My video review of Zeiss SFL 8x40 (1 Viewer)

Paultricounty said:

No apologies necessary I understand where you were going with that. I do agree that it’s not just about exit pupil and transmission. That’s why I made mention to lesser glass elements and also equivalent coatings which can have a great effect in low light conditions. We definitely seem to have a difference in our opinions as to which pair of binoculars between an Habicht 7x42 and an SF 8 x 42 is brighter in very low lighting. I have not tried anything that was brighter in very low light than thsee Habicht’s, and that includes 742 UVHD+, 10x56 SLC’s, 8x42 SF and 8x42 Noctivids. It’s the only reason I keep the Habicht’s considering what I consider multiple shortcomings, tunnel vision FOV, very heavy focuser and a small eyebox with short eye releif.

I know there are a few other members here that have tried both that should be able to weigh in.

Thank you
Paul

Click to expand...

I know what you mean. But my point is not wich is the brighter Glass. My point is in wich glass i can compare the differences in shaddow Areas better. And here is the SF for me the Winner. And i dont think the better Twilight Factor from 8 time mag is the point, because a Dialyt 7x42 is in real Low Light for my Eyes much better than the Habicht 7x42. As i Bought my First 7x42 Habicht years ago (think in 2015) i bought The Habicht Special for Low light viewing. And compared to my SF and Dialyt he cant Keep up. So I sold the Habicht. A few Months ago i bought a New Habicht 7x42 GA again, because i like The Brightness, sharpness and Coloration plus 3d effect from this Glass for my hiking and mountain Sports. But in low Light i dont use it much...

The one that sees better in the shadow areas is the “better” optic, although I do wonder what some folks think the word “better” means sometimes.

Maljunulo said:

The one that sees better in the shadow areas is the “better” optic, although I do wonder what some folks think the word “better” means sometimes.

Click to expand...

Is the better Optic for low light.... not in general.. Or?

"Off the wall question: does Zeiss still have straps/lugs that are narrower than everyone else's, and did their cameras also?"

The lug openings of the SFLs are about the same width as the x32 FLs (if that's of any use.)

Paultricounty said:

I’d love to hear some other opinions from members who have both of these fine optics.

Click to expand...

I do, but I spare you my opinion, because I think the debate here about which one is (just slightly!!!) better at a given lighting situation depends too much on my or your individual eye apparatus that the debate becomes moot in my view.

Just my 2 ct.
Canip

Aquaplas said:

Is the better Optic for low light.... not in general.. Or?

Click to expand...

Since I didn’t specify “for low light” I meant in general.

Canip said:

I do, but I spare you my opinion, because I think the debate here about which one is (just slightly!!!) better at a given lighting situation depends too much on my or your individual eye apparatus that the debate becomes moot in my view.

Just my 2 ct.
Canip

Click to expand...

It’s a interesting Approach!

Canip said:

I do, but I spare you my opinion, because I think the debate here about which one is (just slightly!!!) better at a given lighting situation depends too much on my or your individual eye apparatus that the debate becomes moot in my view.

Just my 2 ct.
Canip

Click to expand...

Canip, That could be said for every group of binoculars in a specific price range. Low light ability NL, SF , Nocs all about the same, MHG, Conquest, Genesis all about the same. So your sparing us your opinion on which you think are superior in low light because your opinion is there both about the same to you?😉

I absolutely agree that differences can all be negligible to one person and jump out to another person. Globe effect is one good example, CA is another, I’m sensitive to it, can’t tolerate a Trinovid HD, yet have absolutely no issue with Ultravids. Something like being able to spot a detail on an object or see something in the shadows in very low light conditions seems to me, to be more inherent in quality of coating , transmission, number of glass elements and of course the glass used (flint , fluoride etc.). I’m saying the difference to me in these two optics is more than subtle. When I have three other similar opinions I think it’s more than my personal observation.

If I hear numerous other observers who have the same late model optics and have had them side by side in those very low light conditions and im told little to no difference by some and one person says the opposite , I’m confused on how this could be.

Paul

Paultricounty said:

If I hear numerous other observers who have the same late model optics and have had them side by side in those very low light conditions and im told little to no difference by some and one person says the opposite , I’m confused on how this could be.

Click to expand...

Vision is a complicated process involving individual eyes and brains. You have to trust what people say they see or notice (or don't) while keeping that in mind.

tenex said:

Vision is a complicated process involving individual eyes and brains. You have to trust what people say they see or notice (or don't) while keeping that in mind.

Click to expand...

Doesn't that just say it all? Maybe we should all just stop...

tenex said:

Vision is a complicated process involving individual eyes and brains. You have to trust what people say they see or notice (or don't) while keeping that in mind.

Click to expand...

Context is hugely important and about never here.... We know next to nothing about each other - height, weight, body type, facial features, eye/brain hardware, fitness level, education, careers, experience, never mind where we bird or why... We are each entitled to our opinions, but whew! Clearly all opinions expressed are not equal. When it comes to BF, isn't it a process of reading, interacting, thinking and discovering who's opinion relates better/best?