Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Leica vs. Zeiss |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | ||
Hairpin151
Optics GrassHopper Joined: September/25/2006 Status: Offline Points: 2 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: September/27/2006 at 21:13 |
|
Thinking about either the Leica 12x50 Ultravids or the Zeiss 10x56's or possibly bigger.What are the pro's and con's of either,I'm needing some advise.Thanks.
|
||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The pro of both is the tremendous optical and mechanical quality.
The cons of both are overinflated pricetags. The argument between Ultravids and FLs comes down to personal preference. ILya |
||
tbone1
Optics Apprentice Joined: May/31/2004 Status: Offline Points: 195 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It depends on what you will be using them for. Neither would I suggest for all around use. What situation will you be using them for. Long range glassing with tripod? |
||
Narrow Gap
Optics Apprentice Joined: August/16/2006 Location: Afghanistan Status: Offline Points: 135 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I would give a very slight edge in low light viewing to the Zeiss Victory 10X56 FL's because of the exit pupil edge of the 10 power zeiss versus the 12 power of the Leica. The other slight edge i would give the Zeiss in low light viewing is because the Zeiss has the Abbe-Koenig prisms which let more usable light through to your eyes. As far as middle of the day viewing goes you will be hard pressed to pick out an advantage.
|
||
anweis
Optics Master Joined: January/29/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1148 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
...and both are too large for handholding.
|
||
Hairpin151
Optics GrassHopper Joined: September/25/2006 Status: Offline Points: 2 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I have a pair of Zeiss Classics 10x40's that I've been packing around for years that I cannot do without,I am looking for more I guess when stationary but not a spotting scope.As far as considering Leica too,I guess that I'm intrigued by the ultravids.It appears that you get more for less with them,as far as weight goes anyway.
|
||
anweis
Optics Master Joined: January/29/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1148 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Optics Myth:
"Twilight factor" is key to performance in dim light.
The quality of the coatings is much more important. A Zeiss 10x56 would have a twilight factor of 23.66, a Leica 12x50 would have a twilight factor of 24.49. From my own experience, I would get the Ultravids for low light, because their coatings work very well to enhance the contrast of dark shades and colors in dim light. But I would not get a giant binocular like that. I have an Ultravid 10x42 and it is all you can ever need for hunting. I never felt that they should have been brighter – I used them to count sandpipers under full moon, they should work for hunting. You sometimes see "twilight factor" listed in a binocular description, as a measure of the resolving power in dim light. This term was more important years ago, before modern optical coatings were invented, than it is today. Twilight factor is a mathematical formula that shows how both the size of the objective lens and the magnifying power contribute to a binocular's ability to show detail in dim light. The twilight factor is the square root of the product of the diameter of the objective lens and the magnifying power of the binocular. [For example, an 8x32 binocular would have a twilight factor of 16, and a 10x42 would have a twilight factor of 20.5.] However, in a modern binocular, performance in dim light depends more on the quality of the optical coatings than on the twilight factor formula. Good coatings can double the amount of light that gets through the binocular. If you pick up an old binocular from the 40s, or a cheap, low-quality binocular, you'll see very poor performance in dim light. Then look through a modern, top-quality binocular with the same magnification and lens size, and see how much brighter and clearer the image is, despite the fact that both binoculars have the same twilight factor rating. So if you're looking for good image quality in twilight conditions, you shouldn't just rely on the twilight factor number. You have to take the quality of the coatings into account. |
||
Roy Finn
MODERATOR Steiner Junkie Joined: April/05/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4856 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
anweis' Truer words were never spoken. And the other BS term, relative brightness.
|
||
Bird Watcher
Optics Master Joined: August/30/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1523 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Take a look at; http://zbirding/Truth/prisms/prisms.htm
|
||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Ah, that's where Stephen Ingraham went. He is the guy who used to maintain betterviewdesired.com
I knew he went to work for Zeiss, but did not know about this website. I tend to agree with his judgements, but he better be able to back up some of the claims he makes about competing binoculars. ILya |
||
www.technika.nu
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/02/2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 611 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I would say that twilight factor always have been an uninteresting nonsence number. Not only that is not is taking coatings and construction under consideration but also as it's just pure humbug.
Regardless if you look through a Zeiss 3-12x56 or a Leupold 6,5-20 in twilight you will find out that you can se the best around 8-10X and not on the highest setting regardsless that they have a higher twilight factor.
