Zeiss SFL 8x40, A Field Review (4 Viewers)

[William Lewis]

I agree a large field of view can be useful. It is also quite addicting. However, I feel you overemphasise its importance. A large field of view is only one criterion when looking at binoculars. There are plenty of others, like size and weight and all the optical parameters. There are situations where I prefer the Habicht 7x42 with its very small field of view over any other binocular, and others where I prefer a binocular with a much larger field of view.

As a general rule I think an AFOV of 60 degrees is a good compromise I can happily live with.

Hermann

Hermann I agree absolutely that fov is just one aspect to consider when choosing binos, and I only mention it so often because it is a particularly useful characteristic for me when in the west of Scotland where there are huge panoramas of the Atlantic Ocean and The Minch and the Hebridean Sea. Searching the sea, especially if the sea is 'choppy' and not calm, for glimpses of otters, porpoise or dolphins, not to mention Eiders, Red-breasted Mergansers and Red-throated Divers is easier when scanning these seascapes and coasts with a large fov.

Lee

Fov of 140m is very decent. On the whole a wide fov tends to be most useful if you are looking for something you have yet to see naked eye or are not adept at pointing a narrow fov binocular (I also use the 7x42 habicht...).

That said all things being equal for me I tend to find a larger, edge sharp and reasonably rolling ball free Fov more enjoyable to use than a narrower one.

 

[tenex]

"compare the view with SFL to without" Without what?

Without SFL of course.

"whether spectacles might be involved (in both cases)" What cases?
"for a particular individual or not" Are you asking me to speculate whether spectacles might influence the colour when worn by someone other than myself?

Whether an individual (in this case you, in principle anyone) wears spectacles (both while using SFL and while not).

I never meant to be speaking of spectacles at all, which is what I tried to clarify in my last post. It is surprising how poorly simple English can be understood when one has another idea fixed in mind; I observed above how I myself read right past your clause about spectacles, because I was thinking about binoculars. The context of this entire thread is binoculars, so it's unfortunate that my expression "unaided vision" got you thinking about spectacles instead, as you still seem to be.

Trying to describe SFL's visual presentation will naturally involve comparisons with other binoculars and, as I suggested, comparisons with viewing without binoculars, to establish whether (as I originally asked) SFL is enhancing aspects of the view or presenting them more naturally than other binocs. That question seems to have got quite lost now, and I can't imagine who could be interested in further analysis of an exchange of misconstrual instead, so I shall stop here.

 

[Hermann]

On the whole a wide fov tends to be most useful if you are looking for something you have yet to see naked eye ...

True. This applies e.g. when scanning the sky for birds of prey at a migration hotspot.

... or are not adept at pointing a narrow fov binocular (I also use the 7x42 habicht...).

This is a very interesting point you make. I never thought of this before. I've using binoculars and scopes for over 40 years, and I don't have any trouble pointing narrow field binoculars at birds.

That said all things being equal for me I tend to find a larger, edge sharp and reasonably rolling ball free Fov more enjoyable to use than a narrower one.

Yes, but only if such binoculars share a similar set of characteristics: Resistance against glare, especially veiling glare, resolution in the image centre, transmission, contrast, size and weight, waterproofing, simple, fail-safe construction. And it's 7x magnification.

Hermann

 

[William Lewis]

True. This applies e.g. when scanning the sky for birds of prey at a migration hotspot.

This is a very interesting point you make. I never thought of this before. I've using binoculars and scopes for over 40 years, and I don't have any trouble pointing narrow field. binoculars at birds.

Yes, but only if such binoculars share a similar set of characteristics: Resistance against glare, especially veiling glare, resolution in the image centre, transmission, contrast, size and weight, waterproofing, simple, fail-safe construction. And it's 7x magnification.

Hermann

Yes I really like the habichts. Stability is excellent, also you can have a much more compact bino with excellent brightness. I spent a while yesterday evening comparing my 7x42 habichts with my newly acquired 8x56slc hd's. In daylight the habichts appear a smidge brighter, as it gets really dark there's no difference between them in brightness, quite a lot of difference in lightness though. I suppose my pupils just aren't young enough to notice any more!

Overall it's a close call between them for me and comes down to whether I can carry the weight all day, so I'm taking the slc's up and down Snowdon on Tuesday to find out in full knowledge that if visibility and ruggedness allow the slc's will provide a better view from the top. Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects. | IOVS | ARVO Journals.

 

[Troubador]

Without SFL of course.

Whether an individual (in this case you, in principle anyone) wears spectacles (both while using SFL and while not).

I never meant to be speaking of spectacles at all, which is what I tried to clarify in my last post. It is surprising how poorly simple English can be understood when one has another idea fixed in mind; I observed above how I myself read right past your clause about spectacles, because I was thinking about binoculars. The context of this entire thread is binoculars, so it's unfortunate that my expression "unaided vision" got you thinking about spectacles instead, as you still seem to be.

Trying to describe SFL's visual presentation will naturally involve comparisons with other binoculars and, as I suggested, comparisons with viewing without binoculars, to establish whether (as I originally asked) SFL is enhancing aspects of the view or presenting them more naturally than other binocs. That question seems to have got quite lost now, and I can't imagine who could be interested in further analysis of an exchange of misconstrual instead, so I shall stop here.

Thank you for this my friend. I would describe SFL's colours as very natural indeed. I am thinking especially of the view across the saltmarsh with different coloured flowers and how SFL presented the colours just as the naked eye perceived them. I am absolutely clear that my spectacles do not influence my perception of colours.

Lee

 

[cycleguy]

Nice review Troubador!

Sounds like Zeiss has a field of winners with the Conquest HD, SFL, and SF.

CG

 

[Loud Green Man]

Staff Member, Moderator and Supporter the Op may well be but I neither apologise nor shrink from asserting he/she is also extremely rude and not a little over-sensitive or biased.

If you have a problem with a post I’ve taken the trouble to carefully craft in the interest of balance and humour, please have the good manners to at least inform me of your intention and reason for removing said post.

I thought tolerance of those with views that differ from the norm was something society and, by inference, the birding community had embraced but your heavy-handed approach to ‘moderation’ suggests something rather different and frankly unsavoury.

Thank you

LGM

 

[dries1]

If it does not fit with the narrative it is removed, after all this is the Zeiss sub-forum.

 

[Thotmosis]

What's going on here? I'm very sensitive to removing posts or even whole treads! For the sake of mankind: please clarify.

 

[Thotmosis]

Yes I really like the habichts. Stability is excellent, also you can have a much more compact bino with excellent brightness. I spent a while yesterday evening comparing my 7x42 habichts with my newly acquired 8x56slc hd's. In daylight the habichts appear a smidge brighter, as it gets really dark there's no difference between them in brightness, quite a lot of difference in lightness though. I suppose my pupils just aren't young enough to notice any more!

Overall it's a close call between them for me and comes down to whether I can carry the weight all day, so I'm taking the slc's up and down Snowdon on Tuesday to find out in full knowledge that if visibility and ruggedness allow the slc's will provide a better view from the top. Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects. | IOVS | ARVO Journals.

William im really surprised that the 7x42's are that good. Do i understand it well that you take both bino's with you to Snowdon? Dont think so. Anyway, im very curious about your findings because i have two Habicht's GA and a 8x56 FL or SLC iare on my most wanted list.

 

[Maljunulo]

Staff Member, Moderator and Supporter the Op may well be but I neither apologise nor shrink from asserting he/she is also extremely rude and not a little over-sensitive or biased.

I can’t seem to recall any occasions on which he hasn’t conducted himself as a gentleman, even when rebuking someone. (always gently)

 

[Brummie]

My SFL 10x40 arrived today, earlier than expected (ordered from UK Thursday morning, local time, and arrived Sunday morning, DC-time).

I'm packing up the house, so don't have time for detailed comparisons, but initial impressions are favorable. CA is very slight once focussed, and FOV doesn't feel restrictive, even switching back and forth with a pair of NLs.

 

[William Lewis]

William im really surprised that the 7x42's are that good. Do i understand it well that you take both bino's with you to Snowdon? Dont think so. Anyway, im very curious about your findings because i have two Habicht's GA and a 8x56 FL or SLC iare on my most wanted list.

Hi Thotmosis.

If you give me a message I'm happy to let you know what I've found back to backing them so we can keep it SFL in this thread as I've already deviated a bit. But no, I've used the habichts enough to know what there about in the hills so I'll just be taking the slc's.

 

[Troubador]

Staff Member, Moderator and Supporter the Op may well be but I neither apologise nor shrink from asserting he/she is also extremely rude and not a little over-sensitive or biased.

If you have a problem with a post I’ve taken the trouble to carefully craft in the interest of balance and humour, please have the good manners to at least inform me of your intention and reason for removing said post.

I thought tolerance of those with views that differ from the norm was something society and, by inference, the birding community had embraced but your heavy-handed approach to ‘moderation’ suggests something rather different and frankly unsavoury.

Thank you

LGM

LGM I owe you an apology. I skimmed your post and noted the words 'Hunting Community' and 'target species' and assumed, wrongly, you were discussing a hunting topic, and as you know, Birdforum is a hunting-free zone.

On re-reading your post I find that I was mistaken and too hasty, so I have reinstated it.

Lee
MODERATOR

 

[Troubador]

If it does not fit with the narrative it is removed, after all this is the Zeiss sub-forum.

I was too hasty, have apologised, and reinstated LGM's post.
Lee
MODERATOR

 

[Troubador]

What's going on here? I'm very sensitive to removing posts or even whole treads! For the sake of mankind: please clarify.

I was too hasty, have apologised, and reinstated LGM's post.
Lee
MODERATOR

 

[Viraj]

My SFL 10x40 arrived today, earlier than expected (ordered from UK Thursday morning, local time, and arrived Sunday morning, DC-time).

I'm packing up the house, so don't have time for detailed comparisons, but initial impressions are favorable. CA is very slight once focussed, and FOV doesn't feel restrictive, even switching back and forth with a pair of NLs.

That's great news @Brummie There are not so many reviews about SFL 10x40 here, but mostly for 8x40. I am very curious to see your detailed review. Especially, I would like to know how it compares with NL. If my memory is correct you have an NL 10x32 in addition to your NL 8x42. It will be a great comparison between SFL 10x40 and NL 10x32. Especially about stability in hand, brightness, color rendition, and CA. Because the x10 binos tend to have more gripes than x8.

 

[Brummie]

That's great news @Brummie There are not so many reviews about SFL 10x40 here, but mostly for 8x40. I am very curious to see your detailed review. Especially, I would like to know how it compares with NL. If my memory is correct you have an NL 10x32 in addition to your NL 8x42. It will be a great comparison between SFL 10x40 and NL 10x32. Especially about stability in hand, brightness, color rendition, and CA. Because the x10 binos tend to have more gripes than x8.

I tested out an NL 10x32 in comparison to my SF 10x32, but kept the SF, as it was just a tiny bit sharper, although the difference probably wouldn’t have been noticeable in actual use.

So my primary comparison will be with the SF 10x32, which I find excellent apart from the fussy eye placement. The NL I was switching with yesterday was my newly acquired 8x42, just because that was what was to hand.

Initial impressions are that the SFL 10x40 doesn’t have the eye placement issues of the 10x32, and the CA control is good - obviously not as good as SF or NL, but good enough that it won’t bother me, and I’m sensitive. I’ll need to some time looking at raptors before I come to a final conclusion on that.

Don’t hold your breath on any detailed comparisons, though. Most of my optics will be in a container, inching their way to East Africa for the next 3 months.

 

[Viraj]

I tested out an NL 10x32 in comparison to my SF 10x32, but kept the SF, as it was just a tiny bit sharper, although the difference probably wouldn’t have been noticeable in actual use.

So my primary comparison will be with the SF 10x32, which I find excellent apart from the fussy eye placement. The NL I was switching with yesterday was my newly acquired 8x42, just because that was what was to hand.

Initial impressions are that the SFL 10x40 doesn’t have the eye placement issues of the 10x32, and the CA control is good - obviously not as good as SF or NL, but good enough that it won’t bother me, and I’m sensitive. I’ll need to some time looking at raptors before I come to a final conclusion on that.

Don’t hold your breath on any detailed comparisons, though. Most of my optics will be in a container, inching their way to East Africa for the next 3 months.

I also wanted to buy a 10x32 to complement my NL 8x42 and planned to buy an NL. However, if the SFL is noticeably brighter, equally sharper, and steady in the hands I would go for it. So, I am really looking forward to seeing your comparison. It doesn't matter the time as still, I have to wait to buy one. Because my recent purchase of Habicht 10x40 has several issues, anyway I want to keep it.

I wish you a safe trip to Africa and a pleasurable time there 🙂

 

[Loud Green Man]

LGM I owe you an apology. I skimmed your post and noted the words 'Hunting Community' and 'target species' and assumed, wrongly, you were discussing a hunting topic, and as you know, Birdforum is a hunting-free zone.

On re-reading your post I find that I was mistaken and too hasty, so I have reinstated it.

Lee
MODERATOR

Thank you.

It was after all in praise of the Zeiss brand, and I refrained from mentioning my intense dislike of the blue backed logo!


😍
LGM