Zeiss Victory FL. How much is Lotutec worth? (Performance improvement?) (1 Viewer)

[yarrellii]

I'm considering the 7x42 FL (again). It is the one binocular I regret selling (my 7x42 UVHD is trying hard to make me forget about it, but it's a tough call). So I'm in the lookout for devices in reasonable condition and I've come across something I've asked myself in the past when looking for devices of the FL series: they come both with and without Lotutec coating (older devices).
My understanding is that Lotutec has to do with the cleaning/water-repelling properties of the lenses, and no so much with the optical performance (brightness, sharpness, etc.), but I'm glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong.

If the above is right... a pre-Lotutec FL should (theoretically) have the same performance as a more modern version (eyecups aside; I think you can change those as well for the tapered ones). Assuming this, do you think it still interesting to get a non-Lotutec FL, or simply wait for a later version to show up (at a likely higher price)? Or, to put it in other words (or coins): how much do you think is Lotutec worth; how much (more) would you pay for a Lotutec version (I am aware that a Lotutec version would also be of more recent manufacture, which in turns could imply a longer life of the binoculars).

Any suggestions or comments are more than welcome.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Go to the Zeiss website and fill out the contact form and tell them s/n of the Zeiss FL binocular you are considering purchasing. They will tell you how old it is and if it has all the latest improvements. Sometimes the older binoculars that don't have Lotutec also don't have other improvements like coating updates and the newer rounded eye cups. IMO I wouldn't buy a Zeiss FL without Lotutec because it is really beneficial in making it easier to keep the water off your lenses and keeping your lenses clean.

 

[henry link]

I consider the difference between early and post Lotutec FLs to be a mixed bag. I like the easy cleaning that came with Lotutec, but all the pre-Lotutec examples I've seen (including a very early 8x42 I still own) have more neutral color transmission than any post-Lotutec example I've seen. After Lotutec FLs reflected more red from the exterior surfaces while early examples reflected more blue. FL color transmission developed a green bias at about the same time Lotutec was introduced. Whether this was directly related to the introduction of Lotutec or was due to another coating change made at about the same time I can't say for sure.

If I were searching for a 7x42 FL I think I would find both pre and post Lututec examples acceptable, but I might actually prefer the early ones.

 

[chill6x6]

My 7X42 FL is a pre-Lotutec one. I've owned several FLs but this one is the only non-Lotutec. Other than water repellency and cleaning ease. I thought I was taking a risk by getting that 7X42. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's probably the best FL I have or have owned. I wouldn't hesitate for one second in buying a non-Lotutec FL.

 

[yarrellii]

Dennis, that's the kind of information I'm after, whether or not there were some improvements on coatings or overall performance. I assume that one Fl I'm looking at is pre-Lotutec, because it has squared eyecups and the label is missing the little bow on top of the 7x42 figures (like other Lotutec FL have).

Henry, Chuck. Now that's interesting. I confess I'm quite surprised. I had a Lotutec 7x42 FL (that I sold here on BF) and the view was just mindblowing (I regret selling it!). So now I have two candidates, one is and older and pre-Lotutec, and one is newer (in better condition, basically NOS). The Lotutec one is 300 € more expensive, but that does not worry me especially. I mean, when looking for a nice device to last a long time, I find that an acceptable difference, so to speak. My concern is whether I'll be missing some performance with the cheaper non-Lotutec compared to the more modern one. It seems I was in for quite a shock: after reading your comments I am surprised to find that it could actually be the other way round, I'm puzzled. I'll check condition of both and make my choice. Thank you for your input, this forum is such a great place full of experience and knowledge!

By the way, Chuck, that is a beautiful collection. Are those 7x, 8x and 10x 42ers? At some point I've owned the 8x32, 7x42 and 10x42, and I find the 7x42 the most impressive one (actually, the binocular with the biggest "wow" I've ever looked through). The 8x32 was really nice, I might want to consider it sometime, since it is so easy on the eyes (after having had usability issues with so many 8x30/32 I'm thinking about it in a new way).
Thanks again.

 

[Bill Atwood]

I think Chuck could stock his own optics store.

 

[Troubador]

In terms of effectiveness and enjoyable-ness I would be happy with either a Lotutec model or pre-Lotutec, but for sheer practical reasons I would prefer a Lotutec. These are easier to clean and in medium to heavy rain the droplets do easily run off or shake off and anything that reduces the temptation to wipe the rain off the ocular lenses is a good thing because there could be dust particles hidden by the rain from previous outings that can scratch the oculars.

Lee

 

[temmie]

I have the non-lotutec from back in 2008, and it is still as good as anything I have looked through
(I must admit the 8x42 SF is a bit better, as it has almost the same wide FOV and it's an 8x so a bit closer to the action). So still going strong after 11 years, having birded around the globe, going out birding about twice a week.

I have looked through all of the top binoculars, many times: I have been to birding conferences and optic days and had the possibility to look through all of them. I see no difference in optical quality between pre- and post lotutec. I haven't really compared them for color balance like Henry did, though.

I consider the pre/post lotutec difference really negligible. I am an eye glass wearer so my (newer version) eyecups are down the whole time, and have never ever had any problem with cleaning the binocular. I have birded many times in rain, wind, along the coast, in sand, dust storms, snow and whatever you throw at the bins, they clean easily just by rinsing the eyepiece and wiping them lightly with my t-shirt. Still no scratches whatsoever. I always use the eyepiece cap, never the objective lens cups. That alone, ofcourse, keeps a lot of dirt and water from touching your eyepieces. Objective lenses are down most of the time so they don't catch too much dirt, and I usually only rinse + wipe them once a month or so (after my kids used it and it's full of fingerprints .

So get whatever version there is. I would only pay the price difference for a newer / less beaten up binocular, not for the lotutec.

 

[chill6x6]

Dennis, that's the kind of information I'm after, whether or not there were some improvements on coatings or overall performance. I assume that one Fl I'm looking at is pre-Lotutec, because it has squared eyecups and the label is missing the little bow on top of the 7x42 figures (like other Lotutec FL have).

Henry, Chuck. Now that's interesting. I confess I'm quite surprised. I had a Lotutec 7x42 FL (that I sold here on BF) and the view was just mindblowing (I regret selling it!). So now I have two candidates, one is and older and pre-Lotutec, and one is newer (in better condition, basically NOS). The Lotutec one is 300 € more expensive, but that does not worry me especially. I mean, when looking for a nice device to last a long time, I find that an acceptable difference, so to speak. My concern is whether I'll be missing some performance with the cheaper non-Lotutec compared to the more modern one. It seems I was in for quite a shock: after reading your comments I am surprised to find that it could actually be the other way round, I'm puzzled. I'll check condition of both and make my choice. Thank you for your input, this forum is such a great place full of experience and knowledge!

By the way, Chuck, that is a beautiful collection. Are those 7x, 8x and 10x 42ers? At some point I've owned the 8x32, 7x42 and 10x42, and I find the 7x42 the most impressive one (actually, the binocular with the biggest "wow" I've ever looked through). The 8x32 was really nice, I might want to consider it sometime, since it is so easy on the eyes (after having had usability issues with so many 8x30/32 I'm thinking about it in a new way).
Thanks again.

Yep those are 7, 8, and 10X42 in that order. I sold the 8X42 a few months ago but still have the 7X42 and 10X42. Lots of 8X competition!

I'd definitely just pick the 7X42 that's in the best condition. I've never missed not having Lotutec on the 7X42.

 

[yarrellii]

Lee, Temmie, Chuck. Thanks for the well informed opinions. I think that, given the fact that any 7x42 FL I can find is actually several years old (and no longer in production), probably the wisest move is to pay attention to the state of the bino itself, as you say. My doubts have been solved

 

[pluton]

Hi,
I am following this thread with great interest, since over time I think I will buy a Zeiss FL model, I looked for a while and hallucinated ... the images stayed in my memory ..
I would like to ask you why do you really think the 7X42 FL model. It could be the best of the three (7X-8X-10X), possibly the one that presents a more stable image due to its low magnification (7X), and also the one that gives more field, but you do not think that the 8X or the 10X could help identify better, without losing too much field? Or is it due to aberrations .... Anyone who has been able to compare all three in the field?
Thanks in advance
Pluto

 

[Dennis Mau]

The best alternative would be to have all three of the magnifications the 7x, 8x and 10x for different situations. But If I could only have one I would get the FL 8x42. It is the best compromise and I think most would agree 8x is the best all-around magnification for birding.

