Find a companion for the new ZEISS SF 32 (1 Viewer)

Telsanar · Jun 22, 2020

Hey out there,

I have a difficult question for me to answer by myself. Thus, I'd like to share it with you and hope your opinions will help me find the "right" answer for myself

In a couple of weeks I'll probably be a new owner of the recently announced ZEISS SF 32 (probably the 10x32). Of course only if it holds to its expectations. I am currently also looking for a good companion / supplement to this baby - but am completely lost in what direction I should go best. That's where I would need your opinions.

My areas of use a rather diverse: birding, hiking, for travel (exploring new countries) and sometimes also just to enjoy the outlook over cities & valleys. I do not hunt though. The ZEISS SF 32 would certainly fit to most of those applications. BUT what about: higher magnitude, better low light performance, more compactness... a companion could go in many directions, I am lost.

What would you say? I am not emotionally connected to a specific brand, nor do I have a budget restriction, so there are certainly plenty of possibilities. I'm very curious about your thinking - thanks in advance :t:

denco@comcast.n · Jun 22, 2020

Since you mention travel and hiking I would go with something smaller and lighter than an 8x32 like an 8x30. An 8x30 is a lot lighter and smaller than an 8x32 and is nice for travel and hiking yet it is a very capable birding binocular. I would recommend the Swarovski CL 8x30 or Nikon HG 8x30.

dries1 · Jun 22, 2020

I would based on your needs go for the 8X32 SF instead, just a suggestion, then get a mid range 10X32 or 10X42.

Andy W.

jring · Jun 22, 2020

Hi,

here's what I would do in the situation - get the 8x32 version (because I know that I don't enjoy 10x bins in general and especially those with smaller exit pupils) and enjoy it.
When you get into a situation where the 8x32 was not optimal, you can think about getting a better suited instrument for that - if that situation does happen frequently enough to justify another pair...
I could think of higher magnification stabilized pair (some Canon 12x or higher - or of course a spotting scope) or some really small pair (8x25 or Pentax Papilio 6.5 for real close up bugwatching).

Joachim

Telsanar · Jun 22, 2020

Very interesting! I already tested out a couple of different formats in order to get a feeling for weight, size and handling overall. It turned out, that I am not too sensitive regarding size and weight (of course just to a certain extend :-D). Handling is a different matter, but I can only test that for myself. So overall that will not be the main argument for me to decide which direction I'll go eventually.

But perhaps considering the SF 8x32 instead and look for a higher magnitude to accompany the ZEISS is worth a thought indeed. A 10x50 is probably already a bit too bulky - haven't tested that format, any opinions and maybe recommendations? 10x42 was definitely interesting to me already in the beginning. It's certainly a bigger contrast - and thus "addition" to the 32 format, than a 30 bino would be.

When I would go to the very compact range of 25 format: what are the leading binos in that segment?

Thanks for your input, very much appreciated!

marcsantacurz · Jun 22, 2020

I use the Leica Ultravid BR 8x20 as my compact pair. They are so compact they really do fit in a regular pocket. When I want compact, I want really compact. I'm looking through straws, but having 8x straws is better than 1x eyeballs when I need them.

I mostly use my Kowa 8x33 Genesis for field outings. I usually use these to help spot things for the camera, so 8x is better than 10x.

If I know i'll be looking long distance, like pelagic or open fields or Alaska, I'll use my 10x42 HT.

I also have a pair of Nikon EII 8x32 for the office. Not getting much use nowadays

I ended up with a pair of 8.5x42 EL FPro because I found a great deal on them used and couldn't say no. They are absolutely the best view of anything I have and really enjoy using them, but they don't fit into my regular use patterns. Maybe half the time I take them instead of the 10x42 HT when I want a full-sized bin. I should probably sell both the 8.5 EL and 10 HT and buy one pair of 10x EL or SF.

Marc

PhilR. · Jun 23, 2020

If I were to go with a 10x32 SF, then my 2nd binocular would be a good 8x25 for travel. My current general (non-birding/wildlife) travel binos are a Leica 8x20 UV, a Swarovski 8x25 CL-P, and a Leica 10x25 UV. I like these because I can put them on my belt or drop them in a jacket pocket, which is something I wouldn’t be able to do with a 32mm SF.

TBH though, if I were going to have just one 32mm bino, it would be an 8x32. And for a second bino, a good 10x42. Although I would prefer a bino smaller than 32mm for travel, I could certainly get along just fine with one if necessary, and then perhaps contemplate the addition of a smaller third bino at a later date. But an 8x32 and a 10x42 would meet my needs quite happily, and quite well.

Not that I could stop at two binoculars......

Troubador · Jun 23, 2020

If nature observation is your priority then SF8x32 and SF10x42 would be a great combination.

If hiking and travel and tourism is a priority then SF8x32 and Opticron Traveller 8x32 would be nice. The Opticron is very light and compact and would suit hiking and tourism nicely.

If you are as undecided about your priorities as you seem to be then I agree with Joachim. Get SF8x32 and see if it will do everything, there is a good chance that it will. If you encounter occasions when you need more of something (magnification, brightness, less size or weight) then make a note of this and keep on doing so until you build a 'profile' of what your second bino needs to do.

Lee

Telsanar · Jun 23, 2020

Okay, let's assume I go for the SF8x32 as many of you have already recommended - I can follow your views here. And going down the path with a pocket size format as an addition then (maybe the Swarovski CL Pocket 8x25). The only concern I still have is: both models would feature the same magnitude. So a more technical question in that regard: when I'd like to have a 10 mag bino, is it generally not recommended to go below 42 exit pupils? I am in my thirties and have no issues with shaking

On the other hand it's clear that a 10x42 would also be a great companion. I certainly will have to observe my usage and the area of application more conscious. Maybe, at the end of the day, three is the magical number here o

jring · Jun 23, 2020

Hi,

a 10x42 has the same 4mm exit pupil as an 8x32 pair... objective diameter / magnification. And for me that is a good compromise with sufficient image brightness on not so sunny days and ease of eye placement.

As for 10x pairs I own an older Zeiss Conquest 10x25 (which is fine optically, but the finicky handling and difficulty of eye placement are major turn-offs) and a Nikon SE 10x42 (which once was dubbed as the best 10x pair available period - it nowadays has strong competition by the other alphas but is not yet outclassed). In the not so frequent cases when I know beforehand that I will be observing mainly far away birds in open landscape, the SE gets a field trip.

Otherwise some pair of 8x30/32 gets grabbed - usually Nikon E2 for some extra wide field fun (but your SF will be just as wide) or a Pentax ED for jungle excursions or canoe trips.

PS: In the 8x25 segment, the Zeiss has quite a few ardent followers too... and for a reason.

Joachim

Telsanar · Jun 23, 2020

jring said:
PS: In the 8x25 segment, the Zeiss has quite a few ardent followers too... and for a reason.

I did a little reading on that... wow, really seems to be very impressive. I get the feeling, that this would be an excellent choice.

On the other hand, quite some people who bought the Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25 even said they sold their 8x32 format because of the stellar performance of the Pocket. So it seems to be a rather "close" companion in that regard. Maybe that leeds again to my initial thought, that a Zeiss SF 10x32 would be the one to go - combined with the Pocket, probably a very good team.

yarrellii · Jun 23, 2020

If I was to have such a nice 8x32 as my main binocular (which is also my goal), I'd choose a completely different "flavour" of binocular, to offer me really different capabilities, be it really small size (a 8x20 as has been said) or something with remarkable low-light performance. A favourite format is the 7x42. You can find some reasonably light ones that offer you amazing low-light performance for the weight/bulk, plus a steady view that can be really addictive. Otherwise, I'd surely go for a 10x, which can be handy for distant birds (coastline, lakes), landscape and stargazing. But instead of going for a 10x42, which can indeed be very nice, I'd choose a 10x50. You can find amazingly compact 10x50 these days, with size and weight close to a 10x42, such as a Vortex Razor or the like.
So:
- Portability: 8x20 (I usually have no problem hauling a 8x32, although the SF is indeed a bit bulky for the size).
- Low light + stable = joy of view: 7x42. The FL or the Ultravid HD+
- Distance + stargazing = 10x50, preferably a compact one.

dries1 · Jun 23, 2020

The new SF models are not even out yet, I would wait until others have viewed with it first then make a decision, after-all, you are talking about spending over $2,000 for one glass.

Andy W.

Telsanar · Jun 23, 2020

Hi Andy, for sure I'll do that - no question. But the companion I asked for would be something I can already decide on "now" and it helps me to discuss scenarios in order to come to a good decision for myself

So considering that I do lots of different outdoor activities and traveling, a compact format would certainly be a good idea. The Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25 seems to be a very good option, with just 290g and excellent optics (relying on all the reviews I've read). Maybe at the end of the day, it would even be my only bino for the time being.

BUT if not (likely, as I've already tested full size formats):
Picking up my original thought of also going for a full format: generally I liked the 10x magnitude binos I tested a lot (Zeiss SF42, Swaro EL 32/42). I will probably don't use them under low-light conditions (at least what I can say for now). Having that in mind: would you say - out of experience - that a 10x32 would fit best then (I would wait for the new Zeiss SF to test out), or should I better go for a full 10x42 anyways in order to stay "light flexible" in the upcoming years (a 10x50 is probably an overkill then)?

dries1 · Jun 23, 2020

Take a good look at the Zeiss 8X25, then decide on the viewing if 10X42 would be a good fit, (I tend to always prefer the larger aperture) or if 10X32 would be better for your viewing needs, seems like you prefer 10X32. I tend to view when the light conditions are lower so I prefer 10X50 which is also very suitable for normal daylight.

Both the 8X25 and 10X32 would make a very good combo for travel. You could always decide later on if you would like a 10X42.

Andy W.

denco@comcast.n · Jun 23, 2020

I don't think you could go wrong getting the 8x32 SF and the 10x32 SF. That should cover all your need's and it would be a nice matching pair. 8x for close in birding and the 10x for more distant raptors and shore bird's. Huge FOV's on both and nice small size yet big enough to use for serious birding. Get the latest and greatest!

dries1 · Jun 23, 2020

I am sure that I do not need either one, I might try the 8X32 but it is after-all an 8X32, a format I just don't get wild over. Need larger aperture.

Andy W.

jring · Jun 23, 2020

Hi,

to decide if a very good 8x25 pair is ok for you, a visit to some brick and mortar store which has both the Victory 8x25 and the SF 8x32 would be a good idea. Or Swaro CL 8x25 and EL 8x32...

If the 8x25 works for you for general use, so will probably a 10x32 with the same 3mm exit pupil - except for the shakes, although the higher weight and better grip of the 10x32 might help to offset the higher magnification a bit.

In my personal experience a 3mm exit pupil is borderline for getting eye placement right on the first try (you want your eye pupils inside the exit pupils of the bins - or vice versa in case of small exit pupil instrument and dark accomodated eyes).
Any offset leads to interesting perceived aberrations which are a classic case of user error due to bad ergonomy.

Joachim

PYRTLE · Jun 23, 2020

Going back to your original post and having followed the replies my contribution is Why?

To me, it is just not a starter - the main pair will do 95% of the job required so why mess around with another unit whilst enjoying your various activities. A smaller spec.compact is just that, overall it is lighter, smaller mass and thus convenient to have with you. But there are not any optical advantages compared to an alpha 8 or 10/32. For what it's worth 10 x 32 is the least owned of the general four specifications, see binocular poll, in regard to nature observation.......8 or 10 x 2 / 8 or 10 x 42.

So, you're lost. Start again with this question. Do I really need a companion binocular?

I own several pairs ( 20mm through to 50mm) but in over 50 years of nature observation, sky watching or general "walking" I've only ever carried one pair at any given time.

fazalmajid · Jun 23, 2020

Telsanar said:
On the other hand, quite some people who bought the Zeiss Victory Pocket 8x25 even said they sold their 8x32 format because of the stellar performance of the Pocket.

That would be me. I don’t know that a 8x25 or 8x42 would be all that complementary to a 10x32 SF that’s a best a 2/3 stop difference. I’d say a Canon 10x42L IS would be more differentiated due to the image stabilization. Or a spotting scope. Or a Zeiss 8x54 HT.

Find a companion for the new ZEISS SF 32 (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Old Berkshire Boy

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread