I tried the new Zeiss SF (1 Viewer)

plc22 · Nov 22, 2014

Last week at the 2014 Paris Photo show, Zeiss finally brought a couple of binoculars to the public and to my surprise the new SF was there, along the Conquest HD and the Terra models.
I was suprised as they could not be bothered the previous years to bring any sports optics at all while all the others (Swarovski, Leica and Nikon) had their premium binoculars there for everyone to try.
No queue, just one guy looking through the SF and then it was my turn. The conditions to test a binocular were bad, a lot of people walking around, only indoors, upward viewing to avoid having faces crossing the FOV, lack of remote targets, etc...After looking through the Conquest HD 8x42, I noticed that the SF equivalent are pretty big but very well balanced and the view is much more straightforward, just right there without any effort to make. Viewing comfort is just outstanding, ER works fine (I wear spectacles). The most striking thing about the SF is the extra "punch" and "bite" that the view provides compared to that of the Conquest HD, it's brighter and more "direct".
I think that the correct words to summerize what I saw are "easy" and "sparkling" as far as the SF in concerned.

BruceH · Nov 22, 2014

plc22 said:
......the view is much more straightforward, just right there without any effort to make. .......
I think that the correct words to summerize what I saw are "easy" and "sparkling" as far as the SF in concerned.

Thank you for posting your impressions of the new SF. To borrow Chosun Juan's terminology, the view sounds at least "immersive" and possibly "transparent"!

Do you know if the unit you had was a production unit or one of the pre-production units? Also, where there any comments from the Zeiss rep worth passing on?

Thanks.

plc22 · Nov 22, 2014

I don't know whether or not it was a production unit sorry, the Zeiss rep (if he really was one!) did not have a clue what the SF was about at all,he thought the warranty was 3 years, it's the other guy and myself who told him that he was mistaken and the warranty had to be much more than that (10 years).

BruceH · Nov 22, 2014

Thanks for the update. Sounds like the rep was from the camera side of the company and displayed the binoculars as a favor to the sports optics side. It appears doubtful he would have known the production status of that unit. It is good to know you had a favorable impression of the SF.

plc22 · Nov 22, 2014

You're welcome.
The binocular is outstanding, more thorough testing in better conditions is requiered of course but what I saw convinced me that this one will be one of the best in optical quality at least (I own a Swaro SV 8x32 and a Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56) . I really liked the easy and vibrant view.

Gijs van Ginkel · Nov 22, 2014

Dear all,
Yesterday I had the opportunity to look into some aspects of the 8x and 10x SF. Both had a weight of 782 grams, which is within experimental error the same as Zeiss mentions in its flyers. Afer measuring the magnification I found that both models had a magnification of slightly over 8x and 10x, but that is normal and is perfectly allright. The first thing one notices when the binoculars are handled is their low weight, considering the size of the instruments. The turning resistance of the focussing wheel was OK, although not so light as I had expected. It took about 1,8 turns from close focus to infinity, which is allright too.
As already noticed often in this forum the FOV is large and that is very pleasant.
A real problem are the eyecups.They collapse easily and it seemed that some met no resistance at all after turning them outwards, so they could not keep their positions. I understand that Zeiss is aware of it and is in the process to cure that problem, so the new production models should not suffer from this problem.
Gijs

bh46118 · Nov 22, 2014

Did you look through the SV at the same show to see if the level of sparkle and ease was similar ?

plc22 said:
You're welcome.
The binocular is outstanding, more thorough testing in better conditions is requiered of course but what I saw convinced me that this one will be one of the best in optical quality at least (I own a Swaro SV 8x32 and a Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56) . I really liked the easy and vibrant view.

Swedpat · Nov 22, 2014

It's fascinating with the development of optics. Already 20 years ago I perceived the best binos to provide an even better image than the naked eye, though that should be impossible.
And the further we go in the technical development the smaller improvements can be achieved.
I mean; even the best optics can't beat the naked eye, instead the true assessment of a great optics is based on how close the image quality will come to the naked eye.
I am waiting for a Conquest HD 8x42 and will then decide if I want to buy it.
According to what I read about this binocular it would then be the best binocular I have ever owned.
I don't doubt that SF is even better but how much? I guess the most people will not see the difference. Except from the price...

bh46118 · Nov 23, 2014

I would bet they will see a big difference.

Swedpat said:
I don't doubt that SF is even better but how much? I guess the most people will not see the difference. Except from the price...

ceasar · Nov 23, 2014

Most people will notice the much larger FOV in the SF.

plc22 · Nov 23, 2014

Swedpat said:
I don't doubt that SF is even better but how much? I guess the most people will not see the difference. Except from the price...

I looked through the Conquest HD 8x42 at the same show just before grabbing the SF and the differences were striking, at least for me, for all the reasons I mentionned above. Perhaps someone who doesn't know a great deal about binoculars may not notice them as much as I do, but I believe that the people ready to spend 2500€ on this kind of product know their subject.
There is a substancial jump in optical quality IMO when you go from the Conquest to the SF.
I also noticed that the eyecups are very easy to turn indeed after the initial "unlocking", I found them pleasing to use, very smooth.

plc22 · Nov 23, 2014

bh46118 said:
Did you look through the SV at the same show to see if the level of sparkle and ease was similar ?

I also spent some time at the Swarovski stand before going to Zeiss, but there was no 42mm SV, just the 32mm which I know very well for owning one.
The new SLC HD 42 was there and it really impressed me, very easy, comfy, sharp and bright, it ticked all the boxes for me, just a very slight blurring at the edge of the FOV, however it does not have that "punchy" view that the SF provides.
Both SLC HD and Zeiss SF 8x42 give an easier and steadier view than the 8x32 SV, surely due to the increase of EP and weight.
I knew that the new SLC HD was good but not as good as this, still the SF felt more vibrant, I wish I could have tried them side by side though.

Pinewood · Nov 23, 2014

Hello PLC22,

Thank you for sharing your impressions.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :hi:

denco@comcast.n · Nov 23, 2014

plc22 said:
You're welcome.
The binocular is outstanding, more thorough testing in better conditions is requiered of course but what I saw convinced me that this one will be one of the best in optical quality at least (I own a Swaro SV 8x32 and a Zeiss Conquest HD 15x56) . I really liked the easy and vibrant view.

Did you like the optics better than your SV 8x32? Disregarding ergonomics.

Swedpat · Nov 23, 2014

bh46118 said:
I would bet they will see a big difference.

I mean; when the difference between $500 and $1000 optics is pretty small(many people barely notice it) the difference between a $1000 and $2000 should be even smaller. The closer we come to the perfect image the smaller the noticeable improvement will be, so I think a "big" difference has to be a bit of an exaggeration...

But undependent of if I buy Conquest HD or not I am looking forward to try the new SF! |=)|

plc22 · Nov 23, 2014

[email protected] said:
Did you like the optics better than your SV 8x32? Disregarding ergonomics.

I'd like to say again that this "test" was done indoors under artificial light, in poor conditions, but the view in the SF was easier than in the SV 8x32 (but so was it in the SLC 8x42 HD) and also had more impact.

By the way, anyone considering getting a premium 8x42 should put the swaro SLC 8x42 HD high on their list, I got the 8x32 SV for its size and ER (and everything else too..) , but the SLC HD is superior IMO and it kills me to say so, I'm trying to be objective, ok it's not flat field but blurring is very well controled, I don't like the way things lose half their size when they get near the edge of the FOV in 8x32 SV.
I still love the 8x32 SV (not as easy to hold steady as the discontinuated SLC 8X30), it's such a nice tool in a small package and I wouldn't carry an 8x42 around, that's why I have always skipped 42mm binos.

bh46118 · Nov 23, 2014

Read post #11, it sounds like a credible observation to me. The idea that Zeiss would design an $2700 binocular to have virtually the same view as one that costs $1000 just doesn't seem plausible.

Swedpat said:
I mean; when the difference between $500 and $1000 optics is pretty small(many people barely notice it) the difference between a $1000 and $2000 should be even smaller. The closer we come to the perfect image the smaller the noticeable improvement will be, so I think a "big" difference has to be a bit of an exaggeration...

But undependent of if I buy Conquest HD or not I am looking forward to try the new SF! |=)|

Vespobuteo · Nov 23, 2014

plc22 said:
I'd like to say again that this "test" was done indoors under artificial light, in poor conditions, but the view in the SF was easier than in the SV 8x32 (but so was it in the SLC 8x42 HD) and also had more impact.

By the way, anyone considering getting a premium 8x42 should put the swaro SLC 8x42 HD high on their list, I got the 8x32 SV for its size and ER (and everything else too..) , but the SLC HD is superior IMO and it kills me to say so, I'm trying to be objective, ok it's not flat field but blurring is very well controled, I don't like the way things lose half their size when they get near the edge of the FOV in 8x32 SV.
I still love the 8x32 SV (not as easy to hold steady as the discontinuated SLC 8X30), it's such a nice tool in a small package and I wouldn't carry an 8x42 around, that's why I have always skipped 42mm binos.

thanks for you findings!
It might be a bit unfair to compare 32mm with 42mm in low light,
since a bigger exit pupil and light gathering capacity in the 8x42mm will
kill any 32mm…just not the 8x32 SV...
:t:

Torview · Nov 23, 2014

plc22 said:
I'd like to say again that this "test" was done indoors under artificial light, in poor conditions, but the view in the SF was easier than in the SV 8x32 (but so was it in the SLC 8x42 HD) and also had more impact.

By the way, anyone considering getting a premium 8x42 should put the swaro SLC 8x42 HD high on their list, I got the 8x32 SV for its size and ER (and everything else too..) , but the SLC HD is superior IMO and it kills me to say so, I'm trying to be objective, ok it's not flat field but blurring is very well controled, I don't like the way things lose half their size when they get near the edge of the FOV in 8x32 SV.
I still love the 8x32 SV (not as easy to hold steady as the discontinuated SLC 8X30), it's such a nice tool in a small package and I wouldn't carry an 8x42 around, that's why I have always skipped 42mm binos.

Funny how we all see differing results, I had a 32mm SV alongside a 42mm SLC back when I bought my SE and for me the SV was easily the better, (of the Swaro`s !), surprised me how much actually.

plc22 · Nov 23, 2014

Vespobuteo said:
thanks for you findings!
It might be a bit unfair to compare 32mm with 42mm in low light,
since a bigger exit pupil and light gathering capacity in the 8x42mm will
kill any 32mm…just not the 8x32 SV...
:t:

I couldn' agree more with that, but people insist on comparing the 8x32 SV with 42mm so I give my opinion..

I tried the new Zeiss SF (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Avatar: Harris Hawk

Well-known member

Avatar: Harris Hawk

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New York correspondent

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread