• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

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

Definitely! The 8x32SV is my main/first to reach for binocular now, which isn't a Canon IS. Given the excellent reports of the 8x32SF, I would imagine it could replace the SV. I probably don't need to own two 8x32's this expensive but it would be nice to have them long enough to compare.

I'm really looking forward to this model.
 
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.

I'm finding exactly that too.

Tom
 
I've been using the SF rather than the 8x32 FL as my kitchen / garden bino for a few weeks now. I was most surprised when I then used the smaller FL this morning at the difference characteristics. Both have their wonderful merits and it reiterates to me that the 32mm SF should be one top notch instrument as Lee has discovered. I think the SF32 will be much easier for close focus of insects etc, than it's big brother.
 
I've been using the SF rather than the 8x32 FL as my kitchen / garden bino for a few weeks now. I was most surprised when I then used the smaller FL this morning at the difference characteristics. Both have their wonderful merits and it reiterates to me that the 32mm SF should be one top notch instrument as Lee has discovered. I think the SF32 will be much easier for close focus of insects etc, than it's big brother.

The 8x32 FL has minimum focus of 5 ft, minimum IPD of 52 mm, and rapid yet precise focus. The spec of the 8x32 SF is not as good in these three critical areas, so I don't share your optimism about its performance for close viewing. It will probably be a fine bin for that use, but not as good as the FL. As for the comparison to the big SF, hard to say. The close focus spec of the x32 SF is not so good.

--AP
 
An important point with the 'main bin' theme in mind. If your sole objective is birding, i'm sure the SF will be the dog's bits.
However, if you combine birding with dragonflies, butterflies etc. (as many do), the pugsy little FL takes some beating.
For me, if a binocular does 90% of all the things i need it to for 90% of the time, that'll do for me. And there are not many that do, by the way.
 
In light of Troubador's superb review of the 8x32 and comparing to a few others, could the 8x32 be your main binocular?

I know there is a poll around here someplace with binocular size preferences and while 8x42 is the winner, followed by 10x42, the 8x32 is right up there.

How comfortable would one be having a 8x32 as your main bin? Many would like to see a 7x35 so it makes sense that between 8x32, 8x25, 7x35, that many would prefer a smaller binocular. Is this the future?

I've mostly used 42mm bins all my life. But I still own and use the Nikon 8X32 SE from time to time, and from that I know, yes, I could be happy with an 8X32 as my "main bin" -- for daytime use (not astronomy). I'm getting older and I expect my eye pupil rarely dilates to much bigger than 4mm when birding, even in very dim daylight. Plus, I am often lugging something else besides the binoculars... a spotting scope, or a backpack, or a camera + tripod, or a recorder and microphone, almost always something. My larger bins don't really bother me, but at the same time, the idea of using a more compact slightly lighter pair of bins is a welcome thought.

It's been a long time since I allowed myself to get a premium binocular. My last big bino purchase was a *used* 7X42 Nikon EDG several years ago. Those have been my "main bins" for daytime/birding ever since, and I don't think I'll be getting rid of them. But I'm intrigued with the specs on the 8X32 SF, especially the 8.8° field / 67° apparent... So I'd like to try them out. If they seem as wonderful as I imagine they might, I could imagine allowing myself to splurge and get them. But only if the total experience feels wonderful and noticeably better than what I'm already using. And then I'd be selling 1 or 2 older pairs of bins to help make it more affordable.

Dave
 
Last edited:
To answer the OP’s question: Yes, it is quite possible that the 8X32 SF will become my main go-to binocular for birding and general use. It will need to perform at a very high level to gain that status but it sure seems promising on paper and based on Lee’s informative test report. BTW: Thank you Lee for the excellent report and for whetting our collective binocular appetites!

The 4mm pupil provides sufficient brightness for daytime use up to a few minutes after sunset (at least here in the Western US where I find myself most of the time). I really love a well corrected AFOV between 65 and 70 degrees – not too much and not too little, just right for optimal viewing pleasure in my opinion. It must have long eye relief and excellent exit pupil correction (ease of view) and that will be a determining factor in how suitable the 8X32 SF will be to me as a “main” binocular.

I can look forward to keeping the 8X42 Noctivid in the case as a backup binocular as long as I can get similar excellent performance in daytime with the 8X32 SF. If I could still hold 10X steady for more than a few seconds then I would stick with a 10X42 as a “main” binocular but at my advanced age I can no longer handhold a 10X effectively (hmm…. unless the new 10X32 SF turns out to be a miracle 10X glass for us aging boomers…..). Well, this could get expensive indeed.

I am looking forward to handling and testing the 8X32 SF as soon as it is available. In the past I have been as close as a gnat’s eyebrow to purchasing the Swaro 8X32 EL. Every time I handle and view through the EL I think “why don’t I have one of these awesome compact optical marvels that will do the viewing job 90% of the time?” but every time I stop myself and think: self, you should wait for Zeiss or Leica to meet the 8X32 alpha challenge with something even better. Mostly I am put off by the distortion mapping on the EL (rolling ball is not the best description of the EL distortion but that’s a good catch all term for the effect that I find disturbing). Now Zeiss has answered the challenge of a modern alpha 8X32 roof prism glass and I am anxiously hopeful it will become my “main” binocular (whatever that means to a binocular-aholic).

Stephanie
 
To answer the OP’s question: Yes, it is quite possible that the 8X32 SF will become my main go-to binocular for birding and general use. ......
Now Zeiss has answered the challenge of a modern alpha 8X32 roof prism glass and I am anxiously hopeful it will become my “main” binocular (whatever that means to a binocular-aholic).

Stephanie

Agree entirely, I too would love a compact 10x32 alpha birding glass to replace my chunky Canon 10x42IS. The only problem is that the IS part is still missing from the new Zeiss. Maybe someday....
 
Agree entirely, I too would love a compact 10x32 alpha birding glass to replace my chunky Canon 10x42IS. The only problem is that the IS part is still missing from the new Zeiss. Maybe someday....

Once you add IS into a binocular, a lens, camera.....you get weight, chunkiness...etc etc.... The nature of the beast
 
Agree entirely, I too would love a compact 10x32 alpha birding glass to replace my chunky Canon 10x42IS. The only problem is that the IS part is still missing from the new Zeiss. Maybe someday....

I was using my Nikon 10x32 EDG I (double hinged 1st Edition) on the platform at Cape May during the Fall migration about 8 years ago when I had my first opportunity to use a Canon 10x42 IS for a brief time.

I was able to compare both binoculars with each other without using the IS on the 10x42 by bracing my arms on the Deck Posts. Under those circumstances there was no great difference between them.

You may be pleased using a high quality 10x32.

BUT when I compared the the Nikon against the Canon 10x42 with the IS on; free style, while standing; there was no comparison between them.:eek!:

In January 2019 I gave in and purchased a Canon 12x36 IS III. I am very happy with it! My only complaint is that one has to hold down the IS button the entire time you use it to get the full benefit of the IS. A locking button that stayed down like the Canon 10x42 IS had would be nice!

Bob

PS: I needed some major repairs on the covering of my 10x32 EDG I. I sent it back to Nikon for warranty repairs and Nikon replaced that binocular with the new model 10x32 EDG II which is smaller than the original EDG I.
 
Last edited:
Once you add IS into a binocular, a lens, camera.....you get weight, chunkiness...etc etc.... The nature of the beast

Many cell phones now have IS on their cameras, so size and weight can be a lot less than was the case when Canon launched the 10x42IS. The problem is alpha binoculars are a tiny market, with mostly very conservative customers.

Canon sells their 10x42IS for half the price of comparable non IS offerings from Swaro or Zeiss. That does not earn them enough to justify a full scale redesign.
My hope is that Leica will work with Huawei or Panasonic to make IS an alpha must have.
 
I h ave never looked thru the Canon with IS so am not aware of the benefit of, or lack .

One of these days, (although Swaro has taken that step now), you might have a binocular that has a button that automatically focuses the bird, much like a digital camera focuses a bird as you line it up with one of your camera points.
 
Once you add IS into a binocular, a lens, camera.....you get weight, chunkiness...etc etc.... The nature of the beast

My Nikon 10x32 EDG II weighs 600 grams. It was introduced in 2010 and replaced the double hinged EDG I which was introduced in 2008.

My Canon 12x36 IS III weighs 660 grams. It is bulkier in the objective tubes than the Nikon is but you get used to it. Its weight is centered down in the back of my palms.

Bob
 
I h ave never looked thru the Canon with IS so am not aware of the benefit of, or lack .

You have a lot of company in that.
It is unfortunately true that birders are skeptical of the idea that an electronic assist can and should be part of any modern binocular. Yet the improvement IS brings to the view of the bird is major. It allows much better recognition of the details of the bird, stuff that gets lost because of the natural jitters created by hand holding.
 
Last edited:
You have a lot of company in that.
It is unfortunately true that birders are skeptical of the idea that an electronic assist can and should be part of any modern binocular. Yet the improvement IS brings to the view of the bird is major. It allows much better recognition of the details of the bird, stuff that gets lost because of the natural jitters created by hand holding.

For some reason, as I age ....I look for non-tech. We live in a world too techy and we forget how to think for ourselves, do things ourselves etc etc w/o technology to enable us.

Now...what is tech? True, tech it is a binocular...and what is the difference between using a binocular 50 years ago to an Alpha today, or ...to a binocular with IS? Tech advancement or just plain tech is tech. But for some reason I am attempting to 'draw the line' at my own lifetime up to a certain point, and I suppose IS binoculars is beyond that point. Not sure how to explain this, perhaps others can do so better.

I remember my dad who never wanted to be around a computer and I thought he was being stupid to not accept this tech advancement. But now, as I age and see perhaps his perception, I can understand why he wouldn't accept certain technology such as a computer. Now, I am doing the same with IS and at the moment, I have no reason as to why:)
 
For some reason, as I age ....I look for non-tech. We live in a world too techy and we forget how to think for ourselves, do things ourselves etc etc w/o technology to enable us.

Now...what is tech? True, tech it is a binocular...and what is the difference between using a binocular 50 years ago to an Alpha today, or ...to a binocular with IS? Tech advancement or just plain tech is tech. But for some reason I am attempting to 'draw the line' at my own lifetime up to a certain point, and I suppose IS binoculars is beyond that point. Not sure how to explain this, perhaps others can do so better.

I remember my dad who never wanted to be around a computer and I thought he was being stupid to not accept this tech advancement. But now, as I age and see perhaps his perception, I can understand why he wouldn't accept certain technology such as a computer. Now, I am doing the same with IS and at the moment, I have no reason as to why:)



Well, I am 80 years old and my one and 1/2 year old Canon 12x36 IS III is my first and only image stabilized binocular and I am more than pleased with it and very happy I have it.

I also have a rather large number of "Alpha" class binoculars.

I was using the 12x36 on my deck this morning and was very pleased with it.

In the afternoon I spent an hour or so on the deck with my Zeiss Victory 7x42 T* FL and I was just as happy using it. It is my favorite binocular and I take it to Hawk Mountain in Pennsylvania when I visit there during the migration.

I could follow birds through the trees off my deck with it better than with the 12x36 IS but I was content using both of them and it was a beautiful clear day!
And I'm looking forward to taking my Canon 12x36 IS III to Hawk Mountain at least one time this year.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 3 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top