Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40 (1 Viewer)

[jackjack]

Thread 'Hello from South Korea!' Hello from South Korea!

As I'm doing binocular review continuously and gaining some influence over South Korean binocular society,
Zeiss main distributor of South Korea lend me SFL 8x40 and 10x40 for review. As it was first introduced 2023 jan in Korea, I was the first Korean to use SFL.
the 30mm SFL is not available in Korea yet.

(I'm not used to writh in English at foreign domain... so I have to right much shorter (about 30~40%) then ones I wrote is Korean forum.
but I'll try my best to summarize my feeling about it.)

significantly smaller in both length and width compared with SF 42mm (about 150g lighter too)


Pros :

1. highest color fidelity in market. (better than swaro el/ nl, zeiss ht, nikon edg, fujinon hc, steiner nighthunter and more.)

2. most pleasing agronomic in Zeiss binos.
short, light, easiest focusing due to short width, most comfortable eyecups in zeiss.

3. close focus 1.3m

4. very good stray light suppression.

even slightly better than victory ht/ sf

Cons :

It's price is closer to victories than conquest.
but It's overall image quality is closer to conquest than victory.

It has the name 'victory' on it, but it seems it's more evenly matched with conquest.
central sharpness is almost same as conquest and edge sharpness (about 85%) is smilar too.
CA control is significantly better than conquest but worse then victory sf (especially at the edges.)
color fidelity is over one step more higher in SFL (conqust color tends to be yellow - green. and 32mm has more green coloring than 42)

I think SFL is not a victory level, closer to 'Reinforced Conquest'

to summarize.

Zeiss SFL will be highly innovative to birders.
It's pros, the high color fidelity, stray light control, close focus, good agronomic, compact and lightweight is all the spec birders need.

It is very convenient for me that if I go serious birding, I'm thinking obut taking this along...

but for the optic purists, It's optic quality doesn't seem to be fitted to 'victory' name.

In korea, It is about a same price with Swarovski EL. so It is more obvious to go buy EL because EL's image quality is still a step over then SFL.

 

[jackjack]

+ compared to 8x40 SFL, 10x40 lose it's color fidelity (little bit more green).
eye placement became little bit more finicky.

worst fall is CA. 10x40 has much higher purplr CA at the side of the FOV (maybe about 80%+?)

the side CA of sfl 10x40



but It has little bit more sweet spot too (larger apparent fov and little bit better edge sharpness about 1~2%)

It's my own opinion,
I think Zeiss have widest gap between 8 power and 10 power along other big 3.
have compared 8/10 powers of zeiss 32mm tfl, 32, 42mm conquest hd, 40mm sfl, 42mm ht, 42mm SF, but only 10 power I prefered over same 8 power is Conquest 10x42 becuse 8x42 had severe black outs even with the glasses on.

as you know lower powers has more adventages optically, the gap seems wider when we use cheap entry binos.
but In terms of big3 high end product, which the gap is minimal, I think Zeiss have more gap than swarovski and leica.
It means than zeiss 8 power is well maden but also means than 10 power falls little bit then same level Swaro and leica I have compared.

Is my own thought.

 

[MiddleRiver]

For me, the photo of 8x40 next to 8x42 says it all. The SFL are not perfect, but in terms of overall package - including weight and size - the are incredibly good.

 

[jackjack]

For me, the photo of 8x40 next to 8x42 says it all. The SFL are not perfect, but in terms of overall package - including weight and size - the are incredibly good.

yes I love that fact a lot. when birding, size and weight does matter.
to some users it even matter than optic quality.
SFL has weight and size right between 32mm and 42mm, but still have optic quality close to 42mm.

 

[pppppvvvv]

For me, the photo of 8x40 next to 8x42 says it all. The SFL are not perfect, but in terms of overall package - including weight and size - the are incredibly good.

I have the 10x40 SFL, really good for birding. This morning on an 8 mile walk thru the New Forest, I didn't really notice them round my neck.
Conversely, I found the 10x30 SFLs a little too small. Not as easy to hold, although the view through them was also very good.

 

[tenex]

have compared 8/10 powers of zeiss 32mm tfl, 32, 42mm conquest hd, 40mm sfl, 42mm ht, 42mm SF, but only 10 power I prefered over same 8 power is Conquest 10x42 becuse 8x42 had severe black outs even with the glasses on.

There has been discussion of Conquest eyecups being too shallow, and deeper ones are available from Zeiss. But I haven't heard other complaints about blackouts with glasses. It's a very popular model.

It's interesting that you rank nearly all 8x versions above 10x: by what criteria? I prefer 10s because I value the extra magnification, and like their often greater AFOV. I don't generally find them optically inferior, and here on BF, 10x32 FL at least is said to be sharper than 8x. Noctivid 10x42 isn't quite as good as the 8x but somehow that strikes me as unusual.

Thanks for your review. I agree: the cost of SFL doesn't align with its optics alone, though the size/weight can be attractive.

 

[Scott98]

Very interesting comments and photos, thank you! I've got 8x42 SF and was wondering about the SFL's. So the SF gives you a little better edge sharpness and less false color.

 

[dries1]

Careful with photos showing CA through a binocular. Not always telling the real truth.

 

[Patudo]

@jackjack - that is a very good binoscope, what was the smartphone/camera used to take that photo? I know for a fact that in virtually every situation where I could compare a bird viewed with binoculars to photos of the same bird(s) taken at the same time and location, what I saw through binoculars was better, often a lot better. This was with photos taken through fairly decent cameras too (Sony RX10 mark iii and A9 mark i with 200-600 Sony lens). Impressive though modern cameras are, I guess the human brain's exposure compensation, ISO performance and colour perception is simply better. The fact that your binoscope is so good (even allowing for good conditions and the bird probably not being too far away) is quite a compliment to the binocular, I think.

I can see some deterioration in performance at the outer edge of the field of view but the sweet spot seems large enough that it doesn't bother me, certainly not in your first image. But I don't think I am too sensitive to CA - and of course actually looking through a binocular may be different. I have looked through the 10x40 SFL briefly but did not really give it anything like a proper try.

PS. what is the bird in your photo - I'm thinking azure-winged magpie?

 

[exup]

Very interesting comments and photos, thank you! I've got 8x42 SF and was wondering about the SFL's. So the SF gives you a little better edge sharpness and less false color.

Is the SF 8x42 edge performance notably better than the SF10x42?

According to the resolution measurements across the field of the 10x42, these didn't look particularly good:

Encounters with Zeiss 8x42 HT and SF

EL it is then! Thanks!

www.birdforum.net

 

[jackjack]

Careful with photos showing CA through a binocular. Not always telling the real truth.

as I have taken over 100000 digiscipe photoes, I also know about that fact. It can chage little bit of change of placement of the camera and even depend's on color of the CA. for example, swarovski CA tend to be yellowish green / purple. and zeiss ht, fujinon hc, sf 10x42 tends to red and blue. the red and blue CA became more distinct in my photoes.

I used thus photo because it is close enough to what I see in my own eyes. sfl 10x40 really has a significant CA at the side of the fov. but center CA is better then victory HT.

 

[jackjack]

Is the SF 8x42 edge performance notably better than the SF10x42?

According to the resolution measurements across the field of the 10x42, these didn't look particularly good:

Encounters with Zeiss 8x42 HT and SF

EL it is then! Thanks!

www.birdforum.net

It's about 92% about 3 percent lower than 10x42. and It have more CA at the rim of the FOV than any other zeiss victories I seen. so CA can also bother edge resolution.
but I like 8x42 sf more than 10x42. 10x42 is too yellow for me.

 

[jackjack]

@jackjack - that is a very good binoscope, what was the smartphone/camera used to take that photo? I know for a fact that in virtually every situation where I could compare a bird viewed with binoculars to photos of the same bird(s) taken at the same time and location, what I saw through binoculars was better, often a lot better. This was with photos taken through fairly decent cameras too (Sony RX10 mark iii and A9 mark i with 200-600 Sony lens). Impressive though modern cameras are, I guess the human brain's exposure compensation, ISO performance and colour perception is simply better. The fact that your binoscope is so good (even allowing for good conditions and the bird probably not being too far away) is quite a compliment to the binocular, I think.

I can see some deterioration in performance at the outer edge of the field of view but the sweet spot seems large enough that it doesn't bother me, certainly not in your first image. But I don't think I am too sensitive to CA - and of course actually looking through a binocular may be different. I have looked through the 10x40 SFL briefly but did not really give it anything like a proper try.

PS. what is the bird in your photo - I'm thinking azure-winged magpie?

you got the right bird name. It is common in korea.
I use Samsung galaxy S21 with no phone adaptors.
digiscope results is not close to real feel and often have significant differences from it but it is still the easiest way to show how the bino preforms. if it was taken carefully.

 

[jackjack]

Very interesting comments and photos, thank you! I've got 8x42 SF and was wondering about the SFL's. So the SF gives you a little better edge sharpness and less false color.

sf is a step above the sfl. more brightness, must wider sweetspot.
but sf 8x42 has more CA at the rim (about 92% +) then sfl 8x40. only sf 8x42 has that issue belong other zeiss I seen. Central CA control of SF 8x42 is among the best maybe only little behind NL 8x42

 

[jackjack]

There has been discussion of Conquest eyecups being too shallow, and deeper ones are available from Zeiss. But I haven't heard other complaints about blackouts with glasses. It's a very popular model.

It's interesting that you rank nearly all 8x versions above 10x: by what criteria? I prefer 10s because I value the extra magnification, and like their often greater AFOV. I don't generally find them optically inferior, and here on BF, 10x32 FL at least is said to be sharper than 8x. Noctivid 10x42 isn't quite as good as the 8x but somehow that strikes me as unusual.

Thanks for your review. I agree: the cost of SFL doesn't align with its optics alone, though the size/weight can be attractive.

is my presonal preference. I also love looking through 10 powers. prefer Swaro EL 10x32 than 8x32, NL 10x42 than 8x42
and 10x32 leica uv HD over 8x32.

if I guess the reason of my preference of 8 power zeiss, is the color.
Zeiss 10 power I have said over has one similarity, It has little more yello - green coloring than 8 powers. as for the SFL, this clore damage it's color fidelity which was on of the major appeal point of SFL series.

and HT 10x42 also have more yellow green coloring than 8x42. so 8x42 look significantly more brighter even in daylight du to it's better color fidelity. as you know. HT 's best appeal point is brightness. so that's why I prefer 8x42 over 10x42.

and sf 8x42 is still mave more yellow green than other zeiss and even meostar hd+. but It have great contrast over the green - yellow objects wich I like. but sf 10x42 is so yellow - green that even white cherry blossom look like mint.

Tfl 32is both good but 10x32 eyepoint is little bit finicky for use.

alost all of the 8 power is cheaper than same 10 power model. but for Zeiss model especially SFL / HT / SF, I'll go for 8 power even It is 5% expensive than 10 power.

 

[jackjack]

@jackjack - that is a very good binoscope, what was the smartphone/camera used to take that photo? I know for a fact that in virtually every situation where I could compare a bird viewed with binoculars to photos of the same bird(s) taken at the same time and location, what I saw through binoculars was better, often a lot better. This was with photos taken through fairly decent cameras too (Sony RX10 mark iii and A9 mark i with 200-600 Sony lens). Impressive though modern cameras are, I guess the human brain's exposure compensation, ISO performance and colour perception is simply better. The fact that your binoscope is so good (even allowing for good conditions and the bird probably not being too far away) is quite a compliment to the binocular, I think.

I can see some deterioration in performance at the outer edge of the field of view but the sweet spot seems large enough that it doesn't bother me, certainly not in your first image. But I don't think I am too sensitive to CA - and of course actually looking through a binocular may be different. I have looked through the 10x40 SFL briefly but did not really give it anything like a proper try.

PS. what is the bird in your photo - I'm thinking azure-winged magpie?

guess I got too sensitive in CA because I've done many comparisons.... Even Zeiss Ht, Nikon edg's CA often bothers me. I think Kowa Genesis, swarovski EL/NL has top CA control at the center of the image between same mag and size.

 

[jackjack]

I have the 10x40 SFL, really good for birding. This morning on an 8 mile walk thru the New Forest, I didn't really notice them round my neck.
Conversely, I found the 10x30 SFLs a little too small. Not as easy to hold, although the view through them was also very good.

I haven't seen 30mm SFL yet. since it is not available in Korea yet.
30mm bino such as monarch7, hg, swaro CL has harder eye placement than 32mm...
guess SFL 30mm couldn't manage to avoid that too...

weight DOES matters a lot. NL Pure has fabulous optic quality but my neck gets some strain when I walk 4 hours with it.

 

[jackjack]

There has been discussion of Conquest eyecups being too shallow, and deeper ones are available from Zeiss. But I haven't heard other complaints about blackouts with glasses. It's a very popular model.

It's interesting that you rank nearly all 8x versions above 10x: by what criteria? I prefer 10s because I value the extra magnification, and like their often greater AFOV. I don't generally find them optically inferior, and here on BF, 10x32 FL at least is said to be sharper than 8x. Noctivid 10x42 isn't quite as good as the 8x but somehow that strikes me as unusual.

Thanks for your review. I agree: the cost of SFL doesn't align with its optics alone, though the size/weight can be attractive.

+ eye glass black outs depends lot on it's wearer.

other conquest I seen (32mm, 10x42, 8x56) has fine eyepoints, little different for some novice asian users though.
but 8x42 conquest is another story. maybe because of small FOV + long ER combined, I have to screw it's eyecup little bit to see without blackouts, even deploys little bit of blackouts too when I push it to my glasses.

I really love conquest HD.
It has some downside (too shallow focus dept, dreaded CA on 10x42) but still one of the best under 1000$.

but except for 8x42 only for It's eye placement issue...

 

[pm42]

weight DOES matters a lot. NL Pure has fabulous optic quality but my neck gets some strain when I walk 4 hours with it.

Did you try using a harness? I'm using this one: Ultralight Binocular Harness - Rick Young Outdoors
BTW I agree about weight especially because I carry photo gear too. So I tend to use the SFL more than the NL Pure. Too bad because as you said, the Swaro view is fabulous.

 

[jackjack]

Did you try using a harness? I'm using this one: Ultralight Binocular Harness - Rick Young Outdoors
BTW I agree about weight especially because I carry photo gear too. So I tend to use the SFL more than the NL Pure. Too bad because as you said, the Swaro view is fabulous.

I tried Nl 12x42 on a harness it is really better than normal strap. but it will be much lighter if I use SFL on harness
In Korea, NL 42mm is about same price or little bit cheaper than 42mm SF & Noctivid.
So almost all of the birders searching for high end optics goes for NL.