SF in real life (2 Viewers)

[Troubador]

SF

Here are my first impressions of Zeiss’s new SF. I will save a more detailed appraisal until I do a shootout comparison of SF vs Swaro EL SV as this is certainly the model at which it is aimed.

First the Smart Focus. This is not just a name for the focus mechanism so we have been barking up the wrong tree in our previous discussions. Smart focus refers to the focus wheel surface which has an ‘all terrain’ grip so your fingers don’t slip, as well as the position of the focus wheel which requires far less spreading of the fingers (so less fatigue), and the provision of 15% more space for your fingers when you grasp the barrels as well as the speed of focus which is 25% faster than the EL.

CJ, the focus wheel will take you from 20’ to the far distance in a quick 1/8 of a turn. Yes it takes longer to get from much closer to infinity, but this is the balance that Zeiss have chosen and the focus action itself is beautifully smooth and positive.

Picking up the SF I was struck by the way it felt less than its 785 grams. With the weight shifted to the eyepiece end of the barrels it really does feel light and in combination with the hand position it is ‘easy’ on the hand.

The optical system is radically different from any previous Zeiss or Swaro and yields a field of view that is just breathtaking. Zeiss FL 7x42 owners can speak up here and say they have had this FOV for years and while true, in an 8x binocular it is stunning. The flat field is an added bonus and really gave an emphasis to the shear size of the FOV, moreover, repeated panning with both 8x and 10x didn’t produce any rolling ball for me, but this is such a personal thing it needs to be checked by each individual.

Is it sharp? It certainly is, but I really need some good ‘alone’ time to fully assess the view. At this point I will just say it is right up there with HT.

In handling and optics this is a radical step forward for Zeiss and I think they have hit their EL target right on the bullseye.

Lee

 

[Alexis Powell]

Well, the report on the focus is not surprising but still disappointing to butterfly+birders like me. Looks like I'll be waiting to make my purchase when the mk.2 version of this or the SV comes out with a variable ratio (or just faster) focus. Until then, the x32 and x42 FL reign supreme for that use. Such a shame that these companies go to the trouble of designing bins with close focus but don't give them the focus drive necessary to make them of practical use to the (potential) purchasing constituency who would actually use it.

--AP

 

[Vespobuteo]

Thanks Lee for your impressions,

"the focus wheel will take you from 20’ to the far distance in a quick 1/8 of a turn"

that seems fast…??
but what about accuracy at mid distances?

 

[Troubador]

Well, the report on the focus is not surprising but still disappointing to butterfly+birders like me. Looks like I'll be waiting to make my purchase when the mk.2 version of this or the SV comes out with a variable ratio (or just faster) focus. Until then, the x32 and x42 FL reign supreme for that use. Such a shame that these companies go to the trouble of designing bins with close focus but don't give them the focus drive necessary to make them of practical use to the (potential) purchasing constituency who would actually use it.

--AP

Hi Alex

As a dragonfly chaser and butterfly chaser too, I am thinking you are being a bit pessimistic. For sure if you want to focus from the dragonfly that is 7 feet in front of you to that circling Buzzard in the far distance you will need to do some finger pumping. But to focus on another dragonfly 20 feet away is OK. And speed is such a personal preference. I know one guy who likes to say that the bins he is holding snap rapidly into focus but then he moans and grumbles that it is too easy to overshoot the focus and then need to focus back to get on the subject. Yes, maybe a variable-pitch focus could seem like the answer but then you will have folks disagreeing about the point (focus distance) at which the gearing changes from quick to slow.

It is a compromise for sure, but it feels like a reasonable one, although I will reserve my final judgement until I can do a longer term test.

And there is a big compensation in the form of the field of view. Dragonflies and many butterflies can be so erratic and fast in their flight that having a wider FOV enables you to find your target more easily. OK if you are focusing back from watching some birds in the far distance you need to work that focus wheel, but that great FOV means you have a much better chance of finding your target and then getting your focus spot on it at the first attempt and not overshooting.

Its a balance of attributes that needs striking for this application, and all of the other applications that this instrument needs to satisfy, and I think it is a reasonable balance.

Try it out and let us know how it works for you.

Lee

 

[Torview]

SF

Zeiss FL 7x42 owners can speak up here and say they have had this FOV for years................(and EII owners).... and while true, in an 8x binocular it is stunning. wEII agree.......||

Lee

Nice to read a hands on report, thanks Lee.

 

[Sagittarius]

Thanks for your report, Lee. :t:

 

[Troubador]

Thanks Lee for your impressions,

"the focus wheel will take you from 20’ to the far distance in a quick 1/8 of a turn"

that seems fast…??
but what about accuracy at mid distances?

VB IMO the focus offers a good balance between speed and accuracy of focus. Of course there will always be folks who would like it to be a little faster or slower: not everyone liked FL for this!

The focus is very positive in its action so you can make a very tiny movement of the wheel and you get an exact corresponding shift in focus.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

Thanks Tor and Sagi !!

Lee

 

[Alexis Powell]

...As a dragonfly chaser and butterfly chaser too, I am thinking you are being a bit pessimistic...

Lee, thanks for your thoughts but I know what I like (and don't like) based on long-term use of a number of bins with various focus ratios and other properties. I understand the issues with focus that is too fast or too slow. Variable ratio doesn't have a transition point--it is seamless shift over the range (e.g. some models from Brunton and Minox). The Pentax Papilio does have more of a dual ratio as you describe, but I've never seen any complaints about how well it works. I'm sure that there would be many complaints about the functionality of the Papilio focus if it were a conventional design, so bravo for Pentax for recognizing the importance of that bit of engineering, even though they do nothing to call attention to it in marketing (in contrast to Zeiss, with their conventional design that supposedly conquers the perennially common complaints of focus finger slippage and fatigue. Give me a break!).

I don't deny that the SF have many appealing properties. If I didn't already own a number of bins that are almost as good, and which in combination cover a lot of functional ground, I'd probably be chomping at the bit to buy an 8x SF, which based on specs and initial reports appear to be better fit for butterflying+birding than the 8.5x EL SV (certainly, the focus ratio is better than the painfully slow focus of that bin). If they didn't cost so much (though not so very much more than the competition), I'd probably also be more interested [Funny how I spent more money in total on bins back when alphas cost $750-$1500 than now that they cost $1800-$2500]. For that money, I want them to be engineering perfection.

--AP

 

[Troubador]

Lee, thanks for your thoughts but I know what I like (and don't like) based on long-term use of a number of bins with various focus ratios and other properties. I understand the issues with focus that is too fast or too slow. Variable ratio doesn't have a transition point--it is seamless shift over the range (e.g. some models from Brunton and Minox). The Pentax Papilio does have more of a dual ratio as you describe, but I've never seen any complaints about how well it works. I'm sure that there would be many complaints about the functionality of the Papilio focus if it were a conventional design, so bravo for Pentax for recognizing the importance of that bit of engineering, even though they do nothing to call attention to it in marketing (in contrast to Zeiss, with their conventional design that supposedly conquers the perennially common complaints of focus finger slippage and fatigue. Give me a break!).

I don't deny that the SF have many appealing properties. If I didn't already own a number of bins that are almost as good, and which in combination cover a lot of functional ground, I'd probably be chomping at the bit to buy an 8x SF, which based on specs and initial reports appear to be better fit for butterflying+birding than the 8.5x EL SV (certainly, the focus ratio is better than the painfully slow focus of that bin). If they didn't cost so much (though not so very much more than the competition), I'd probably also be more interested [Funny how I spent more money in total on bins back when alphas cost $750-$1500 than now that they cost $1800-$2500]. For that money, I want them to be engineering perfection.

--AP

Never expected to change your mind Alex and I wasn't disappointed .

Hope you take the time to try them out at some stage though.

Always good to hear your thoughts.

Lee

 

[Chosun Juan]

Hi Lee .... 1/8th turn (0.125) from 20ft to far away? ..... does that mean it takes ~ 1.5 turns from 5ft to 20ft ?! :cat:

What about our rolled gold standard 10ft to 300ft ? How many turns for that?

And didn't you yourself say it was no standard focuser? What about the reverseroo fine pitch jiggerypoo, either Zeiss didn't apply the patent which sits in the top draw still, or there is so little difference in the speeds as to be undetectable and therefore redundant and irrelevant?!

I must admit that I like direct connection with a precision large diameter metal focusing wheel, so all this you beaut rubber covered knob stuff is of no interest to me - then again, I'm not out in sub zero temperatures etc .... I always thought those days were what log fires and hot cups of tea were invented for! :eek!:

Did you measure the diameter of the focus wheel?

Also did you note any mid field (80%) softness like Tim did?

And also, any mention of a 500ft+ 7x with a quicker focuser?


Thanks -- Chosun :gh:

 

[Holger Merlitz]

... For that money, I want them to be engineering perfection.

--AP

Alexis, in this case, we may better forget about those close focusing capabilities. Because it was exactly this repeated call for a closer and faster focus which has brought the manufacturers into troubles. With binoculars of the 1980s and 1990s, the close focusing distance was 4m, the focus was slow, precise, and reliable. During the past 15 years, everybody joined the race to move in the close focusing point and at the same time to speed up the gears. All those troubles we are now frequently reading about focusing problems of various high end binoculars are a direct consequence of something which is technically impossible: To increase the focus travel, at the same time to speed it up (means to increase the slope of the threads), and to have an easily turning wheel without much traction. It is just impossible, and since they try to push it, our binoculars turn less reliable and durable, but more expensive. I don't even mention the problems with optical engineering that arise when trying to keep the image sharp at 1.5m as well as infinity.

That is why I always point out: Leave the observation of butterflies and dragonflies to instruments which are specialized for that task. Leave the generalist binoculars to those who observe distant objects, with slow and precise focusing capabilities and without all that engineering overhead that is needed for close up instruments.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Chosun Juan]

Holger , I agree, I don't need 1.5m for viewing my shoelaces , but I do need 2m max and then a quick focuser after that too - it's just what is needed in practice for warblers, flycatchers, geewhizzits etc.

I also agree with Alexis, that if manufacturers do go to the trouble of designing a 1 or 1.5m close focus bin, then it is illogical to hamstring it with a slow focus. If you give it a quick focus at short range then you stuff the distance viewing with a hair trigger .... The only sensible option is to equip such a bin with a variable speed focuser. To do otherwise is like building half a car ..... it doesn't matter whether it's left or right, front or back ..... it's still useless! :cat:


Chosun :gh:

 

[james holdsworth]

Alexis, in this case, we may better forget about those close focusing capabilities. Because it was exactly this repeated call for a closer and faster focus which has brought the manufacturers into troubles. With binoculars of the 1980s and 1990s, the close focusing distance was 4m, the focus was slow, precise, and reliable. During the past 15 years, everybody joined the race to move in the close focusing point and at the same time to speed up the gears. All those troubles we are now frequently reading about focusing problems of various high end binoculars are a direct consequence of something which is technically impossible: To increase the focus travel, at the same time to speed it up (means to increase the slope of the threads), and to have an easily turning wheel without much traction. It is just impossible, and since they try to push it, our binoculars turn less reliable and durable, but more expensive. I don't even mention the problems with optical engineering that arise when trying to keep the image sharp at 1.5m as well as infinity.

That is why I always point out: Leave the observation of butterflies and dragonflies to instruments which are specialized for that task. Leave the generalist binoculars to those who observe distant objects, with slow and precise focusing capabilities and without all that engineering overhead that is needed for close up instruments.

Cheers,
Holger

The FL has been around for a decade, has had very, very few focus problems - is quick, smooth and precise and focuses to about 5 feet. Just about perfect so it can be done.

 

[Troubador]

Hi Lee .... 1/8th turn (0.125) from 20ft to far away? ..... does that mean it takes ~ 1.5 turns from 5ft to 20ft ?! :cat:

What about our rolled gold standard 10ft to 300ft ? How many turns for that?

And didn't you yourself say it was no standard focuser? What about the reverseroo fine pitch jiggerypoo, either Zeiss didn't apply the patent which sits in the top draw still, or there is so little difference in the speeds as to be undetectable and therefore redundant and irrelevant?!

I must admit that I like direct connection with a precision large diameter metal focusing wheel, so all this you beaut rubber covered knob stuff is of no interest to me - then again, I'm not out in sub zero temperatures etc .... I always thought those days were what log fires and hot cups of tea were invented for! :eek!:

Did you measure the diameter of the focus wheel?

Also did you note any mid field (80%) softness like Tim did?

And also, any mention of a 500ft+ 7x with a quicker focuser?


