Looking for comparisons between 8x32 SF and 8x40 SFL. (1 Viewer)

[Zedster]

In that case the new Z SFL8x30/ 10x30 should suit you.

Are these actual announced products or vaporware?

The 8X40 are pretty darn impressive close focus though so I’m not sure it matters. I mean the likely weight savings will be tempting though

 

[Troubador]

One would think that a large part of the population here spends an inordinate amount of time looking at its own feet.

LOL, no not feet. To address your puzzlement about the use of close focus, here are a few subjects I have close-focused on in recent visits to the west of Scotland.

Hermit Crabs and Brittlestars on a shore covered in slippery rocks making walking or even just standing still a tricky business.
Observing the tiny wild orchid Bog Orchid Hammarbya paludosa without treading near or amongst them and potentially squashing the soft boggy ground and any orchids that had not yet emerged above ground level.
Checking out dense ground-layer vegetation for the presence of caterpillars of Marsh Fritillary butterfly, avoiding disturbing the vegetation by walking amongst it.
Enjoying close-up views of Marsh Fritillary butterflies, Aeshna juncea and Cordulegaster boltonii dragonflies, and later in the year, the huge variety of fungi on Islay in the southern Hebrides.
Checking whether a vast swarm of Butterfly Orchids were the Greater or Lesser variety, again reducing the trampling of the habitat and in the same place, observing a male Adder. And by the way they were Lesser Butterfly Orchids.
Standing in shallow sea-water on a sandy bed and watching a shoal of Sandeels swimming close to my feet. Watching them disappear into the sand when I moved and then watching them slowly emerge when I remained motionless for a minute or two.

If you have ever seen a nature programme on the tv in which the camera zooms in to show a close-up of a bee on a flower and your reaction was 'wow', well this kind of view is what you can get with close-focusing binoculars.

Some years ago it was common to read on Birdforum, complaints that it was a shame bino users were having close-focus capability imposed on them by the demands of specialists. At the time I refuted this by pointing out that it was the birders who were only interested in birds who were the specialists and that making binoculars more versatile with a good close-focus capability catered for those with a broader interest in nature.

Lee

 

[Maljunulo]

This is definitely something I must explore.

Thank you for the explanation.

Cheers!.
Richard

 

[Troubador]

This is definitely something I must explore.

Thank you for the explanation.

Cheers!.
Richard

You are most welcome Richard and you will discover binos are even more wonderful than you previously suspected. Here are a few subjects I have enjoyed through binoculars.

Best wishes Lee

 

[Tringa45]

Only the guys in the Zeiss marketing dept. would think the two-toned picture makes any sense IMO.

Perhaps their in-house optics courses are a bit too basic. The SFL has S-P prisms but on the SFL page a 54 mm HT is depicted with A-K prisms!

John

 

[ariban]

Are these actual announced products or vaporware?

The 8X40 are pretty darn impressive close focus though so I’m not sure it matters. I mean the likely weight savings will be tempting though

No. They are true and nice. Seen it, is all I can say now.

A binocular that can focus close is indeed a tool to enjoy. My reference set is the Pentax Papilio II, mine is 8.5x.

 

[tenex]

Perhaps their in-house optics courses are a bit too basic. The SFL has S-P prisms but on the SFL page a 54 mm HT is depicted with A-K prisms!

" * Animation shows the Victory HT 10x54 for illustrational purposes to demonstrate the positive effects of special glass materials and lens coatings on the overall image quality"
The truly ridiculous thing about this illustration is the comparison with "Standard glass uncoated, 50% transmission"! When was that last seen?

 

[Conndomat]

At the time I refuted this by pointing out that it was the birders who were only interested in birds who were the specialists and that making binoculars more versatile with a good close-focus capability catered for those with a broader interest in nature.

Yes, perhaps...

But one should also consider the optical and mechanical loss, binoculars that should please everyone must make some compromises.

Andreas

 

[Zedster]

Some years ago it was common to read on Birdforum, complaints that it was a shame bino users were having close-focus capability imposed on them by the demands of specialists. At the time I refuted this by pointing out that it was the birders who were only interested in birds who were the specialists and that making binoculars more versatile with a good close-focus capability catered for those with a broader interest in nature.

Lee

Of course birding is a HUGE sport practiced by a bunch of people with money so their desires will weigh heavily on manufacturers. That said, I'm a birder and close focus is imperative to me. Most of my birding friends are also keenly interested in minimum focal distances. I won't even entertain a pair with greater than 2M close focus.

 

[Richard D]

Yes, perhaps...