 

[yarrellii]

Pluton, Dennis,
I think we can agree that binoculars are such a personal choice (especially if you're planning on inventing a large amount of cash), so it is difficult to say statetements with universal validity (even the same person may find a particular binocular to be the most adequate -or "the best"- at a particular time, only to discover that he or she prefrers something different at another particular time).
In my case, I simply adore 7x, when coupled with a 42 mm objective it gives an incredibly bright image, so crisp and, not to be missed, so easy on the eye. For me, 7x42 has a number of advantages:
- More steady view (which increases the perceived quality/sharpness)
- Increased field of view (less focusing: depending on what you are observing, actually no focusing needed)
- Brighter binoculars with more late/dusk/dawn capabilities

In the case of the FL, all this is is enhanced by the AK prisms and the (false/perceived) increase in 3D they offer compared to SP.
So, for me, 7x42 is just the pick �� (mind you I many times bring a scope with me, or else a small x30/32).

 

[Dennis Mau]

Pluton, Dennis,
I think we can agree that binoculars are such a personal choice (especially if you're planning on inventing a large amount of cash), so it is difficult to say statetements with universal validity (even the same person may find a particular binocular to be the most adequate -or "the best"- at a particular time, only to discover that he or she prefrers something different at another particular time).
In my case, I simply adore 7x, when coupled with a 42 mm objective it gives an incredibly bright image, so crisp and, not to be missed, so easy on the eye. For me, 7x42 has a number of advantages:
- More steady view (which increases the perceived quality/sharpness)
- Increased field of view (less focusing: depending on what you are observing, actually no focusing needed)
- Brighter binoculars with more late/dusk/dawn capabilities

In the case of the FL, all this is is enhanced by the AK prisms and the (false/perceived) increase in 3D they offer compared to SP.
So, for me, 7x42 is just the pick �� (mind you I many times bring a scope with me, or else a small x30/32).

I agree on the 7x. They do have advantages. You forgot to mention the improved DOF 7x has over the higher magnifications like 8x. I have a pair of Leica Ultravid's HD 7x42 and for all the reasons you mention they are very nice to use although they don't have the AK prisms like the Zeiss but they are very good for glare. Interesting that AK prism's improve 3D over SP prism's. I have never heard that before.

 

[chill6x6]

Hi,
I am following this thread with great interest, since over time I think I will buy a Zeiss FL model, I looked for a while and hallucinated ... the images stayed in my memory ..
I would like to ask you why do you really think the 7X42 FL model. It could be the best of the three (7X-8X-10X), possibly the one that presents a more stable image due to its low magnification (7X), and also the one that gives more field, but you do not think that the 8X or the 10X could help identify better, without losing too much field? Or is it due to aberrations .... Anyone who has been able to compare all three in the field?
Thanks in advance
Pluto

I've had all three models and still have the FL 7X42 and the 10X42. The problem with the FL 8X42 that although it's a fine binocular there's a lot of competition out there for premium 8X42s. SLCs, Els, SFs, HTs, Noctivids, EDGs, etc all do about the same thing the FL 8X42 does more or less. Same can basically be said about the 10X42. The FL 7X42 on the other hand may very well BE the best 7X42 out there. Build quality, ergonomics, top of class FOV, AK prisms, smooth focus, central diopter adjustment, lightweight...etc all come together in THIS binocular. Not a whole lot of competition in this format helps.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I've had all three models and still have the FL 7X42 and the 10X42. The problem with the FL 8X42 that although it's a fine binocular there's a lot of competition out there for premium 8X42s. SLCs, Els, SFs, HTs, Noctivids, EDGs, etc all do about the same thing the FL 8X42 does more or less. Same can basically be said about the 10X42. The FL 7X42 on the other hand may very well BE the best 7X42 out there. Build quality, ergonomics, top of class FOV, AK prisms, smooth focus, central diopter adjustment, lightweight...etc all come together in THIS binocular. Not a whole lot of competition in this format helps.

One thing the Zeiss 8x42 FL has over the competition is the AK prisms. I don't know of any other 8x42's that use AK prisms except the Zeiss HT. I thinks it makes them one of the brightest 8x42's because of the transmission advantages of AK prisms and improves the 3D image.

 

[yarrellii]

I agree on the 7x. They do have advantages. You forgot to mention the improved DOF 7x has over the higher magnifications like 8x. I have a pair of Leica Ultravid's HD 7x42 and for all the reasons you mention they are very nice to use although they don't have the AK prisms like the Zeiss but they are very good for glare. Interesting that AK prism's improve 3D over SP prism's. I have never heard that before.

Yes, I forgot the amazing depth of field, it's truly a remarkable attractive of 7x
As for the 3D-esque perception I got from AK prisms, there was a very interesting discussion a while ago here:

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3827832

I had the 7x42 FL T* and sold it. Then I got the Leica UVHD 7x42, which I'm in love with, but there was this little voice in my head telling me that the performance of the FL was superior (brighter and shaper with a wider FOV), but then the handling of the UVHD feels nicer, and as a package probably more balance and user-friendly. So now I got myself another 7x42 FL (Lotutec) to compare them and eventually keep only one of them: "there can be only one".

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes, I forgot the amazing depth of field, it's truly a remarkable attractive of 7x
As for the 3D-esque perception I got from AK prisms, there was a very interesting discussion a while ago here:

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3827832

I had the 7x42 FL T* and sold it. Then I got the Leica UVHD 7x42, which I'm in love with, but there was this little voice in my head telling me that the performance of the FL was superior (brighter and shaper with a wider FOV), but then the handling of the UVHD feels nicer, and as a package probably more balance and user-friendly. So now I got myself another 7x42 FL (Lotutec) to compare them and eventually keep only one of them: "there can be only one".

That is a hard decision. They are both great binoculars. I know what you mean about the Leica Ultravid HD 7x42's. They are so compact and good handling and a good looking binocular also. The Zeiss with the AK prism's are probably a little brighter.

 

[pluton]

Hello,
Thanks for your comments.
Personally., And like Yarreli, I think that this binoculars is a very personal issue, which for one works, for the other, not so much ..!
In my case, I like luminosity and magnification, but within some limits (taxes by myself ..) 7X have always seemed little magnification to me, I like 10X much more, but my hands cannot hold this magnification properly, losing so much detail.
On the other hand, the 6mm exit pupil of the 7X42 seems to me "too much" for my eyes, although I never had about 7x42, I have been able to enjoy the 7X50 (7mm pupil size) model, a fantastic light capture machine, but this one I've always seen a model more for other types of observation (nautical or astronomical).

From there, possibly, and in the not too distant future the model which will be 8X42, I have heard great and good things about him, perhaps the best his Contrast, and his luminosity (to be a 42mm) and the worst its small astigmatic pole in edges ..
Thank you for reading

 

[b-lilja]

I know this is an older thread, but it is so applicable I want to resurrect it.

I bought a pre-Lutotec pair of 8x42 FLs off Dries and really am enjoying them - its subtle (and not so subtle) pleasures are growing on me a lot. There is just a deep reservoir of optical quality that shines through. I agree they are not the last word in contract, but that's ok - that's what my Leica HD+s are for (7x42 in my case).

I wanted to comment on the pre vs post topic. I do find hydrophobic coatings to be really nice - in my case with steaming up the glasses. Perhaps it's the Seattle weather, but the hydrophobic coatings are just great. Chalk me up to a supporter.

However I absolutely agree with Henry on the color neutrality topic. At some point around five years ago Zeiss changed their color coatings, and while I think that gave them more pop and contrast, I think it also skewed their color for some people and in some atmospheric conditions (I realize this has been beaten to death). I have owned pre Lutotec 8x32 FLs, own older 8x32 Conquest HDs, and looked through some final production FL 8x32s - these last clearly were different, more dramatic color skewing akin to the SFs (again I know folks are sick of this topic).

The question is, it does seem like there is was a period with the earlier color coating with Lutotec - and I'm trying to figure out what that was. Does anyone have any thoughts/knowledge about this? I'm thinking perhaps the period 2011-2015ish.