-
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.
Zeiss T*FL 10x42...how does it rate today (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Allen
- Start date
dries1
Member
The 10X42 FL is an excellent glass even when compared to the best made today, with a high transmission and excellent on axis resolution. It could be one of the best FL models produced. It is also a fairly light glass and comfortable to use in cold temperatures. It is my choice in the winter months.
tenex
reality-based
Andy, I took an instant dislike to FL 42s years ago due to visibly smeary distortion near the field edge. Are you not bothered by that, or is it less obvious on the 10x than the 8x? It's too long ago to recall clearly which I was able to try.
In any case, the obvious difference here would be that FL was not at all a "flat field" design. Allen, which of these models have you seen, and what are your priorities?
In any case, the obvious difference here would be that FL was not at all a "flat field" design. Allen, which of these models have you seen, and what are your priorities?
temmie
Well-known member
The FL combines excellent on-axis sharpness, good field of view, good ergonomics, low weight and (special mention) an excellent fast focusser (*). Since the FL the only improvements (that are important only for some) are edge sharpness (with or without field flatteners), but you pay double the price these days for what you can have in a cheap FL. If I'm in the market for a binocular, I would seriously consider a good second hand FL.
(*) Just one example: I know many who used EL's back in the days and couldn't get on tropical forest birds quickly with that 2.5 rotation focuser. Never ever had that issue with my FL.
ps: all of the above is my personal opinion
(*) Just one example: I know many who used EL's back in the days and couldn't get on tropical forest birds quickly with that 2.5 rotation focuser. Never ever had that issue with my FL.
ps: all of the above is my personal opinion
Conndomat
United States of Europe
No, the FL series has nothing to do with a flat-field design.
All models have more or less early edge blurring, partly in the form of astigmatism.
IMO there are differences between the models, with the 7x42 the blurring was too noticeable for me, that wasn't my glass, I always liked the 8x32, the blurring doesn't affect the picture that much and the 10x56 is practically one of the binoculars I use most often.
In fact, I still think the FL series is state of the art, that 10x56 is just as good as the newer SLC 10x56 with different strengths and weaknesses.
The same goes for the 10x42, it's a very good pair of binoculars
The much mocked "plastic housing" is also wonderful, it has proven to be very durable and robust, it feels very good to the touch, while many other binoculars often have complaints about workmanship and defects in the housing - there are very few with the FL.
In addition, Zeiss has built a complete model series with the FL, a Zeiss employee once explained to me that this series was primarily developed for hunting, that 7x42 and 8x42 as a smaller alternative to the large 8x56, 8/10x32 as stalking binoculars and the 10x42 as a Alternative to the 10x56.
IMO the FL series is one of the finest binoculars ever made and already a legend.
Andreas
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
Do you find the weight of the 10x56FL problematic? How is the image quality?
Conndomat
United States of Europe
The 56 binoculars are big and heavy, but I use them often (also Swarovski SLC 8/15x56) and can carry them over several kilometers without any problems.
Basically, I always carry binoculars over my shoulder on long journeys, I don't like it that much when something is dangling from my neck.
The outstanding optical quality of the 10x56 is the axis sharpness, I have compared it to many other binoculars and the FL is always at the top.
The next point is that it has practically no chromatic aberrations, which is what the FL series is also known for. The FL 10x56 shows itself to be extremely rich in contrast in the star sky, color differences that are hardly recognizable in other binoculars are clearly visible in the FL.
Another positive point is the very good stray light suppression, it is also at the top in this discipline.
The SLC 10x56 has slightly different advantages, it is a little better balanced in hand, the viewing behavior is more forgiving, the color balance is a little more neutral and the edge sharpness is better, with the other optical features I would give the FL a very slight preference.
Andreas
mfunnell
Registered Confuser
I love mine, but they are BIG suckers and on the heavy side because of all that glass. The views are truly excellent, though!
Because of pack-size and weight, I mostly use them at home, and mostly for scanning the night sky (sometimes on tripod) or looking for birds (and things) in low-ish light (it helps that I have other bins for other circumstances).
That said, I do take them with me out in the country when travelling light doesn’t matter so much (eg. my car will be nearby) or if I think I’ll be in conditions they’re suited to.
Note, though, that I’m a big fan of FLs generally - as they seem to suit me (I have 8x32, 7x42 and 10x56 FLs).
…Mike
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
Well... there's a 10x56FL on auction site, apparently for a very attractive price! I need something I can hike with, so I'm going to pass on this one. Weight does matter to me for their intended use, so I'll stick to 10x42.
Allen
Well-known member
No priority, I use EL 10x42 as my usual bins and have no budget for upgrading to NL or SF. Was just interested on the FL rating as I am often between houses for personal reasons and having a secondary cheaper pair of 10x42 in 2nd home would be good. I must admit I never missed the flat field until I had it with the EL's, and now I love it.
Personally, I'm not fond of flat fields as they tend to provide rollerball effects. And due to my eyeglasses, I don't care that much about the edges of the FOV anyway. So my x42 FL collection still gives me a lot of joy. The 8x42 being the standard as it still allows me a reasonable shake-control. The 7x42 would probably be the one I need least, but I'm happy to have a good glass next to my computer for relaxed views out of the nearby window. And the 10x42 is definitely preferred when I want some more reach.
As I get older, the IS design of binoculars becomes increasingly more attractive. But then, I tend to carry a scope around, so the need for IS is not all that strong.
I bought a 10x42 FL in the late 2000s. It was state of the art then and I marginally preferred it to the 10x42 Ultravid. The original 10x42 EL had impossibly short eye relief for me as a glasses wearer.
However, the FL suffered from flare and had very pronounced astigmatism, which became noticeable quite a way off the field edge. It was replaced in 2012 with an EL Swarovision (a completely new optical design), which for me was a quantum leap with its excellent edge sharpness and improved viewing comfort, despite nominally similar eye relief.
John
tenex
reality-based
Thanks for confirming my recollection of that. I find it ugly and distracting, but obviously not everyone does, and apart from that FLs remain very impressive binoculars. We recently picked up a 10x32 (which doesn't have such a problem) and like it very much, even the oft-maligned "plastic" housing.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hello John,
agree, as an eyeglasses wearer I also have to arrange something with the FL, I would not recommend them unreservedly for eyeglass users.
In this point, the SLC 56 are clearly superior and the EL too, although the EL 12x50 doesn't work any better than the FL 10x56.
Andreas
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
Well,
now then you ask how do they compare? I won't get into how they compare optically though I love the view through my pair of 10x42 fl's. But without a doubt build wise they are still at the very top and cosmetically the best out of the lot.
My pair are 15, years old used daily ,not a mark ,not a blemish. No ugly brassing,no regular trips to Austria to be re-skinned.
Finest proper birders bin ever made.
Peter.
Hi Andreas,
I'm not familiar with the 10x56 SLC, but from the specs the ER (19,5 mm) should be just about ideal. On the 8x56 it is excessive and with a +ve. correction I have to extend the eyecups a little beyond the first stop.
From a brief encounter with a 12x50 EL my only recollection is of a perceived disproportionate increase in unsteadiness compared to a 10x.
Regards,
John
Conndomat
United States of Europe
According to Swarovski, the EL 12x50 should have an EP layer of 19mm. actually it is extremely tight for me, I wear farsighted glasses and usually need at least 16mm. EP position to get an overview of the FOV, with the FL it's quite tight but with the 12x50 it's the same , if I want to see everything I have to press the glass noticeably against my eyeglasses, with the other EL's it fits much better.
Andreas