Thanks -- Chosun :gh:

HI CJ

I noted the turns from about 20' to far away because this felt like a more typical distance for birds over here and near enough to give you a flavour. I didn't note the other rotations for distances you mention. There is no jiggery-pokery machinery in the focus mechanism other than the fact is totally different from previous Zeiss or Swaro designs. The 'smart' word not just to what the wheel does but to the other attributes I mentioned as well.
While I didn't measure the focus wheel it felt and looked very similar to HT.

I am sure there is no appetite at Zeiss for a 7x SF, at all.

I went back to Bird Fair for a few hours today to specially assess the 10x for Tim's findings so it cost me £15 and sore eyes to find: nothing. And I really tried hard because it would do Zeiss no favours at all in the long term to fail to report something like this. But honestly I couldn't find anything.

I will cover more aspects in more detail when I get an SF and EL SV side-by-side, hopefully in October.

Troub

 

[BruceH]

Thanks for taking the time to post your initial thoughts. I got some hands on time in Tucson yesterday and posted my thoughts in a separate thread. Looks like we both like the new SF.

When you do your shoot out, I hope you also mention your Zeiss HT. The world is waiting to hear if you may ultimately have a new favorite!

 

[SEOW]

The FL has been around for a decade, has had very, very few focus problems - is quick, smooth and precise and focuses to about 5 feet. Just about perfect so it can be done.

Indeed! The FL's focus speed and silky smoothness is perfect, as far as I'm concerned. And it's plenty precise once you've used it for a while (it's true that a fast focuser can take a little time to get used to if you're accustomed to a slower one). On Holger's point above, for a naturalist interested in more than one class of organisms, it's a bit of a bother having to take 2 different binoculars with you out into the field- and dragonflies and butterflies are often in the same places as birds. And for any birding involving small, quick birds that are fairly close to you, speed of focus is extremely important.

I will certainly wait to try the SF to make a final judgement, of course, but it sure sounds like what Zeiss has done is take an ideal birding focus mechanism in the FL, made it too slow in the SF, and then decided to market the SF as the best birding binocular ever, partly because of how fast its focus is! Sigh.

Many thanks for your SF impressions Lee.

 

[MKinHK]

Very interesting to read this "from the field" report - thanks Lee.

 

[Alexis Powell]

Alexis, in this case, we may better forget about those close focusing capabilities. Because it was exactly this repeated call for a closer and faster focus which has brought the manufacturers into troubles. With binoculars of the 1980s and 1990s, the close focusing distance was 4m, the focus was slow, precise, and reliable. During the past 15 years, everybody joined the race to move in the close focusing point and at the same time to speed up the gears. All those troubles we are now frequently reading about focusing problems of various high end binoculars are a direct consequence of something which is technically impossible: To increase the focus travel, at the same time to speed it up (means to increase the slope of the threads), and to have an easily turning wheel without much traction. It is just impossible, and since they try to push it, our binoculars turn less reliable and durable, but more expensive. I don't even mention the problems with optical engineering that arise when trying to keep the image sharp at 1.5m as well as infinity.

That is why I always point out: Leave the observation of butterflies and dragonflies to instruments which are specialized for that task. Leave the generalist binoculars to those who observe distant objects, with slow and precise focusing capabilities and without all that engineering overhead that is needed for close up instruments.

Cheers,
Holger

Wow Holger, I've seen you write some of these things in the past but not with such conviction. I don't share your pessimism, and I don't understand where it comes from. Perhaps you have been too influenced by your time in China? I say that because it has been my observation that the Chinese are still struggling to build bins with reliable conventional focus. That is one of the big differences that I notice between mid-priced Japanese roofs of the 1990s and early 2000s versus their Chinese counterparts of today. The former generally have reliable focus, whereas the latter, which are optically quite superior, often have issues with left-right synchrony, have slop throughout the range, or may decouple slightly when run up against their limits (especially the near one). I've also seen a good number of Chinese roofs with catastrophic complete focus failure due to the decoupling of the knob from the drive system. Never saw that in a Japanese budget bin, even one with very close and reasonably precise focus (e.g. my optically nice Browning 8x32, which is supposedly equivalent to the Bushnell 8x32 Legend of the same vintage, which focuses down to 4 feet). The Japanese have successfully made plenty of close-focusing bins with smooth focus, even if sometimes too high a ratio for easy long range precision, for example the B&L 8x42 Elite (close focus to 4ft), the Nikon 8x32 LX, or, for that matter, the Eagle Optics 8x32 Ranger, which has optics that I loathe but a perfectly fine focus drive down to 3.5 feet. In top end bins, as others have pointed out, Zeiss has already proven that a large diameter conventional focuser can be made to be smooth, reliable, and precise over the range from 5-6ft (in x32 and x42 respectively) to infinity in a single turn. What I'd really like to see is variable-ratio focus in a top-end full-sized close-focusing bin. So far, we only have examples of variable ratio in some optically less than the very best bins from Brunton, Minox, and Pentax. Those examples are quite different in their implementations of variable-ratio, but in my experience all three companies have done a fine job of it. Based on those examples, it seems a smooth, precise, and reliable variable-ratio mechanism need not be expensive or bulky, and is well within human design and production capabilities at this time.

