Reasons not to buy Zeiss SF 8x42? (1 Viewer)

Troubador · Jan 17, 2019

FL 32 has never been out of production and is still a current item. IMO it is still optically competitive but it seems to get overlooked perhaps because it has been on dealer's shelves for what seems like forever and has an appearance, with those heavy prominent bars of rubber on the armour, that harks back even further to the look of the old GA Dialyts.
Lee

Pinewood · Jan 17, 2019

NDhunter said:
Good point, but since the FL has been gone for how many years,
in the larger sizes, they must be making them again.

Jerry

Hello Jerry,

The 8x32 and the 10x32 FL are still on the on the Zeiss web site, . You may have to click on the right hand arrow, on the page for Victory binoculars to display them.
The 8x32 FL has been such a successful binocular, as has the Conquest HD glass, that Zeiss may not care to invest in an 8x32 SF model, or perhaps that design is not amenable to an 8x32 iteration. In any case, I do not think that they have been out of production since their debut.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur

aCuria · Jan 18, 2019

asp09 said:
And my choice between the SV8.5 and SF was….neither! To my surprise, I came home with an SV 8x32! I once again found that the smaller bins just put more of a smile on my face.

Congrats! I had a hard time deciding between the SV8x32 and SF8x42 myself. The SV8.5x42 was not really a contender for me because I felt the FOV was too small. I chose the SF in the end because it had the largest FOV.

asp09 said:
They seem to fit my hands better and give me a more stable view than any other model I've tried. And despite it being a dull, overcast winter's day, I was surprised to find that I just could not detect a brightness difference in relation to the larger models (although I did when I tried them at dusk a few weeks ago). Last but not least, due to a January deal, they cost £500 less than the SF.

I would have struggled to choose between the SV8.5 and SF. I prefer the Swaro colours, but the limited time I’ve had with my SV8x32 has shown me just how much I value a wide FOV, and for this reason the SF would probably have been the better choice for me. I got quite caught up on the difference in colour balance when comparing the two models, but I’m not sure I would really be too bothered by these slight colour shifts if I were using one without comparing it to the other.

It's interesting that you found the SV8x32 to give a more stable view, I found the SF better in this regard because somehow it balanced better in my hands.

If i am not wrong the brightness difference between a 8x32 and 8x42 comes from the size of the exit pupil:

(8x32 = 32mm/8 = 4.0mm) (4.0^2 = 16mm^2)
(8x42 = 42mm/8 = 5.25mm) (5.25^2 = 27.6mm^2)

A 8x42 therefore can theoretically be 72% brighter than a 8x32:
((27.6 - 16) / 16) * 100%

However, to -see- the brightness difference, your eyes would have to open up to > 4mm, otherwise you wont see any difference as long as the transmission % of both bins is the same! Not everyone can open their pupils to 5.25mm, and for these people the brightness advantage is wasted.

I did not see much brightness difference between the two bins in normal lighting conditions, however in indoor dark conditions the difference was quite apparent.

After using the SF for awhile, in my experience it can be abit heavy for use when hiking, which is probably its primary disadvantage over the SV.

Troubador · Jan 18, 2019

james holdsworth said:
I'd be shocked to learn that any 32 mm model was a best seller. From what we hear from Jan and what we see from sales data, the 32's lag way behind the 42's.

James what you say here and what Jan van Daalen made clear is generally the case ie that 42s outsell 32s.

However there are exceptions. Opticron sell more 32s overall than 42s for example. As to the situation with Swaro, stay tuned to the Dealers' Interviews for more on this soon.

Lee

asp09 · Jan 18, 2019

aCuria said:
Congrats! I had a hard time deciding between the SV8x32 and SF8x42 myself. The SV8.5x42 was not really a contender for me because I felt the FOV was too small.

With hindsight, I completely agree with you. I came very close to buying the SV8.5x42, largely because of what I'd read about it and because it is so well-regarded and a proven performer, and yet the truth is that it was clearly my least favourite of the three due to its comparatively narrow FOV.

aCuria said:
I chose the SF in the end because it had the largest FOV.

Although the SF's FOV is wider, for some reason it did not feel any wider to me; I think I may have had trouble accessing its full FOV for some reason.

aCuria said:
It's interesting that you found the SV8x32 to give a more stable view, I found the SF better in this regard because somehow it balanced better in my hands.

