So....SF 8X42 has arrived... (1 Viewer)

[chill6x6]

So yeah....I got 'em. I guess it was a given that I would at some point...

First impression....

They.

Are.

HUGE.

Biggest roof 8X42 you'll ever see. Larger than any 42mm binocular I have including SV, HT, couple of older SLCs, and of course the Leica HD Plus.

I weighed a few things I have around the house to see how they compare:

HT 10X42- 30oz
SV 10X42- 29oz
UV HD + 8X42- 26.5oz
SV 8X32- 21oz(new too)
SF 8X42- 27.5oz

So slightly less than the HT and SV 42mm, but 2.5 ounces isn't that big of a deal when talking 30 ounce optics IMO. If "weight-saving" is ones goal, look no further than the SV 32mm.

So I spent basically all day Saturday out in the field with the HT 10X42 AND SF 8X42 around my neck AND on Sunday Ashlee and I went out and swapped up between the SF 8X42, HT 10X42, and SV 8X32. So a few observations....

Balance of the SF... Meh... Yeah, I GUESS it IS more "balanced" as in it's weight is more towards the ocular. IMO balance of any 30 ounce binocular is a non-issue.

Focusing... I have to ADMIT...focus placement is about perfect. Easy/large adjustment. A 10.

Eye-cups.... Bottom of the pile of every binocular in it's class. Even Zeiss's own HT is much better. If the SF were my baby, they would have never left R&D. Two stops...all the way down and all the way extended. That's it. I wear glasses and Ashlee doesn't so they were either all the way up or down. So middle ground doesn't exist... edit--->> This IS my initial impression of the SFs eyecups BUT with continued use and disbelief I later discovered they DO have a middle stop. What I once thought was the top stop IS the middle stop. Twist harder and you'll get to the top stop. Still not as good as my SVs and certainly not with the Leica's.

"My name is Chuck, and I'M a 10 power-holic."
Tis true. I've always liked 10X more/better. ESPECIALLY this time of year. Leaves off the trees...birds see you WAY before you see them. Lots of waterfowl. I'm going to grab a 10X....USUALLY....but I realize I'm the exception. I am able to find birds almost instantly with the HT 10X42, even close and thick. With glasses. ASHLEE on the other hand(way better birder than ME), can't. Normally, she LOVES the HTs... This day they didn't work for her. INSTANT success with the SFs. After several hours I got the SFs back and she got the SV 8X32s. They worked just as well for her. But we were birding, not binocularing.

So why 8X?
One reason. FOV.
Since the SF is supposedly THE final word on birding binoculars, it made sense to ME to get 8X SINCE 8X is THE final word for birding binocular magnification. Make sense? AND not to mention that I have 10X pretty well covered with the SV and HT, both 10X42s. And then there's that FOV. The most FOV of anything in its class. NOTICEABLE difference in FOV. Not so much with the SV 8X32 which all ready has a nice FOV, but with the UV HD+, yes...I believe it IS noticeable.

I hope to get out some more in the next few weeks with nothing but the SF, SV 8X32, and the UV HD + and do a more serious/thorough comparison of those three.

No idea why photos aren't showing up the way they used to....|:x|

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

Congratulations for your new purchase.

I use mine for less than a year and sold it.....i can not live with his pronounced Green tint but some people like.

Is a great binocular and probably if they fix some issues is gonna be one of the best...

All the best.

 

[Theo98]

I hope to get out some more in the next few weeks with nothing but the SF, SV 8X32, and the UV HD + and do a more serious/thorough comparison of those three.

Thanks for the comments Chuck! Looking forward to more of the 8X comparisons! :t:

Ted

 

[chill6x6]

Okay so I need to modify some of my comments... B

The EYECUPS...
Upon using the SFs this AM I discovered something.... Over the weekend, I used the SFs the VAST majority of the time wearing glasses even though I used them some without. This morning while NOT wearing glasses I was like...no WAY.....So while REALLY twisting the eyecup, EUREKA...there IS a middle stop in the eyecup adjustment.... what I once thought was the top stop WAS the middle stop, but WOW it took quite a twist to get there. So my apologies... Certainly not as bad as I initially reported.... Perhaps they will "break in." For now I'll still say they are not what they SHOULD be. I've never had an issue adjusting eye-cups before now.

 

[[email protected]]

Okay so I need to modify some of my comments... B

The EYECUPS...
Upon using the SFs this AM I discovered something.... Over the weekend, I used the SFs the VAST majority of the time wearing glasses even though I used them some without. This morning while NOT wearing glasses I was like...no WAY.....So while REALLY twisting the eyecup, EUREKA...there IS a middle stop in the eyecup adjustment.... what I once thought was the top stop WAS the middle stop, but WOW it took quite a twist to get there. So my apologies... Certainly not as bad as I initially reported.... Perhaps they will "break in." For now I'll still say they are not what they SHOULD be. I've never had an issue adjusting eye-cups before now.

Chill. Let us know if you prefer the Zeiss 8x42 SF over your Swarovski 8x32 SV overall once you have had a chance to use them in the field. I know each one will have it's advantages but which one would you keep if you had to get rid of one of them. Do you like your Zeiss 10x42 HT better than your Swarovski 10x42 SV? Those are two fine binoculars I am sure. In your picture the Zeiss 8x42 SF looks twice as big as the Leica 8x42 HD Plus. The Leica is really nice for it's small compact size isn't it. You have some great binoculars there. Your opinions are valued because not everybody has all those top alpha binoculars to compare.

 

[[email protected]]

Congratulations for your new purchase.

I use mine for less than a year and sold it.....i can not live with his pronounced Green tint but some people like.

Is a great binocular and probably if they fix some issues is gonna be one of the best...

All the best.

How pronounced was the green tint? Is it something that you notice all the time or in just certain situations.

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

How pronounced was the green tint? Is it something that you notice all the time or in just certain situations.

The green tint It is something traditional on Zeiss binoculars, well the SF don't have the strong green cast of my Zeiss Oberkochen 10x50 25 series but it has more green view than the HT.

This effect is quite pleasant if you life in a country with a lot of green but the colors gives thru the SF looking the typically dry and naked landscaped of Spain is really awful.

The SF has more green cast than HT as Tobias mennle says on his web site also there is a color chart with HT,SF,Ultra HD bins color cast.

Colour reproduction
to my eyes is problematic with a green cast. This is the second serious fault in the SF´s design. To me images often look a bit sick and muddy because of it. White objects, especially if in bright sun, will look white, as our brain will correct a lot of colour casts and bright highlights seem more robust with regards to colour casts. Midtones are stronger affected, as in grey birds. Accordingly, greens sparkle very saturated, but purples and skin tones are a bit subdued. Red autumn foliage will look browner and more desaturated compared with other glasses. Zeiss is really pushing it hard here and I resent this approach from the bottom of my heart. Zeiss, please change it.

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/zeiss/zeissvictorysf8x42/zeissvictorysf8x42.html

 

[Troubador]

The green tint It is something traditional on Zeiss binoculars, well the SF don't have the strong green cast of my Zeiss Oberkochen 10x50 25 series but it has more green view than the HT.

This effect is quite pleasant if you life in a country with a lot of green but the colors gives thru the SF looking the typically dry and naked landscaped of Spain is really awful.

The SF has more green cast than HT as Tobias mennle says on his web site also there is a color chart with HT,SF,Ultra HD bins color cast.

Colour reproduction
to my eyes is problematic with a green cast. This is the second serious fault in the SF´s design. To me images often look a bit sick and muddy because of it. White objects, especially if in bright sun, will look white, as our brain will correct a lot of colour casts and bright highlights seem more robust with regards to colour casts. Midtones are stronger affected, as in grey birds. Accordingly, greens sparkle very saturated, but purples and skin tones are a bit subdued. Red autumn foliage will look browner and more desaturated compared with other glasses. Zeiss is really pushing it hard here and I resent this approach from the bottom of my heart. Zeiss, please change it.

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/zeiss/zeissvictorysf8x42/zeissvictorysf8x42.html

I have used SFs in large areas of dry sand-dunes and dry rocks as well as in oceanic, moorland, marshland and salt-marsh habitats and I do not recognise this description of the view through SFs.

Of course our eyes / brains all process colours in different ways, for example me and my wife Troubadoris sometimes describe colours differently.

