Zeiss SFL 8x40, A Field Review (1 Viewer)

[HenRun]

I also see a (perhaps healthy) scepticism towards the latest and the greatest from X or Y brand. I have been like that for fifteen years, but I also realised that things have actually improved over those fifteen years in binos. I had a lot of catching up to do and in the process I have realised that the most expensive one, or my previously preferred brand, is not necessarily the best, for me.

 

[Troubador]

after I read Lee's review,
I felt in some ways that the review was written to play to the band (the Zeiss guys), as there wasn't a whole lot of depth in the normal categories of evaluation interest - certainly nothing negative except the focuser. And I also wondered why he had a pre-production unit for this review, when it seems like many production models were around, and had been for some time.

I have written 41 reviews of binoculars from 8 brands. At no point did anyone, from any of those brands make any attempt to influence the review. If they had, I would have told them where to stuff it. I'm from Yorkshire and when something annoys us (which this would) we are not shy of saying so.

I have no interest in performing forensic examinations and analyses of the optics of the binoculars I review. Firstly because others on here do that far better than I ever could (e.g. Henry) and secondly because I am far more interested in whether a binocular can provide enjoyable and educational nature observations. This has gradually changed the 'nature' of my reviews over the years to the form you read today. I know from responses that this pleases many members and probably there are just as many who don't like this. That is fine by me, there is room for many approaches to binocular reviewing.

The reason I reviewed a pre-production unit was simply because we were leaving home to visit the Western Isles of Scotland (thats 650 miles / 1,050km away) on the 15th June for a 3 weeks' holiday in a place ideal for using and reviewing the SFL and the only unit Zeiss could make available was the pre-production unit that I received on the 10th June: just in time! Production units were almost certainly being prioritised for dealers all around the world who would need units for demo purposes as well as units to fill advance orders and then units to fill their shelves. Anyway I prefer to get my review units from the brands so I can be reasonably confident they have not been mishandled or dropped.

Lee

 

[henry link]

How do these measurements compare to other binoculars you have tested?

The best single telescope from a 42mm binocular I've measured was about 2.9" from one side of my 8x42 FL. I expect most "good" 42mm binoculars to fall somewhere between 3.2" and 3.8", but the full aperture resolution is not the whole story. Most of the time we only use the center 20-30mm of the aperture of an 8x binocular for daylight birding, so I also do measurements with 30mm and 21mm stop downs.

 

[Pileatus]

Observer: "I really like this binocular."
Bystander: "No you don't and here's a list of 10 reasons why."

 

[Upland]

Birdforum Poster “I came here for an argument”

Birdforum Repliers “No you didn’t!” 😱😜

 

[james holdsworth]

The best single telescope from a 42mm binocular I've measured was about 2.9" from one side of my 8x42 FL. I expect most "good" 42mm binoculars to fall somewhere between 3.2" and 3.8", but the full aperture resolution is not the whole story. Most of the time we only use the center 20-30mm of the aperture of an 8x binocular for daylight birding, so I also do measurements with 30mm and 21mm stop downs.

And the best of your stopped down tests?

 

[Maljunulo]

Observer: "I really like this binocular."
Bystander: "No you don't and here's a list of 10 reasons why."

“And here’s a spec sheet which shows exactly why you don’t, oh, and there is a review also which shows the same thing.“

 

[henry link]

And the best of your stopped down tests?

42mm binoculars tend to test well when they're stopped all the way down to 20mm. The best are diffraction limited at that aperture.

 

[Maljunulo]

I had an experience similar to Lee’s view of the Gannet, but with a female Mallard.

When I replaced my EL-SV 10X42 with an SF 8X32, I was looking at a few Mallards, which are very common here. My eye was caught by a female, which I had previously dismissed as “just another female Mallard” but I noticed a richness and shading in her feathers which I had never seen before. This can only be attributed to the change in glass. The EL-SV was my only binocular for just over six years, so I had seen many such ducks.

I was enchanted, and just marveled at her plumage for quite a few minutes.

PS:The SF also shows much purer and more brilliant whites than the EL-SV showed.

 

[Viraj]

The rankings could have changed. I've measured the full aperture resolution of both sides of three 8x42 NLs at 64x with the USAF 1951. The best of the six telescopes measured 3.16" and the worst 3.85", which is a difference of almost two Elements on the test pattern.

