Is that a promise? If I ever make to Paris with this Covid stuff I will take you up on that.No, but I’ll buy you a drink
Edmund
-
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.
Where are all the 8x32 SF reviews? After all the speculation... (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter b-lilja
- Start date
Sounds good to me! Are you sure though at $18 a bottle!
"Chimay Blue, 9% ABV darker ale. In the 75 cl bottle, it is known as Grande Réserve. This copper-brown beer has a light creamy head and a slightly bitter taste. Considered to be the "classic" Chimay ale, it exhibits a considerable depth of fruity, peppery character."
Last edited:
Ok, here's a late evening thought. As it often happens these days, I'm sitting at my computer shortly before midnight and have the SF 10x32 on the table simply because it feels so nice to pick it up from time to time (does this sound a bit strange?).
I read quite often that "at 152 mm, the overall length of this model exceeds the average length normally associated with a 32 mm binocular" (https://www.birdguides.com/reviews/zeiss-victory-sf-8x32-binocular/#).
What if Zeiss had tried to redefine binoculars for the everyday use of birdwatchers? To set a new standard and replace our 42 binoculars with 32? Because that is how the SF 32 feels to me: not a small-sized binocular that fits into a jacket pocket but a regular birding binocular, slimmer and lighter than our traditional models, but with a top level of optical performance.
I read quite often that "at 152 mm, the overall length of this model exceeds the average length normally associated with a 32 mm binocular" (https://www.birdguides.com/reviews/zeiss-victory-sf-8x32-binocular/#).
What if Zeiss had tried to redefine binoculars for the everyday use of birdwatchers? To set a new standard and replace our 42 binoculars with 32? Because that is how the SF 32 feels to me: not a small-sized binocular that fits into a jacket pocket but a regular birding binocular, slimmer and lighter than our traditional models, but with a top level of optical performance.
Gijs
See the quote from Holger Merlitz who looked for, but did not find, a green cast in SF32.
Lee
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Lee, post 105,
So I am in good company.
Gijs van Ginkel
So I am in good company.
Gijs van Ginkel
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Gijs - would you say the colour cast you saw was like a light tint of "corned beef" ...... ? :cat:
Chosun :gh:
You may be right. IMHO it is very clear what has defined the length of SF32 and that is to make available sufficient room for the average hand to achieve a normal open-hinge grip, with 1st finger on the focus wheel and the other fingers wrapped around the optical tube as shown in the pic.
Lee
Attachments
I agree that the SF is very comfortable. On the other, the Swaro relative compactness and the Ultravid extreme compactness can compensate. I tried all of them and I think it is more a matter of preference.
I would switch to an Ultravid tomorrow if it had the optics of the Zeiss for instance.
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Chosun, post 107,
The differences are small, you could call it for the SF a slightly warmer image impression and the NL's whites are brilliant white, some may call it cooler, but every word I write can be misunderstood, you must see it and experience it. Both binoculars feel as taking a warm bath, I can not describe the color as corned beef, that is far too red. Moreover I am a vegetarian, so I have to dig in my imagination as you will understand. The best thing you can do is: go to a shop and buy both or take the time to look at a bright white surface and experience it and start mourning that you did spend so much money. Both binoculars are a joy to use by the way. If you have weight lifting problems: the SF weighs 603 g and the NL 875 g.
I hope that his is clear, if not please ask.
Gijs van Ginkel
The differences are small, you could call it for the SF a slightly warmer image impression and the NL's whites are brilliant white, some may call it cooler, but every word I write can be misunderstood, you must see it and experience it. Both binoculars feel as taking a warm bath, I can not describe the color as corned beef, that is far too red. Moreover I am a vegetarian, so I have to dig in my imagination as you will understand. The best thing you can do is: go to a shop and buy both or take the time to look at a bright white surface and experience it and start mourning that you did spend so much money. Both binoculars are a joy to use by the way. If you have weight lifting problems: the SF weighs 603 g and the NL 875 g.
I hope that his is clear, if not please ask.
Gijs van Ginkel
b_reynolds_ak
Well-known member
To answer my own question, yes the 8x32 SF’s are easier to look through and less sensitive to eyecup position than the 10’s. The 8’s just arrived today and already they are noticeably easier for me to use comfortably. I don’t get the rolling ball effect that I was getting with the 10’s. Despite the very large fov with the 10’s, you still only have a 3.2 mm exit pupil. You can’t get away from that and if you want a more relaxed viewing experience, you’ll have to just go to a bigger exit pupil. I’m really just starting to understand this through experience and not just on paper.
I also have a pair of 2020 manufactured Swaro 8x32 EL’s on hand at the moment. As a direct comparison between the two, the SF’s have a noticeably wider fov. Weight balance is pronounced between the two, with the SF being more ocular heavy and feeling lighter in hand while using. Shining a light into the oculars and viewing through the objective lens, you can see prisms and internals of the Swarovski’s. The same view through the Zeiss is very different. It’s almost entirely dark. The Swaros even have an exposed stainless rod in the top part of the objective side that is completely exposed, which was quite surprising. These observations made it pretty apparent to me why the Zeiss handle glare better the the EL’s. Not to be a binocular butterfly... but I’m back on board with the Zeiss SF.
The problem is that with this there is still the smaller exit pupil. I have yet to experience an equally easy view with a x32 that the corresponding x42 delivers. Thus I doubt that Zeiss had in mind what you suggest.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Of course it's hard to know what Zeiss design philosophy was. But an 8x32 has essentially the same exit pupil as a 10x42... and it does seem that the "critical" break in exit pupil size is somewhere below 3,75mm, es evidenced by the popularity of 8x30, 8x32, and 10x42 while 10x30/32 remains a much less common format. Of course 8x42 is more comfortable than 8x32 for eye placement, and worse for the neck/shoulders
I think that the number of 10x42 seen vs 10x50 is a bit of evidence that exit pupil isn't the only consideration, 800-900g seems to be a "critical" break as well, with most birders not wanting to carry a larger bin all day.Personally I view the SF32 (and the SV32 FWIW) as competition for 42mm bins rather than as competition with truly compact bins (like the MHG/CL and perhaps UV 8x32)
Lee,
I would be honored.
There is the question though of when things will return to normal.
There’s a big birding meet in Abbeville every spring which I guess some members usually would attend.
Edmund
I will be delighted. Bring some of your collection and we’ll point them at the seagulls fighting the ducks in the Luxembourg garden pond.
Edmund
binomania
Well-known member
Hi from Italy...
I love MTB and I own an enduro bike: my new purchase has 160mm of travel and flies over rocks and branches, flies over everything... I started in the late 80's with a completely rigid bike and each trail was a real physical exercise.. What I mean? Well, that the difference from the first models to the new ones is obvious. I only had improvements and immense pleasure in using it.
Of course now my enduro mtb has forks, I have to adjust the preload, the pressure, but I don't have to stop during the lap to continue making adjustments .
Therefore, still talking about binoculars.... if I have to struggle to use 8X binoculars with 9 degrees of field, I prefer to use 8X binoculars with 8 degrees or even less.
I understand that it is nice to have a very large field of view, but, at first, i have to see my raptor friends well and i want less glares between me and them
By the way i don't think that the problem is a big field of view, I don't think it's a cause.. My SF 8x42 works well also with 8.5°. Speaking of other things, i am very very sorry but I don't agree that SF32 has the same glare issues as NL PURE as i read , here on BF. I have been using the SF 32 with my SF42 for days. I took part in global birding today and had no problem with glare in 10 hours as I did in the three to four hours a day testing the NL PURE.
I believe that as far as glare is concerned the SF32 is more correct. I love NL PURE, I like it a lot, but I hope Swarovski tries to improve the situation.
Having the good fortune of being able to use dozens of binoculars every year for binomania,
I don't take part with a particular brand. I have favorite binoculars from various brands. (Canon 10x42, APM 100 SD, Docter Aspectem 40x80, Kowa Higlander, Docter Nobilem 8x56, Leica Trinovid 8x32, Zeiss SF 8x42, Nikon EDG 10x42, Nikon 8x30 E II, Victory Fl 7x42, Vixen 6.5x32, Sard 6x32 and many others). I'm not creating a war between Zeiss and Swarovski, mine are just very personal impressions on the field..
In any case, I don't think I'll sell my SF42 for the SF32, I use binoculars in many situations and still prefer the 8x42 exit pupil. But I'd like to see the latest mechanical-optical innovations used on the SF32 in the SF 42.
Once again I hope not to sound like an idiot with my bad English .. happy Sunday everyone from Italy.
Piergiovanni
I love MTB and I own an enduro bike: my new purchase has 160mm of travel and flies over rocks and branches, flies over everything... I started in the late 80's with a completely rigid bike and each trail was a real physical exercise.. What I mean? Well, that the difference from the first models to the new ones is obvious. I only had improvements and immense pleasure in using it.
Of course now my enduro mtb has forks, I have to adjust the preload, the pressure, but I don't have to stop during the lap to continue making adjustments .
Therefore, still talking about binoculars.... if I have to struggle to use 8X binoculars with 9 degrees of field, I prefer to use 8X binoculars with 8 degrees or even less.
I understand that it is nice to have a very large field of view, but, at first, i have to see my raptor friends well and i want less glares between me and them
By the way i don't think that the problem is a big field of view, I don't think it's a cause.. My SF 8x42 works well also with 8.5°. Speaking of other things, i am very very sorry but I don't agree that SF32 has the same glare issues as NL PURE as i read , here on BF. I have been using the SF 32 with my SF42 for days. I took part in global birding today and had no problem with glare in 10 hours as I did in the three to four hours a day testing the NL PURE.
I believe that as far as glare is concerned the SF32 is more correct. I love NL PURE, I like it a lot, but I hope Swarovski tries to improve the situation.
Having the good fortune of being able to use dozens of binoculars every year for binomania,
I don't take part with a particular brand. I have favorite binoculars from various brands. (Canon 10x42, APM 100 SD, Docter Aspectem 40x80, Kowa Higlander, Docter Nobilem 8x56, Leica Trinovid 8x32, Zeiss SF 8x42, Nikon EDG 10x42, Nikon 8x30 E II, Victory Fl 7x42, Vixen 6.5x32, Sard 6x32 and many others). I'm not creating a war between Zeiss and Swarovski, mine are just very personal impressions on the field..
In any case, I don't think I'll sell my SF42 for the SF32, I use binoculars in many situations and still prefer the 8x42 exit pupil. But I'd like to see the latest mechanical-optical innovations used on the SF32 in the SF 42.
Once again I hope not to sound like an idiot with my bad English .. happy Sunday everyone from Italy.
Piergiovanni
Last edited:
Well, I bought them.
Spent the day with the 8x32SFs. Really incredible binoculars. My main hesitation is the yellow/green - it is there - but I was looking for it, and compared to the Conquest HD, Nikon SE, and Leica 8x32 BNs, more neutral in most situations. Somehow spending over $2k for bins makes you much much more picky.
More to follow.
Spent the day with the 8x32SFs. Really incredible binoculars. My main hesitation is the yellow/green - it is there - but I was looking for it, and compared to the Conquest HD, Nikon SE, and Leica 8x32 BNs, more neutral in most situations. Somehow spending over $2k for bins makes you much much more picky.
More to follow.
Thank you Edmund. There is also the problem of my lung condition which means I have to be extra cautious about Covid-19.
There is also BirdFair in the UK in August, which might tempt you over La Manche, but events like this are not certain to happen next year.
Lee
Hi from Italy...
Therefore, still talking about binoculars.... if I have to struggle to use 8X binoculars with 9 degrees of field, I prefer to use 8X binoculars with 8 degrees or even less.
I understand that it is nice to have a very large field of view, but, at first, i have to see my raptor friends well and i want less glares between me and them
By the way i don't think that the problem is a big field of view, I don't think it's a cause.. My SF 8x42 works well also with 8.5°. Speaking of other things, i am very very sorry but I don't agree that SF32 has the same glare issues as NL PURE as i read , here on BF. I have been using the SF 32 with my SF42 for days. I took part in global birding today and had no problem with glare in 10 hours as I did in the three to four hours a day testing the NL PURE.
I believe that as far as glare is concerned the SF32 is more correct. I love NL PURE, I like it a lot, but I hope Swarovski tries to improve the situation.
Having the good fortune of being able to use dozens of binoculars every year for binomania,
I don't take part with a particular brand. I have favorite binoculars from various brands. (Canon 10x42, APM 100 SD, Docter Aspectem 40x80, Kowa Higlander, Docter Nobilem 8x56, Leica Trinovid 8x32, Zeiss SF 8x42, Nikon EDG 10x42, Nikon 8x30 E II, Victory Fl 7x42, Vixen 6.5x32, Sard 6x32 and many others). I'm not creating a war between Zeiss and Swarovski, mine are just very personal impressions on the field..
In any case, I don't think I'll sell my SF42 for the SF32, I use binoculars in many situations and still prefer the 8x42 exit pupil. But I'd like to see the latest mechanical-optical innovations used on the SF32 in the SF 42.
Once again I hope not to sound like an idiot with my bad English .. happy Sunday everyone from Italy.
Piergiovanni
Well written insightful thoughts. I appreciate the way you have put so much into context. Thank you.
On exit pupil and 32mm binoculars, i speak as a convert to the size. It is obvious the 4mm of the 8x32 is reduced from the 5mm+ of the 8x42 - the implications being less light (provided you are capable of a 4mm+ dilation of the pupil) and perhaps a trickier eye position.
However, the difficulty with reviews and eye position with 32mm is that often the correct position is a matter of familiarity and technique, which develops over time.
For someone used to larger EPs to go onto a 8x32 for a few hours in order to evaluate a review model - and then give it back - is perhaps tricky in this regard.
The binoculars i do own are various sizes. After using one model extensively, adapting to a change often takes a period of assimilation, after which hitting the sweet spot in regard to eye placement is not a problem.
I have never used 10x32mm, so this might be more difficult - i can't say.
However, 8x32mm has been my most-used format for some years - i may lose 20mins of light at the end of the day on gull roosts etc. but other than that, i can't say i've had a problem with eye placement - after a short adaption period, if i've been using something else previously.
However, the difficulty with reviews and eye position with 32mm is that often the correct position is a matter of familiarity and technique, which develops over time.
For someone used to larger EPs to go onto a 8x32 for a few hours in order to evaluate a review model - and then give it back - is perhaps tricky in this regard.
The binoculars i do own are various sizes. After using one model extensively, adapting to a change often takes a period of assimilation, after which hitting the sweet spot in regard to eye placement is not a problem.
I have never used 10x32mm, so this might be more difficult - i can't say.
However, 8x32mm has been my most-used format for some years - i may lose 20mins of light at the end of the day on gull roosts etc. but other than that, i can't say i've had a problem with eye placement - after a short adaption period, if i've been using something else previously.
