CoolHey Tom. The review will be mainly about the NL rather than a detailed comparison. SF 32 has had plenty of exposure on Birdforum and I want to give the NL the best shot to show what it can do.
Lee
CoolHey Tom. The review will be mainly about the NL rather than a detailed comparison. SF 32 has had plenty of exposure on Birdforum and I want to give the NL the best shot to show what it can do.
Lee
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.Lee,
It is not personal, but most reviews of glass I read that I am interested in are from outside of Birdforum now, including others nearby me who give me insights prior to me actually using them, before any potential purchase.
I do like the photos.
followupSFLs for old bones and eyes
My SW 8.5x42ELs have been my best all around binoculars, but they have been increasing uncomfortable on my neck
(bino harness helps but is more inconvenient to use) and I have been using my Zeiss FL 8x32 more.
Increasing cataracts, and my reluctance to surgery, have made viewing more difficult. The SFLs may be the solution.
I have on order the Kowa BD11 8x40s as a trial to help with both issues. This is a cheaper option but lessor quality optics.
Hopefully the Kowas will be adequate but I am following this thread with interest.
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.For me it is not necessarily the light weight (but it will be important to others), but Zeiss has done something interesting here with a glass of small size and a larger exit pupil than a 8X32, which within my experience, should exhibit more relaxed viewing.
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.I agree, but fear the SFL might be more prone to shaking because of it‘s light weight - will be interesting to see.
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.I agree, but fear the SFL might be more prone to shaking because of it‘s light weight - will be interesting to see.
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, but fear the SFL might be more prone to shaking because of it‘s light weight - will be interesting to see.
I agree and with the focus wheel central meaning gripping more forward that should reduce shake.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.
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.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.
Good point.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 have roughly three dozen 8x32s and know the format well."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 … ;-)
It seems you're not aware of Canip's extensive collection of modern binoculars and his excellent and informative website:"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.
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.Thanks! I will check it out. Does he have a Nikon WX? If he does, I am jealous!
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!Just because the WX is probably the best binocular made!