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

mpeace said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes you are of course quite correct and I have corrected the error. Thanks for pointing that out. I hear what you say about AFOV and understand what you mean about tunnel view vs wide immersive view. But for me AFOV is a consideration of what 'impression' the view through a pair of binos gives and not a measure of how much of the view the bino actually captures. See the figures for the two SFs for an illustration of what I mean. I can see that AFOV can help decide whether a bino will be a pleasure to look through but usually my own priorities are more aligned with helping to ensure I get a view of a target. And while the linear measurement at 1,000 m is useful it seems odd to me not to take account of the fact that when we look through binos we see a circular area of the world. When hawks are soaring or circling among clouds or when an otter dives, it is often the case that you don't know where they will reappear. They by no means always continue in a straight line from where you last saw them. Having a view through the binos that captures a bigger area of the world just makes it a smidgen easier to re-acquire my target. And even at short distances if you are faced with fast moving warblers that appear suddenly and dart erratically to another bush, or a dragonfly that zig-zags briefly in the air, having some extra percentage of area of view provides a better chance of getting a view of it before it disappears.

This explains my personal priorities and is not meant to imply that other priorities are less important. And I should mention that I enjoy using a 7x bino from time to time simply because of the expansive feel of the view through it. For enjoying the grandeur of coasts and mountains it is simply terrific.

Lee

Chosun Juan said:

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:

Click to expand...

Agree completely Chosun, in fact I really want an SF, but the fov is not the reason why, there`s something else about the lower contrast (to me) view I just can`t let go of, problem is I can`t find a negative about the 8.5 SV !

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.

Click to expand...

John

I never intended some sort of EL vs SF competition and I hope I made it clear that fov is not the be all and end all of bino selection. But let me give a couple of real life examples of where area of fov has been important to me. And this time I will avoid my usual Scottish examples.

The dragonfly Macromia splendens is one of the rarest in Europe and looks superficially like a stouter version of our Gold-banded Dragonfly. After many years of searchiing in the south of France we found a site for it and nearly danced with joy. There were about 3-5 males patrolling the opposite bank of a river lined with trees and were about 20 - 30 metres away. They flew along at a steady height above the water and occasionally hovered and turned this way and that before resuming their patrol. I guess they were searching for females to mate with which meant when a male spotted another male, which was constantly happening, either or both would accelerate at warp speed to either attack or escape and their flight path could be horizontal or vertical or any angle in between, and boy were they fast. I soon found out that the best chance of getting a view of them wasn't with the Conquest HD 8x32 that I used in more open country for its fast focus but was the SF simply because of its bigger fov. It meant I just managed to hook onto a few of them as they almost but didn't quite escape the area of view of the SFs and follow them while they were zooming instead of virtually none with the Conquests. If I was lucky enough for a male to remain hovering while I lifted my binos then that was fine and dandy and fov didn't matter but when they were warping around and twisting and turning in the air, the area of view was important.

What about birds? Away from the river up on the limestone causses there was an abundance of thick bushes from which we could hear the harsh 'tak' calls of Sylvia species warblers. Very occasionally one would perch on top of a bush or be seen on a perch just inside and fov was no advantage here. But more frequently they would burst from cover at high speed and zoom to another bush and I was lucky to get a look at it through the binos at all. Again the SFs beat the Conquests in getting an occasional view instead of none at all.

In more open country such as at the etaings and reed beds the Conquest HD beat the SF because of its much faster focus so I could get on distant harriers, eagles, herons etc and then back to nearby dragonflies much more quckly. So, bigger areas of view don't always win but for me I would rather have a bigger area of view than a smaller one and even at shorter distances the percentage differences between the areas of view of two binos remains the same.

Lee

Torview said:

Agree completely Chosun, in fact I really want an SF, but the fov is not the reason why, there`s something else about the lower contrast (to me) view I just can`t let go of, problem is I can`t find a negative about the 8.5 SV !

Click to expand...

I did not find the contrast to be significantly different, unless you pick up one bin within 30 seconds of the other, you will be hard pressed to find a difference at all in the color/contrast/brightness.

aCuria said:

I did not find the contrast to be significantly different, unless you pick up one bin within 30 seconds of the other, you will be hard pressed to find a difference at all in the color/contrast/brightness.

Click to expand...

Just proves how differently we perceive what we see, for me the NV is startlingly high contrast with the SV noticeably behind and the SF noticeably muted (in comparison), this gives the SF a distinct advantage to my eyes in high contrast situations, such as looking up at a Bird against a bright sky.

But its probably just me and my eyes, but thats all I have to judge with

Torview said:

Just proves how differently we perceive what we see, for me the NV is startlingly high contrast with the SV noticeably behind and the SF noticeably muted (in comparison), this gives the SF a distinct advantage to my eyes in high contrast situations, such as looking up at a Bird against a bright sky.

But its probably just me and my eyes, but thats all I have to judge with

Click to expand...

I cant comment on the nv which I have not tried, but isnt more contrast a good thing?

If you find a random person to do a comparison where they can only swap bins after taking a 30s break, I dont think a "difference in contrast" is not something they would point out. The differences fov/afov and egronomics are much more noticable.

There is however, a huge difference in color/contrast/brightness between the low end roofs and the SV / SF that is immediately noticable. Often the image just looks very red and dark

edit:
Did you compare the SV to the new black SFs or the grey ones?

Torview said:

problem is I can`t find a negative about the 8.5 SV !

Click to expand...

If you want to be really nitpicky there are some negatives of the 8.5x42 SV that have been pointed out here:

• Lack of three-dimensionality, probably due to the flat field
• Flare resistance significantly worse than the SF
• Smaller afov, "a tunnel view" comapred to the SF
• Focusing wheel could be smoother
• Internal baffling could be better
• More click stops on the eyecups needed (leica does better)
• Center of gravity could be closer to the user

....blue colour bias, more CA.....not that I'm ragging on the SV as I love the image but between the two you would have to pick between warm and cold tones, neither is neutral to my eyes.

aCuria said:

If you want to be really nitpicky there are some negatives of the 8.5x42 SV that have been pointed out here:

• Lack of three-dimensionality, probably due to the flat field
• Flare resistance significantly worse than the SF
• Smaller afov, "a tunnel view" comapred to the SF
• Focusing wheel could be smoother
• Internal baffling could be better
• More click stops on the eyecups needed (leica does better)
• Center of gravity could be closer to the user

Click to expand...

If these are negatives for any prospective purchaser then luckily there is the SF, certainly I can`t find a negative, but then I can`t find a much negative to say about the SF either, and I`m not criticising the SF because it appears lower contrast (to me), I`m applauding it, so........................?

How do you define ''contrast''? Is it colour contrast, edge contrast, macro or micro?

To me, it's really edge contrast that makes a bino pop - adds 3D [effect] and makes birds etc. really stand out from dull-coloured backgrounds.

Torview said:

If these are negatives for any prospective purchaser then luckily there is the SF, certainly I can`t find a negative, but then I can`t find a much negative to say about the SF either, and I`m not criticising the SF because it appears lower contrast (to me), I`m applauding it, so........................?

Click to expand...

The SF has its own set of problems too... theres no such thing as perfect optics

james holdsworth said:

How do you define ''contrast''? Is it colour contrast, edge contrast, macro or micro?

To me, it's really edge contrast that makes a bino pop - adds 3D [effect] and makes birds etc. really stand out from dull-coloured backgrounds.

Click to expand...

The difference between the brightest and darkest parts of the view. Edge contrast can cost me detail against a bright sky, like blown out highlights in an incorrectly exposed photo.

aCuria said:

If you want to be really nitpicky there are some negatives of the 8.5x42 SV that have been pointed out here:
[*] Flare resistance significantly worse than the SF

Click to expand...

Hi,

With certain side lights, there are reddish, half-moon reflexes in the SF!
In both black models that I tried, this phenomenon was observed.
My first model had in the lower lens area clear stray light problems that bothered me so much that I have replaced it. The SF seems to suffer from a much higher series variations.

Andreas

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=en&tl=de&u=https://www.allbinos.com/&anno=2
"Cons:

distinct reflections visible beyond the eyepiece's diaphragm"

I have both the, Zeiss SF and the Leica Noctivid 8 x 42s. The Leica is compact the finish solid and ofcourse the very sharp optics. The Zeiss weighs almost the same, but feels much lighter brighter and sharper with a great FOV..i love it....but the build/finish looks a bit cheaper but iam sure will last a lifetime with normal care . But its the Zeiss has the best focus knob followed by the Lecia. Infact the Swaro ELs which i have tried have the cheapest looking plasticky focus knobs but the rest of it so beautiful. I always wonder why some designs are almost perfect ...but a very small bit that looks odd...I guess it's just the design which allows them to get the best working combination.

I have the previous version of Swarovski El 8.5x42. I want to upgrade to the SF 8x42 for the simple reason that I prefer 8x over 8.5x. 8x is the reason you get bigger FOV with the SF model. Also bigger depth of field and other benefits you get from the very slightly lower power.