I've got fairly small hands and skinny wrists, and the SV8x32 just seemed to fit my hands like a glove. That said, I think the perception of greater sharpness I was getting may also have been down to the slightly slower focus of the SV, which made it easier for me to find the sharpest focus point when looking at nearby birds. Or maybe it was just down to sample variation.

aCuria said:
If i am not wrong the brightness difference between a 8x32 and 8x42 comes from the size of the exit pupil:

(8x32 = 32mm/8 = 4.0mm) (4.0^2 = 16mm^2)
(8x42 = 42mm/8 = 5.25mm) (5.25^2 = 27.6mm^2)

A 8x42 therefore can theoretically be 72% brighter than a 8x32:
((27.6 - 16) / 16) * 100%

However, to -see- the brightness difference, your eyes would have to open up to > 4mm, otherwise you wont see any difference as long as the transmission % of both bins is the same! Not everyone can open their pupils to 5.25mm, and for these people the brightness advantage is wasted.

I did not see much brightness difference between the two bins in normal lighting conditions, however in indoor dark conditions the difference was quite apparent.

After using the SF for awhile, in my experience it can be abit heavy for use when hiking, which is probably its primary disadvantage over the SV.

I am still at an age (early forties) where I should be able to make use of the brightness difference. I did actually compare the two a few weeks ago at dusk, and like you I saw a clear difference in those conditions. However, those were fairly extreme conditions, so what was of greater interest to me was how they would compare on a dull, overcast winter's day. And here I could not see much of a difference, if any. So I decided that, to me, it was not worth carrying around a larger, heavier binocular to gain a brightness advantage in the last 30 minutes of the day. One thing I didn't mention in my posts is that I always carry a scope and/or camera. I generally also have a backpack containing sandwiches, tea, water, extra layers etc. It all adds up, so I decided that sacrificing some low-light ability in favour of a smaller size and lower weight would be a worthwhile trade-off for me. But were it not for the fact that I always have a scope with me, I think I would have chosen an 8x42; and the best 8x42 for me, I am now certain, would have been the SF.

SeldomPerched · Jan 19, 2019

Troubador said:
Unfortunately 42mm HTs have been discontinued, so unless you can find one still on a dealer's shelf, it would have to be used.

Talking of used: https://www.focusoptics.eu/webshop/used-binoculars/zeiss-victory-sf-8x42-297/

And I can recommend the dealer.

Lee

Hi Lee,

This is something I experienced back in mid-summer but owing to a fortunate secondhand 'pre-loved' purchase from a most respected Birdforum member I can vouch for the excellence of the Victory 8x42 HT ;-)

Once used to the narrower field of view compared with the SF I have absolutely loved the HTs. The handling is now instinctive too and no problems to report from front heavy balance.

All the best,

Tom

aCuria · Jan 24, 2019

SeldomPerched said:
Hi Lee,

This is something I experienced back in mid-summer but owing to a fortunate secondhand 'pre-loved' purchase from a most respected Birdforum member I can vouch for the excellence of the Victory 8x42 HT ;-)

Once used to the narrower field of view compared with the SF I have absolutely loved the HTs. The handling is now instinctive too and no problems to report from front heavy balance.

All the best,

Tom

I would have to agree with this, I had the chance to try out the HTs too. Aside from the FOV and somewhat better “balance”, the HT is hard to fault optically.

aCuria · Jan 24, 2019

asp09 said:
I decided that sacrificing some low-light ability in favour of a smaller size and lower weight would be a worthwhile trade-off for me. But were it not for the fact that I always have a scope with me, I think I would have chosen an 8x42; and the best 8x42 for me, I am now certain, would have been the SF.

The difference in size is significant, the SF is one of the larger 8x42s, having rather long barrels. However the weight difference is only about 100g, which is not that significant. If I were to carry a scope around, I probably would want smaller bins too.

Troubador · Jan 24, 2019

SeldomPerched said:
Hi Lee,

This is something I experienced back in mid-summer but owing to a fortunate secondhand 'pre-loved' purchase from a most respected Birdforum member I can vouch for the excellence of the Victory 8x42 HT ;-)

Once used to the narrower field of view compared with the SF I have absolutely loved the HTs. The handling is now instinctive too and no problems to report from front heavy balance.

All the best,

Tom

Tom
I am disappointed that HT42s were discontinued because it is a fine bino. Glad you are enjoying it.

Lee

Conndomat · Jan 26, 2019

asp09 said:
With hindsight, I completely agree with you. I came very close to buying the SV8.5x42, largely because of what I'd read about it and because it is so well-regarded and a proven performer, and yet the truth is that it was clearly my least favourite of the three due to its comparatively narrow FOV.

Hello,

That is not completely correct!
See, the Swarovski is not a pure 8x binoculars but a 8.5x!
If you convert the magnification to the field of view come together at 8.5x 141 meters well, so it has compared to 8x32 just as much field of view!
My point, I have preferred the Swarovski 8.5x to the SF 8x42, that picture is just more brilliant and harmonious and sharper, a wide field of vision is not everything!
I have both glasses here and am always surprised how much better the Swarovski is.
Unfortunately, the Swarovski 8.5x is always compared to a pure 8x, but it is not.
I hope I could explain my point despite my bad English ?!

Andreas

ceasar · Jan 26, 2019

Other 8.5x binoculars have 44 or 45mm objectives like Kowa, Swift, Minox and others. Swarovski's are 42mm. This makes a difference in the exit pupil and a longer focal length for the latter and it requires different oculars.

Bob

Troubador · Jan 26, 2019

Conndomat said:
Hello,

That is not completely correct!
See, the Swarovski is not a pure 8x binoculars but a 8.5x!
If you convert the magnification to the field of view come together at 8.5x 141 meters well, so it has compared to 8x32 just as much field of view!
My point, I have preferred the Swarovski 8.5x to the SF 8x42, that picture is just more brilliant and harmonious and sharper, a wide field of vision is not everything!
I have both glasses here and am always surprised how much better the Swarovski is.
Unfortunately, the Swarovski 8.5x is always compared to a pure 8x, but it is not.
I hope I could explain my point despite my bad English ?!

Andreas

Andreas

You make your point very well. Swarovski's EL 8.5x42 does indeed have a magnification advantage over an 8x bino. However its field of view is definitely 133m at 1,000m. This is a good field of view but it is not the best. However as you rightly point out, field of view is not 'everything', although to some birders and nature observers it is important.

If we take the field of view at 1,000 metres and think of this as the diameter of the circular view we see through the binoculars then it is useful to use this to calculate the area of this circular view. Here are some of these for some top binos, with the percentage increases compared with EL8.5x42:

EL 8.5x42, area of view 13,895 msq
Leica Noctivid 8x42, area of view 14,315 msq, = + 3%
EL 8x32, area of view 15,617 msq, = + 12.4%
Zeiss SF 8x42, area of view 17,206 msq, = + 23.8%

This does not mean that the EL32 or the Leica or the Zeiss are better binoculars, but it does mean they have better fields of view. For example some people will undoubtedly prefer the extra 0.5x magnification of the EL8.5x rather than the 23.8% bigger field of view of the SF, and others will prefer the EL32's smaller size and lower weight, others will prefer the Leica's colours.

Lee

Pileatus · Jan 26, 2019

Troubador said:
Andreas

You make your point very well. Swarovski's EL 8.5x42 does indeed have a magnification advantage over an 8x bino. However its field of view is definitely 133m at 1,000m. This is a good field of view but it is not the best. However as you rightly point out, field of view is not 'everything', although to some birders and nature observers it is important.

If we take the field of view at 1,000 metres and think of this as the diameter of the circular view we see through the binoculars then it is useful to use this to calculate the area of this circular view. Here are some of these for some top binos, with the percentage increases compared with EL8.5x42:

EL 8.5x42, area of view 13,895 msq
Leica Noctivid 8x42, area of view 14,315 msq, = + 3%
EL 8x32, area of view 15,617 msq, = + 12.4%
Zeiss SF 8x42, area of view 17,206 msq, = + 23.8%

This does not mean that the EL32 or the Leica or the Zeiss are better binoculars, but it does mean they have better fields of view. For example some people will undoubtedly prefer the extra 0.5% magnification of the EL8.5x rather than the 23.8% bigger field of view of the SF, and others will prefer the EL32's smaller size and lower weight, others will prefer the Leica's colours.

Lee

How about apparent FOV?

Troubador · Jan 26, 2019

Pileatus said:
How about apparent FOV?

Good question Pilly if AFOV is important to you. But I am more concerned to know how much land, sea or sky a pair of binos is capturing each time I look through them. Whether its long distance searching of the sky for hawks or the sea for dophins or otters or indeed trying to get a view of nearby fast flying birds, dragonflies and butterflies, knowing how much of the habitat a pair of binos is going to 'grab' seems like a good thing for my purposes. However, as both myself and Andreas mentioned: fov isn't everything.

And I was really responding to Andreas's comments about fields of view and suggesting another way he could think about this.

Is AFOV a priority for you?

Lee

Torview · Jan 26, 2019

Personally, as someone who uses the 42 and 32 SV`s, over the distances I use them for Birding the 12% bigger fov has made no difference. After all looking at a Bird 30m away, the 8.5 has a fov diameter of 4.4m and the 8x32 4.7m. Factoring in the magnification the 8.5 is a true wide fov optic.

Troubador · Jan 26, 2019

Torview said:
Personally, as someone who uses the 42 and 32 SV`s, over the distances I use them for Birding the 12% bigger fov has made no difference. After all looking at a Bird 30m away, the 8.5 has a fov diameter of 4.4m and the 8x32 4.7m. Factoring in the magnification the 8.5 is a true wide fov optic.

Yes John I have been wondering if the big landscapes and seascapes that I bird/whale/otter in up in the west of Scotland makes a difference to me. And I am particularly thinking of seaching distant crags and cliffs for eagles, and scanning big areas of sea for re-surfacing divers, dolphins, and otters.

When using SFs for example, and partly answering Pileatus here, Zeiss quote for both 8x and 10x an AFOV of 64deg whereas the 8x with its 148m/17,206msq is more useful for finding re-surfacing birds, otters or dolphins or distant eagles than the 10x with 120m/11,311msq and so 33% smaller.

There are other factors to consider too of course and there are places I take the 10x to, and in any case fov isn't always the main criterion when choosing binos.

Lee

mpeace · Jan 26, 2019

Troubador said:
Andreas
For example some people will undoubtedly prefer the extra 0.5% magnification of the EL8.5x rather than the 23.8% bigger field of view of the SF, and others will prefer the EL32's smaller size and lower weight, others will prefer the Leica's colours.

Lee

I think you mean 0.5x not 0.5%, the percentage increase of 8.5x over 8x is 6.25%. I think apparent field of view is an important consideration as it shows whether you get a wide immersive view or a narrow "tunnel" view independent of magnification. In this regard there is no difference in apparent area of view between the EL8.5x42 and EL8x32, but the SF8x42 still has a 10% advantage over both with apparent area of view.

Chris223 · Jan 26, 2019

Conndomat said:
Hello,

That is not completely correct!
See, the Swarovski is not a pure 8x binoculars but a 8.5x!
If you convert the magnification to the field of view come together at 8.5x 141 meters well, so it has compared to 8x32 just as much field of view!
My point, I have preferred the Swarovski 8.5x to the SF 8x42, that picture is just more brilliant and harmonious and sharper, a wide field of vision is not everything!
I have both glasses here and am always surprised how much better the Swarovski is.
Unfortunately, the Swarovski 8.5x is always compared to a pure 8x, but it is not.
I hope I could explain my point despite my bad English ?!

Andreas

Totally agree...

Conndomat · Jan 26, 2019

Troubador said:
Is AFOV a priority for you?

Lee

Hello Lee,

Yes, the AFOV is an important criterion, but, I am far-sighted eyeglass wearer, here is a good look almost more important, in this point, the Swarovski is a pleasure for me.
Everyone has their preferences, all the binoculars discussed (Swarovski, Zeiss, Leica Noctivid) are really outstanding, for me the Swarovski fits best!
In German there is a saying ...
"Jeder Jeck ist anders."
(Everyone has different preferences.)

Andreas

Chosun Juan · Jan 27, 2019

Torview said:
Personally, as someone who uses the 42 and 32 SV`s, over the distances I use them for Birding the 12% bigger fov has made no difference. After all looking at a Bird 30m away, the 8.5 has a fov diameter of 4.4m and the 8x32 4.7m. Factoring in the magnification the 8.5 is a true wide fov optic.

Good point - we can consider the differences in 'true field' (or the even less relevant 'area' as Lee is fond of) and this does have some relevance when considering resurfacing fish, otters or whatever, and circling raptors (all linear width seperations), but it is the 'apparent' field that helps compare across magnifications.

At 30m, I calculate the width of the true field as:
10×42SF = 3.6m
8.5×42SV = 4m
8×32SV = 4.2m
8×42SF = 4.4m
8×30EII = 4.6m

even though the apparent fields of these 5 bins are broadly similar (within ~5° of each other).

If true field is of great importance to folks, get one of the old extra wide angle 7× (ER permitting, a 500ft@1000yd/167m@1km bin would give a width of view of 5m @30m distance), otherwise the sharpish to the edge(ish) field of the 8×SF provides some benefit, and the SV's (sharp to the edge) are only a smidgen behind. :cat:

Chosun :gh:

Reasons not to buy Zeiss SF 8x42? (1 Viewer)

Moderator

New York correspondent

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

United States of Europe

Well-known member

Moderator

"Experientia Docet”

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

United States of Europe

Given to Fly

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread