Jump to content


Photo

new Zeiss Victory HT with 95% light transmission

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Joe Ogiba

Joe Ogiba

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5930
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2002
  • Loc: NJ USA

Posted 02 September 2012 - 09:38 PM

Unrivalled brightness, thanks to a light transmission of up to more than 95%. This unique result is created by the innovative optical concept of the VICTORY HT range. It is made possible by the perfect interplay of SCHOTT HT-glass, the Carl Zeiss T* multi-layer coating and the Abbe-König-prism system.



VICTORY HT

video

#2 ronharper

ronharper

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2006

Posted 02 September 2012 - 11:36 PM

To be sure, the new $2500 gottahaveit Zeiss is pure sex, while my nearly 30 year old 7x50 Fujinon FMT-SX, bought used for $300, is pure clunk. But, they do have one important thing in common.

Zeiss, what took you so long? Welcome to the top.
Ron

#3 Mark9473

Mark9473

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8656
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005
  • Loc: 51°N 4°E

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:32 AM

Well put, Ron. Myself I'm very curious whether or not Zeiss have managed eyepieces that eliminate the fuzzy mush at the edges that plagues the FL.

#4 Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 03 September 2012 - 04:16 AM

Ha!!! Fujinon had "better than 95% overall transmission" already 30 years ago??? Yes, but just for the drooling group of ad-believers...
AFAIK, this percentage has never been confirmed by any independent transmission test hitherto. And who ever shone a flashlight on Fuji's 16x70 porro-prisms (from the objective side) and saw their bright reflections, knew it couldn't be more than hot air and handed-down unreflected :grin: hype...

Chris

#5 Mark9473

Mark9473

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8656
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2005
  • Loc: 51°N 4°E

Posted 03 September 2012 - 05:11 AM

Chris: http://www.allbinos....x50_FMT-SX.html

#6 Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 03 September 2012 - 08:12 AM

Mark,

1) Astonishable, indeed!

2) Unfortunately, the 16x70's prisms lack the same qualitiy of coatings as the 7x50...

3) This interlinked FMT-SX-7x50-review (which I didn't know of) is dated 2012, and it is about a Porro-binocular. Additionally, it doesn't say anything about Fujinon's transmission percentage 30 years ago.

4) Plus, the three Fujinon-roof-binoculars on the same site are rated between 75,6% (MF-8x42, tested in 2012) and 81.9% (KF-10x42 W, tested in 2011)...
OTOH, the new Zeiss-HTs are roof-binoculars as well, and "exceeding 95%" despite being much more difficult to be brought to a performance-level similar to the best (less sophisticated) porro-versions.

Chris

#7 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: The Netherlands, Europe

Posted 03 September 2012 - 08:35 AM

Look forward to trying them out. In fine binoculars, light transmission is one of many parameters that help them become top achievers for the connoisseur.

#8 EdZ

EdZ

    Professor EdZ

  • *****
  • Posts: 18820
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2002
  • Loc: Cumberland, R I , USA42N71.4W

Posted 03 September 2012 - 10:21 AM

Light transmission can be a very misleading statistic.

To compare transmission you need to know:
Is it measured for a single wavelength or an average across a full visible range?
Does it include averaging wavelengths into the deep blue and red wavelengths that pull the average transsmission down, but have littlle effect on the visual appearance?
Were all binoculars measured to the same transmission criteria?

If no then any comparison may be invalid. At the very least, it must be taken with not just a grain, but a full shaker of salt.

Just as important as transmission is illumination.
Keep in mind the measured light transsmission is only valid within the area of 100% iillumination. Binoculars can vary from 10% center of field fully illuminated to approx 80% of field fully illuminated. Most roofs are close to 10%. Most porros are 25%-40%, with the better porros 50% and tthe best porros up to even 80%.

These roofs are all fully illuminated across only 10% of the field or less, some less than 5%. AND only two of these achieve greater than 50% illumination by 70% of the field (half the area of the field), the Leica and the Zen Ray.
Leica Trinovid 10x42 rp
Nikon Monarch ATB10x42 rp
Pentax DCFHRII 10x42 rp
Zen Ray Summit 10x42 rp
Celestron Regal LX 10x42 rp
Zen Ray ZEN ED2 8x43 rp
Celestron Regal LX 8x42 rp

These porros are all fully illuminated across 50% of the field or more. All range from 70% to 90% illuminated by 70% of the field, (half the field area).
Takahashi 22x60
William Optic 22x70
Fujinon FMT-SX 16x70
Pentax PCF WP 16x60

Erik is correct, "light transmission is one of many parameters that help them become top achievers for the connoisseur." But by itself, the statistic for light transmission is almost meaningless to determine brightness.

