-
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.
New Zeiss 8x32SF as your main binocular (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lmans66
- Start date
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Holy !!! :eek!:
That 330m ! Swaro sounds like the business ! :-O
I think it will be interesting to compare the 8x32SF with the 8x32SV in terms of eyeroamaboutability (ease of view) and glare performance. The little SV is fantastic to throw up to the eyes - I wonder how the SF will fare in that regard ?
Normally I'd say that the Nikon 42mm MHG is about as small as I'd want to go in size (less weight is always welcome though) - it will be interesting what sort of voodoo magic spell that 155m Fov can weave ......
Chosun :gh:
See this link to Zeiss as they have the FOV for both meters and feet for the SF10x32. It does state 427 feet but the meters to feet doesn't match so perhaps something is skew here but none the less, 390 feet FOV for a 10x is pretty good. https://www.zeiss.co.uk/consumer-pr...ars/victory-sf/victory-sf-10x32.html#features
Now....I can understand the need for FOV. I bird with a Zeiss 10x42HT all the time. I have always had 10x's so am very used to a more limited FOV but can understand the need to have more. I believe the FOV on my HT is 110meters or 330 feet. It is limited but again, I am used to it.
So, at what number does FOV for birding wash out? 400 feet ...450? 465? How much FOV do you really need? I do nicely with 330 feet / 110 meters right now, so 'for me' ../moving up to 390 feet / 130 meters would be huge! That is what I am saying about the value of the 10x32SF over the 8x32SF. The latter perhaps has too much FOV and with only 8 power. Why not take the added power of 10x and still have close to 400 feet/ 130 meters FOV. A much better deal.
I was out birding yesterday and was looking way up in the trees above me, trees 'way across the way' and being able to ID the bird. I have a 10x. So that extra power comes in handy and not just for ocean or shore birding.
I would sooner have the 10 power and 390 feet/ 130 meters FOV instead of only 8x and a larger FOV. FOV is over rated unless you have a difficult time picking up on birds initially or following them in trees.
When the SF was first launched and a friend bought one, he gave me a look through it. The FoV seemed almost unnatural to me, like some new technology (VR, or something).
If you've ever been into someone's house and they've got a 'normal' sized room (for UK readers only!) but a TV that takes up most of one wall, it was that kind of feeling.
I would imagine that once used to it, everything else will look like a toilet roll though.
I suppose the use made of binoculars will be a major factor, and the locations you generally go birding.
My first SF view was in woodland, which added to the 'confusion' of the view; for an estuary, it would have made a lot more sense.
So, there's how much FoV you need, or how much you want. Some find narrow FoV quite claustrophobic.
If you've ever been into someone's house and they've got a 'normal' sized room (for UK readers only!) but a TV that takes up most of one wall, it was that kind of feeling.
I would imagine that once used to it, everything else will look like a toilet roll though.
I suppose the use made of binoculars will be a major factor, and the locations you generally go birding.
My first SF view was in woodland, which added to the 'confusion' of the view; for an estuary, it would have made a lot more sense.
So, there's how much FoV you need, or how much you want. Some find narrow FoV quite claustrophobic.
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
My 8x has 140m Fov at 1km. I really find this useful for circling raptors, as both of a pair remain in the view when riding a thermal several hundred meters away.
My former 114m 10x just didn't cut it in that regard. A 130m 10x is super sweet, and may? just be enough to pass the double raptor test - I know that 120m 10x don't really do it despite their quite good Fov's.
I was in some closed woodland recently trying to track high speed geewhizzits up in the canopy (20-30m high, and up to 50 or so meters away). I was wishing for more Fov than my 140m, but also slightly more than 8x mag. Rejigging the 8x32SF's 155m formula would give a 146m 8.5x, but then it would need a bigger objective too.
I think on smaller birds, 50m away or closer, you'd rapidly get used to the 155m and come to appreciate it. :t:
Chosun :gh:
wdc
Well-known member
With a 10x42, I do enjoy the effect of slicing through complex foliage to isolate a subject amidst the chaotic patterns in front of, and behind it.
Some of these optical properties I think of as aesthetic preferences, as opposed to other factors that can be said to confer a strategic advantage, for those purely on the hunt for the small, elusive critter.
