Zeiss's Victory SFs
sit at the top of its range: the best birding binoculars the most famous name
in optics can make. The last pair I tried were wonderful but flawed. Is this
latest version better?
Zeiss 8x42 Victory
SF Review
When I tested an early pair of SFs it was clear that here was
a new world’s-best-binocular. I loved the view and innovative handling, the superb
eyepiece comfort, intuitive focusing and the wide, sharp, brilliant picture
window view.
But there were problems. The eyecups were vague and squishy,
didn’t re-seat properly and didn’t have enough stops. The dioptre knob was
wobbly and vague. Trivial perhaps, but I didn’t like that light grey colour at
all.
Much worse, though, was the overall lack of quality. The armour
was loose and crackled when you squeezed it. One barrel had lots of trapped
dust inside. The bridge had a rough finish. I’d seen faulty binoculars before,
but never with multiple basic QA fails like this. How could I recommend them,
even if their design was simply the best?
Recently, though, I’ve read about (and seen for myself) big
improvements in Zeiss Q&A. So I thought it was
high time to revisit the SFs with an extended test and review, compare them
with Swarovski’s NL Pures which are my current favourite 42mm binoculars.
At A Glance
|
Magnification |
8x |
|
Objective Size |
42mm |
|
Eye Relief |
18mm claimed (slightly more measured) |
|
Actual Field of View |
148m/1000m |
|
Apparent field of view |
64° |
|
Close focus |
1.5m claimed/measured |
|
Transmissivity |
92% |
|
Length |
175mm measured |
|
Weight |
790g claimed/measured |
Data from Zeiss/Me.
What’s in the Box?
This pair came without their
original packaging, but it hasn’t changed since the original grey-armoured
version:
Design and Build
The Victory
SFs were an all-new model in 2015, one that owed virtually nothing to earlier
Zeiss premium lines like the FLs and HTs, despite sharing the ‘Victory’ label.
Their open-bridge design seems a rip-off of Swarovski’s ELs, but appearances
are a bit deceptive in this case – SF takes the open-bridge concept a step
further.
Meanwhile,
Zeiss seem to be quietly dropping the Victory HTs, leaving the roof-prism SFs
to stand alone as their top model, ending decades of premium Zeiss binoculars
with Abbe-König prisms; why, I don’t know.
The SFs were
originally available in only two sizes, 8x42 and 10x42. But they have since
been joined by 8x32 and 10x32 models that are almost as expensive, in a nod to
the fact that more and more keen birders are going for the smaller formats.
The
original versions had grey armour, but the newer black versions have some
subtle upgrades beyond colour that I’ll cover in the following sections.
The
Victory SFs are long for an 8x42.
Early Victory
SFs had distinctive pale grey armour.
Body
The first
thing I noticed about the SFs back in 2015 was how long they are. On first
acquaintance this is a bit puzzling, even off-putting, if you’re used to other
Alpha 8x42s. To put this into perspective, the 10x42 SFs are almost exactly the
same length as Swarovski’s ELs – the 10x50 ELs! They are
longer than almost any other 42mm binoculars, a substantial 35mm longer than Leica’s
42mm Ultravids (see above).
The SFs
may be surprisingly large for a 42mm design, but they aren’t heavy. In fact, at
790g they are lighter than many of the competition (100g lighter than
Swarovski’s ELs or NL Pures) and they feel it too. In fact, their low density makes
them feel lighter than a pair of Ultravids,
though actually they’re a bit heavier. That low weight is partly due magnesium
construction, but also to simpler, thinner, long-focal-length objective lenses.
Those long-focal-length
objectives explain the SFs’ unusual length and are part of what Zeiss call its ErgoBalanceTM concept. Zeiss have changed the
optical configuration to throw more glass and so weight into the eyepiece end
for a less fatiguing hold. I’ll explain this in more detail below.
I wasn’t keen
on the original light grey colour and it seems other weren’t either. A dodgy
colour was one thing, but more seriously the armour on my original pair was
loose, making scrunching noises when pressed. Thankfully there’s none of that
here. The two-texture armour remains, but it’s a conventional black, has a fine
but grippy texture where you need it, doesn’t smell or mark or attract fluff.
The body
barrels are plain tapered tubes and don’t have the thumb indents you get with
Swarovski’s ELs, let alone the fancy sculpted form of the NL Pures. But the
long open bridge gives plenty of space to choose a rearward hold with finger on
focuser, or to hold them at the barrel ends for extra stability.
Despite
the light-weight feel, the SFs are of course fully waterproof and nitrogen
purged like any Zeiss binoculars.
Focuser
The
focuser has an oversized wheel that has been moved forwards in the bridge to
reduce finger spread in the hold. The focuser is super fluid, with a light
action and no play. That lightness gives a more intuitive feel than the
weightier focus action on a pair of Swarovski ELs, making it among my very
favourite focusers. A pair of Ultravid HDs I’m testing feel a bit stiff, dry
and sticky by direct comparison and with more play too. However, looking in the
SFs’ barrels I can see evidence this may not be a completely greaseless design.
These SFs focus astoundingly close at just over a metre (slightly
better even than the claimed 1.5m) and are still quite usable at that distance,
with acceptable image merge. This is an outstanding feature for up-close
viewing of butterflies and other insects, one of the luxuries you get with a
really high-end binocular.
The SFs’
focuser takes 1.5 turns from close focus to infinity, which is plenty fast
considering how close they focus.
Dioptre
adjustment on the SFs is by a separate knob at the front of the bridge, which
you pull out to adjust. This pair has a better dioptre action than the
originals I reviewed, with a smooth, yet accurate feel and a positive détente
for neutral. I like the scale on the Swarovski ELs and NL Pures, but otherwise
this is functionally almost as good.
Pull and twist to adjust dioptre.
Optics - Prisms
Despite having modern-standard Schmidt-Pechan (a.k.a. Roof)
prisms, not the low-loss Abbe-König prisms of the HTs, these manage a really
excellent 92% transmissivity that really shows in their supreme daytime
brightness.
Optics - Objectives
This is where we get into the nuts and bolts of the ErgoBalanceTM concept that gives the
SFs their unique character and handling.
In order to keep them compact, most modern bino’s have short
focal length objectives that need three or more thick glass elements to curb
aberrations like false colour. For the SFs, Zeiss have employed doublet
objectives like old-fashioned bino’s (plus an additional focusing element), but
made with one element of the very best high-fluoride crown glass (Ultra-FLTM
in Zeiss marketing terminology) and perhaps a special glass for the flint
element too.
All this makes the objectives much thinner and lighter (78g
lighter than the HTs, apparently), but the price is that those objectives have
an extended focal length, F4.x rather than the usual F3.x, explaining the SFs’
long barrels. This throws the weight towards the eyepieces and off your wrists
– clever!
Internal build quality has a few rough edges I don’t see in Leicas or Swarovskis. There is just a single low knife-edge
baffle behind the focuser carriage and there is no internal camera-blacking or
blackened or ridged lens ring either. But this apparent paucity of stray light
protection doesn’t affect performance, probably thanks to careful ray-tracing.
The objectives feature the dark-pink T* coatings that have
been a feature of Zeiss binoculars since the 1990s. They are very transparent,
as you can see, but reflecting more of the red means a cool-toned view, a
‘trick’ that has made Zeiss Bino’s since the Dialyts
seem super-bright and which I like.
Zeiss HT, SF optical systems compared.
Zeiss T* coatings have a hallmark deep pink hue.
Premium coatings compared: Leica Ultravid, Zeiss SF.
Baffling appears minimal, but stray light performance is excellent.
Complex SF eyepiece design (Zeiss image).
Optics - Eyepieces
If the
objectives are simple by modern standards, the eyepieces are the opposite – a
complex design with seven elements rather than the standard five, including a
field flattener – as many as a Tele Vue Nagler astro’
eyepiece! You can see the construction in the simulation and diagram above.
Those
eyepieces allow Zeiss to offer the full set of premium features: plenty of eye
relief with low blackouts and a very wide and well-corrected field. Zeiss have
used the complex eyepieces to their advantage in another way too – they are
60g heavier than the HTs’ eyepieces, helping throw the balance
point backwards.
True field
of view is 8.6° (148m/1000m) at a wide apparent field of 64°, but a bit down on
the 8x42 NL Pures’, which boast a 9.1° true field (157m/1000m) and 69°
apparent. Still, here is an 8x binocular with a wider true FOV than most 7x
models.
Zeiss claim 18mm of eye relief, but I measured slightly more.
That may
be a critical millimetre
or so up on
Swarovski’s ELs or NL Pures for even greater comfort with specs.
That much
eye relief often comes at the price of spherical aberration of the exit pupil
which causes blackouts as you move your eyes around. However, the SFs are well
corrected in this respect, so long as you choose the right setting for the eye
cups ...
The eye
cups of the original were a negative point: loose and squashy and vague of
action, with just two positions. This newer version has three twist-out
click-stops and their action is perfect – smooth and
positive.
Accessories
The SFs have
a high-quality semi-rigid case to replace the basic Cordura item that shipped
with the FLs. The SFs case is usefully slimmer than the Swarovski equivalent,
with a more tailored fit, but still has a protective plush interior and
separate accessories compartment.
The strap
and caps are familiar recent Zeiss. The objective caps push in and are kept
captive with a lanyard.
In Use – Daytime
Ergonomics and Handling
Although these have a simple cylindrical
barrels compared to the NL Pures’ organic curves sculpted to fit the
hand, I found them extremely comfortable to hold and use. Their light weight
and rearward weight bias really aid comfort. ErgoBalanceTM
isn’t just marketing BS.
The focuser action is just right for me – light, fluid and
super-precise. Moving focus to follow birds on the wing or flitting around my
garden has never been more intuitive. The only negative was that the action
stiffened a little during protracted use in very cold conditions.
The 19mm or so of actual eye relief is slightly more than
Zeiss claim and gives the SFs unrivalled comfort with specs. Testing alongside
a pair of Ultravids with 17mm, I could immediately
notice the difference, able to tell that the SFs had more even before I’d
measured them. For specs wearers, millimetres matter.
A slightly narrower apparent field means fewer blackouts than
the NL Pures, something you notice as you swivel your eyes when panning around.
Panning these doesn’t induce too much rolling ball effect either.
These may be a big binocular, but their light weight makes
carrying on long walks easy. Getting the weight down was a good decision by
Zeiss. What’s more, something about their shape and weight distribution means
they seem less susceptible to swing about than some smaller bino’s.
These do look a bit big hanging around your neck, but in
their newer black livery they’re still an understatedly stylish binocular.
The View
The view is the best of the best. Like most premium birding
binoculars these days, it’s extremely sharp and high-resolution, but everything
else is wonderful too – colour rendition, depth of field and especially
brightness. In fact, these may be the brightest of current premium birding
binoculars, noticeably brighter than the Leica Ultravids
I was testing at the same time. That makes it possible to pick out all the
feathery colour and detail you want, even in very dull conditions.
I love the cool-toned colours that are a Zeiss signature
feature. These pick out delicate plumage hues to perfection.
Field of view feels very wide and gives a much airier, more
picture-window image of the world than the Leica 7x42s, good though they are. I
find myself reluctant to go back to my other binoculars because that wide
bright field feels more natural and relaxing. Only Swarovski’s new NL Pures
beat these on field of view.
So, in a positive sense the view is fabulous, but it also
lacks noticeable aberrations during the day: the field seems usable to the edge
and there’s no significant colour fringing to mar the plumage of birds in silhouette,
no flare or ghosts either, few blackouts when panning around.
All this contributes to the SFs’ addictive usability. It was
these I kept picking up to go out walking and viewing with, whether to watch
waders on the bay sands, or just to enjoy vistas of winter forests and snowy
mountains on a walk. During the couple of weeks I
spent with the SFs, I used them a lot.
I found them super-relaxing at close range too, watching my
garden birds for hours. Not only did the fast and intuitive focusing make following
the aerobatics of Blue Tits, Coal Tits and Great Tits easy, but the picture
window view made it a real pleasure, the extreme resolution picking out every
feather, every open-beaked burst of song in hyper-reality like some iMax movie.
For birding and nature viewing, the view is just fantastic.
So good that to try them is to want them.
Flat field?
Like the
Leicas, a bit of blurring creeps in from about 70%
field width, but it remains mild until the last 5% or so. Unlike the Leicas, though, here it’s almost all curvature – you can
focus it away to get a pin-sharp image at the field stop. That mild curvature
and some distortion do make these very comfortable for panning, which is why
Zeiss designed them in.
Chromatic Aberration
These
are almost false colour 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 colour is unlikely to trouble even the most
picky.
In Use – Dusk
32mm binoculars are becoming more and more popular. I
recently had a shop trying to persuade me to buy a pair instead of the 10x42s
I’d asked for. These 8x42 SFs show why that’s unfortunate, because they
continue to work into deep dusk in a way even the best 8x32s don’t, with a real
ability to reach into the understory when all detail has gone to the naked eye.
I didn’t get any significant veiling flare out of these SFs,
even under a bright dusk sky when a pair of Ultravids
were giving some.
In Use – Observing the Night Sky
Their light weight, eyepiece comfort and good handling make
the SFs a pleasure to use for astronomy.
Stars become distorted progressively by field curvature (you
can re-focus them back to points) from about 60% field width. Astigmatism only
starts from 90%, where stars turn into crosses if you try to re-focus. This
does result in some loss of fainter stars around the edge of Milky Way star
fields, which the flattest fields don’t suffer.
Viewing Orion’s belt and sword in the same field does result
in the outer stars – Mintaka and Nair al Saif - being
slightly elongated in a way the best avoid, but the effect is very mild. The
field is truly wide: the whole Hyades arrow-head fits in the field; likewise the whole constellation of Lyra, but then Vega and Sulafat are both quite elongated.
Stars showed strong natural colour and most were perfectly
pinpoint centre field
The Moon
The Moon
was stunningly crisp and sharp and even a full Moon failed to create spikes or
ghosts in field. Viewing around a full Moon did produce some very minor veiling
flare.
Mars
The only
bright planet around in the sky at the time, Mars, threw up no nasty spikes or
flare and was a superbly saturated orange-red through the SFs, with hardly any
of the usual dark red blur of false colour, even out of focus.
Deep Sky
I was
surprised by how much better the SFs were on deep sky than the Leica 7x42s I
was testing, what a big jump the extra power seemed. The only exception was the
richest star fields, where the 7x42s excelled.
The
well-corrected part of the SF’s field is large and the distortion of stars at
the field edge is not bad enough to really spoil what is a genuinely great view
of the night sky.
I
enjoyed the clusters in Auriga, from M35 through M36 and on to M37 and M38. The
latter three easily fitted into a single field and the Starfish and Pinwheel
both resolved nicely with direct vision, surprising me at this magnification.
I craned
my neck back to get at the Double Cluster region, but it was well worth it,
with spectacular views of the arc of stars reaching out to Stock 2, with tiny dense
cluster TR 2 behind and nearby patches of hazy nebulosity in the Heart and Soul
nebulae.
Albireo
split easily and beautifully. Moving up through Cygnus, I enjoyed the rich star
fields until I arrived at the big patch of mist above of Deneb which is the
North American Nebula.
Other
extended objects, like Galaxies M31 and M33 in Andromeda, easily fitted into
the well-corrected central field and looked just great, framed by a huge star fields.
I prefer
the even wider and better corrected field of Swarovski’s 8x42 NL Pures, but the
SFs still give a wonderful view of the night sky.
Zeiss 8x42 SF vs Swarovski
8x42 NL Pure
This is the main event, the question every keen birder with a
generous budget is going to face sooner or later. Unfortunately, these improved
SFs leave no clear answer.
·
The
NL Pures are shorter, but heavier
·
The
NL Pures have the very best hold ever, thanks to their sculpted barrels, but
the SFs are less tiring on the wrists due to their low weight and rearwards
balance point
·
The
NL Pures have an even wider, better corrected field
·
Both
feature minimal false colour, the NL Pures essentially none at all
·
I
felt the SFs might be a touch brighter, its tones a touch cooler
·
Focus
action is the very best ... on both
·
The
NL Pures’ dioptre adjustment is better
·
The
SFs have slightly better eyepiece comfort – a fraction more ER, slightly better
resistance to blackouts
·
Stray
light resistance is outstanding in both
·
Now
I’m used to it, I prefer Swarovski’s Field Pro strap system
·
Build
quality now feels similar, but with a different vibe and the SWs just slightly
ahead
Both are just superb. For astronomy I would definitely choose
the Swarovskis due to their wider, flatter field. For birding, I keep editing
this sentence because it’s a very tough call ...
Summary
I really love the SFs in their
improved form. I recently wrote that Swarovski’s new NL Pures are the best
birding binoculars available, but having tested these newer SFs I’m less sure.
The original SFs I reviewed had significant problems – poor build, loose
armour, dodgy eye cups and a vague and wonky dioptre knob - that have since
been fixed. Meanwhile, all the goodness of the original is still there in
abundance. They’re now ideal for me, for birding at least.
Yes, the NL Pures have a wider,
better corrected field that makes them better for astronomy; and an even
comfier hold, perhaps even less false colour. But the SFs are noticeably
lighter to carry and I like their rearwards weight bias too. They may have even
better eyepiece comfort from a millimetre extra real-world eye relief; and their
field curvature and distortion does curb that rolling ball effect when panning.
In every other way – brightness, resolution, focus action – SF vs NL Pure is
too close to call.
So for a mix
of astronomy and birding, the NL Pures’ still have the edge for me, thanks to
their ultra-wide and well-corrected view. But purely for birding you might
prefer the SFs for their lighter weight and slightly better eyepiece comfort.
Zeiss and Swarovski have never offered a more different top-line bino’ and
never been closer. The choice is yours and it’s a great one to have.
Zeiss have fixed my original quality complaints, making the 8x42
SFs one of the very best bino’s money can buy. For astronomy I prefer
Swarovski’s NL Pures, but for birding the updated SFs are now every bit as good.
Buy Zeiss 8x42 Victory SF from Wex here:
