Cool
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
The new ZEISS SFL Binoculars. Maximum Image Quality. Minimum Weight. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Birdforum
- Start date
I try and read as many reviews as I can with the most useful being reviewers who have reviewed other binoculars I have at least briefly tried - I tend to favour reviewers who draw similar conclusions to my experiences with other binoculars they've reviewed. I generally find Scopeviews very good without too much brand bias. I also find most birders at reserves are more than happy to swap binos for a test.
edwincjones
Well-known member
followup
The Kowa BD11WD 10x42s arrived today and are nice binoculars.
The 10x, 42mm, 7.2 degree FOV and 22.6 oz is a good and comfortable mix.
The optics are brighter but not quite as sharp as my EL and FL.
Time will tell if I need to upgrade to the SFL- looking forwards to the user reviews.
edj
The only other binoculars that can compete with the Zeiss in aperture size and weight are the Swarovski Habicht 7x42 and the Nikon MHG 8x42. The Habicht is a superb binocular with the highest transmission of any binocular but has a tight focuser and a narrow FOV making it not the ideal binocular for birding. The Nikon MHG is less expensive, but one big advantage the Zeiss SFL has over it is the location of the focuser. It is placed more rearward and will fall under your finger easier than the MHG. I also like the full armoring on the Zeiss because it will be more protective than the armour on the MHG. The MHG does have a slightly bigger FOV, and it is still at least $500 less than the Zeiss. One problem with the MHG is CA is a little high on the edge and I bet the Zeiss will control CA better because Zeiss is known for low CA in their binoculars even though it looks like the SFL won't have fluoride glass. Also, the MHG has an average transmission of 88% and the Zeiss SFL will have about 91% so even though the 40 mm Zeiss has a slightly smaller aperture than the 42 mm MHG the Zeiss will probably be as bright. I think Zeiss has got the competition beat with the SFL and if they can sell it for $1500 in the USA they will have a winner and a very good choice for a birder who likes a lighter binocular but want's the low light performance and easy eye placement of the bigger exit pupil of a 40 mm glass and doesn't care about the bigger FOV's of the SF's. The minimalist design of the Zeiss is very nice, and I think it will be worth the additional $500 over the MHG.
Last edited:
This is an interesting topic. I have certainly found that heavier 42mm binos are steadier for a while, especially in blustery wind conditions. I say 'for a while' because at some point arm fatigue sets in and the steadiness steadily deteriorates. On the other hand my increasing use of 32mm models in recent years has absolutely not persuaded me that they are 'shake-monsters' despite their light weight, even in windy conditions. I am not at all sure how to explain this except perhaps that the 32s, being more compact, do not 'catch' the wind in the same way as 42s with their optical tubes flaring out to 42mm and perhaps presenting more surface area to the wind. SFL is pretty compact being the same length as Swaro's NL 32 so I have high hopes it will perform more like a 32 with respect to shake and less like a 42.
Lee
Last edited:
The ergonomics matter. I find the NL Pure with their flared grips more stable than the EL SV were.
But it will have the weight rearward design as in the SF, so that will help with shake also. I agree with Lee in that since the SFL is short, it will be more stable.
tenex
reality-based
Have you used 32mm models much? They're typically in the 20-23oz weight range and that's always worked very well for me, even at 10x. The larger diameter of SFL should be even easier to hold steady.
I agree and with the focus wheel central meaning gripping more forward that should reduce shake.
eitanaltman
Well-known member
This is a really cool new binocular. It’s about time someone tried to come out with a light weight premium optic without shrinking the exit pupil.
I had the MHG for a while, and it’s very nice, but I didn’t love it for a variety of reasons. And the build quality, while adequate, is nowhere close to “premium”.
Leica could have beat them to the punch with “modernized” Retrovid style optics, especially the 7x35 which is lighter than many 32mm but has a 5mm exit pupil. But the 8x40 SFL is (to me at least) a more attractive all around package for a light weight, all purpose birding optic.
I had the MHG for a while, and it’s very nice, but I didn’t love it for a variety of reasons. And the build quality, while adequate, is nowhere close to “premium”.
Leica could have beat them to the punch with “modernized” Retrovid style optics, especially the 7x35 which is lighter than many 32mm but has a 5mm exit pupil. But the 8x40 SFL is (to me at least) a more attractive all around package for a light weight, all purpose birding optic.
It's lack of mass that's caused me issues with some 10x25's and 10x32's - heavier binoculars have more inertia so are easier to hold steady. Obviously how that weight is distributed will make a big difference and yes the larger objectives and focus wheel positioning may encourage a better grip. I've no doubt the 8xs will be fine but I think I'd want to try the 10s before purchase.
Good point.
And yes, I have roughly three dozen 8x32s and know the format well. For me, the heavier ones are generally easier to hold steady - as Richard states, mass is an important factor - but it’s not that simple, other factors such as size / diameter (your point), shape and ergonomics in general play an important role. The simple straight tubes of the SF 8x32 combined with its light weight are not an ideal configuration for me personally, but I know many see this differently.
With the SFL, beside the mass / shake theme, the very short build could be a concern with regard to increased CA - pure speculation on my part, of course, but based on experience with other short binos - so I look forward to learning how Zeiss have dealt with it.
At any rate, it‘s great there is a new bino from Zeiss coming - been a bit boring since the NL came out … ;-)
"I have roughly three dozen 8x32s and know the format well."
Holy Moly! Three dozen 8x32's and I thought I had too many binoculars and I only have six.
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
It seems you're not aware of Canip's extensive collection of modern binoculars and his excellent and informative website:
Binoculars Today – Website about binoculars
There are a couple of hundred binos in his collection (Canip might know the exact number?), and there is a lot of useful info about each of them. And, to stay on topic, I am sure that the Zeiss SFL will be added to the collection very soon.
PeterPS
Well-Known Member
He owns both 7x50 and 10x50, but why would be jealous as neither is ideal for bird watching due to their size, weight and IF.
I think this pretty much sums up your opinions on binoculars - nothing to do with using them in the field to observe nature etc. The only thing that interests you is the technical quality of the instrument. Bit like guys who spend 100k on a hifi, but don't do it to listen to the music, more just to enjoy the purity of the sound that comes out the speakers!