Paultricounty
Well-known member
Guilty, bad choice of words. What I was trying to relay is I feel Swarovski made the NL a little bit warmer than the EL.
No need for sorry 🙏🏼
Paul
-
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.
Zeiss SFL 8x40, A Field Review (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Troubador
- Start date
No need for sorry 🙏🏼
Paul
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Yes, somewhere we must have made a mistake in our upbringing, probably not the only one...
Yes you have it, I would say the NL is a bit more saturated.
Andreas
I pushed the whole yellow-green thing on the SF a year ago+ and got a lot of pushback - interesting now that it is pretty much agreed to.
It is not hard to see that the red based coatings drive this. Zeiss shifted from a light blue/green/purple coating to red early in the FL production. FL color rendition is noticeably different between the two. Now they've gone back. I think it is likely they will move the whole upper line back, except for maybe the Conquest HD which is popular with hunters. I think the red coatings give a certain "pop" to resolution. Those of us in the Pac NW are used to greycast days and color shift jumps out at you in those conditions.
I have an 8x40 SFL now and think it's great. I will be posting my thoughts soon. Color accuracy is not saturated but accurate, like Nikon's.
Let the attacks begin on my blatant uninformed generalizations!
Sorry, everyone! Was trying to be very brief. Clumsy summaries are a problem with me. Rewriting my post:
That some "great" binocular (and that is explained below*) of a certain magnification shows less detail than another "great" binocular (or as implied by Henry "great" or otherwise) of that mag. in field use is frequently reported by good testers in this forum and elsewhere.
As I understand, useful detail in the field is conveyed by a binocular not only by its spatial resolution, such as spatial resolution tested with USAF charts, but by a combination also of color rendition as designed by the manufr., contrast, glare control... and these factors can vary sufficiently among "great" instruments to actually produce such results.
If handheld then stability can also be a factor. Stability is not only due to the design of the instrument toward that (by weight, weight distribution, shape...) but also how the user interacts with that design. For a given mag. a given user may have more stability with a certain weight, some preferring lighter, some heavier, than the norm, as often expressed in this forum.
* I take it that by '"great" 8x binocular' for field use Henry means 8x instruments with certain objective diameters of (in alphabetical order) Kowa Genesis, Leica UV and NV, Meopta MeoStar HD, Nikon EDG, Swarovski SLC, EL, and NL, and Zeiss FL, HT and SF, and maybe a few other models.
Hope that conveys better what I am trying to say!
Henry,
In this very thread, apart from post #350 by HenRun, which set off this discussion, such differences are reported in the Original Post by Lee and in post #109 by Maljunulo, and I have cited a few instances in post #155.
Fairly recently in some other thread I recalled differences in detail seen between Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 and Kowa Genesis 8x33 reported in Binomania some years back in a test at dusk.
Some time back I myself saw more detail through a Swaro. SLC 8x42 than through a Swaro. EL 8.5x42 in shade during daylight. I reckon my visual acuity was (an un-remarkable) 20/15 (like many others on the forum).
Both the above images were of bark/foliage.
By the term '"great" binocular' I hope you meant what I think you do as listed in my post above; if not please correct, thanks!
In this very thread, apart from post #350 by HenRun, which set off this discussion, such differences are reported in the Original Post by Lee and in post #109 by Maljunulo, and I have cited a few instances in post #155.
Fairly recently in some other thread I recalled differences in detail seen between Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 and Kowa Genesis 8x33 reported in Binomania some years back in a test at dusk.
Some time back I myself saw more detail through a Swaro. SLC 8x42 than through a Swaro. EL 8.5x42 in shade during daylight. I reckon my visual acuity was (an un-remarkable) 20/15 (like many others on the forum).
Both the above images were of bark/foliage.
By the term '"great" binocular' I hope you meant what I think you do as listed in my post above; if not please correct, thanks!
So this suggests large sample variation and for optics too.
That is not good for an Alpha product.
It suggests the process is not well controlled (cp/cpk manufacturing process capability).
If the process can't be controlled to the quality required, then an inspection step needs added to the production line. Then either rework each defective product or throw them into a 'seconds' bin and flog them cheap.
Less costly consumer products can let the customer act as the inspector....... and sample/ return products e.g. £100 cheap bins.
Last edited:
SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
A valiant effort.!!
Peter.
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Not sure if the "coating color" says it all, but SFL do look a bit different than SF (and FL) (see attached example). Even more orange/yellow it seems. In the PDF-marketing the mock-ups also seem to reflect a bit different color.
Obviously we need a "side-by-side" photo to say for sure.
But The SFL seems to be a new thing. I've checked samples from Henry and Binomania and the blue component is much higher than in any Zeiss bin I've seen. But it doesn't have as much red as some Leicas/Nikons for example.
Maybe Zeiss pushed the peak transmission left in the spectrum towards blue. Haven't seen any reports yet on weak reds in the SFL though. So perhaps they've managed to keep the curve pretty flat.
Attachments
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
I think Henry explained that the camera will reveal more CA than you normally see in the binocular when photographing the full stop of the binocular. Also the magnification factor viewing the photo on the screen comes into play.
And the SF clearly did best of the three in the CA area, and the SFL came out last.
The unintentional star-test also looked better on the SF and SFL than on the EL SV.
Last edited:
Yes perhaps it is the camera/ capture variance.
However, I hear "sample variation" mentioned a lot on BF. Often this is regards to collimation, focus wheel or optics performance.
This is okay, but for premium products, sample variation should be less than perceptible by customers. That is part of the justification for huge difference in purchase cost.
kimmik
Well-known member
The biggest variation is the observer.
Yes, those are my thoughts and my words. I know what I write. And I know what you wrote: I did post a direct quote, I will quote you again:
If you stand by your post, then yes, it was directed at you as well. Your post is more than "anything even(ly) remotely approaching" that.
If you do not think so yourself, you need to look at what you have written before you post. Or be more clear in writing.
I think your posting definitely takes a stab at subjective findings in the thread. Which I think is uneccessary.
I just think that if anyone finds a thread "droning on" my simple advice is: stop reading. It is as simple as that.
No need to chime in and prolong the thread - make a positive contribution to another thread you find interesting.
As for the topic at hand:
People can "Labcoat" binoculars as much as they want and I can find that really interesting as it gives me more knowledge about optics.
But, measuring binoculars to the extreme and then claim "you can't tell the difference hand held between two great 8X binos" is a bit rich to me.
That implies that all the lab tests are more or less worthless for hand held instruments as you assume people can't see the difference anyway, totally disregarding other factors that perhaps make the difference in real life, actual use. I have so many experiences in life with optics that contradict that statement I think it is pure hyperbole.
For example I am happily touting the Meopta 12x50HD as the "sharpest" bino I have looked through, supported on tripod. On a Bino chart and louped on tripod it would probably be equal or perhaps the Meopta would even edge out the Swarovski Pure NL 12x42 by a very slight margin.
Handheld they should by that earlier statement by Henry Link be indiscernable.
But, the Pure NL 12x42 is so much easier to handhold than the Meopta that I was shocked when I revisited the Pure NL after quite some time with the Meopta 12x50HD. I only used the Meopta handheld for BIF but for anything else I could not steady it more than briefly, something I attributed to the magnification factor. So, monopod or tripod, always, and very happy with that. The Meopta 12x50 Meostar is a damn fine bino.
However, the Pure NL 12x42 is simply fantastic when handheld, and I can hold it steadier than most 10x binos and compared to the Meopta 12x50 I can see more distant (and close up) detail with the Pure NL 12x42 - and for a much, much, longer time giving my brain time to process the details. The Pure NL costs twice as much and I could not justify it at the time, considering the Meopta being far better bang for the buck. Also, when revisiting the Pure NL it still found that it occasionally washes out the contrast - like totally - on an overcast day whereas the Meopta is more or less immune to glare. It can be remedied some, by "Owling around" that glorious eye relief which is also world class on the Pure NL. I can use the Pure NL with or without glasses - with the same setting. Never been able to do that with any other bino.
So with some time I can now relate to the cost difference in a different way. For the vast majority the Meopta is far better than anything they've ever seen and for some the Pure NL is the pinnacle of 12x optics and some will never see the difference.
Maybe this is where we are at comparing the 8x40 SFL to other top end binos. It may - or may not - have that little thing to seal the deal and unload your three cherry picked 7/8/8.5 binos and be happy with the one. Or you could just be irritated by the girth of the SFL compared to the Pure NL 8x32/42 and that you can provoke some CA out of it at times. Or you can simply not see the difference.
For me the revelation has been that I no longer think about the SFL in use: it disappears when I put it up to my face. The Pure NL did that too, but not as well for me - though I think the eye relief of the Pure NL is unbeatable and the image more immersive. In practice I did get the occasional glare out with the Pure NL and for me the SFL is so much better in this regard that I feel that the very slight CA difference outside of the center/object in focus is such a small penalty over having the image washed out at times or occasional crescent flares or constant shielding the back oculars and front lenses.
I think it will be nice to hear from other people with some time with the SFL under their belt too.
I have grown to like mine even more over time. It does take time to get to know some binos. Since binos are different in many ways there is hard (for me) to find one to replace a few other excellent, but not perfect, binos. The SFL is the closest so far - but I have never stated it is THE best.
Several people have written that one should be "happy with the bino they have" and I find this a bit conflicting.
I get the "never is not always better" but the "be thankful for what you've got" does not resonate with me, at all.
Slimming down the outfit to three binos to cover all bases is much harder than having five or six binos that overlap. I don't want that anymore.
Best thing about this forum is that it has helped me put things into perspective: some of you guys are more insane, most of you are more practical and there is nothing better than a reality check every now and then.
@HenRun
I have read some of your posts citing field use and performance of bins.
IMHO your posts are very relevant to me, as they present a realistic perspective of how the actual bins perform in use for you.
There is lots of "pseudo academic" debate on BF, that often is little more than speculation or perhaps worse, fanboy worship of expensive bins.
Keep up the good work 👍
I have read some of your posts citing field use and performance of bins.
IMHO your posts are very relevant to me, as they present a realistic perspective of how the actual bins perform in use for you.
There is lots of "pseudo academic" debate on BF, that often is little more than speculation or perhaps worse, fanboy worship of expensive bins.
Keep up the good work 👍
Hej Hen Run
Two members have both protested that you have taken their words and stretched them until they went beyond their intentions.
One complaint looks like a simple misunderstanding, two complaints about the same thing needs thinking about.
You make some interesting observations about binos but kindly take care to avoid the above-mentioned issue.
Hej Da
Lee
MODERATOR
henry link
Well-known member
The term "great binocular" was not mine. I see now that when I quoted from HenRun's post #358 I inadvertently left out the very sentence I was responding to, which this time is included in the quote below.
There are several other references to the NL Pure failing to resolve fine details in the center of the field in that post and in post #350. Clearly something is wrong with that binocular.
Last edited:
And where do you come in between these two - closer to the more insane or closer to the more practical (I am totally open for answers) ?
Any why is it relevant to troubador's field test of a 8x40 SFL bin?
HenRun has given good practical feedback of his experiences of the SFL.
To those attacks on blatant uninformed generalizations... Was thinking of another, ah... er... uninformed generalization, (maybe conjecture) that might get attacked. These conversations seem to assume Zeiss has made a change to different coatings leading to different observed tint characteristics. Zeiss' ads for the SFL feed this notion. I wonder if its a function of origin of manufacture? Zeiss has made no bones that the SFL is made in Japan. Do we know where SFs are made? I get Zeiss is taking credit for design specs, but I suspect the choices from that supplier might not have been infinite or might be something they already do and Zeiss saw an opportunity? Relating but not the same, while musing, has anyone compared the Victory Pocket and SFL? Haven't seen it discussed. Not thinking performance, which is obviously different. Am thinking of evidence both come from same source, based on appearance of both instruments. What are chances its the same manufacturer for both SFL and VP? Anybody looked at "tints' of these 2?
Last edited:
Kind of overstates what Ive read as well. Front/objective color does not dictate back/ocular color.
