Zeiss 15x60 B/GA T*...How good is a late model by today's standards? (2 Viewers)

[roweraay]

The choice Zeiss made to go forward with the SF range and drop most of the HTs suggests that once a certain level of brightness (maybe 92-93%) is achieved, factors such as FOV become more important

Other than the impressive statistic about its light transmission (95% for a roof, even though AK, is truly impressive), no reviews I read seem to praise the HTs, for it being exceptional in any way. Clearly, the binocular is more than its brightness level alone. I believe despite having multiple high-fluoride glass elements, it still had noticeable CA, which is surprising, in addition to not truly challenging the EL from Swaro.

When it came to the SF range, I believe it was designed by some former Swarovski EL designers that Zeiss poached from Swarovski. No expense spared in creating a product that exceeded the performance of then top-dog, the EL, from Swaro. The subsequent NL seems to have taken back the top-dog status, even though many people still prefer the overall handling of the SF, over the NL.

 

[roweraay]

Also recall one of the Rangemaster fans on CN claiming to see very little difference between them (or maybe just one variant, most likely the Fuji) and multi-coated binoculars. His contention, which I'll admit probably has some truth to it, was that the best single-coatings of that era, chosen well and carefully applied to all glass surfaces, resulted in very good results - though I have reservations that even the best single-coated binoculars are really comparable to decent multi-coated.

I think what this shows is that a binocular's product design is more than the sum of its parts. The whole formula needs to be considered as a "system", which includes various glass-types, types of coatings, prism-type etc.

Simply altering one aspect within that "system" (single-coating replaced with multi-coating, or swapping a specific lens element within an eyepiece with a different one etc) might result in some specific parameter being improved (say brightness or eye-relief etc), but could result in a degradation elsewhere (say contrast or FOV etc).

A ground-up design on the other hand, is trying to hit certain design objectives; and the glass choices, the coating choices, the prism choices, optical formula etc are all chosen to hit those objectives and targeted price-point.

 

[tenex]

The 15x60 has a noticeably deeper DOF than the 14x52, but that was expected. The 15x60 was in excellent condition, despite its age, with the rubber armor and the objectives, nearly spotless.

Presumably you mean stereopsis, not DOF, as magnification is nearly identical? (The "14x" is more like 14.4.) Yes, you're lucky to have got the objective covers, as so many people cut them off. I hope you had a good chance to evaluate the view and focusing before your mishap.

So I am going to send it to Zeiss for a full refurbishment and cleaning.

I wonder whether they can still do that, and how well. 35 years is a long time, and they've moved and perhaps lost some key staff. I had poor results with a Dialyt 8x30 of the same era.

 

[roweraay]

Presumably you mean stereopsis, not DOF, as magnification is nearly identical? (The "14x" is more like 14.4.) Yes, you're lucky to have got the objective covers, as so many people cut them off. I hope you had a good chance to evaluate the view and focusing before your mishap.

I wonder whether they can still do that, and how well. 35 years is a long time, and they've moved and perhaps lost some key staff. I had poor results with a Dialyt 8x30 of the same era.

Yes, I did get to do the evaluation of the view, and the focusing, before my blunder. And compared it side-by-side with the 14x52 (yes, 14.4x X 52, I guess, based on their exit pupil number of 3.6x).

Maybe it is my imagination, but the view of the 15x60 did seem to give a deeper DOF (more of the background in focus, without having to refocus) than the "flatter" field of the 14x52 (more frequent refocusing needed, with anything behind the slim focal plane, being less in-focus). Maybe the added DoF was due to the lack of the field-flatteners in the 15x60, or maybe it was the larger tube separation of the Porros. But I remember that I really liked the view. Unfortunately, the event happened before I could test further, and draw any solid conclusions.

It would be a big bummer if they cannot do the repair, and it does make sense, due to the passage of such a long period of time. Tomorrow, I am going to call Zeiss, and also their big repair stations like "Company Seven" and see what they say. In their repair page, I did not see the 15x60 (of any vintage) listed, and that's a bad omen !

Maybe the fix is just a minor adjustment, without any parts etc., but we will see.

 

[Thotmosis]

Maybe it is my imagination, but the view of the 15x60 did seem to give a deeper DOF (more of the background in focus, without having to refocus) than the "flatter" field of the 14x52 (more frequent refocusing needed, with anything behind the slim focal plane, being less in-focus). Maybe the added DoF was due to the lack of the field-flatteners in the 15x60, or maybe it was the larger tube separation of the Porros. But I remember that I really liked the view. Unfortunately, the event happened before I could test further, and draw any solid conclusions.

I had the same experience: the NL was more “restless”, i had to focus more.

 

[Thotmosis]

It would be a big bummer if they cannot do the repair, and it does make sense, due to the passage of such a long period of time. Tomorrow, I am going to call Zeiss, and also their big repair stations like "Company Seven" and see what they say. In their repair page, I did not see the 15x60 (of any vintage) listed, and that's a bad omen !

Maybe the fix is just a minor adjustment, without any parts etc., but we will see.

