Thank's John! Very interesting information! Those on Ebay look to be in good shape. I still don't think they would be ideal for birding though!
Last edited:
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Review: Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Troubador
- Start date
Very nice pic Samolot on a super lichen-encrusted rock.
Depth of field is determined by magnification so SF 8x32 is the same as any other 8x bino. A 7x bino has a greater dof as you point out, and due to the lower magnification also has less 'telephoto compression' so giving the view a more expansive feel, with overlapping objects clearly having 'space' between them. Combined with the extra depth of field this can give landscapes a delightful extra dimension.
Lee
tenex
reality-based
Yes, I was speaking of the 42, and recalling a discussion here of the distinctive size/arrangement of its prisms, in which this slight widening of the optical tube was not brought up.
Actually, coming from photography, I would say that a lens also has subjective depth of field qualities.
Edmund
You are right of course that perception of depth of field will also depend on the observer's own accommodation.
Lee
Me too and I will try to get a review sample but 10x32 is one of the slowest selling formats so I wouldn't be surprised if 8x32 is way in front on Zeiss's priority list.
Lee
What I meant is that varying lens formulas yield a completely different rendering of front and back objects, and a different ‘SNAP’ and sparkle of what is in focus.
There is an esthetic that is not captured by just saying 8x32 155.
Edmund
I’m less interested in one of these since I own a 42mm binocular already. The WA 10x32 appeals though... (Saying all that I’d love a 10x42 SF if someone gave me one, but i don’t think it would be my sole pair.
I am not familiar with this Edmund so forgive me if I say that it sounds like something different from the extent of depth of field. In other words it sounds like a 'qualitative' factor rather than the 'quantitative' factor that is depth of field.
However it does sound interesting. Using this concept, how would you describe Victory Pocket 8x25? Since I have one too I could then try to see the quality you describe in mine.
Lee
Hi Lee,
I really enjoyed your review! It comes across as literally the perfect birding binocular. The price IMO is about as expected. SOTA binocular----->SOTA pricing.
Of course I enjoyed the binocular photos! Man I would love to see the SF 32 with a 42mm UV model or SV 32. The weights of the SV and SF 32s is literally the same which is a good thing!
Maybe I need to sell a couple more binoculars!
Thanks again!
I really enjoyed your review! It comes across as literally the perfect birding binocular. The price IMO is about as expected. SOTA binocular----->SOTA pricing.
Of course I enjoyed the binocular photos! Man I would love to see the SF 32 with a 42mm UV model or SV 32. The weights of the SV and SF 32s is literally the same which is a good thing!
Maybe I need to sell a couple more binoculars!
Thanks again!
Hi Lee,
I really enjoyed your review! It comes across as literally the perfect birding binocular. The price IMO is about as expected. SOTA binocular----->SOTA pricing.
Of course I enjoyed the binocular photos! Man I would love to see the SF 32 with a 42mm UV model or SV 32. The weights of the SV and SF 32s is literally the same which is a good thing!
Maybe I need to sell a couple more binoculars!
Thanks again!
Thank you Chuck. Did you see post 36? I posted a pic there of the SF alongside Troubadoris's Uvid 32 which may help you visualise it.
Lee
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
While I of course would not expect the performance to be equal, it's interesting to note that the 42mm Monarch HG is a bit shorter (7mm per published specs) and only 60g heaver. The HGs really do pack a lot of performance into a small package. At some point you almost have to compare binoculars for their performance per gram / mm of length as much as per mm of aperture.
Does size really matter?
I can only answer for myself, everyone has their own idea about what they are prepared to carry.
For example, the only time I have ever thought that SF42s are rather long is when I have been reading their specifications. When out in the field with them it has never, ever, occurred to me to think 'if only these binos were 29mm shorter' or similar thoughts.
But sometimes before setting out on a trek on a Scottish island, depending on the distance we plan to walk or the kind of terrain involved or how much photographic equipment I was going to carry, I would choose a smaller format bino to take out. So size/weight sometimes does matter to me.
Nikon's 8x42 HG is a very nice bino, and at a nice price, but I personally I would be attracted by SF 8x32's 14% more area of view combined with 60g lighter weight both of which I could enjoy all day rather than the HG's bigger EP which I could only benefit from in twilight.
Lee
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Lee,
I think size does of course matter - if it did not people would carry more 50mm bins, and there might not be a market for 20, 25, and 30mm bins. I own a pair of 8x42 SF's and they are clearly the best bin I've ever used, and are my favorite bin overall. The balance is excellent, I find that you can hold it steadier than more forward balanced bins of the same magnification. I do not notice the length in use either, as you mention. But just as you do, there are times when I elect to carry a smaller bin. I never carry the SF for local birding - I prefer an 8x30 for my local patches, or a 10x when further afield in my general part of Argentina as there is so much open country. I do always take the 8x42 SF for tropical birding, of which I do an inordinate amount.
I will almost certainly get an 8x32 SF when it is available, and it may well become my favorite bin - your review is certainly tantalizing. But I don't know if I'll start carrying it in preference to my 8x30 locally, or if I'll prefer it to my 8x42 in tropical forests.
Of course these are privileged concerns to have, you could argue, but we're all cooped up and many of us have extra free time at hand, so discussing binoculars seems as good a thing to do as any. And I do find that I compare binoculars more by physical size and weight than aperture. The 8x30 CL and MHG are only 2mm smaller than 32mm bins by aperture but are a whole different size class in my opinion. The 42mm MHG is a similar beast - it is so much smaller and lighter than other 42mm bins I think it is arguably viewed as competition in the 32mm class.
Anyways, good lockdown birding to everyone. Migration has been fun lately and I'm up to 85 on my quarantine list, just the yard and about 1,5km of local dog-walking circuit.
I think size does of course matter - if it did not people would carry more 50mm bins, and there might not be a market for 20, 25, and 30mm bins. I own a pair of 8x42 SF's and they are clearly the best bin I've ever used, and are my favorite bin overall. The balance is excellent, I find that you can hold it steadier than more forward balanced bins of the same magnification. I do not notice the length in use either, as you mention. But just as you do, there are times when I elect to carry a smaller bin. I never carry the SF for local birding - I prefer an 8x30 for my local patches, or a 10x when further afield in my general part of Argentina as there is so much open country. I do always take the 8x42 SF for tropical birding, of which I do an inordinate amount.
I will almost certainly get an 8x32 SF when it is available, and it may well become my favorite bin - your review is certainly tantalizing. But I don't know if I'll start carrying it in preference to my 8x30 locally, or if I'll prefer it to my 8x42 in tropical forests.
Of course these are privileged concerns to have, you could argue, but we're all cooped up and many of us have extra free time at hand, so discussing binoculars seems as good a thing to do as any. And I do find that I compare binoculars more by physical size and weight than aperture. The 8x30 CL and MHG are only 2mm smaller than 32mm bins by aperture but are a whole different size class in my opinion. The 42mm MHG is a similar beast - it is so much smaller and lighter than other 42mm bins I think it is arguably viewed as competition in the 32mm class.
Anyways, good lockdown birding to everyone. Migration has been fun lately and I'm up to 85 on my quarantine list, just the yard and about 1,5km of local dog-walking circuit.
PB
I do the same as you. On local walks I never take a 42 and instead choose a 32. Apart from any other reason, a 32 is more discrete and more easily slipped inside my jacket.
Your quarantine list is doing well. Good luck with further additions!
Lee
I think the upshot here is that there is still space in the alpha market for a very portable and yet supersharp x32. The new SF delivers on quality and ergo but does not really compete on size/weight alone. Maybe Leica will jump in here, they do nice designs. Wait, did someone say retrovid?
Edmund
Edmund
Last edited:
What you say is logical but sometimes the market confounds logic.
Market leader is of course Swarovski with their EL and some dealers in the UK at least, report selling more of these than the 42. Its weight is almost exactly the same as the SF32 so as far as weight goes SF does compete with the market leader. We will have to wait and see if the ergonomic advantages delivered by SF's size win out against the EL.
But that was not my main point. Leica already has a nice design on the market that you can try out at your local dealer and it is really light and really compact and that is the Ultravid HD Plus, but my impression from talking to dealers is that it is a steady seller rather than a market-beater. So perhaps the market is not so excited by the ultimate in compact lightweight after all.
But talking of Leica, I wonder when we are going to see Noctivid 32?
Lee