There are sensible arguments as to why greater depth of field is to be preferred- More of the field is in focus, less re-focusing required, etc. but there's something wonderful visually about shallow depth of field. Perhaps because its a phenomena we can't naturally achieve with our naked eyes, anymore than greater magnification, I suppose. Both part of what makes binoculars such fascinating and rewarding devices to look through.
-Bill
One of the aspects of the 32mmSF i'm interested in checking out is this combination of wide FoV and field-flattening, and how they work together.
Those who know the Vanguard EDII will perhaps already be familiar with it's not over-wide field, even though it's crisp right to the edges - my only flat-field familiarity.
I haven't really had much experience of an SF of any stripe actually out birding - just looking through others' bins. There is fortunately a retailer within an hour of me where you can actually use them in open land behind the shop, which is where i think such an experiment can take place.
Those who know the Vanguard EDII will perhaps already be familiar with it's not over-wide field, even though it's crisp right to the edges - my only flat-field familiarity.
I haven't really had much experience of an SF of any stripe actually out birding - just looking through others' bins. There is fortunately a retailer within an hour of me where you can actually use them in open land behind the shop, which is where i think such an experiment can take place.
Same here.... many times the birds are in reeds or camoflauged against rocks etc. I was hunting down a waterthrush the other day across a small pond and I know the 8x would have a difficult time determining the species (one of two it could have been) while the 10x allowed me an opportunity to view for detail. This is a good example of why a 10x 'for me' works better.
Raptors for sure would benefit from a wide FOV...agreed. Once 'on the bird' you shouldn't have much of an issue following though with 10x.
Closed woodlands? Not sure. I was in some closed woodlands yesterday with my 10x HT (110 meters), and I had little issue. Same tree canopy dimensions (roughly as yours). I think in that case it all depends on how familiar you are with your binocular power. jim
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Bill: My post was to simply point out that any binocular can help people enjoy viewing in the great outdoors.
Your point of quality of vision is important. For some viewers that don't go out much, the simple Aculon is sufficient. Many users have trouble setting the diopter, do you know what that is ?
You seem to have your dander up for no reason, what is that all about ? :eek!:
The last time I checked, I don't need your approval to post my opinion...o
...Jerry
wdc
Well-known member
Bill: My post was to simply point out that any binocular can help people enjoy viewing in the great outdoors.
Your point of quality of vision is important. For some viewers that don't go out much, the simple Aculon is sufficient. Many users have trouble setting the diopter, do you know what that is ?
You seem to have your dander up for no reason, what is that all about ? :eek!:
The last time I checked, I don't need your approval to post my opinion...o
Jerry
Jerry: I was shooting from the hip.
Please feel free to post your opinions as you please.
My apologies for coming across as a narrow-minded, irate, s.o.b.
Every once in awhile that is exactly what happens....
Whether that is my intention, or not!
-b.
BryanP
Little known member
Ok, now that’s funny! Think of the dump trucks full of cash we’ll all save! 😂😂
Ah, yes, how very British indeed - that condescension (indeed, often more resembling barely-disguised contempt) towards those who, be it in the form of something as "tacky" as buying blue-tit tea towels, pay one's wages...
Bill (wdc) sums it up for me. If retired folks have the wherewithal to plonk down the cash for brand new alphas, what's wrong with getting a superb optic that will serve them for the rest of their lives, and after that, be handed down to their children/grandchildren, or make their way to those of us who gratefully buy our binoculars secondhand? It's a bit of an irony that the inexperienced amongst us, many of which do indeed in their inexperience end up with the cheap and nasty rather than matching pairs of alphas, actually need quality optics more than the likes of the veteran paddy7 spoke to, who could doubtless make a far quicker and surer ID with his 30-year old, gaffer-tape covered binoculars than the retired couple new to birding (that ability, of course, being one of the rewards of a life spent in the field...).
Maybe, some day, conservation organizations will be funded by the public purse generously enough not to need to hawk blue-tit towels to curious visitors. But until the "great British public" vote for that day...
I think the answer to those questions re field of view and the advantage of 10x really depend on the type of birding you do. If the object of the exercise is to nail down IDs (I quite enjoyed Stephen Ingraham's description of 10x users in an article several years ago as "...a certain sort: steady handed; intently focused; experienced enough to know that he or she wants something more than the average 8 power glass; generally the type who goes boldly after the far and wee (or deep and dark) ID when all about him (or her) are hedging their bets..."), I definitely agree a 10x has real advantages in doing that. 8x is traditionally thought to be better in woodland, but with today's fast focusers and the wide fields of view that 10x binoculars have, a birder could operate effectively in wooded environments with a 10x, no doubt - indeed, in some situations maybe even more so, as I recall a couple of threads discussing finding and identifying birds in very tall trees in which some pretty experienced guys noted that the extra magnification of 10x was a real advantage.
All that said, the historic and continuing popularity of 8x mag is testimony to its own set of advantages - greater steadiness and normally greater field of view. I get the impression that 8x mag seems to be more popular in Europe than in the United States, and it may be that 8x performs particularly well in typical European birding environments.
Regarding how much field of view does one really need - I think most of us could probably operate quite effectively with smaller fields of view than we might want. But alpha-class binocular purchases have little to do with what we really need, and a lot to do with what we want! Besides the practical advantages of being able to scan large areas more quickly, I find a large field of view makes for a very enjoyable viewing experience - it's the major reason why I keep and regularly use some old porro binoculars despite their much poorer light transmission and ergonomics (short eye relief) compared to modern designs. The two 10xs I use the most have 110m field of view, like your HT, and 130m (old Zeiss West 10x50 porro). The former is the more effective birding tool, certainly if you wear glasses as I do; but although the latter has its quirks, it is the more satisfying of the two to look through.
There's quite a lot in the last paragraph alone (re FoV) and perhaps comes down to an interesting distinction with some binoculars.
As a birding tool, you want to be able to get onto your target quickly. For that, you don't really need much of a field (unless it's a skyward look for a raptor or similar)
I was out with the Nikon Eii 8x30 at the weekend. I find that binocular a real delight to look through, but realised - in a busy birding environment - how its great advantages can be shackled by its disadvantages.
The wide field of view, the depth of field, the colour, the definition are all wonderful; the focus low-gearing allows for minute adjustment for total clarity - and then, when something happens much closer or further away, there is a lot of focus-cranking to get anywhere near it.
While not seeming related to the original question, it actually is - your 'main bin' has to have a lot going for it! I love the Nikon, but it couldn't be my main bin - it would have to be a lot faster, and then would lose what i like about it.
A binocular is a tool to achieve the best possible results in a range of situations that can't be anticipated - a case of 'man and machine' working in streamlined efficiency. As well as great design, optics, ergonomics and everything else with an 'ics' at the end of the word, there is also familiarity and practice.
This is why some folks will always do 'better' with the glass they've had for 30 years than someone else with the best that money can buy, with which they have no familiarity.
As a birding tool, you want to be able to get onto your target quickly. For that, you don't really need much of a field (unless it's a skyward look for a raptor or similar)
I was out with the Nikon Eii 8x30 at the weekend. I find that binocular a real delight to look through, but realised - in a busy birding environment - how its great advantages can be shackled by its disadvantages.
The wide field of view, the depth of field, the colour, the definition are all wonderful; the focus low-gearing allows for minute adjustment for total clarity - and then, when something happens much closer or further away, there is a lot of focus-cranking to get anywhere near it.
While not seeming related to the original question, it actually is - your 'main bin' has to have a lot going for it! I love the Nikon, but it couldn't be my main bin - it would have to be a lot faster, and then would lose what i like about it.
A binocular is a tool to achieve the best possible results in a range of situations that can't be anticipated - a case of 'man and machine' working in streamlined efficiency. As well as great design, optics, ergonomics and everything else with an 'ics' at the end of the word, there is also familiarity and practice.
This is why some folks will always do 'better' with the glass they've had for 30 years than someone else with the best that money can buy, with which they have no familiarity.
justabirdwatcher
Well-known member
Could an 8x32 be my "main" binocular? After having tried dozens over the past 3-4 years, I have arrived at the conclusion that there isn't much I can't do with 8x32 Conquest HD's. To me, they are the perfect combination of size, durability, weight, brightness, sharpness, handling, function and price.
You can beat them in any of those categories, but it's going to come with a penalty.
You can beat them in any of those categories, but it's going to come with a penalty.
Count me in the 8x32 category. I generally bird with a scope on the shoulder - 8x42s are just overkill. On the move, bins in the pocket of the field coat or bike handlebar bag or backpacking/dayhiking - 8x32s are perfect, 8x25s too small, unstable. If I need twilight bins - then I'd go really big, 8x56 or some such. That is the specialist bin.
I also just want to chime in about the latent sniping etc. Get over it guys. Really unpleasant. 95% of us on the site come here to relax, those of us who work have enough stress in real life. And, there's a pandemic on. Spring is here, and it's gorgeous. Get out, do some birding, smell some roses, and live.
....I have been out 'birding' and thinking about birding more time this year than the last few years. love it....! ...Spring is here, a Great migration this year too. Yet, at night or in down-time, I enjoy the forum especially if I am in the 'hunt' for some gear to compliment what I already have but yes, I admit....the 'latent sniping' is not called for.
Last edited:
Robert Wallace
Well-known member
I am pretty convinced that for most of the time 8x32s work as well for birdwatching as 8x42s especially for the more mature birders.
I complemented my 10x40 Zeiss Dialyts for their 7x42s in the 1990s (phase corrected version) and rarely used the 10x.
On a visit to my optometrist some years I was informed that my eye pupils struggled to achieve 4mm diameter. When my wife had major surgery on her spinal chord she stopped using her 8x32 Nikon HG 8x32s. I took the opportunity to use the smaller and lighter 8x32s. I did not perceive a dimmer image and enjoyed the compactness and lightness of the smaller binocular.
Two factors which are rarely mentioned on these threads are physiology and psychology, the emphasis is naturally on optical qualities and optical excellence.
Some older (grey pound /dollar?) men I am sure feel the larger binocular is more suited to their image (psychology) ignoring the physiology which means large exit pupils are redundant. I understand that the pupil size is the limiting factor in image brightness and most of the time 4mm exit pupil size is ample (even in the UK). There are IMO spurious arguments about easier eye placement with larger exit pupils , but this has never been a significant factor
for me, similarly the argument that bigger objective lenses give better resolution have never been an issue to me.
The purpose of this post was to identify and recognize both the rational and emotional factors in choosing optics.
I complemented my 10x40 Zeiss Dialyts for their 7x42s in the 1990s (phase corrected version) and rarely used the 10x.
On a visit to my optometrist some years I was informed that my eye pupils struggled to achieve 4mm diameter. When my wife had major surgery on her spinal chord she stopped using her 8x32 Nikon HG 8x32s. I took the opportunity to use the smaller and lighter 8x32s. I did not perceive a dimmer image and enjoyed the compactness and lightness of the smaller binocular.
Two factors which are rarely mentioned on these threads are physiology and psychology, the emphasis is naturally on optical qualities and optical excellence.
Some older (grey pound /dollar?) men I am sure feel the larger binocular is more suited to their image (psychology) ignoring the physiology which means large exit pupils are redundant. I understand that the pupil size is the limiting factor in image brightness and most of the time 4mm exit pupil size is ample (even in the UK). There are IMO spurious arguments about easier eye placement with larger exit pupils , but this has never been a significant factor
for me, similarly the argument that bigger objective lenses give better resolution have never been an issue to me.
The purpose of this post was to identify and recognize both the rational and emotional factors in choosing optics.
There is something special about a wide open view, which I miss when I use my Papilio.
I have some very old very wide 7x35, which have such a depth of Focus you don’t have to constantly adjust them, little eye relief and weigh a ton, so plenty of reasons I don’t reach for them normally. 8x3X are just as useful, but so much easier to carry about the place. Much younger me would have been shocked that I’d be happy with “such a small” pair of bins.....
Peter
I have some very old very wide 7x35, which have such a depth of Focus you don’t have to constantly adjust them, little eye relief and weigh a ton, so plenty of reasons I don’t reach for them normally. 8x3X are just as useful, but so much easier to carry about the place. Much younger me would have been shocked that I’d be happy with “such a small” pair of bins.....
Peter