Your 15x60 looks wonderful! I’m almost sure they can fix it. My BGAT is still under (30 year) warranty and they (Zeiss Sport Optics Germany) emailed my that they have the parts and will do reparations. Otherwise a binocular repair shop can most likely fix it. Leica still repairs old Trinovid BA but not Leitz though and Swarovski doesn’t service the old Habicht’s if im not mistaken. There is a point in time after which they will not repair or service anymore. Fingers crossed 🤞 .

 

[roweraay]

Your 15x60 looks wonderful! I’m almost sure they can fix it. My BGAT is still under (30 year) warranty and they (Zeiss Sport Optics Germany) emailed my that they have the parts and will do reparations. Otherwise a binocular repair shop can most likely fix it. Leica still repairs old Trinovid BA but not Leitz though and Swarovski doesn’t service the old Habicht’s if im not mistaken. There is a point in time after which they will not repair or service anymore. Fingers crossed 🤞 .

I have some fantastic news to report back on my 15x60. I asked on a different really old Birdforum thread, if there were anybody in the PNW (Washington State, Oregon coast etc) who could work on, and repair, an older Classic Zeiss. I was about to send it out to Zeiss, when I asked the question, and I had even prepared a repair order on the Zeiss website.

A kind soul (Foss) answered back, with a contact in Olympia, WA (around an hour away from my house), who specializes in Classic Zeiss (Ivan Xu). Ivan also has an Optical Table, used in alignment, optical calibrations etc. I drove over, met with him, and in 20 minutes, I got back my 15x60, good-as-new, and cleaned, calibrated and the collimation checked. Absolutely fantastic job from a very knowledgeable guy, who specializes in not just repairing equipment, but also in building new telescopes and bino-viewers. A true enthusiast, for sure !

He noted that my 15x60 is in absolute top-shape, and clearly, whoever owned it prior to me, took great care of it (as I do with my equipment and devices). Lucky me......bottomline, I am back in business !

 

[Thotmosis]

I have some fantastic news to report back on my 15x60. I asked on a different really old Birdforum thread, if there were anybody in the PNW (Washington State, Oregon coast etc) who could work on, and repair, an older Classic Zeiss. I was about to send it out to Zeiss, when I asked the question, and I had even prepared a repair order on the Zeiss website.

A kind soul (Foss) answered back, with a contact in Olympia, WA (around an hour away from my house), who specializes in Classic Zeiss (Ivan Xu). Ivan also has an Optical Table, used in alignment, optical calibrations etc. I drove over, met with him, and in 20 minutes, I got back my 15x60, good-as-new, and cleaned, calibrated and the collimation checked. Absolutely fantastic job from a very knowledgeable guy, who specializes in not just repairing equipment, but also in building new telescopes and bino-viewers. A true enthusiast, for sure !

He noted that my 15x60 is in absolute top-shape, and clearly, whoever owned it prior to me, took great care of it (as I do with my equipment and devices). Lucky me......bottomline, I am back in business !

This is really wonderful news! I’m very happy for you. Enjoy the big eyes Zeiss in good health and im looking forward to your experiences with it.

 

[tenex]

I had the same experience: the NL was more “restless”, i had to focus more.

If you're viewing objects within 30ft or so (as the Zeiss can't) this will be due to reduced DOF. But it's also possible that the NL is simply sharper.

 

[Thotmosis]

If you're viewing objects within 30ft or so (as the Zeiss can't) this will be due to reduced DOF. But it's also possible that the NL is simply sharper.

Yes possible. The NL is very sharp, bright (!) and a wonderful lightweight (for the 15x magnification) binocular. It is really a pity that the ergonomics and “rolling ball” didn’t work for me. Maybe if i had it for a longer period we would get along. Sometimes it takes some time to get to know a binocular.

 

[Pinewood]

Yes possible. The NL is very sharp, bright (!) and a wonderful lightweight (for the 15x magnification) binocular. It is really a pity that the ergonomics and “rolling ball” didn’t work for me. Maybe if i had it for a longer period we would get along. Sometimes it takes some time to get to know a binocular.

Hello Thotmosis

Yes and it sometimes takes a while for a binocular's faults to reveal themselves.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

 

[Maljunulo]

I was never sorry to pass on my EL-SV, due to its horrendous (to me) rolling ball.

 

[roweraay]

If you're viewing objects within 30ft or so (as the Zeiss can't) this will be due to reduced DOF. But it's also possible that the NL is simply sharper.

The NL is super-sharp. No question about that. The old Zeiss is certainly no slouch either.......at least across 90% of the field and a really pleasant view. But yes, close focus is not the forte of the Zeiss, at 15m/50ft.

To me, the usage of field-flatteners is a serious trade-off, and I am not talking about the rolling ball aspect either. I think along with a flat-field, what's lost is Depth-of-field or Depth-of-focus. The real world is not flat, and that's the problem with a flattened view.

Most folks are perfectly fine with that trade-off, along with the corner-to-corner sharpness. Some say a binocular like the Zeiss SF (which does have field flatteners but not as strong as that in the Swaro NL) or the Leica Noctivid (I don't own those, and nor have I tried those) have a better overall view than say a totally flat view that comes from the Swaro NL (I now have the 8x42NL and the 14x52NL)......maybe that "realistic" "non-flattened view" is what I am seeing in the Zeiss 15x60, since it certainly does not have any flatteners in it.

 

[Thotmosis]

Hello Thotmosis

Yes and it sometimes takes a while for a binocular's faults to reveal themselves.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

Goodmorning Arthur,

You are absolutely right and for many things this is true, that’s why there are so many divorces.

Greetings from The Netherlands,
T.

 

[roweraay]

I have been doing some back-and-forth testing between the Swarovski 14x52NL and the Zeiss 15x60 GAT* and the 15x60 is certainly a very impressive instrument, and has excellent performance, even by today's standards. Not instrumented testing of course, and just a back-to-back assessment from a regular optics user, whose primary use-case is observation of nature.

Having said that, after back-to-back viewing, the 14x52 has a more expansive view (to me, the 15x60 felt more like a 65-66 degree AFOV, than say a 70 degree AFOV, assuming the 70 degree AFOV of the NL is accurate). The NL is also noticeably brighter in good lighting conditions, compared to the 15x60, indicating a higher light transmission in the NL (I am roughly guessing 91% in the NL as published by Swarovski, and around 80-85% in the old Zeiss, in comparison). To be expected, given the NL is equipped with 2024 "alpha" level optics and coatings.

In low-lit conditions (pre-dawn/early-dawn), the 14x52 struggled (details that I could clearly see from my 8x42NL, was just a black blob in the 14x52), but I guess that's to be expected, from a 3.6mm exit-pupil. I did not test the Zeiss yet, under these conditions, but if I were to guess, the Zeiss should be able to tease out more detail, due to the overall larger light transmission from the 60mm objectives (25% larger surface area in the Zeiss' 60mm objectives, vis-a-vis the 52mm objectives of the NL).

I wish Swarovski had equipped the NL with say 60mm objectives, which would have made it a monster even in low-lit conditions. But of course they elected to do a trade-off between portability (52mm vs 60mm) and light transmission, and portability won out. Supported by their assessment of use-cases for the device (mainly hunters, using in reasonably well-lit conditions ?).

PS: The above are still early impressions, handheld, in good lighting conditions. Much more testing needs to be done. But the NL is very, very impressive, as it stands, and if you have the money, and are not bothered by the Rolling-ball effect, and don't use it too much in very low lighting conditions, I would have no hesitation in getting it.

 

[Mark9473]

Other than the impressive statistic about its light transmission (95% for a roof, even though AK, is truly impressive), no reviews I read seem to praise the HTs, for it being exceptional in any way. Clearly, the binocular is more than its brightness level alone. I believe despite having multiple high-fluoride glass elements, it still had noticeable CA, which is surprising

I have a 10x42 HT and it's absolutely free of CA even on the brightest stars like Vega. It's also very sharp over a very large part of its FOV and gives a great natural view of whatever I'm looking at.
Its only minor imperfections IMHO are a slightly finicky eye placement and a not so expansive AFOV relative to its TFOV and magnification.

 

[roweraay]

I have a 10x42 HT and it's absolutely free of CA even on the brightest stars like Vega. It's also very sharp over a very large part of its FOV and gives a great natural view of whatever I'm looking at.
Its only minor imperfections IMHO are a slightly finicky eye placement and a not so expansive AFOV relative to its TFOV and magnification.

Thank you very much for the 1st person experience with the lens. I have always known the HTs to be bright, but had not heard/read too many reviews about the HT, and thanks for clarifying on the CA and also the natural view (rather than flattened). I looked it up, and seems like the 10x42, like yours, had the AK prism system, which is one of my favorite systems, after the Porros.

 

[Thotmosis]

PS: The above are still early impressions, handheld, in good lighting conditions. Much more testing needs to be done. But the NL is very, very impressive, as it stands, and if you have the money, and are not bothered by the Rolling-ball effect, and don't use it too much in very low lighting conditions, I would have no hesitation in getting it.

I’m interested in your findings regarding focus speed and magnification.

 

[james holdsworth]

Thank you very much for the 1st person experience with the lens. I have always known the HTs to be bright, but had not heard/read too many reviews about the HT, and thanks for clarifying on the CA and also the natural view (rather than flattened). I looked it up, and seems like the 10x42, like yours, had the AK prism system, which is one of my favorite systems, after the Porros.

If you do a search of the Zeiss forums, you will find dozens of 1st person reviews, with tens of thousands of posts, for various HT models. As a long time owner, it still represents the best binocular view I’ve experienced, lacking only the sharp to the edge effect and wide field of the NLs, but with its own distinct advantages.

I prefer it (the HT) over my SF in most situations.

 

[roweraay]

I’m interested in your findings regarding focus speed and magnification.

Not sure why, but the NL 14x52 seems to have a noticeably higher magnification than the 15x60. I repeated it with various static subjects, and the finding is the same. I would have expected the reverse to be true. So a bit confused by the finding.

Focus speed itself feels to be about what I am used to (normal to me). Very similar to my other NL, the 8x42. I used to have a 10x42 Conquest HD in the past, but don't have it any longer to compare with.