When comparing a Zeiss 7x50 binocular to a Zeiss 15x50 Binocular the same thing is also very clear, the 7x50 binocular is much brighter.
So if not the frontlens is big enogh it doent matter how big the twiligth factor is, you will not see anything through it anyway.
When it comes to glasses from the 40th I have to dissagree. It all comes down to quality and not only coatings. This binocular is brighter at night than mostly modern glasses, and it have never had any coating as it was a export product to the Swedish army in 1940 and the Germans wouldent let them coated optics. However the optical quality is very good.
Regards Håkan
|
||
jednoralski
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/05/2006 Location: Poland Status: Offline Points: 12 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Zeiss 10x56 will be better for unsurpassed low light performance, more heavy, in my opinion by magnification 10 it is still possible to look thru without tripod Leica 12x50 very good binocular not so heavy, like zeiss but for longer observations tripod will be necessary Many hunters in States use smaller binoculars with objectives like 40 or 42 mm but they are not useful in low light conditions.
Since some weeks I use Nikon Monarch 10x56 and friend of my Nikon Monarch 10x42, by good light there is the same picture, but in the dark only x56 is useful
|
||
jednoralski
|
||
anweis
Optics Master Joined: January/29/2006 Status: Offline Points: 1148 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I would not call the Monarch a premium binocular, or a great one, or even a good one. Yes, many hunters use 42 mm binoculars because they work. You obsiously have never looked through a premium binocular. With a pair of premium 8x32 i will see more than with a 10x56 Monarch anytime. |
||
lucznik
Optics Master Joined: November/27/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1436 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hunters in the states find the 40 mm class of binocular acceptable because in general, hunting hours are limited to something like 1/2 hour before sunrise until 1/2 hour after sunset (or something similar.) Within these limitations a 40mm glass will provide all the low-light viewing power ever needed. You are certainly correct however, that the 50+mm class of glass will provide greater low-light capacity.
I agree that the Monarch is not a premium binocular but, would have to disagree with the notion that it isn't even a good one. I know quite a few people who own and absolutely love them. They may not be "all that" for those of us who spend too much time obsessing over optics, but we do tend to be an unreasonably picky bunch.
I would sure love to actually test the notion of a premium 32mm binocular against a monarch in 56mm. I'm not sure I would bet on the smaller glass winning as I don't think the quality difference would be sufficiently large but, it would be a fun experiment.
|
||
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
|
||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I am not sure how this test would work out. The results would depend rather heavily on the age of the tester, i.e. on how big the tester's exit pupil dilates.
ILya |
||
lucznik
Optics Master Joined: November/27/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1436 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
True, but if done with a variety of testers of different ages, vision prescriptions, etc. and (if possible) coupled with some objective laboratory testing to determine the actual % of ambient light being transmitted by each optic, some fairly instructive information could be gleaned. |
||
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
|
||
jednoralski
Optics GrassHopper Joined: February/05/2006 Location: Poland Status: Offline Points: 12 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hunters in Central Europe do hunting 1 hour before sunrise and 1 hour after sunset, we also do hunting in the night - for predators and wild boars - especially by moon. That’s why we use very often scopes and binoculars with 56 + mm objectives (quite often Swarovski, Zeiss, Carl Zeiss Jena). No one serious hunter will hunt in the night with 32 mm objective and it doesn’t mater what kind of mark it is. In low light conditions we simply need more light and that’s possible with big objectives only. Of course coating and other technical solutions are very important but if we have the same solutions, and magnifications bigger objective is heavy but better. I use Monarch because is 5 times cheaper than Swarovski, and other differences are not as big. I also would sure love to actually test the notion of a premium 32mm binocular against a monarch in 56mm, if possible use the same magnification please. |
||
jednoralski
|
||
zeissoem2
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/18/2007 Location: Norway Status: Offline Points: 119 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Nice to this "best ever made" again.-blc8x60 Edited by zeissoem2 |
||
lucznik
Optics Master Joined: November/27/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1436 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes, of course: the "best ever made."
Having tired of making such obviously superior optics in the early to mid 1940's and wanting to enjoy a more closely run optics-marketing race, Zeiss subsequently chose to discontinue this model in favor of manufacturing low-brow crap like the Classic, and the Victory FL.
There must be something in the water in Norway and Sweden....
|
||
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
|
||
zeissoem2
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/18/2007 Location: Norway Status: Offline Points: 119 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Zeiss did not make more 8x60 like this, because it is too expensive to do it. Edited by zeissoem2 |
||
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |