To anyone reading this thread with high interest, if you search old threads for detailed discussions on these topics, you will find ample explanation that having a flat field (i.e. low curvature of field) is not the same thing as astigmatism correction. So-called field flattening lenses can correct one problem, the other, or both. Field flattening does not inevitably lead to rolling ball, nor does it have anything to do with depth of field, except that curvature can make foreground to background in better focus when its curvature from edge to center is aligned with the planar dimension of that view.
It's been a long time since I tried the 10x32, but I have the Zeiss 8x32 and know it very well. The 8x32 has plenty of off-axis astigmatism but it also has a _very_ flat field. In fact, back in the day (before the Swarovski SV, and Nikon EDG), Steve Ingraham, in his capacity as Zeiss spokesperson, claimed that the Zeiss 8x32 FL had the flattest field available in an 8x32 roof with the exception of the Nikon 8x32 LX/HG. I was very skeptical at the time, but after some testing and some learning about the difference between field curvature and astigmatism, I found that he was correct.
--AP