The logical comparison would be the Swarovski EL Swarovision 8.5x42, the binocular the Zeiss SF was specifically designed to compete with, or the Nikon EDG 8x42.
From all reports the EL SV is sharper to the edge, but the SF has less rolling ball, a wider FOV and arguably better ergonomics.
Sadly, I've never had the opportunity to try the SF side by side with my EL SV, or even by itself—for whatever reason there are no high-end sports optics stores left in San Francisco since Scope City closed about a decade ago. Odd. given how rich this city is, and so close to nature.
What did you end up getting?
I got the bin I thought had the best view (the SF!)
I'm not sure its fair to compare both right to the edges, it makes more sense to compare the apparent fov that
overlaps on both bins. That said, the SF looks petty sharp to me on the edges, I guess my eyes are young enough.
Unfortunately I did not get to try the 8.5x42 ELs (or the noctivid 8x42 / 7x42 ultravids / Monarch HG 8x42) so I cant really comment on them.
I did try the swaro 8x42, which has some advantages:
1) A locking diopter
2) Eyecups that appear much better built. (specifically the SF / HT / Conquest eye-cups are made of plastic, and have some amount of flex). That said, it's not hard to get replacements if they do go bad.
3) Swaro's objective covers are easier to use. I'm a fan of those on the 8x30CL, which is just a rubber ring that attaches itself around the front of each tube. Simple and effective, likely easy to replace if needed.The SFs have a lanyard that attaches the covers to the strap, which is not nearly as intuitive a system. I wonder if there are after-market caps to fix this.
For egronomic reasons, I preferred the 8x32 EL to the swaro 8x42, my arms got tired after using the 8x42s for about 5min, while the 8x32 EL is much lighter. Somehow the SFs feel similar to the 8x32EL when in use, the "egronomic" claims are certainly true for me.