Zeiss SF 8x32 vs Swarovski SV 8x32 (1 Viewer)

[Elkhornsun]

I received the 10x32 SF binos yesterday and will be mailing them back to the seller today. The Zeiss binos do not have captive lens covers for the objectives but instead use a single large cover that is attached with a lanyard to one of the eyelet at the obectives end of the binocular. If I used my binos only from home or in a car then I would leave the cover in the bino case and not use it out in the field.

For me it is important to have the objectives covered and not need to carry the bino case to have a place to put the cover when using the binoculars. I have the binos on my chest e and hanging from the strap while hiking with my camera and lens and often with a tripod as well. Having a dangling objectives cover or needing to have the bino case with me is a recipe for getting entangled and taking a fall and damaging my gear. This is far more important to me than any other differences between the Zeiss 10x32 SF and the Swarovski 10x32 EL binoculars.

 

[Troubador]

This seems an extreme solution since you could have sourced objective covers more to your liking.
Lee

 

[james holdsworth]

Wow....I’ve used bins for 45 years and never used, or needed, objective covers - all weather, all climates. I accept some have very different priorities but returning these seems a huge hassle when any diy solution would likely be satisfactory.

 

[Maljunulo]

I leave mine out/off whenever the glasses are around my neck, and put them back in/on when they are not or I am in no position to use them.

I personally like the SF ones better than the Swarovski ones. I never did put the "rubber bands" around the barrels. Don't want them flopping around when I am trying to look at something.

I'm a little mystified by the reasoning, but ...........

 

[manvulture]

Got my hand today on the new SF32 and grabbed the 32SV for comparison. Unfortunately the Leica UV32 was not there

Taking the SV in my hands, the tubes feel smaller at the mouse of my hands because of the thumb grips this model has. Something the SF lacks and because of that it feels really bigger. Space between the bridges is 1 mm larger for the SV and the tube diameter is only 4 mm smaller so that can't be it.
Taking a look at the position of my focus finger after having used the bins, I see that they are at the exact same position with the SF as with the SV. So the position of the focus knob of both bins is irrelevant (for me).
Checking the balance while resting the bins on my thumbs/mouse of my hands, it turns out both are heavier on the objective side. No difference here.

Looking at the eyecups, from a distance, the exit pupil of the SF is perfect round with no leakage what so ever from the prism.
The SV shows prism leaking and also perfect round exit pupils.

It's obvious. The SF has no FF was my first impression. While the FOV seems to be 15 meters wider compared to the SV, the edge to edge sharpness of the SF is less.
Looking at the leaves of trees in the direction of the sun, both show glare in the same amount.

The focus knob of the SF has a diameter of 35 mm where the SV shows 29 mm. The SF is super smooth with no lash where so ever.
The SV just hasn't has that smoothness and the well known difference in left right turning resistance due to its spring design.

The view through both is superb and while looking through them both show piscushion and it strikes me while looking for that, the SF shows a blue ring round the outer FOV, where the SV shows no sign of anything but clear view.
Looking straight through both bins (and now I noticed it) it is hardly visible with the SF but clearly visible while looking near the edges of the FOV.

Both have the same close focus distance but a price difference of 450,00 euro in favour for the SV. Ouch!!!

Is the FOV visible wider in the SF? The SV shows edge to edge sharpness where the SF doesn't and yes, the view through the SF is wider but to be honest not noticeable wider to me. Just once measuring it and looking for it, it is there but during "normal observations" .........nehh.

This is going to be a tough job for Zeiss to shoot the SV out of the water, due to the current price drop of the SV, but the SF is a superb piece of art.

Jan

Hi-
just thought I'd throw this comment in as an SF 8x32 owner of several months and perfectly happy for 1 main reason :

If I use Swaro 8x32 EL or SV I get an orange semicircle in the oculars- it gets worse if the sun is low. I tried different eyecup settings , different shaped glasses but it won't go away.
It is less noticeable in the older EL 10x32s- which I still use / have as a loaner pair. I had no problems with other Swaros over the years - though I do get rollingball in the newer 8.5s but not the 10x42 Field Pros.
The view through the SFs is frankly relaxing !

Oddly enough I cannot use the SF 8x42s either- the eyecups don't work for me / my glasses - BUT my wife loves hers and she wears glasses .

M

ps- first real bins were Swift Newports in 1976- been through jenoptems to Zeiss 9901s to 7x42s to SLCs to ELs to HGs, to Ultravids, FLs.
Depending on location I use the Zeiss SFs or Swaro 10x42 Field Pro:

 

[Aquaplas]

Is there anyone here who compared the 10 time SF with the SV in 32mm. I read much about the 8x32 Glasses, but not much about the 10x...

 

[amythebirder]

Is there anyone here who compared the 10 time SF with the SV in 32mm. I read much about the 8x32 Glasses, but not much about the 10x...

I've got an older model of the 10x32SV (whichever model was around in 2013) and had the 10x32FL since mid-August. Not an expert with optics, but personally think the Zeiss are better. Main things I've noticed- the image is brighter & prefer the colours of the Zeiss, they are easier to hold steady, and the focus ring is smoother and fast so finding it easier to focus on flyovers and switch between close and distant birds. I've kept my Swarovski's so maybe post covid restrictions I'll try and spend more time comparing.

 

[Buff1ehead]

I own two pair of the Zeiss 8x32 and two pairs of the Swarovski EL 8x32 in that size. The Zeiss are used at my primary research site and remain there without travelling, but are used extensively in the field. One of the Swaros is the older mark I version, while the other is a much-improved mark II SV. The latter is my favorite, and the one I use for teaching as well as my own birding whenever possible. The Swaro bins have a slightly more narrow apparent angle of view, 61° vs 67°, but they have better edge-to-edge viewing, so this balances out. The Swaro Mk II bins have slightly better eye relief, 20 vs 19 mm and are five grams lighter. All this said, I find the Swarovski SV to be a better bin to wear during long days in the field, especially when I have the bins around my neck for five or six hours. This preference is both a factor balance and eye fatigue. I am a glasses wearer, even when scoping, and the Swaros make a difference in this regard.

Of note, in riparian situations I still prefer the Zeiss Victory 7x42s despite their heavier weight. Their brightness and angle of view are unsurpassed, and it's a shame they are no longer available. That said, I can't see any reason for owning 8x42s these days. For owling I'm still using the old Zeiss Night Owl 8x56 Design Series, even though they are absolute beasts.

Anyway, there's a perspective from someone who makes his living afield.

 

[safaridreaming]

I agree with the comments in Post 108 regarding the differences between the SF 8x32 vs SV 8x32.

I’ve been a EL 8x32 user since 2009 when i purchased my first EL. around 2015, i purchased the SV version. As such using the SV is now purely instinctive for me. How i hold them, where my fingers fall, how both my hands wrap around the barrels etc… As a bino they just work - i raise them to my eyes and the view is there, comfortable and relaxed.

Optically the biggest difference between the two is the larger FOV in the SF which is more apparent when I’m looking at close to medium distance objects. It’s not so obvious If I’m scanning beyond 200m or so. Other than that, both views are close enough that the differences wouldn’t be evident to me if I only had 1 bino on me - to notice the subtle differences I’ve got to be swapping from the SF to the SV constantly… which is typically not how i use them.

The thing ive noticed (and still continue to experience) with the SF’s is how hard i need to work to enjoy that view. I understand some of this me overcoming my own ”habit” and muscle memory on how to grip, where my fingers sit etc, but beyond that, even through the optics, i find myself constantly tweaking the eyecups to get the best view…

This is more apparent to my now as i learn more about the Zeiss’s optical characteristics… depending on the time of the day and how tired my eyes are, i find i hv to adjust the eyecup by 1-2mm to get a solidly defined field stop , otherwise the field edge is somewhat blurred, or hazy…

the physical size of the eyecups relative to the SV are also very obvious to me coming from the SV’s which i can tuck into my eye socket very comfortably..

same with the slightly thicker barrels. On the SV’s i can wrap my large hands around both barrels and my hands dont touch each other. On the SF’s this isnt the case and the open bridge feels crowded with me gripping both barrels. to be comfortable, i find i can grip one barrel and hv to hold the second barrel slightly different. This then leads me to playing with the IPD which then causes mild blackouts….

so in a nutshell, while i’m happy to keep the SF’s, I’ve decided to continue using my SV’s as they are just easy for me to use… i dont need to re-train myself, tweak the grip, eye cups etc… which ultimately means i’m doing more of what i enjoy most - observing nature

 

[Grando]

I had a look in a showroom through the 10x32 SFs and 10x32 NLs today. I thought both were excellent, and would happily use both (though I'm not entirely sure I can justify the outlet). I preferred the feel of the Swarovski's, their eyecups and shape. The Zeiss had a smoother, nicer focus and was possibly slightly brighter; unfortunately it wasn't the kind of conditions where I could test issues like glare or lower light etc.

The main difference I noticed though was in the armouring. I liked the look of the Swaros much more, as well as the feel. The Zeiss, which were new out of the box, felt rather rubbery to me, and already the black rubber armour was looking a little 'cloudy' and oxidised. I think this would push me towards the Swaros probably, though perhaps I should check out another sample. Anyway, it was a very unscientific test, and as I said, both were great.

 

[Grando]

Do any SF owners have any thoughts on the durability of the armour? That white, oxidised look on the new pair I tried in the shop did worry me a little, but overall I really liked the bins and am possibly edging towards them over the Swaro...

 

[eronald]

I've tried Zeiss SF x42 and Swaro NL x32 and X42 and the color was very different in the samples I used. People who are sensitive to color should try both before deciding which view they like best, and color is a very individual decision. At those prices one should get something one really likes!

Leica also have a very distinctive view, I think the Noctivid is unlike anything else in color, some people get addicted to it.

Edmund

 

[Troubador]

Do any SF owners have any thoughts on the durability of the armour? That white, oxidised look on the new pair I tried in the shop did worry me a little, but overall I really liked the bins and am possibly edging towards them over the Swaro...

I have had SFs since 2015 and have never encountered this white oxidised look. And don't be too quick to think this white appearance is something bad. I used to work in a rubber industry and some of our products had wax added to the rubber compound that made its way to the surface of the rubber and gave it a certain level of protection to maintain its qualities.

Lee

 

[Grando]

I have had SFs since 2015 and have never encountered this white oxidised look. And don't be too quick to think this white appearance is something bad. I used to work in a rubber industry and some of our products had wax added to the rubber compound that made its way to the surface of the rubber and gave it a certain level of protection to maintain its qualities.

Lee

Thanks Lee. I looked at another pair in a different shop briefly at the weekend and the armour on those was completely black, so probably just in that first pair.