performance. I will update my chart and I will have to try some of these binoculars with a high CA rating. Interesting that the NL pure 12x42 did so much better than the other NL Pures. Allbinos is pretty good on CA testing because I agree with them about 90% of the time.there are some other between. I haven't found all but linkd some I remembers.
Bushnell Forge 8x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
9 for CA
Bushnell Legend M 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
8.2 for CA
Swarovski NL Pure 12x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
8.5 for CA
Steiner Nighthunter 8x56 (2016) - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
8.2 for CA
Zen-Ray Optics ZEN ED2 8x43 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
8.7 for CA
Leupold BX-4 Pro Guide HD 8x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
8.9 for CA
I have seen many bino that reviewed in Allbino, some are lot diffrent from I expected.
even more then I really agree (8~90%) with the result.
so as I said before, I only view allbino for color fidelity according to transmission graph, FOV, Close focus.
The Kingfisher
Well-known member
What about the 3D and the DOF?! 🙂 The Leica Noctivid has a very good DOF wich makes focusing on a bird easy. Yesterday I focused on a raven flying close (beside) to me. I did not need to refocus on the raven for about 250 meter, until it disappeared behind some trees. The raven stayed sharp all the way in the Noctivid. I can not imagine that the Zeiss SF 8x42 has that DOF, but maybe it has?!
Last edited:
in real comparison, NL 12x42 have more CA then 8x32 and 10x42
I think allbino give more points to the extenede magnification of 12x42 NL.
so they think between 12 power, NL 12x42 compeated better then other NL competes at same magnification.
so I think 7 point 8 power have less CA then 8 point 12 power actually.
From Allbinos
"You can ask one question here – whether you should trust implicitly all scores, presented in different test categories. The answer is no. All physical measurements are fraught with measurement errors, both systematic and statistical. These errors can be minimized, and we try to do so, but you can’t omit them completely. It’s worth remembering that even if you state a given value along with its measurement error, it is still not the end of the story. A transmission result amounting to 90.0% +\- 1.0%, according to the statistical laws (the so-called 1-sigma) means there is a 68% probability that the real value, measured by us, is within a range from 89 to 91%. There are also 32% of chances that value is lower than 89% or higher than 91%. You can also use 2-sigma or 3-sigma error measures to increase the probability of our value. In that example there is a 95.4% probability that our value is contained within a range from 88% to 92% and 99.7% sure that it is within the 87-93% range, Still there remains 0.3% of chances it is outside that range.
Don’t forget about one more, very important issue. A pair of binoculars you intend to buy should be tested before the purchase. People’s eye sockets differ greatly, so it is very important to check how well a given device fits your face and your hand. Sometimes it’s better to focus on an instrument which got a bit worse result in our test, but its ergonomics suits you better than that of a supposedly better model.
Finally, one more important piece of news. We usually borrow a pair of binoculars for about a month, two at most. Such a period of time allows us to test the optics meticulously and assess the mechanics in a preliminary way. It is definitely too short to say how a given device will fare after one year or several years of intensive usage. Here we have to depend on the opinions of our Readers. That’s why we would like to encourage everybody to enter our binoculars database and add your personal opinion about the product you use. Thank you in advance.
CHROMATIC ABERRATION (10 points) - The chromatic aberration is estimated by our own observations, setting a contrastive object in the center of the field of view and moving it to the corner. Depending on our observations, binoculars can get here from 0 to 8 points for the center performance and -/+ 2 points for behavior at the edge."
Paultricounty
Well-known member
DOF is mostly a product of magnification, not the individual make and model. There are hundreds of discussions here on BF about this, and very interesting I might ad, I learned a lot from them over time. Our brains play tricks on us, for instance take two 8x42 binoculars , one with field flatteners and one without, I find that the one with a more curved edge had a more immersive image quality, not DOF. DOF doesn’t make it easier to focus in on an object, DOF will just have more things in front and behind the object in focus. It’s the quality of the optic that makes it easy to focus by snapping into focus and not having to hunt for it, if you know what I mean. I have the Zeiss, and it does have the same DOF as the Nocs. 3D is another topic, and usually has to do with separation of the prisms, it’s kind of the reason that porros are described to have more 3D effect than roofs. There others here that can describe these characteristics better than I, but I hoped that helped.
Btw, the Noctivids in 8x42 are probably my favorite binoculars, right next to the Swaro 10x42NL’s.