To be fair both of those were outliers. The other four telescopes were clustered between 3.4" and 3.6".

@henry link Thank you for the information. I wonder how this sharpness difference affects the real-world experience without using a mag booster. Do you think without mag booster we could see a difference in resolution on the resolution chart? I am sorry for asking basic questions. I am new to this kind of optical testing.

 

[Conndomat]

@henry link Thank you for the information. I wonder how this sharpness difference affects the real-world experience without using a mag booster. Do you think without mag booster we could see a difference in resolution on the resolution chart? I am sorry for asking basic questions. I am new to this kind of optical testing.

Hi,

I also have a test with the SF/NL/Noc. 8x42 made, but without boosters.
Signs in 6 and 12m. Binoculars, of course, all on a tripod, I came to the same conclusion as Kanip.
1.SF
2.Noc.
3.NL

But the whole thing was very close and Kanip is right, without boosters the differences are extremely close, for this reason alone I would not sell my results as absolute truth.
During normal observation, differences in sharpness between the three glasses should not be noticeable.

Andreas

 

[henry link]

@henry link Thank you for the information. I wonder how this sharpness difference affects the real-world experience without using a mag booster. Do you think without mag booster we could see a difference in resolution on the resolution chart? I am sorry for asking basic questions. I am new to this kind of optical testing.

This subject can get involved, so in the interest of not highjacking Lee's review thread any further I'm going to beg off posting any more about measuring binocular resolution on this thread. There are many old threads on the subject which ought to turn up using the search feature.

I will say that, in my experience, the lower than usual aberrations that allow a binocular to show higher than usual resolution on the USAF 1951 at boosted magnification can result in a sharper, cleaner appearing image at normal magnification even though the extra resolving power can't be directly seen.

 

[Viraj]

This subject can get involved, so in the interest of not highjacking Lee's review thread any further I'm going to beg off posting any more about measuring binocular resolution on this thread. There are many old threads on the subject which ought to turn up using the search feature.

I will say that, in my experience, the lower than usual aberrations that allow a binocular to show higher than usual resolution on the USAF 1951 at boosted magnification can result in a sharper, cleaner appearing image at normal magnification even though the extra resolving power can't be directly seen.

Thank you @henry link for your kind reply. I specifically asked about the real-world resolution among the binoculars you mentioned earlier; 8x42 NL, NV, and SF. @Conndomat has also given an answer. I know they have many other differences such as color rendition and contrast and those also affect the clarity of the image.

 

[tenex]

I have no interest in performing forensic examinations and analyses of the optics of the binoculars I review. Firstly because others on here do that far better than I ever could (e.g. Henry) and secondly because I am far more interested in whether a binocular can provide enjoyable and educational nature observations.

Both approaches are valuable. At first glance one is more objective and the other subjective, but apparently they can begin to overlap in a potentially awkward way when discussing specific details of the view.

I wasn't saying that other binoculars don't show that white flash, indeed I am absolutely sure they do. The difference I was trying to convey (and which you clearly understand) was that I noticed this for the first time when viewing through the SFLs. I attribute this to the clarity of SFL's colours and how this helped to separate details from their surroundings. I mentioned how it made scanning for Bog Orchids easier (see pic of Bog Orchid below) simply by making their distinctive yellow-green colour more apparent. Similarly the different flowers on the salt-marsh I referred to in the review were simply made more 'obvious' by the SFL's colour rendition. I had never considered that colour reproduction might influence how one sees detail but these and other examples made me conclude that it can play an important role in this.

But to address your query about the black/white on the Gannet: doing a side-by-side comparison I can see that SFL reproduces white more 'cleanly and purely' than my SF32s. SFL's whites are obviously brighter. So if I add all this together it seems to me quite logical that I noticed that flash of white, simply because through SFL it was more 'noticeable'.

Calling SFL's whites brighter as well as whiter seems to suggest a role for contrast as well as color reproduction? I've used only a modest number of binoculars myself, and carefully compared even fewer. That said, the only time I've ever seen any difference in noticeable detail was once when I saw that my Leica HD+ rendered faint gradations of color on a grey rock face more distinctly than the BN my wife now uses, making its striations more evident. (I assume that this indicates improved coatings.) But it was a subtle enough effect that I hesitated even to mention it in a forum post several years ago. It certainly hadn't leapt out at me in initial use of the HD+, in fact I only noticed it when deliberately comparing the two in a situation that happened to offer what turned out to be a suitable target. On the usual more colorful or contrasty subjects, especially a black and white wing, there would surely be no noticeable difference in detail seen, so your claims for SFL struck me as rather bold.

Now I'm curious for you to compare SFL with unaided vision: do colors look just the same, while other binocs have been failing to reproduce them with such fidelity? Or is SFL somehow enhancing differences between colors while other binocs have a more natural rendition? In the first case one might expect similar improvement to occur in SFs and other high-end models as well; in the second, it might not be to everyone's taste.

That Bog Orchid is beautiful. How exactly do you "scan" for them with binocs -- from what distance can you see them at all through the grasses?

When I replaced my EL-SV 10X42 with an SF 8X32, I was looking at a few Mallards, which are very common here. My eye was caught by a female, which I had previously dismissed as “just another female Mallard” but I noticed a richness and shading in her feathers which I had never seen before.

Thanks for that. Does it strike you as more like Lee's experience here, or mine described above?

 

[Maljunulo]

Thanks for that. Does it strike you as more like Lee's experience here, or mine described above?

I would say some of both. Once I noticed it, it was quite startling, and I didn’t compare because the SF was the only glass I had with me.

it was more of a “Wow, I never saw it like that before!” than an “I never noticed that before.” type of thing. (if that makes sense)

I too attributed it to coatings, or perhaps some new magical proprietary glass, somewhere in the optical train.

 

[Loud Green Man]

…. it was more of a “Wow, I never saw it like that before!” than an “I never noticed that before.” type of thing. (if that makes sense)

I too attributed it to coatings, or perhaps some new magical proprietary glass, somewhere in the optical train.

The above post and 114 got me thinking again about what I attempted to convey, with limited success, in post #241 here:

Premium (Alpha) my list.

Possibly off topic but genuinely something that exercises me whenever a case is made for the “ultimate pair of binoculars” and irrespective of price: It never includes a description of the view through these wonders of science & modern engineering as being “as per the reviewer’s acuity but...

www.birdforum.net

LGM

 

[Troubador]

Now I'm curious for you to compare SFL with unaided vision: do colors look just the same, while other binocs have been failing to reproduce them with such fidelity? Or is SFL somehow enhancing differences between colors while other binocs have a more natural rendition? In the first case one might expect similar improvement to occur in SFs and other high-end models as well; in the second, it might not be to everyone's taste.

That Bog Orchid is beautiful. How exactly do you "scan" for them with binocs -- from what distance can you see them at all through the grasses?

Hi Tenex
I don't have the SFLs now as I had to hand them back to Zeiss at Bird Fair. Were you asking me to try them out, and other binos, without spectacles? You mention 'unaided vision'. This seems a curious request.

For sure the colours through SFL did not look at all unnatural, the effect was more like the removal of thin layer of a veil so that the true colours were revealed.

The best way to answer your questions is for you to try these for yourself.

Bog Orchids, Hammarbya paludosa

Some years ago we searched for Bog Orchid in a few sites in England and never found it. We did the same on Uist and had the same result, gave up, and decided to go exploring rather than continue searching. Wouldn't you know it? On that day when we were not searching we found it and eventually we found 14 populations. Three of these are accessible without too big a trek and we now have a tradition of visiting these each time we go to North Uist and count the flowering spikes.

These sites consist of runnels of water through heather and associated vegetation with more extensive boggy areas as well. The runnels we walk beside, each of us on opposite sides and we can usually see the orchids with the naked eye. For the boggy areas, these are too sensitive to trampling so we stand back and count as best we can with the naked eye and then use binoculars and move around a bit to get different angles of view as we search the denser vegetation for the orchids. Here is where the distinctive colour of Bog Orchid helps. Once you have fixed this colour in your mind it is possible to recognise the orchid even by only glimpses of the colour through the dense vegetation. Quite often, taking a step to one side and getting a different view can help.

You asked from what distance we do this and the answer is 'it depends'. What it depends on is the terrain. We do not step into the boggy areas themselves so sometimes we are scanning only 2 yards away, sometimes 4-5 yards . Often, counting first with the naked eye and then checking again using binos, the bino method can easily add 50% to the count.

Hope this answers your questions. If you wish to discuss further you are welcome to PM me.

Lee

 

[Robert Moore]

Dennis you are a sick individual. 😂

 

[tenex]

Were you asking me to try them out, and other binos, without spectacles? You mention 'unaided vision'. This seems a curious request.

This doesn't strike me as the most natural interpretation, which was of course to compare the view with SFL to without, whether spectacles might be involved (in both cases) for a particular individual or not.

For sure the colours through SFL did not look at all unnatural, the effect was more like the removal of thin layer of a veil so that the true colours were revealed.

To me "removal of a veil" suggests exactly the comparison I just described, and the conclusion that the view through SFL is indeed different from that without, in some way that sounds more useful for certain purposes, and perhaps more pleasing to you as well (which would be a subjective judgment). I will indeed have to try one myself at some point, but only one local store is likely to stock SFL and they don't have it yet.

Thanks for further details about stalking Bog Orchids. I was imagining fairly short-range use, precisely in order to avoid trampling, and it's good to have another example of the utility of close focus. Here's a Colorado mountain wildflower we enjoy that also requires the (rare) wet or boggy area: Elephant head lousewort.
[Edit: fixed orientation of crop]

 

[Ted Y.]

I got a Zeiss SFL 8x40! I love it. Lee is right about the colors. It has some of the most natural colors I have seen in a binocular. It doesn't have the Zeiss green like the SF or Conquest HD. The whites are whiter and the blacks are blacker, and because of this you can see more detail. On a Great Blue Heron, I have never seen as much detail because the SFL brings out the slightest differences in color. It is a groundbreaking binocular because it combines the small size and weight of a 32 mm with the bigger exit pupil of a 40 mm. I noticed right away the difference in eye placement comfort from the alpha 8x32's the minute I used it. No blackouts and it is not nearly as finicky as a 32 mm. It's low light performance is better than any 32 mm I have tried, and it performs better looking into shadows and in heavily forested areas or under canopy. It does just what Zeiss intended. The optics are excellent and are far superior to the Conquest HD with a much bigger sweet spot and sharper edges. The edges to me look just as sharp as the SF, and CA is just as good. The SFL has excellent CA control, exceeded only by the FL, maybe. I found glare control better than any of the alpha 32 mm binoculars, and I have tried them all. The SFL's are very glare resistant. Ergonomically, they are great. I kept looking at them thinking these things look like a 32 mm but perform like a 42 mm. They are amazingly small and light for a 40 mm. They are smaller than a Zeiss 8x32 SF, being almost 1/2 inch shorter, with the SF being just slightly narrower. For this reason, they really easy to hold for a long duration when observing a bird. The diopter works well and stays set, and the IPD tension was perfect. I don't see what the complaint is about the focuser. Mine was perfect. Smooth as silk with no backlash and the perfect speed for me. Not too fast and not too slow. The position of the focuser is way better than the MHG because it falls right under your finger. The build quality of the binoculars is excellent with excellent armour and for once unlike the Conquest HD the eye cups work very smoothly and stay where they are positioned. The rain guard is a big improvement over the Conquest HD and is much easier to remove and replace. Also, Zeiss has finally replaced the goofy one piece objective covers with all the cords and has a nice tethered objective cover that has an almost custom fit around the objective, and they insert inside the objectives like a Noctivid which IMO is the best type of objective cover. The case is simple and a perfect fit with a removable strap, and it is not overdone like the NL case. It has room inside for the binocular strap, which I think is the perfect type of binocular case. If you are on the fence wondering if the SFL are worth the difference between a Conquest HD or MHG, I assure you they are. Just the fact that SFL's have a much bigger sweet spot and sharper edges than either the MHG or Conquest is worth the difference in price, and the all the other advantages are just a bonus. The only advantage of an SF or NL is of course the huge FOV, but you are paying for it with a heavier and bigger binocular for the equivalent aperture, so you have to decide if you need a 9 degree FOV or is 8 degree enough. An 8x32 SF will give you the monster FOV but the SFL 8x40 will give you better, truer colors, easier eye placement, better low light performance and a smaller binocular overall and a lower price tag. The choice is yours.

Impressive review. Technically, you convinced me.
With such review one can be intrigued to know if SF is worth the difference in price.