A binocular that has 80% transmission but is fully illuminated across 50% of the field diameter and 70% illuminated by half the field area is going to appear brighter than a binocular that has 95% transmission but is fully illuminated across only 10% of the field and only 50% to 75% illuminated across half the field area. Do the math.

So all this hubbub about greatest transmission may be nothing more than marketing hype unless of course it is coupled with a plot of the percent illumination for a complete comparison.

edz

#9 BillC

BillC

    on a new path

  • *****
  • Posts: 4391
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Lake Stevens, WA, USA

Posted 03 September 2012 - 11:40 AM

EdZ said:

“Light transmission can be a very misleading statistic.”

CARVE THAT IN STONE!!!

While doing ATM Journal. I was aroused by an article submitted by a fellow who professed to have designed an earth-shaking telescope—better than any APO on the market.

Still, the rays looked like a pin "prique" (gotta keep the filter software happy) inside the bath tube-sized Airy disc. A bit more investigation showed the designer had only used ONE WAVELENGTH to do his designing. Obviously too inexperienced to know other wavelengths had minds of their own.

The fact is that using specs he sent me—of which he was dutifully proud—it would have taken 9 monitors to illustrate the spot diagram had he used all the visible spectrum. Everything in optics is not as intuitive as peeling a potato. Being such, folks often rush headlong into errant “logic.”

Just a thought.

BillC

#10 Rich V.

Rich V.

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4062
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Lake Tahoe area, Nevada, USA

Posted 03 September 2012 - 12:56 PM

Ha!!! Fujinon had "better than 95% overall transmission" already 30 years ago??? Yes, but just for the drooling group of ad-believers...
AFAIK, this percentage has never been confirmed by any independent transmission test hitherto. And who ever shone a flashlight on Fuji's 16x70 porro-prisms (from the objective side) and saw their bright reflections, knew it couldn't be more than hot air and handed-down unreflected :grin: hype...

Chris


Chris, I can't help noticing that you jump on every opportunity to bash Fujinon binos. I don't understand what the point is; it's obvious you prefer your Nikon binos but please give it a break.

I have both Nikon and Fujinon binoculars and think both companies produce wonderful binos. For various reasons, all of us have personal preferences; that's how life is. To constantly nit-pick a maybe less than one percent deficit in light transmission on the Fujis just makes you appear to have some kind of axe to grind. Just spit it out; did you have a traumatic incident in your childhood with a pair of Fuji binoculars? ;)

I otherwise enjoy your contributions to CN and don't want you to think I bear any bad feelings towards you...I'm just wondering.

Rich

#11 Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:28 PM

Rich,

I can't remember to have mentioned Nikon in this thread and context. In my personal opinion their top of the line products are just one out of five ways to go (the others are Zeiss, Svarovski, Fujinon and Leica) for me.

I originally intended to buy a Fuji 16x70 about ten years ago, but two to three partially personal opto-mechanical as well as ergonomical preferences made me buy a more expensive competitory product after a long and hard struggle. I do not regret this, but was a bit frustrated to almost having been mislead to buy what in the end had appeared to be (in my case!) just the second-best option for my eyes and brain. However, in order not to go on "bashing Fujinon" now I am not going to repeat what these reasons had been and by the way still would be (in my case).

IMO, Fujinon produces the best performance/price-ratio porro-binoculars available nowadays, but this does not necessarily mean they are also the absolute best of all. If I needed a 10x50 porro, it would indeed be the Fujinon 10x50. But if it came down to choosing a new roof-prism-binocular, it would certainly be a Zeiss, Swarovski or maybe even the EDGE-Nikon. But since I have a still very nice Zeiss 7x42P*T-Dialyt, I can't see a real reason to buy a newer one just for a light-gain of a few percent.. :grin:
My personal philosophy is "Buy the best and forget!" for the next 25 years... This has turned out to be cheaper and more joyful than buying a cheap product every two years, by the way. (But who knows - maybe I just can't resist on replacing my 7x42 by the new 8x42 HT, some day?...)

Finally, as a European, I probably am a bit more sceptical to advertisement-hypes than people may be in other regions of the world and prefer not to go where everybody goes (for whatever reasons). I don't consider myself mainstream, so you are welcome to call me an individualist who is reluctant to be manipulated in any direction against his own independent experiences and decisions. In fact, I also feel free to own a Fujinon 14x40 Techno-Stabi which I am quite fond of and mainly using for nature-watching.

I admit I like Japanese optical products (see some of my telescopes below). As a Swiss I like mechanical quality and precision, but as a European I'm also trying to personally support the European optical industry which I may be a bit proud of. You are quite welcome to call me a European patriot, if you like... :cool:

Last but not least, since I've been on pension for the last three years, I am financially independent enough to utter my own opinion without promoting any specific products. In fact, I've never been interested in business at all.