But one should also consider the optical and mechanical loss, binoculars that should please everyone must make some compromises.

Andreas

Agreed - if it was easy and cost free to give both excellent close focus and excellent performance at just beyond infinity all binoculars would be made this way. The reality is to extend the optical train requires a lot more moving parts and complexity adding to production costs. Those costs are unlikely to be absorbed by the companies, so you'll be paying more or those costs will be covered by other compromises.

 

[Troubador]

Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD. Close focus distance 1.0m. £695. Compromises? FOV 124m @ 1,000m.

Lee

 

[Zedster]

Yes, but I want it all 😁. I’ll trade a meter in close focus for the extra FOV.

 

[Conndomat]

Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD. Close focus distance 1.0m. £695. Compromises? FOV 124m @ 1,000m.

Lee

Yes, and likely compromises in optical performance and focuser robustness. You can not have everything.

Andreas

 

[Troubador]

Yes, and likely compromises in optical performance and focuser robustness. You can not have everything.

Andreas

Hi Andreas
All binos are surely the result of design decisions that incorporate compromises. As to compromises in optical performance, well, through the Leicas (which I have had for 6 years) I can report that birds, animals, butterflies and dragonflies and flowers and fungi are all the correct shape, colour and texture. The focuser is smooth and accurate.
My personal favourite for general use in the west of Scotland is Zeiss SF 8x32 but when close-distance use is necessary I take the Leica.

Lee

 

[Richard D]

Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD. Close focus distance 1.0m. £695. Compromises? FOV 124m @ 1,000m.

Lee

I've no idea where they have chosen to compromise, but unless Leica are the most alturistic company in the world you are either directly paying for the increased production costs with a more complex optical drive train so it's priced ?% higher than it would be without those costs or for the same cost they could have improved something else.

 

[Conndomat]

The focuser is smooth and accurate.

Hello Lee,

Unfortunately, in the last few years I had moved four binoculars whose focus lenses were no longer synchronized to the close-up distance.
A Conquest 10x32, a Swarovski EL 8.5x42 and two Noctivids 8x42.
With the Conquest and the Swarovski this problem only developed over time, with the Noctivids it was from the beginning, I immediately sent these glasses back to the dealer.
I think a longer focus path requires more precision, that increases the probability of defects, the focuser simply becomes more fragile and the optical calculation becomes even more complex, if you also want to have a good picture "behind" you have to do something "in front". take away.
Unfortunately, all Alpha binoculars now have these extreme close-up distances, even if you don't need them, you have to accept these compromises.
At this point I wish there were more alternatives.

Andreas

 

[Upland]

I’ve actually owned both although at different times so was unable to directly compare the two. I do tend to agree with Lee though.

Just to throw another option out : I just acquired a pair of Nikon EDG 8x32s and prefer them to both of the Zeiss. The ergonomics, sharpness, focus wheel and edge to edge clarity is second to none. The only knock is that they are not as good in low light. So if that is important to you I’d go with the Zeiss and the SFLs are the best of all there. As has been said above try them all if possible. They’re all great so I doubt you’ll be disappointed with any of them.

 

[Swissboy]

I’ve actually owned both although at different times so was unable to directly compare the two. I do tend to agree with Lee though.

Just to throw another option out : I just acquired a pair of Nikon EDG 8x32s and prefer them to both of the Zeiss. The ergonomics, sharpness, focus wheel and edge to edge clarity is second to none. The only knock is that they are not as good in low light. So if that is important to you I’d go with the Zeiss and the SFLs are the best of all there. As has been said above try them all if possible. They’re all great so I doubt you’ll be disappointed with any of them.

Weight and minimum focus of only 3m are excluding this for me. Have not found info on eye-relief yet.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD. Close focus distance 1.0m. £695. Compromises? FOV 124m @ 1,000m.

Lee

In fact someone could buy mine and see for themselves, LOL
(listed here on BF and still there...)

 

[Tringa45]

I think a longer focus path requires more precision, that increases the probability of defects, the focuser simply becomes more fragile and the optical calculation becomes even more complex, if you also want to have a good picture "behind" you have to do something "in front". take away.
Unfortunately, all Alpha binoculars now have these extreme close-up distances, even if you don't need them, you have to accept these compromises.
At this point I wish there were more alternatives.

Or alternatively you could use a "stronger" (+ve. or -ve.) focussing lens, but even with an achromatic doublet that in turn would probably involve additional optical compromises. Didn't Henry once assert that CA in Porro binoculars was often better corrected than in many internally focussing roof prism binoculars, and that despite an often simple objective design?

John