In short, what you describe as impossible is not only possible, it has already been done! Now, I'd just like to see it implemented with the (you say hard to engineer) optics that are perfectly fine for close observation that already exist in the Swarovski EL SV, Zeiss SF, or their future equivalents from Leica or Nikon.

--AP

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Wow Holger, I've seen you write some of these things in the past but not with such conviction. I don't share your pessimism, and I don't understand where it comes from. Perhaps you have been too influenced by your time in China? I say that because it has been my observation that the Chinese are still struggling to build bins with reliable conventional focus. That is one of the big differences that I notice between mid-priced Japanese roofs of the 1990s and early 2000s versus their Chinese counterparts of today. The former generally have reliable focus, whereas the latter, which are optically quite superior, often have issues with left-right synchrony, have slop throughout the range, or may decouple slightly when run up against their limits (especially the near one). I've also seen a good number of Chinese roofs with catastrophic complete focus failure due to the decoupling of the knob from the drive system. Never saw that in a Japanese budget bin, even one with very close and reasonably precise focus (e.g. my optically nice Browning 8x32, which is supposedly equivalent to the Bushnell 8x32 Legend of the same vintage, which focuses down to 4 feet). The Japanese have successfully made plenty of close-focusing bins with smooth focus, even if sometimes too high a ratio for easy long range precision, for example the B&L 8x42 Elite (close focus to 4ft), the Nikon 8x32 LX, or, for that matter, the Eagle Optics 8x32 Ranger, which has optics that I loathe but a perfectly fine focus drive down to 3.5 feet. In top end bins, as others have pointed out, Zeiss has already proven that a large diameter conventional focuser can be made to be smooth, reliable, and precise over the range from 5-6ft (in x32 and x42 respectively) to infinity in a single turn. What I'd really like to see is variable-ratio focus in a top-end full-sized close-focusing bin. So far, we only have examples of variable ratio in some optically less than the very best bins from Brunton, Minox, and Pentax. Those examples are quite different in their implementations of variable-ratio, but in my experience all three companies have done a fine job of it. Based on those examples, it seems a smooth, precise, and reliable variable-ratio mechanism need not be expensive or bulky, and is well within human design and production capabilities at this time.

In short, what you describe as impossible is not only possible, it has already been done! Now, I'd just like to see it implemented with the (you say hard to engineer) optics that are perfectly fine for close observation that already exist in the Swarovski EL SV, Zeiss SF, or their future equivalents from Leica or Nikon.

--AP

Hi Alexis,

It is not just about Chinese binoculars. Of course, since they try to copy features of the high end, including the 1.5m close focus at high speed, many of them fail spectacularly, because they cannot stay within the tolerances. But no, it is not just the Chinese, it is the high end as well, including the Zeiss FL, where one has to be lucky to find one sample which is as precise and smooth as a, say, Zeiss Dialyt of the 1990s, or a Leica Trinovid of the same era. I am using my binoculars for astronomy as well, and I have recently been playing with these older binoculars. What I thought: Focusing was great in those days. Very precise, a true fine tuning was possible, and the mechanics tight enough so that the instrument, once focused, stayed put during the rest of the evening. I should add that the Swarovski 10x56SLC which I recently used was fine in this regard, and so was the Zeiss 10x54 HT, except that the focus wheel was too easy going with the Zeiss so that it kept changing positions when touched. The Meopta Meostar is another positive example, it still comes with a reliable and rather precise focuser. Swaro SV, Zeiss FL - well, they seem to differ from sample to sample and I really don't have the impression that everything is under control here, though still much better than with the Conquest HD.

Cheers,
Holger