Chris

#12 BillC

BillC

    on a new path

  • *****
  • Posts: 4391
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Lake Stevens, WA, USA

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:37 PM

"I probably am a bit more sceptical to advertisement-hypes than people may be in other regions of the world"

Hey Rich, this guy sounds right on the money with what he likes, dislikes, and the Kwrap he tries to avoid! Bet he could make a mean army knife, too.

But, perhaps, he's too skeptical. I'll bet he couldn't be convinved that good optics are baked by elves in a hollow tree.

Cheers,

BillC

#13 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10671
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:44 PM

Mathematically, a larger circle of full illumination at 'so-so' transmission efficiency can result in total transmission for the full field higher than delivered by 'excellent' transmission efficiency but over a smaller circle of full illumination. But is that necessarily better?

Personally, I'd prefer a near-zero circle of full illumination if at the center the transmission is great, as opposed to somewhat poorer transmission over a rather larger circle of full illumination. Why?

Because illumination fall-off toward the field edge is not at all objectionable as long as it's reasonably gradual. I can't detect the 'darkening' that's there when edge-of-field illumination is down to 50%. And so good center-of-field transmission trumps fall-off, even if the latter commences practically immediately away from the center. After all, it's at the field center where I place the object of interest, letting my more sensitive but poorer in resolution peripheral retina deal with the outer field.

#14 Fomalhaut

Fomalhaut

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Switzerland

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:50 PM

"I probably am a bit more sceptical to advertisement-hypes than people may be in other regions of the world"

Hey Rich, this guy sounds right on the money with what he likes, dislikes, and the Kwrap he tries to avoid! Bet he could make a mean army knife, too.

But, perhaps, he's too skeptical. I'll bet he couldn't be convinved that good optics are baked by elves in a hollow tree.

Cheers,

BillC


Just a few examples:

In the 80ies and 90ies, the main mirrors of the Celestrons were ground out of glass-blocks in the US on Swiss tooling-machines.

Or: About 70% of the roller-coasters standing about the U.S. were constructed by Swiss engineering-companies.

Or: 20 years ago, when I was in HongKong, the electronic ticket-sellers for their public transport system were produced in Switzerland.

Some Americans tend to believe we mainly produce cheese, watches and army knives. But in fact our small country is very efficient in producing electronical and fine-mechanical hi-tech-products which are present in many American institutions (and even military weapon-systems). Don't forget our chemistry, international food-industry (Nestlé) and - mhm - our banks (which I'm a bit less proud of, indeed).

Or: Do you have any idea which place the Higgs-Boson have recently been discovered at? :grin:

Chris

#15 BillC

BillC

    on a new path

  • *****
  • Posts: 4391
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Lake Stevens, WA, USA

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:58 PM

Chris:

I was quite familiar with your country's industry. The Army knife comment was appropriate for a curmudgeon's humor. Beside, I don't eat cheese and can't afford Swiss watches! But the tooth pick and tweezers in my KNIFE . . . well that's special! :jump:

BillC

#16 Gordon Rayner

Gordon Rayner

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007

Posted 03 September 2012 - 07:02 PM

Do not forget Kern and Wild surveying/optical tooling equipment, Wild microscopes , Tesa measuring equipment, Schaublin lathes, Swiss screw machines/turret lathes( such as operated in big Los Angeles shops by persons of dubious immigration status). But I am dating myself into the pre-electronic/pre-CNC era.

A prominent person of the company who produce the 14 x 40 Techno-Stabi for Fujifilm/Fujinon related some years ago that independent measurements on a photometer(s) of light transmission, for a product sold,or to potentially be sold, by Fuji, did not match claimed performance . I do not recall the product or contract details ( if indeed I was told), nor which subcontractor was performing/ to perform the production (if in fact the sub was identified).

#17 BillC

BillC

    on a new path

  • *****
  • Posts: 4391
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Lake Stevens, WA, USA

Posted 03 September 2012 - 09:05 PM

Do not forget Kern and Wild surveying/optical tooling equipment, Wild microscopes , Tesa measuring equipment, Schaublin lathes, Swiss screw machines/turret lathes( such as operated in big Los Angeles shops by persons of dubious immigration status). But I am dating myself into the pre-electronic/pre-CNC era.

A prominent person of the company who produce the 14 x 40 Techno-Stabi for Fujifilm/Fujinon related some years ago that independent measurements on a photometer(s) of light transmission, for a product sold,or to potentially be sold, by Fuji, did not match claimed performance . I do not recall the product or contract details ( if indeed I was told), nor which subcontractor was performing/ to perform the production (if in fact the sub was identified).


