New Zeiss binos 8x40 SFL and 10x40 SFL (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

$1,800 (Optics for Birding), I thought it would be less than that.

Wait for a used pair. After everybody tries them, there is bound to be somebody that don't like them, so they will in the classifieds for $1500. There has been all kinds of NL's for sale.

 

[[email protected]]

They do help with visualizing things. Now that I have a template and workflow set up adding a new binocular model is fairly straightforward.

I assume you meant the Leica Ultravid HD Plus 8x42
B&H states the length of the Leica at 142mm, 2 mm shy of the SFL so both are very close in size.
Its the weight that shows any real difference as shown in the illustration. 5+oz or 150 grams difference with the heavier being the Leica.


View attachment 1438916

I really like the small size and weight! Nice! 22 oz. for a 40 mm is very light.

 

[gweller]

The SFL 8x40's are SMALLER than the SF 8x32's! I really like the single bridge and the location of the focuser. That is it, the Noctivid's are in the classified's.

So Dennis, you are going to buy them even though they are probably not made in Germany?? That's kind of contrary to all your previous statements on another thread isn't it??

 

[Paultricounty]

I threw together a quick composite illustration of the size differences of the SF 8x32, SF 8x42 and the SFL 8x40. This was done in Procreate on the iPad.
I don’t think this will stand up to rigid scrutiny but it will give a close ballpark of the size differences of the three. Apologies in advance for any glaring inaccuracies.
According to the Zeiss website the height measurements of all three are;
173 mm for the SF 8x42,
144 mm for the SFL 8x40
152 mm for the SF 8x32.
When I got everything lined up I thought I’d messed up somewhere as it seems like the SFL should be bigger. If I did get this right the SFL is very petite. If this really is the case I’m very interested in the SFL.
If something is backwards or I missed something maybe folks can let me know and I’ll give it another go.

Edit, I cleaned up the illustration for better accuracy.

View attachment 1438774

Love to see that diagram with a few other common 40/42’s. Leica Ultravid, Noctivid, NL, EL etc. or some other 30/32’s.
Thank you

 

[Paultricounty]

The SFL 8x40's are SMALLER than the SF 8x32's! I really like the single bridge and the location of the focuser. That is it, the Noctivid's are in the classified's.

And that’s before you even got the SFL’s 🙄

 

[pm42]

And that’s before you even got the SFL’s 🙄

Yes. He will buy them (at least this is what he will tell), explain that they are even better than the James Webb Space Telescope at first then one month later, that they are not as good as something else and that he sold them.
Or the other way around. And deny of course he change his mind.

It would be a lot of fun I we had not seen this movie here already a hundred times.

 

[Paultricounty]

A lot of conjecture here about $1800 binoculars that are not the premium offering from Zeiss. Not to degrade the conquest in anyway, but these would have to be more than one step up from there. These would need to be a true Alpha level binocular in every way.

Maybe Zeiss took a backwards approach to the entry of the SFL, to fill the gap. Like Leica has Noctivid and slightly below (and less $) Ultravid. Swarovski has the NL, and slightly below EL and SLC. Zeiss always had a big gap from high level mid grade right to the top with SF.

Another thought is the build quality, although the SF is very nice, the build quality is not quite up to the competition/competitors at Leica and Swarovski, in my opinion. Some of us accept the build of SF for the glass (and focuser). Will we accept a lesser optical quality for a SFL with less than the build of the SF 🤔

There’s definitely an interest here but we’ll have to wait and see where the optics and material build quality falls.

Paul

 

[Brink]

I love grip discussions! I’ve learned so much from others posting their methods here and it’s important IMO for everyone to experiment and not just grab it and shove it up to your eye like you’re trying to see if there’s a bug in your beer bottle.

The “thumbs up” grip was a revelation for me, and it also makes it easy to incorporate what you describe, using one or both thumbs to provide extra bracing against the face. I especially like your method for tiny binoculars which suffer from some combo of too-small eyecups and/or too-short eyecups extension; any non-eyeglass wearer will have blackouts if they try to stick the eyecups in the eye socket like you would with a larger binocular. But I’ve experimented (in my case with the Ultravid 8x20) and found that it’s very comfortable to use a thumbs up grip, with the body resting on the pad and “cradling” the little eyecups in the nook of my slightly bent thumb. So the top of my thumb is the contact point with my face, adding extra spacing to avoid blackouts and sort of anchoring the little bin against my face.

For larger binoculars I still prefer holding them farther forward, which makes having a focus knob closer to the eyeballs an ergonomic issue. The open-bridge party of the past decade plus gets the attention, but Leica Ultravids IMO implemented this ergonomic design perfectly in a close bridge design… the big thumb ridges and balance encourage a more forward hold, and the double-length focus knob is recessed deeply into the bridge so it’s right there for your finger without stretching. And it’s very easy to shift from single finger to double finger focus depending on your grip and use case.

The Kowa Genesis 8x33 is another example of a closed bridge design that manages to recess the focus knob closer to the middle of the body so there’s not much stretch regardless of how you grip. I‘ve really grown to dislike the focus knob being too close to the eyeballs, one of the main reasons I couldn’t get along with the Swaro CL 8-30.

I only use fairly compact binoculars, and haven’t enjoyed the larger ones I have tried. On all three of mine (20mm, 30mm, 42mm) I use a grip where my thumbs anchor against my face. The EII 8x30 I really enjoy, as the stubbiness allows me to grip the binocular so my thumbs and left index finger all anchor against my face in a very comfortable and stable way.

 

[Paultricounty]

No. I will get a pair of the SFL's first and then have a duel between them and the Noctivid's under various lighting situations to see especially how they handle glare. That is one strong point about the Noctivid. It handles glare very well. I have a pair of the SFL 8x40 on pre-order.

I think ill go for the 10’s 🤪.

Even though you’ll be testing two 8’s they most very likely will be two completely different animals when it comes to image. Leica and Zeiss have a completely different palate of color and image Impression. One maybe better than the other on glare, but that doesn’t make it a better all around optic. Not to mention that you’d be comparing the SFL to an optic that’s a $1000 more. What day do you usually like to post on ebay, I’ll keep my eye open when the SFL goes up 😉.

Hey, you preordered? Didn’t you say you were going to wait until a used one popped up after some one doesn’t like it…

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

If they are MIJ that is ok by me!

But they’re not made in Germany.

 

[tenex]

$1,800 (Optics for Birding), I thought it would be less than that.

A bargain compared to Blaser!
(seriously, could this be where Zeiss got the idea that MIJ optics with separate diopter etc can be sold at Teutonic prices?)

 

[eronald]

A lot of conjecture here about $1800 binoculars that are not the premium offering from Zeiss. Not to degrade the conquest in anyway, but these would have to be more than one step up from there. These would need to be a true Alpha level binocular in every way.

Maybe Zeiss took a backwards approach to the entry of the SFL, to fill the gap. Like Leica has Noctivid and slightly below (and less $) Ultravid. Swarovski has the NL, and slightly below EL and SLC. Zeiss always had a big gap from high level mid grade right to the top with SF.

Another thought is the build quality, although the SF is very nice, the build quality is not quite up to the competition/competitors at Leica and Swarovski, in my opinion. Some of us accept the build of SF for the glass (and focuser). Will we accept a lesser optical quality for a SFL with less than the build of the SF 🤔

There’s definitely an interest here but we’ll have to wait and see where the optics and material build quality falls.

Paul

Why do Zeiss need another marketing gimmick, rather than just lowering prices on the optically proven SF? I mean I could see them do a VP/Terra hybrid 8x25 adding robustness and lowering price, but the SF is a perfectly nice product which just needs a lower price to sell more.

Edmund

 

[dries1]

What other new model of recent times, had a lead time of over three months (introduction/marketing) prior to distribution of sales, was it the Kowa BD II?

 

[gweller]

No. I will get a pair of the SFL's first and then have a duel between them and the Noctivid's under various lighting situations to see especially how they handle glare. That is one strong point about the Noctivid. It handles glare very well. I have a pair of the SFL 8x40 on pre-order.

What about the Zeiss SF 8x42? Why are you getting so excited about the SFL when you could have an SF?? Made in Germany, lighter than the Noctivid, and a bit cheaper than the Leica. Should tick all your boxes shouldn't they? Or have they already failed the Dennis taste test?? God knows, I loose track of all what you have had and a week later rejected.....

 

[gweller]

The SFL is for "Weight Weenies." That is what somebody is called that worries about every gram of weight on their road bike.

Why all the worry about weight all of a sudden?? You have a Fujinon 7x50 don't you? The come in at about 1400g don't they?

 

[BryanP]

Love to see that diagram with a few other common 40/42’s. Leica Ultravid, Noctivid, NL, EL etc. or some other 30/32’s.
Thank you

I’ll probably produce more since I’m curious too.
To be honest I’m torn about these illustrations as the images I’m using from the brand websites don’t lend themselves to consistent accuracy.

If the various brands all used the same photography/rendering approach then accuracy would be assured. Unfortunately one brand will use tilt/shift lens in their product photography and other won’t. One brand will photograph the product from one subtle angle and the others not. This all adds up to a fair amount of fudging at my end to get it right.
The best way would be technical line drawings in 3 views but that can be problematic too since many folks can have difficulty with drawings. I could overlay the plan view drawing with a photo of the binocular and then bend, shrink and stretch the photo to match the drawings exact shape and proportions. Realistic computer renderings would also work.
At any rate, all that is technical fussing since even at the current level of accuracy they at least give us an idea of size differences. As long as folks here are comfortable with the possible minor inaccuracies I’ll still crank em out.
Cheers!

 

[BryanP]

Ok,
A couple more illustrations.
The Swarovski 8x42 NL and the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 next to the SFL.

The Nikon is very close to the SFL, 1 mm longer and around an ounce or 28 grams more.
The NL is closer to the SF in size of course and wins the heavyweight division easily.
I’m thinking the HG and the SFL are going to be big competitors in this niche and with the Nikon’s lower price the SFL had better have both significantly better optics and build to justify the higher price.

I had to fudge the 8x42 NL image here because Swarovski only has product photos showing the eyecups extended. Not sure why they would do that but ok. I’m assuming that Swarovski’s stated measurement of 158 mm is with them down.

If I got any numbers wrong let me know and I can blame the B&H site since navigating around the various manufacturers slick websites to get info is an exercise in frustration 😉

 

[Swedpat]

BryanP,

With a ruler I measure my NL Pure 8x42 to 158mm with the eyecups in the bottom level so that's correct. Ok, 157,5mm to be really exact...

But I have to say I am really intrigued by the new Zeiss SFL. So slim compared to NL Pure and Victory SF. I like the clean look and it's significantly lighter.

But I guess the risk is high that I would regret if I sell NL Pure. The body shape combined with the forehead rest makes it probably the most stable and comfortable binocular at the market. The flat field, very wide FOV and still such a long ER is just excellent.
At least according to my personal preference.
So I need to have both! 😎

 

[Conndomat]

The star test on the Habicht reminded me of some APO refractors I have had for astronomy in the past. Perfect concentric rings!

Perfect concentric rings?
At 7x magnification? Please stop this nonsense!

Andreas

 

[james holdsworth]

I think the SFL will sell mostly on size, name and looks. Without HT and FL glass, it seems unlikely to be a huge upgrade from the Conquest HD series, apart from the field flattener. Better contrast is possible.

I think the design is beautiful but it looks like it will come in around 2300 CAD, nearly double a Conquest which seems pretty dear for a mid tier.