The fact the Nikon EDG 8x32 was nearly as heavy and large as the Leica Ultravid 8x42 BL, not to mention even more expensive, may have something to do with it.
-
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.
SF 32, First Impressions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Troubador
- Start date
The fact the Nikon EDG 8x32 was nearly as heavy and large as the Leica Ultravid 8x42 BL, not to mention even more expensive, may have something to do with it.
Yes, but you can still buy any model of EDG at a discounted price on Ebay. So they are a good bargain compared to Zeiss and Swarovski alpha's.
Last edited:
Your probably right. In my own experience selling binoculars Swarovski SV's have probably always sold the fastest and maintained their value the best. Cabella's don't even carry any high end Zeiss like the SF. There is no place to even try one around here.
Last edited:
tarsigercyanurus
Active member
SF First Impressions
Eighty odd posts from people who haven't seen one����
Eighty odd posts from people who haven't seen one����
The Nikon EDG 8x32 is 2 oz. heavier and 1/2 inch longer then the SV 8x32. I am like Andy. I will carry the weight for the better glare control and smoother focus.
Mark9473
Well-known member
I'll admit not knowing the fine detail about Zeiss camera lenses, but as a user of Olympus and Panasonic cameras for many years, where "Leica" lenses are a big thing, I can tell you that in that case the situation is very far removed from Leica designing a lens and finding a more affordable toll manufacturer for it. It's more Panasonic designing a lens (or even camera) and Leica checking if they can accept the expected quality and agreeing to licence their name for it.
Why they do it? It's easy money for both parties. Nothing more complicated to it.
" Is it in the concept and design by Zeiss or the grinding and polishing of lenses by the Japanese?"
I think the concept and design of the lenses are very important but not more so than the grinding and polishing of the lenses. The end product quality really hinges on both factors IMO. Zeiss must really be confident in the Japaneses ability to produce a quality product if they let them manufacture their lenses.
I think the concept and design of the lenses are very important but not more so than the grinding and polishing of the lenses. The end product quality really hinges on both factors IMO. Zeiss must really be confident in the Japaneses ability to produce a quality product if they let them manufacture their lenses.
BryanP
Little known member
There was an epic thread years back on DPReview about the Panasonic/Leica relationship.
According to sources from both companies the myth that Panasonic just “rents” the Leicia's branding is false. Those sources claimed that the lens are actually designed by Panasonic with Leica providing the expertise. Leica has the right to reject the results until satisfied and rightly so since it's their red dot and reputation that is going on and into the lens.
Zeiss and Sony have their own arrangements which will necessarily be different.
As pointed out by Lee Zeiss designs the lens and their Japanese partners fulfill their obligations. How does that happen? Zeiss may have input into manufacturing design and their Japanese partner may have suggestions for the design of the finished product. We don't know and they aren't telling. Its a shame really as I think it could be an very interesting story. Hell,at this point I'd be happy with an infographic!
It's most likely a positive synergistic relationship consistent with the egos in the room of course
Cheers,
Bryan
Nope.
17 posts from someone who has seen one and 68 who haven't but who have seen photos and specifications and videos about it and are interested enough to form an opinion.
Lee
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Lee, post 90,
Fascinating human psychology is shown here.
Gijs van Ginkel
Fascinating human psychology is shown here.
Gijs van Ginkel
PYRTLE
Old Berkshire Boy
* and has handled and looked through them!
Patriot222
Well-known member
I'm trying my best to enjoy this thread because I'm quite excited about the specs and early reports of this binocular but the dogmatic assertions and ad hoc comments by some, are truly fascinating. It makes me think that our education systems should place a greater emphasis on philosophy and argumentation.
In any case, I really do appreciate the actual experiences and grounded thoughts about the design of this new 8x32. At first glance, it seems that Zeiss has brought something special to the table, with a unique optical design and impressive specifications. I own more Swarovski and Canon IS glass than anything else but have no favorite manufacturers, only favorite models within manufacturer line-ups. I've never placed inerrant value on the kind of one-off testing done by binocular scoring sites, rather I've viewed them as a way to assist me in deciding which optics to try, while understanding the practical limitations for reviewers to test multiple samples. I'm eager to hear more about the 32SF but I'm already thinking I'd like to own the 8x32.
To Lee, Gijs van Ginkel, Pat, and a few others, thank you very much for your well reasoned commentary.
In any case, I really do appreciate the actual experiences and grounded thoughts about the design of this new 8x32. At first glance, it seems that Zeiss has brought something special to the table, with a unique optical design and impressive specifications. I own more Swarovski and Canon IS glass than anything else but have no favorite manufacturers, only favorite models within manufacturer line-ups. I've never placed inerrant value on the kind of one-off testing done by binocular scoring sites, rather I've viewed them as a way to assist me in deciding which optics to try, while understanding the practical limitations for reviewers to test multiple samples. I'm eager to hear more about the 32SF but I'm already thinking I'd like to own the 8x32.
To Lee, Gijs van Ginkel, Pat, and a few others, thank you very much for your well reasoned commentary.
Patriot
Humans are inquisitive by nature and will arrive at conclusions based on the flimsiest of information but this curiosity and quick-information processing has presumably contributed to our species's success. They certainly contribute to the often 'lively' nature of Birdforum discussions.
I will try to obtain more information about SF32's optics and why they are so dramatically different from SF42s but in the current circumstances it will probably prove even more difficult than usual to elicit this kind of info. I will also try to obtain a test unit for reviewing, but again, this might take time. In addition, instead of taking the unit to the West of Scotland where more dramatic birds and animals can be seen and enliven the review, due to our age and my medical situation, I will not be able to travel so will have to make do with habitats and species local to me. Fortunately I am within easy reach of a variety of habitats that not usually visited by many other people.
Lee
Humans are inquisitive by nature and will arrive at conclusions based on the flimsiest of information but this curiosity and quick-information processing has presumably contributed to our species's success. They certainly contribute to the often 'lively' nature of Birdforum discussions.
I will try to obtain more information about SF32's optics and why they are so dramatically different from SF42s but in the current circumstances it will probably prove even more difficult than usual to elicit this kind of info. I will also try to obtain a test unit for reviewing, but again, this might take time. In addition, instead of taking the unit to the West of Scotland where more dramatic birds and animals can be seen and enliven the review, due to our age and my medical situation, I will not be able to travel so will have to make do with habitats and species local to me. Fortunately I am within easy reach of a variety of habitats that not usually visited by many other people.
Lee
In my first impressions posted at the beginning of this thread I stated that my little finger/pinkie rests on the third hinge when holding SF32. This was wrong and I have corrected my original post. In fact all three fingers wrap comfortably around the barrel and those with larger hands will be able to rest their smallest finger on the bottom hinge.
I discovered this because I now have an SF8x32 on loan for couple of weeks. The review follows in due course.
Lee
I discovered this because I now have an SF8x32 on loan for couple of weeks. The review follows in due course.
Lee
Last edited by a moderator:
Hermann
Well-known member
B&H say they will have the new Zeiss SF 8x32 in 7 days. Get your orders in! $2249.00.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...td-jfX4sBlgdBmE0Z9hdvaRVPyXTZrWQaAnyJEALw_wcB
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...td-jfX4sBlgdBmE0Z9hdvaRVPyXTZrWQaAnyJEALw_wcB
Last edited:
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Hi Edmund (post #96),
No need to wait, as it’s possible to do at least a front on comparison
The SF 8x32 is listed as 152 mm long x 112 mm wide (at 65 mm IPD), and
The Victory 8x25 as 112 mm x 100 mm (also at 65 mm IPD)
The images used are from the Zeiss website which show the eyecups down
However, when comparing the length to the width of the images, it seems that:
- the SF’s listed length is the maximum with the eyecups up, while
- the Vic’s is the minimum with the eyecups down
So using the widths to scale the images . . .
(if the SF’s length is 152 mm with the eyecups up, it will be 140 mm with them down)
So size wise, the SF 32 is not going to be an easy replacement for the Victory 25
It seems to be at least as long as the the Swarovski EL SV 32 at a listed 138 mm
John
No need to wait, as it’s possible to do at least a front on comparison
The SF 8x32 is listed as 152 mm long x 112 mm wide (at 65 mm IPD), and
The Victory 8x25 as 112 mm x 100 mm (also at 65 mm IPD)
The images used are from the Zeiss website which show the eyecups down
However, when comparing the length to the width of the images, it seems that:
- the SF’s listed length is the maximum with the eyecups up, while
- the Vic’s is the minimum with the eyecups down
So using the widths to scale the images . . .
(if the SF’s length is 152 mm with the eyecups up, it will be 140 mm with them down)
So size wise, the SF 32 is not going to be an easy replacement for the Victory 25
It seems to be at least as long as the the Swarovski EL SV 32 at a listed 138 mm
John
