Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40 (1 Viewer)

[Scott98]

sf is a step above the sfl. more brightness, must wider sweetspot.
but sf 8x42 has more CA at the rim (about 92% +) then sfl 8x40. only sf 8x42 has that issue belong other zeiss I seen. Central CA control of SF 8x42 is among the best maybe only little behind NL 8x42

It's good to hear this, some people didn't like my reporting of the excess false color at the edges of the 8x42 SF. It seems like all the most expensive binoculars come with something that drives me crazy! The SF have incredible sharpness, clarity, transmission, ergonomics and focuser. The best. It's easy to see by looking at the amount of halo and scattered light around a streetlight at night, it's the best one there IMO.

But the very edge of the 8x42's shows annoying purple color, when viewing over snow in bright sun it's a constant annoyance, so is the distortion in the last 10% of the FOV. This could have been the perfect bino for me if the field was cut down to 7.7-8 degrees instead of 8.4. That would have pruned off the false color and warping distortion along with easing the chronic eye placement difficulty of this bino.

 

[jackjack]

It's good to hear this, some people didn't like my reporting of the excess false color at the edges of the 8x42 SF. It seems like all the most expensive binoculars come with something that drives me crazy! The SF have incredible sharpness, clarity, transmission, ergonomics and focuser. The best. It's easy to see by looking at the amount of halo and scattered light around a streetlight at night, it's the best one there IMO.

But the very edge of the 8x42's shows annoying purple color, when viewing over snow in bright sun it's a constant annoyance, so is the distortion in the last 10% of the FOV. This could have been the perfect bino for me if the field was cut down to 7.7-8 degrees instead of 8.4. That would have pruned off the false color and warping distortion along with easing the chronic eye placement difficulty of this bino.

It's good to hear this, some people didn't like my reporting of the excess false color at the edges of the 8x42 SF. It seems like all the most expensive binoculars come with something that drives me crazy! The SF have incredible sharpness, clarity, transmission, ergonomics and focuser. The best. It's easy to see by looking at the amount of halo and scattered light around a streetlight at night, it's the best one there IMO.

But the very edge of the 8x42's shows annoying purple color, when viewing over snow in bright sun it's a constant annoyance, so is the distortion in the last 10% of the FOV. This could have been the perfect bino for me if the field was cut down to 7.7-8 degrees instead of 8.4. That would have pruned off the false color and warping distortion along with easing the chronic eye placement difficulty of this bino.

but still I enjoy it's wide view
if the fov shrinks to 7.7 it's competition between swaro EL must be harder.

I don't like the phases such as 'Its good for the prise because its just good' / 'Just clear and bright' and other simply hyping the binos for now reason.

My motto of bino reviews is 'There are no perfect binocular'
Even for Swaro NL's I have to post about it's faults that I found.
All of the bino reviews must have subjectivity of the reivewer since they have same human eyes and human minds, but being only active bino reviewers in South Korea right know, I have to stand behind my words.

 

[MiddleRiver]

It's good to hear this, some people didn't like my reporting of the excess false color at the edges of the 8x42 SF. It seems like all the most expensive binoculars come with something that drives me crazy! The SF have incredible sharpness, clarity, transmission, ergonomics and focuser. The best. It's easy to see by looking at the amount of halo and scattered light around a streetlight at night, it's the best one there IMO.

But the very edge of the 8x42's shows annoying purple color, when viewing over snow in bright sun it's a constant annoyance, so is the distortion in the last 10% of the FOV. This could have been the perfect bino for me if the field was cut down to 7.7-8 degrees instead of 8.4. That would have pruned off the false color and warping distortion along with easing the chronic eye placement difficulty of this bino.

Can you not pull eye-cups out a notch and just live with a 'soft' field stop?

 

[Scott98]

but still I enjoy it's wide view
if the fov shrinks to 7.7 it's competition between swaro EL must be harder.

yes, I enjoy the wide field too! But I'm finding with the 8x42 SF that in bright sun when my pupils are contracted they become almost unusable, the eye placement struggles become overwhelming, the constant blackouts, flashes of blue color, and difficulty keeping the images merged. They cost so much that it's taken a year & a half for me to admit to myself I can barely use them on sunny days in open terrain.

It is totally subjective, for me the price does not correlate well to how much I like the binos at all. I don't consider Leica UVHD's, Swaro EL's, or NL's, to be binoculars I would use at any price. The Zeiss SF are clearly inferior to Nikon EDG for daytime use by a huge margin IMHO. They're hanging on for me for the incredible comfort of the hold & grip and excellent astronomy performance.

 

[jackjack]

yes, I enjoy the wide field too! But I'm finding with the 8x42 SF that in bright sun when my pupils are contracted they become almost unusable, the eye placement struggles become overwhelming, the constant blackouts, flashes of blue color, and difficulty keeping the images merged. They cost so much that it's taken a year & a half for me to admit to myself I can barely use them on sunny days in open terrain.

It is totally subjective, for me the price does not correlate well to how much I like the binos at all. I don't consider Leica UVHD's, Swaro EL's, or NL's, to be binoculars I would use at any price. The Zeiss SF are clearly inferior to Nikon EDG for daytime use by a huge margin IMHO. They're hanging on for me for the incredible comfort of the hold & grip and excellent astronomy performance.

Also in korea too, SF does have some issue of the eye placements. little more black outs then other big3
the eyepoint seems little bit easier for SFL maybe that is the reason Zeiss didn't expend SFL's fov?...

edg is one of the most comfortable bino in daytiom especially under bright light.

 

[Andy Gan]

edg is one of the most comfortable bino in daytiom especially under bright light.

Need Your advise, Sir.
1. I want to buy some bino in 8*30 and one in 10*42. In 10*42 i hesitating between EDG, SF and Noctivid. But at this momen i even didn't look through anyone of them (all i know about them - just thanks to forums). I want to pick one optimal variant optically and mechanically. I maybe even more suppose EDG or Noctivid, i think (they're more compact).
EDG vs NV optically (central and edge sharpness, brightness, performance in darkness) and mechanically (toughness and robustness, quality of manufacturing overall) - which one better in Your opinion?
2. Same as "1", but between Leica UVHD+ and SFL (both 8*30/32) (because they're small, what i prefer in *32 format)???
Thank You, Sir!

 

[MiddleRiver]

Need Your advise, Sir.
1. I want to buy some bino in 8*30 and one in 10*42. In 10*42 i hesitating between EDG, SF and Noctivid. But at this momen i even didn't look through anyone of them (all i know about them - just thanks to forums). I want to pick one optimal variant optically and mechanically. I maybe even more suppose EDG or Noctivid, i think (they're more compact).
EDG vs NV optically (central and edge sharpness, brightness, performance in darkness) and mechanically (toughness and robustness, quality of manufacturing overall) - which one better in Your opinion?
2. Same as "1", but between Leica UVHD+ and SFL (both 8*30/32) (because they're small, what i prefer in *32 format)???
Thank You, Sir!

One opinion of many:
1) all 3 great, but slightly different. Look at specs (FOV, ER, Weight/size) and pick your priorities. I believe Leica are the best build and image color/rendition, SF best FOV, EDG excellent all around.
2) The SFL's are superb and have almost too much ER. I don't have first-hand with UVHD, but love the Leica color and build quality - I'm told ER is a bit short.

 

[Scott98]

Need Your advise, Sir.
1. I want to buy some bino in 8*30 and one in 10*42. In 10*42 i hesitating between EDG, SF and Noctivid. But at this momen i even didn't look through anyone of them (all i know about them - just thanks to forums). I want to pick one optimal variant optically and mechanically. I maybe even more suppose EDG or Noctivid, i think (they're more compact).
EDG vs NV optically (central and edge sharpness, brightness, performance in darkness) and mechanically (toughness and robustness, quality of manufacturing overall) - which one better in Your opinion?
2. Same as "1", but between Leica UVHD+ and SFL (both 8*30/32) (because they're small, what i prefer in *32 format)???
Thank You, Sir!

Andy this is really difficult, they're all excellent binoculars and it's hard to predict how you'll react to using them. I have not tried any of the 42mm Leicas. I have checked out the 10x42 SF a couple times and I loved it. It doesn't have the same problems at the edge of field like the 8x42 SF (neither does the 8x32 SF).

I have recently compared the 8x42 EDG and SF carefully, daytime and night for astronomy. The SF does have a slight edge in sharpness over the EDG - star points are tighter specs in the SF. I think you can see this sharpness during the day too, even though the EDG have exquisite sharpness the SF are slightly better. The SF body is wonderful to grip with the wide open barrels allowing your hands to fully grasp the barrels. The two seem to have the same brightness to me, the Nikons are a little warmer in the colors and the Zeiss a little cooler.

The 8x42 EDG advantage is easier eye placement. As you pan around and search for birds the EDG's black out a lot less than the SF's. The 8x42 SF have more "warping" of the field as you pan around compared to the EDG. The EDG are better at color correction with almost none visible even on the edge, the SF's show bright purple around the edge but I think this may be better in the 10x42 SF. And of course the EDG cost less than half the price of the 42mm SF's. I have settled on using the 8x42 EDG during the day and the 8x42 SF for astronomy...until I have to sell one of them

Also the SF and EDG have the best focuser in any of the modern binoculars IMO. It's supposed to be good in the Noctivids but I haven't tried them. The SF & EDG focusers are vastly superior to the UVHD focuser IMO

 

[jackjack]

Need Your advise, Sir.
1. I want to buy some bino in 8*30 and one in 10*42. In 10*42 i hesitating between EDG, SF and Noctivid. But at this momen i even didn't look through anyone of them (all i know about them - just thanks to forums). I want to pick one optimal variant optically and mechanically. I maybe even more suppose EDG or Noctivid, i think (they're more compact).
EDG vs NV optically (central and edge sharpness, brightness, performance in darkness) and mechanically (toughness and robustness, quality of manufacturing overall) - which one better in Your opinion?
2. Same as "1", but between Leica UVHD+ and SFL (both 8*30/32) (because they're small, what i prefer in *32 format)???
Thank You, Sir!

It will be another buzz going on If I said that but....
I don't know how much EDG is at your country but EDG launched price in Japan and South Korea is about 1000~1300$ almost twice as cheap as leica ultravidat same time. and it is still sold at japan at 20000 yen (1500$)while noctivid and sf are up to 40000yen(3000$). plus edg is older then them.

I have EDG 2 (single hinge) 8x42. It's brightness and central sharpness are clearly not the level of the alpha.

there may be some possibility that I have a bad sample, but almost all of the thoughts in Korea (one of the country that have high Nikon preferences...)is that EDG is overally not as good as big 3 flagship.

compared to Noctivid,
edge sharpness is better in EDG (8x42 94%, 10x42 98% approx)
also CA may be better.
(but not as swaro el, nl and zeiss sf in the center ca correction)
feel of the mechanics is better in edg but noctivid is more ruggedly built. (since edg have some problems on their hinges...)




It's focus is best among big 3 I have seen (including swaro nl, zeiss sf/sfl, leica nv) and also eyebox and stray light control.
(though it's eye box is little big for me)

EDG is really good bino If it was bought at Japanese price. but I won't buy It at price as similar as BIG3.

It is a most comfortable bino (maybe becaus of it's favorable eye box + flat but not over flat like EL + warm yellow orange color + straylight control + low 3D rendering...)

I've also compared with BIG3 but don't have that high level sparkle.

to me EDG is just a nice bino for 1500$ pre + early 2010's made. but in optics world price and date does matter.

to me, edg doesn't match the optical leavel I want. but it's optical and mechanical comfortness is a real joy to use.
so I keep going with it.
I can found bino with more brightness and more centeral sharpness than edg at 1000$ range but I can't found bino that have overall comfortable feeling then edg even at 2000$ or more range.

 

[jackjack]

Need Your advise, Sir.
1. I want to buy some bino in 8*30 and one in 10*42. In 10*42 i hesitating between EDG, SF and Noctivid. But at this momen i even didn't look through anyone of them (all i know about them - just thanks to forums). I want to pick one optimal variant optically and mechanically. I maybe even more suppose EDG or Noctivid, i think (they're more compact).
EDG vs NV optically (central and edge sharpness, brightness, performance in darkness) and mechanically (toughness and robustness, quality of manufacturing overall) - which one better in Your opinion?
2. Same as "1", but between Leica UVHD+ and SFL (both 8*30/32) (because they're small, what i prefer in *32 format)???
Thank You, Sir!

I have not seen 8x30 sfl. but I think 8x32 UV is bit better overall. but it doesn't have much ER then other bino at that price point.
I'll go for UV if the price is same, but if it differs over 700$, I'll go for SFL

 

[Viraj]

@jackjack I am wondering if there is a big difference between the SFL 10x40 and the Nikon Monarch HG 10x42. Because these days Monarch HG 10x42 is less than half the price (with a 200 euro cash back) compared to the SFL 10x40. Did you compare them by any chance? What do you think about CA control between them?

Once you mentioned the optics of SFL are closer to the Conquest. Is it applicable to CA control as well? Looking forward to seeing your expert view on this matter.

Thank you.
Viraj

 

[jackjack]

@jackjack I am wondering if there is a big difference between the SFL 10x40 and the Nikon Monarch HG 10x42. Because these days Monarch HG 10x42 is less than half the price (with a 200 euro cash back) compared to the SFL 10x40. Did you compare them by any chance? What do you think about CA control between them?

Once you mentioned the optics of SFL are closer to the Conquest. Is it applicable to CA control as well? Looking forward to seeing your expert view on this matter.

Thank you.
Viraj

I don't compared HG with sfl. but compared conquest 10x42 with SFL 10x42

sfl has much higer color fidelity (conquset yellowish green.)
so brightness might feel better in sfl.
Conquest 10x42 have big CA problem in it's price point. SFL 10x42 have much CA in the rim but much better in the center of the FOV.
and focus snap will be much better in SFL. conquset 10 power too fast focus for shallow depth of field which made the focus too finicky.

conquset 10x42 is significantly sharper then same size nikon monarch hg and se.
conquest 8x32 is more step over then hg 8x30.

conquest suffers from high CA and over fast focus wheel. but it's sharpness is right below tfl.

but, I think mornach hg has more compactness (less weight) and better eyepoint.
I want to say conquesr is optically superior in optics then MHG but only conquset that is superior except for the suze and weight compared to similar spec MHG is conquest 8x32. best amog 32 ~ 42 conquset for me.

 

[Andy Gan]

conquset 10x42 is significantly sharper then same size nikon monarch hg and se.
conquest 8x32 is more step over then hg 8x30.

conquest suffers from high CA and over fast focus wheel. but it's sharpness is right below tfl.

but, I think mornach hg has more compactness (less weight) and better eyepoint.

1. I bought MHG 8x30 due to it size and weight, but unfortunately i suffer from blackouts (finicky eyes placement) and glares. Can you tell what about "eyes placement (blackouts)" and "edge-sharpness (edge fringing)" in Conquest HD 8x32?
Especially interesting for me "ease of eyes placing" when looking through bino with switched-off (position "zero") eyecups?

2. In Conquest 8x32 also narrow depth of focus and much CA?

3. How finicky eyes placing in Conquests (both 8x32 and 10x42)?

 

[jackjack]

1. I bought MHG 8x30 due to it size and weight, but unfortunately i suffer from blackouts (finicky eyes placement) and glares. Can you tell what about "eyes placement (blackouts)" and "edge-sharpness (edge fringing)" in Conquest HD 8x32?
Especially interesting for me "ease of eyes placing" when looking through bino with switched-off (position "zero") eyecups?

2. In Conquest 8x32 also narrow depth of focus and much CA?

3. How finicky eyes placing in Conquests (both 8x32 and 10x42)?

30mm has much larger eyecup then 25mm but little bit smaller then 32mm MHG and 7,M7 all have problems.
the depth of field gets deeper when magnification gets lower. also CA gets better.
so I love 8 power conquest more because two main negatives (CA, over fast focus) eased a bit when using smaller power.
but still, 8x32 conquset have shallower depth compared to other 8x32 such as swaro EL, NL, leica UV

to me, 42mm conquset each has too much real eyerelif for it's fov and eye cup length.
10x42 is not that severe but 8x42 is one of the finickiest eye potint I ever seen....
(because 10x42 have 66 fov and 8x42 have 59 at same 18mm ER)
I will not recommend 8x42 conquest for non spec users unless they have extended eyecups that zeiss sells.

fallout is bit stronger on the edges on conquset 8x32 but the percentage is better on conquset 8x32 (MHG 8x30 under 80% and Conquset anout 83 ~ 85%)

and conquest 8x32's FOV is much wider then 8 degrees that zeiss declared

above is zeiss conquest 8x32
below is zeiss sfl 8x40

zeiss declares the fov of 140/1000 (8 in real) in both.

 

[Viraj]

I don't compared HG with sfl. but compared conquest 10x42 with SFL 10x42

sfl has much higer color fidelity (conquset yellowish green.)
so brightness might feel better in sfl.
Conquest 10x42 have big CA problem in it's price point. SFL 10x42 have much CA in the rim but much better in the center of the FOV.
and focus snap will be much better in SFL. conquset 10 power too fast focus for shallow depth of field which made the focus too finicky.

conquset 10x42 is significantly sharper then same size nikon monarch hg and se.
conquest 8x32 is more step over then hg 8x30.

conquest suffers from high CA and over fast focus wheel. but it's sharpness is right below tfl.

but, I think mornach hg has more compactness (less weight) and better eyepoint.
I want to say conquesr is optically superior in optics then MHG but only conquset that is superior except for the suze and weight compared to similar spec MHG is conquest 8x32. best amog 32 ~ 42 conquset for me.

Thank you for your kind explanation. According to it, SFL 10x40 is a clear step above Conquest HD and Monarch HG 10x42s and it has better CA control than the other two. It seems having SFL 10x40 is worth it 😊

 

[jackjack]

Thank you for your kind explanation. According to it, SFL 10x40 is a clear step above Conquest HD and Monarch HG 10x42s and it has better CA control than the other two. It seems having SFL 10x40 is worth it 😊

I haven compared mhg and sfl... but have conpared each of them with same reference. zeiss conquest 10x42 and Swaro EL 10x32 think sfl 10x40 have bit more CA at the edges of the fov then MHG. but better in center. sfl 10x40 CA gap between center and the edges above the average binocular of the similar specs.

 

[Andy Gan]

30mm has much larger eyecup then 25mm but little bit smaller then 32mm MHG and 7,M7 all have problems.
the depth of field gets deeper when magnification gets lower. also CA gets better.
so I love 8 power conquest more because two main negatives (CA, over fast focus) eased a bit when using smaller power.
but still, 8x32 conquset have shallower depth compared to other 8x32 such as swaro EL, NL, leica UV

to me, 42mm conquset each has too much real eyerelif for it's fov and eye cup length.
10x42 is not that severe but 8x42 is one of the finickiest eye potint I ever seen....
(because 10x42 have 66 fov and 8x42 have 59 at same 18mm ER)
I will not recommend 8x42 conquest for non spec users unless they have extended eyecups that zeiss sells.

fallout is bit stronger on the edges on conquset 8x32 but the percentage is better on conquset 8x32 (MHG 8x30 under 80% and Conquset anout 83 ~ 85%)

and conquest 8x32's FOV is much wider then 8 degrees that zeiss declared

above is zeiss conquest 8x32
below is zeiss sfl 8x40

zeiss declares the fov of 140/1000 (8 in real) in both.
View attachment 1562758

Thank you for such contained answer, Sir.
But also want to read your position about "eyes positioning (blackouts)" in Conquest HD 8x32 - is it finicky? Especially when looking through with non-pulled eyecups (i love brow-technique)...

 

[jackjack]

Thank you for such contained answer, Sir.
But also want to read your position about "eyes positioning (blackouts)" in Conquest HD 8x32 - is it finicky? Especially when looking through with non-pulled eyecups (i love brow-technique)...

I think the eye placement is best among 32 ~ 42 conquset to me.
I have no complaints using it with and without glasses.
it is still one of my daily birding bino even I have 8x32 EL. more rugged armor and better focusing Ideal for birding with scopes.

 

[Andy Gan]

in best among 32 ~ 42 conquset to me.

Im afraid i cannot surely understood that sentence((

ALSO: Did you try SFL 8x30 (i thinking about it too - if conquest will not make it)???
How in SFL 8x30 about "eyes placing" and "durability"?
Is there any optical and mechanical weaknesses in SFL 8x30 overall?

 

[jackjack]

Im afraid i cannot surely understood that sentence((

ALSO: Did you try SFL 8x30 (i thinking about it too - if conquest will not make it)???
How in SFL 8x30 about "eyes placing" and "durability"?
Is there any optical and mechanical weaknesses in SFL 8x30 overall?

I haven't tried 30mm sfl. it is still not available in South Korea yet...