Lee

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

I have used SFs in large areas of dry sand-dunes and dry rocks as well as in oceanic, moorland, marshland and salt-marsh habitats and I do not recognise this description of the view through SFs.

Of course our eyes / brains all process colours in different ways, for example me and my wife Troubadoris sometimes describe colours differently.

Lee

Well the green cast are shown by photographs on Tobias web site,the colors given by the camera is impartial not like eyes.

Another thing maybe zeiss already change this green cast.

The serial number of mine was 4360766 take a look to your binocular.

 

[chill6x6]

Well the green cast are shown by photographs on Tobias web site,the colors given by the camera is impartial not like eyes.

Another thing maybe zeiss already change this green cast.

The serial number of mine was 4360766 take a look to your binocular.

I've noticed no green cast/tint with my SFs either. My SF is 14710 AFTER yours.

 

[chill6x6]

Chill. Let us know if you prefer the Zeiss 8x42 SF over your Swarovski 8x32 SV overall once you have had a chance to use them in the field. I know each one will have it's advantages but which one would you keep if you had to get rid of one of them.

Will do. All ready it is pretty obvious to me there's not much the SF will do that the 8X32 SV WON'T do.

Do you like your Zeiss 10x42 HT better than your Swarovski 10x42 SV? Those are two fine binoculars I am sure.

I honestly USE the HT more. Maybe after owning it about a year that I'm USED to it? The HT is really a user friendly binocular.

In your picture the Zeiss 8x42 SF looks twice as big as the Leica 8x42 HD Plus. The Leica is really nice for it's small compact size isn't it. You have some great binoculars there. Your opinions are valued because not everybody has all those top alpha binoculars to compare.

The SF is HUGE....especially compared the the 32mm SV and the HD +. The SFs size is very noticeable while walking thru the woods with the binoculars even in a harness. Compared to the 32mm SV which are hardly noticed. And thanks for the nice comments!

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

I've noticed no green cast/tint with my SFs either. My SF is 14710 AFTER yours.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3318419

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

Also the Guys of binomania noticed it

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3296490

Anyway Maybe they fix the problem on last production units.........i hope so.

 

[[email protected]]

I have used SFs in large areas of dry sand-dunes and dry rocks as well as in oceanic, moorland, marshland and salt-marsh habitats and I do not recognise this description of the view through SFs.

Of course our eyes / brains all process colours in different ways, for example me and my wife Troubadoris sometimes describe colours differently.

Lee

What is your S/N? Maybe Zeiss fixed the green tint later in the production run on the SF's.

 

[[email protected]]

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3318419

Both Zeiss definitely have a green cast especially the SF more so than the HT.

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

Mine was 4360766

Tobias Mennle the guy of Greatestbinoculars.com unit was 4304295

The unit shown on binomania have blurred serial numbers pointedly

 

[[email protected]]

Mine was 4360766

Tobias Mennle the guy of Greatestbinoculars.com unit was 4304295

The unit shown on binomania have blurred serial numbers pointedly

I will look at the Zeiss SF tomorrow at Cabella's so I will look for the green tint. I would assume Cabella's will have new stock so maybe they will be the later S/N's without the green tint.

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

I will look at the Zeiss SF tomorrow at Cabella's so I will look for the green tint. I would assume Cabella's will have new stock so maybe they will be the later S/N's without the green tint.

NICE !!!!

Please take note about the SN and also is a good idea to have another binocular side by side to compare then color cast is more evident.

Waiting for your review.....:t:

 

[Gzoladz74]

Mine is 4374622. I don't notice any green tint.

What I do notice sometimes though is when I have light coming from behind, like a small red glare on the left side of the left ocular. It disappears a bit when I change the angle. I tried blocking the light, etc but I cannot figure out what is causing it.

Leaving that aside I find them amazing.

 

[GLOBETROTTER]

Mine is 4374622. I don't notice any green tint.

What I do notice sometimes though is when I have light coming from behind, like a small red glare on the left side of the left ocular. It disappears a bit when I change the angle. I tried blocking the light, etc but I cannot figure out what is causing it.

Leaving that aside I find them amazing.

however photographic evidence reveals...