As a former manufacturing tech at a surveying instrument company, I am well aware of those companies. However, I couldn't see where dropping those names would be germaine to the topic at hand. Perhaps you do, but it alludes me. 'Guess I'm just dense. :crazy:

BillC

#18 Gordon Rayner

Gordon Rayner

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007

Posted 04 September 2012 - 12:30 AM

I meant to harmonize with Fomalhaut's last post, rather than to be elusive.

Has anyone seen a photometer for independent axial transmission measurement reporting? Sky&Telescope? Tenmon Guide? Consumer Reports? One of the camera magazines? One of the high-end boating or billfish fishing magazines?

Perhaps one of the prominent contributors, or their employers, to this or the neighbor ATM forum?

#19 GlennLeDrew

GlennLeDrew

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10671
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:18 AM

One could fashion a photometer based around a Sky Quality Meter, which reads to 0.01 magnitude, and is repeatable to better than 0.05 magnitude. Accuracy would be good to 95%, and perhaps better.

#20 HonoluluWalt

HonoluluWalt

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2009

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:42 AM

Has anyone had any experience with a 10x42 or 8x42 Zeiss Victory HD since this thread became dormant? Are these bins respectable alternatives for someone seeking to use one set of bins for both terrestrial viewing and astronomical viewing? How do they compare with the still-available Zeiss T FLs bins like the 10x56s?

Obviously the added aperture would give the 56mm bins a big advantage, by virtue of the laws of physics (not that aperture is the only factor), but they might be a bit clumsy for birding and other terrestrial activities. However, if there were to be a big enough optical advantage favoring the 56mm Zeiss' I would go ahead and put up with the size. Also, is the Schott High-Transmission glass a big deal, or is it just marketing hype?

What do all of you think regarding the which bins (the 42mm Zeiss Victory HT or the 56mm Zeiss Victory T Fl) would perform as the best all around bins for someone seeking to buy one pair to be used for both terrestrial viewing and astronomical viewing?

#21 Sgt

Sgt

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Under the southern horn of the bull

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:22 AM

No experience with the HT's but re light transmission: over on the zeiss HT thread on birdforum someone has measured transmission values for the HT, FL, Leica Ultravid HD, Swarovision and SLC HD.

#22 ronharper

ronharper

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2006

Posted 14 March 2013 - 10:17 AM

The measurements that Sgt refers to show the HT transmission to exceed that of the FL mostly in the blue, where the difference reaches about 3%, and smaller as you go towards the red. This may improve the color balance slightly, but no way could a 42mm HT rival the oomph of 56mm.

I recently got a Zeiss 10x56 FL, and there was a discussion in the recent thread having the same name. By day or night it is the best binocular I have ever had, and I use it for birding as well as stars. But for birding, the size and weight are serious things to be reckoned with, and I'd hesitate to recommend it for that unless you are certifiably optically obsessed. It delivers, but you've got to want it bad!
Ron

#23 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3156
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: The Netherlands, Europe

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:44 PM

I agree with Ron. The 10x56FL are superb and a 42mm HT has no chance against it under the stars. It is lighter though. As a sidenote, after testing and comparing the FL and HT's I found I prefer the FL's. The 10x56 was a bit to bulky for me so I got the 7x42FL instead. Stunningly bright and involving views. The 10x56 do that too, just at a higher power and thus a less wide field.

#24 John F

John F

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2004
  • Loc: Washington State

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:52 PM

I've have not had a chance to try either the 8x42 or 10x42 models although I've read some favorable reviews of them. With respect to their magnification and aperture size I think either would make a nice all-arounder. That is, one that works well for both astronomical and terrestrial use (and also one that is not too heavy or bulky). I also think that they would function better in that capacity than the 10x56 FL. Certainly, the larger glass has its advantages and particularly for astronomical use but its size and weight work against it for terrestrial use unless you only plan to use it occasionally.

Another strong contender in the all-around category are the Swarovski 8.5x42s and 10x42s. Both have a near focus capability of 4.9 feet and I've found that to be a great option when visiting museums or flower gardens. A few months ago there was a good review/comparison of the Zeiss 10x42 HTs and the Swarovski 10x42 EL SVs or the BirdForum website. I've attached a link to it it below.


http://www.birdforum...ad.php?t=247902

John Finnan

#25 OpalescentNebula

OpalescentNebula

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 351
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Calgary, Alberta, Observing south of Grande Prairie & Mable Lake BC

Posted 16 March 2013 - 11:45 PM

I also really liked the 10x56's but went with the 10x42's because of the boating I do in the summer months. The new Zeiss Victory\HT by review sound great but I'll stay with my 10x42'FL's.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics