New Zeiss 8x32SF as your main binocular (1 Viewer)

paddy7 · May 13, 2020

Torview said:
I`ll certainly be interested to try them when ever that chance comes. The spec is hard to fault, the 8x32SV just about managed to replace a 42mm as my main tool, but, and I know many on here have no issues with the stray light control in the SV, it ruined some great views for me.

If the 32SF matches the SV in every other aspect, adding good stray light control and a 10%+ increase in fov its got to be a real contender.

Whether I`ll bother given how much I like my 42mm SF I`m not sure. I still think its too expensive, and the current 42mm models don`t "feel" like £2.3k quality IMHO.

That i think is part of the crux of the issue with the 32SF, as a main bin or otherwise.
For the gentleman-birder advancing in years, who may have decided that his eye dilation can be met by the 4mm EP of a 32mm, they are likely to already own one - the luckier ones perhaps a Zeiss, Swaro or Leica.
For others being asked to shell out in excess of £2k will they go for what is a fairly lengthy 32mm, or just think that for the same money they can get an 8x42? Less weight, more FoV against less light ('y' canna change the laws of physics, Jim!')
It will be interesting to see how Zeiss pitch their marketing; for me, it is too sizeable an investment to swap from an FL to an SF but i guess others may feel differently, particularly if a little more financially blessed than myself.

lmans66 · May 13, 2020

paddy7 said:
That i think is part of the crux of the issue with the 32SF, as a main bin or otherwise.
For the gentleman-birder advancing in years, who may have decided that his eye dilation can be met by the 4mm EP of a 32mm, they are likely to already own one - the luckier ones perhaps a Zeiss, Swaro or Leica.
For others being asked to shell out in excess of £2k will they go for what is a fairly lengthy 32mm, or just think that for the same money they can get an 8x42? Less weight, more FoV against less light ('y' canna change the laws of physics, Jim!')
It will be interesting to see how Zeiss pitch their marketing; for me, it is too sizeable an investment to swap from an FL to an SF but i guess others may feel differently, particularly if a little more financially blessed than myself.

I have a pair of 10x42HT's right now....and want to get a 8x. The 8x32 will be less than $2000 US and the 8x42 is substantially more, so it is a no brainer for me to go for the 32. If I was like some of you guys and have an existing 42sf, I would stick with what you have. And yes, the weight is probably not an issue. The actual size of the 32 is about the same as the 42 with exception of weight. The 4mm EP is still to be decided by many, eh.

wdc · May 13, 2020

paddy7 said:
For the gentleman-birder advancing in years, .....

An apt description of a certain demographic, Paddy!

I would append: "...that are likely to be wearing spectacles, if not for distance, then for reading the bird guide."

The new x32 Sf is well spec'ed to meet certain needs. If it can be priced in direct competition with the Swaro, once it finally gets to market, it should do well. I will certainly be curious to try one out.

-Bill

Patudo · May 13, 2020

paddy7 said:
It will be interesting to see how Zeiss pitch their marketing; for me, it is too sizeable an investment to swap from an FL to an SF but i guess others may feel differently..

I've always thought it would be really interesting to do a survey of those who recently bought an alpha, asking what binocular was their formerly most used. There would have be at least three groups - folks who relied on a sub-alpha/second tier (Conquest etc), those who used a previous generation alpha (eg. FL, non-SV EL), and those who used another current alpha. Then there must be those who relied on a third tier binocular and decided on an alpha rather than one of the second tier. But I haven't a clue what proportions each of these groups would make up in the total.

I'd tend to agree the other current alphas and the FLs are so good that most owners of these will likely hang on to theirs, but owners of older binoculars might be more likely to get one.

paddy7 · May 13, 2020

Patudo said:
I've always thought it would be really interesting to do a survey of those who recently bought an alpha, asking what binocular was their formerly most used. There would have be at least three groups - folks who relied on a sub-alpha/second tier (Conquest etc), those who used a previous generation alpha (eg. FL, non-SV EL), and those who used another current alpha. Then there must be those who relied on a third tier binocular and decided on an alpha rather than one of the second tier. But I haven't a clue what proportions each of these groups would make up in the total.

I'd tend to agree the other current alphas and the FLs are so good that most owners of these will likely hang on to theirs, but owners of older binoculars might be more likely to get one.

Sounds like a possible thread - might take a while to get the title exact though!
Some years ago, spoke with a guy who was a warden for many years on a Norfolk site. He spoke of the reliance on the 'grey pound;; couples who retired to Norfolk/Suffolk and were looking for something they could gently do together in their later years. This was often birding, and - with little prior knowledge of birds, binoculars or anything related - would buy his and hers alphas without batting an eyelid.
He closed the conversation with that great British put-down - 'all the gear - no idea!'

NDhunter · May 13, 2020

paddy7 said:
Sounds like a possible thread - might take a while to get the title exact though!
Some years ago, spoke with a guy who was a warden for many years on a Norfolk site. He spoke of the reliance on the 'grey pound;; couples who retired to Norfolk/Suffolk and were looking for something they could gently do together in their later years. This was often birding, and - with little prior knowledge of birds, binoculars or anything related - would buy his and hers alphas without batting an eyelid.
He closed the conversation with that great British put-down - 'all the gear - no idea!'

Paddy:
You have a good subject to discuss, I think this means getting out in the great outdoors. While out on a walk getting a binocular that will help you observe and that does includes birds.

That means start out with a good binocular like a porro in the 8x40 range, and many optics qualify, such as the Nikon Aculon 8x40.
There is no reason to upgrade from this optic unless you find a need.

Jerry

wdc · May 14, 2020

NDhunter said:
Paddy:
You have a good subject to discuss, I think this means getting out in the great outdoors. While out on a walk getting a binocular that will help you observe and that does includes birds.

That means start out with a good binocular like a porro in the 8x40 range, and many optics qualify, such as the Nikon Aculon 8x40.
There is no reason to upgrade from this optic unless you find a need.

Jerry

So, folks that have maybe 30 years of the rest of their lives left, and their senses, including vision, slowly degrading, should only get something that on some 'objective' basis, perfectly corresponds to their ability to see things?

According to whose standards?

Who should set standards for those needs...

Jerry, I'm looking at specs for a "Nikon Aculon" and cannot find an 8x40. I CAN find an 8x42. eye relief? 12mm....

What if they wear glasses? Uh-uh.

The whole idea of a culture, or society based degradation of folks, whether due to age, or lack of experience, in an activity they may come to truly enjoy, is not a pleasant prospect to consider.

How many folks on this forum make a living looking through their binoculars at birds? My guess is a single digit answer. Perhaps the answer is ZERO....

If you're a fan of binoculars its ok to talk about buying excellent tools? But if you're a retired person contemplating a deep dive into nature and optics, then you only deserve scorn and the cheapest possible device?

I don't buy it.

-Bill

paddy7 · May 14, 2020

I think - going back to my earlier thought which triggered the post - i am talking really about marketing and markets for the new 32mm SF. The fact that it is light weight, wide FoV and the 4mm exit pupil of the 8x32 would perhaps suit those for whom 6mm dilation is a thing of the past (and may principally do their birding on 'days out') might provide Zeiss with a marketing target.
I don't mean exclusively the 'grey pound (or dollar)' crew, but it is certainly a big demographic..

I'm sure the 8x32SF (from the specs and Lee's review) would be more than enough as a 'main bin' and for many retiree/one-time buyers, enough as an only bin.
The reason i've stuck with the FL 8x32 for so long is not just that the ergonomics/optics suit me very well, but that it's such a rugged little thing. Of course, only time will tell on that with the SF.
I imagine the FL as the gnarled veteran, snarling in the corner at the newbie in a smart, pressed uniform, just getting off the plane...maybe a scene from Full Metal Jacket or something.....

Troubador · May 14, 2020

wdc said:
So, folks that have maybe 30 years of the rest of their lives left, and their senses, including vision, slowly degrading, should only get something that on some 'objective' basis, perfectly corresponds to their ability to see things?

According to whose standards?

Who should set standards for those needs...

Jerry, I'm looking at specs for a "Nikon Aculon" and cannot find an 8x40. I CAN find an 8x42. eye relief? 12mm....

What if they wear glasses? Uh-uh.

The whole idea of a culture, or society based degradation of folks, whether due to age, or lack of experience, in an activity they may come to truly enjoy, is not a pleasant prospect to consider.

How many folks on this forum make a living looking through their binoculars at birds? My guess is a single digit answer. Perhaps the answer is ZERO....

If you're a fan of binoculars its ok to talk about buying excellent tools? But if you're a retired person contemplating a deep dive into nature and optics, then you only deserve scorn and the cheapest possible device?

I don't buy it.

-Bill

Bill

Jerry's post didn't suggest that to me. My take was that retired folks (like me) don't need to spend huge chunks of money on binos to get pleasure from birding.

And this is borne out by what I see on our local nature reserve. Most folks I see there appear to be of retirement age and about 2/3 carry Opticrons and so are relatively affordable. The other 1/3 carry a mix of Zeiss and Swaro alphas. As for them having 'all the gear and no idea', based on the conversations I have overheard or joined in the hides or in the cafe there is the full range of experience and knowledge from beginner to super-expert. And since everyone was a beginner at some time there is no disgrace in being one.

Lee

lmans66 · May 14, 2020

paddy7 said:
I think - going back to my earlier thought which triggered the post - i am talking really about marketing and markets for the new 32mm SF. The fact that it is light weight, wide FoV and the 4mm exit pupil of the 8x32 would perhaps suit those for whom 6mm dilation is a thing of the past (and may principally do their birding on 'days out') might provide Zeiss with a marketing target.

I'm sure the 8x32SF (from the specs and Lee's review) would be more than enough as a 'main bin' and for many retiree/one-time buyers, enough as an only bin.
..

Marketing and demographics go hand-in-hand whether it is binoculars or motorcycles. Simply put, do you have a market for your product and who is buying it? Zeiss, unlike Swarovski, has met the needs of their demographics a few years back by introducing the Terra line. The Terra line is Zeiss's inroads into the market that might lack dollars but still birds. The Conquest and Victories fill out the range. Zeiss might 'get you' as a younger person with a family whose hobby is birding. As you get more serious about it and have more income, then time...your niche is filled by a product.

Zeiss is actually in a far better position marketing wise that other Alphas such as Swarovski. Demographics rule and Zeiss has figured it out along with Nikon. Swarovski has not.

So the 8x32SF/10x32 is in response to the demographics of that ' Alpha buyers market'. The specs scream 'older buyer'. IE: Weight, FOV, Exit and Ergonomics (you forgot this one). Although a huge demand for Alpha's is also present for the demographics who are serious birders and find the money, so the bins fit that group as well.

My question is; is the 8x32 / 10x32 the replacement for both the 8x42 and 10x42? Why have the latter two? What niche are they filling that the 32 combo cannot?

paddy7 · May 14, 2020

Where the guy who made that quote was coming from (and it wasn't delivered as an insult, but as a chuckle) was that he was one of a breed who had spent his life at the dirty, practical end of conservation, with all the reduced income such dedication brings (it's not well-paid work). As a result, he's trudging through the marshes with his 30 year old bins, covered in gaffa tape etc. and was commenting on how much money there was floating around in consumer birding/optics these days.
He'd noted that many of those taking up birding as a good reason to get out and explore the open air (and new surroundings for those recently retired to the area) had quite a bit of disposable income - perhaps little retirement pay-outs or something.
With that, they'd buy a couple of pairs of Swaros or Zeiss - and why not? Might as well have the best if you can, and perhaps there was more chance of them making max use of them, considering the investment.
This is a point about marketing and targeting more than anything to do with whether there is any pecking-order of experience as a birder.
The chap might have had an understandable small trickle of bitterness, however!
This was part of a longer chat about how conservation organisations were become more market-aware, and opening shops on reserves, selling blue tit tea towels etc. to an increasing number of curious visitors, launching glossier magazines - it was also probably in the early 1990s, so in no way contemporary...
We're now 30 years on from that point, and I think i'm just curious regarding how companies like Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski strategise their marketing campaigns when a new product is launched, or if there is just the generic, atmospheric full-page ads, review specimens, posters etc to the general birding market.

PYRTLE · May 14, 2020

paddy7 said:
We're now 30 years on from that point, and I think i'm just curious regarding how companies like Zeiss, Leica, Swarovski strategise their marketing campaigns when a new product is launched, or if there is just the generic, atmospheric full-page ads, review specimens, posters etc to the general birding market.

Product placement and sponsorship for events / hides /scientific studies are budgeted for as are " celebrity" users and wearers of alpha brands. Tour leaders and companies another avenue.
Leica was well known for being used and promoted by Bill Odie for decades.
Early BBC Springwatch had the presenters adorned with alpha brands ( IR Michaela Strachan - Zeiss FLs, Kate Humble - Swarovski ELs and Chris Packham Nikon HG then EDG ). Soon after, bits of tape or plain straps were evident, again on clothing brands.
Zeiss 32 mm press releases show Richard Porter, prominent birder, author and researcher using them. No doubt he will be using a pair for his regular jaunts around Cley and Blakeney Point.

Troubador · May 14, 2020

lmans66 said:
My question is; is the 8x32 / 10x32 the replacement for both the 8x42 and 10x42? Why have the latter two? What niche are they filling that the 32 combo cannot?

Its a good question and I can think of a few answers.

For years I thought that 42mm models were 'serious' binos and 32mm were not. My mistake, but I think that there are still folks who think like this, so they will want a 42.

Also anyone who wants a bino that performs well not only during daylight but also in twilight may justifiably prefer a 42mm. And yes its true that they won't benefit unless their own pupils dilate sufficiently but hey a 42mm is bigger, right? So its got to be better, right? LOL. Folks who bird in twilight will want the reassurance that a 42 brings that they are seeing as much as can be seen.

SF32 easily accomodates my hands and there is room for bigger hands, but there will be hands bigger than this that just feel more comfortable holding something bigger, or with more 'real estate' as Brock used to call it. A 42 may work better for them.

Lee

paddy7 · May 14, 2020

Like Lee, i'd never considered a 32mm until i looked through a serious one for the first time. As i've got older, the light differential between the 42mm and 32mm EPs has got less noticeable, obviously. Now, i rarely use anything but the Pocket, the Nikon Eii or the FL 32mm.
I can appreciate the point that i think Alexis made earlier regarding the 'looking around' inside the view, but i rarely use bins in that way - it's nearly always the pinpoint stuff, although i like a wide FOV if i can get it. As the edges are not the most important thing to me, i've also come away from field flatteners in favour of more DoF if available within the parameters of the glass used.
When i first started taking birding much more seriously, i was advised of the following order for bird identification: 'ears - eyes - binocular - scope' and still stick to that really.

lmans66 · May 14, 2020

paddy7 said:
Like Lee, i'd never considered a 32mm until i looked through a serious one for the first time. As i've got older, the light differential between the 42mm and 32mm EPs has got less noticeable, obviously.

When i first started taking birding much more seriously, i was advised of the following order for bird identification: 'ears - eyes - binocular - scope' and still stick to that really.

Yes, the 'impression' that a 42 is better. But look at the specs concerning FOV:

Zeiss SF:
8x32sf is 155m/465ft
10x32sf is 130m/427ft.

Swaro 8.5x42 133m/399 ft
Swaro 10x42SLC 109m/330m

Zeiss Victory 8x42 147m/444ft
Zeiss Victory 10x42 119m/360ft

Leica 8x42 Trinovid 123m/372ft
Leica 10x42 Trinovid 112m/339ft

I am not sure of the light transition between the bins but I know that Zeiss has always been high in the HT's and SF's. The FOV is amazing though. I might even amend my statement and state that as a binocular, the SF10x32 might be the best one yet. A 10x with a FOV of 130m/427ft and that is comparing it to a 42 and not the 30-32 of other brands.

True here...'ears - eyes - binocular - scope'....but to a degree. Your ears and eyes are variable that 'age'. Also, habitat/environment/mannerisms come into play, unless you have that counted under 'eyes' or have less cognitive ability.

Troubador · May 14, 2020

lmans66 said:
Yes, the 'impression' that a 42 is better. But look at the specs concerning FOV:

Zeiss SF:
8x32sf is 155m/465ft
10x32sf is 130m/427ft.

Swaro 8.5x42 133m/399 ft
Swaro 10x42SLC 109m/330m

Zeiss Victory 8x42 147m/444ft
Zeiss Victory 10x42 119m/360ft

Leica 8x42 Trinovid 123m/372ft
Leica 10x42 Trinovid 112m/339ft

And since we look at a circular view, not a 1,000 metre- or 1,000 yard-wide slit, calulcate the areas of view and the differences are even more startling.

Lee

paddy7 · May 14, 2020

lmans66 said:
Yes, the 'impression' that a 42 is better. But look at the specs concerning FOV:

Zeiss SF:
8x32sf is 155m/465ft
10x32sf is 130m/427ft.

Swaro 8.5x42 133m/399 ft
Swaro 10x42SLC 109m/330m

Zeiss Victory 8x42 147m/444ft
Zeiss Victory 10x42 119m/360ft

Leica 8x42 Trinovid 123m/372ft
Leica 10x42 Trinovid 112m/339ft

I am not sure of the light transition between the bins but I know that Zeiss has always been high in the HT's and SF's. The FOV is amazing though. I might even amend my statement and state that as a binocular, the SF10x32 might be the best one yet. A 10x with a FOV of 130m/427ft and that is comparing it to a 42 and not the 30-32 of other brands.

True here...'ears - eyes - binocular - scope'....but to a degree. Your ears and eyes are variable that 'age'. Also, habitat/environment/mannerisms come into play, unless you have that counted under 'eyes' or have less cognitive ability.

Yup - also flight pattern, size, flock/non-flock, time of year, geographic location all come into the filters.
I wouldn't want to get too hung up on the light thing - there is of course a difference between transmission (property of the glass) and exit pupil (light available to the eye based on dimensions).
What i'm referring to is purely to do with the exit pupil and the fact that there sadly comes a time when an 8x56 is just scattering light into the side of your head.
The reason i don't often take a 42mm anymore is that the 4mm EP of the 32mm is sufficient, until the last knockings of the day - then i go to the pub.

Torview · May 14, 2020

I`m not sure the big difference for me is to do with anything the bigger objective brings in terms of transmission or resolution, its the shallower depth of field and the way that isolates a close Bird from the background better, the way the focus snaps much faster.

All else being equal, this is the 42`s biggest advantage for me.

nmiller08 · May 14, 2020

lmans66 said:
Yes, the 'impression' that a 42 is better. But look at the specs concerning FOV:

Zeiss SF:
8x32sf is 155m/465ft
10x32sf is 130m/427ft.

The 10x32 SF is actually “only” 390’ at 1000 yards. Still very impressive. The 8x number is correct for view at 1000 yards, but the 10x is 427’ at 1000 meters which Zeiss and some others continue to put in their specs . . . not a particularly helpful measure. For a simple conversion from “m/1000m” to “ft/1000yds” just multiply by 3

paddy7 · May 14, 2020

True enough - if you've got a focus you know well and can zap about efficiently; in this regard field-flattening or not can play a part too i suspect, although personally, i've always found them tricky. Perhaps i never use field-flattened bins enough to get used to it.
I'm not talking about RB here - just the general DoF. The Vanguard EDII combines that with a very fast focus, and constantly riding the focus wheel is often a feature of a day out; it's the way to go if you like action-packed birding.

New Zeiss 8x32SF as your main binocular (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Out Birding....

Well-known member

sub-200 birding aspirant

Well-known member

Experienced observer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Out Birding....

Well-known member

Old Berkshire Boy

Moderator

Well-known member

Out Birding....

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread