• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Cl Companion 8x30 vs. SFL 8x30 vs. ? (1 Viewer)

I'll be interested to know how your find the eye placement - some users have reported blackouts and "kidney beaning" which has to date put me off getting one. The CL B is very forgiving in this respect.
 
Let us now what you think of it! :)
In what why does it complement your line up of binoculars?

I will do when I receive it next week!
I have 3 binoculars in 32mm aperture. All of them are 6x: Leupold Katmai, Vortex Bantam(it is claimed to be 6,5x but I am sure it is closer to 6x) and Vortex Viper HD.
When I had Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42(sold it) I noticed that I mostly chose Viper HD 6x32 because of the size and weight. When size and weight is not an issue 8x42 is often better. But when walking in the wilderness I just found the 32mm glass to be more comfortable to carry around. And still it provided the comfort close to 42mm size.
I like 6x because of the stable view and long depth of field. And 6x32 has the same brightness as 8x42 so it is good for low light conditions too.
But sometimes I want a bit higher magnification, and have sought since decades for a 8x30/32.
And I want to use binoculars with eyeglasses. The only 8x32 I know which gave me sufficient eye relief is Swaro EL. But it was several years ago and I could not then afford it.
Some year ago I tried Conquest HD 8x32.
I was very impressed by the super sharp image. On axis sharper than Conquest 8x42.
Unfortunately the usable ER was not really sufficient.
I could see the entire FOV but it was not an "open view", the image was vignetted.
I guesstimate it lacked ~2mm to get the satisfying image.
So when I read that SFL 8x30 is measured to have 3mm longer usable ER than Conquest HD 8x32 I understand it really SHOULD work.
There are several reports who points towards that SFL 8X30 may have the greatest usable ER of a 8x30 ever.
So if theory and practise are agreed this binocular can be the model I dream of since long time.
Adding to this, that SFL models have a clean really good looking design, makes it even better.
I have ordered SFL 8x30 without paying it in advance, and can send it back if it(hope not) still would not fulfull my expectation.
 
Last edited:
I bought the Zeiss SFL 8x30 as a successor to my Nikon M7 8x30. I think the Zeiss is the most beautiful 8x30 binoculars available and it looks robust, which does not mean that it is. It fits comfortably in the hand and I quickly got used to the center position of the focuser. But visually I never experienced the wow feeling. That may be because my Nikon was also very good optically. So I don't experience the Zeiss as clearly better than my much cheaper Nikon. I find the field stop in the Zeiss annoying, which is a vague black edge and if I press my eyes deeper into the eyepiece, it improves slightly, but then ends up in black spots. On my Nikon, the field stop is razor-sharp, which gives a more pleasant and tidy overall image. In retrospect, I actually think the Zeiss is a bit too expensive for what it offers. I would like to compare my Zeiss with the Swaro Companion, which I think are nice binoculars, but as someone once wrote here "too boutique appearance"
 
I bought the Zeiss SFL 8x30 as a successor to my Nikon M7 8x30. I think the Zeiss is the most beautiful 8x30 binoculars available and it looks robust, which does not mean that it is. It fits comfortably in the hand and I quickly got used to the center position of the focuser. But visually I never experienced the wow feeling. That may be because my Nikon was also very good optically. So I don't experience the Zeiss as clearly better than my much cheaper Nikon. I find the field stop in the Zeiss annoying, which is a vague black edge and if I press my eyes deeper into the eyepiece, it improves slightly, but then ends up in black spots. On my Nikon, the field stop is razor-sharp, which gives a more pleasant and tidy overall image. In retrospect, I actually think the Zeiss is a bit too expensive for what it offers. I would like to compare my Zeiss with the Swaro Companion, which I think are nice binoculars, but as someone once wrote here "too boutique appearance"

I forgot to tell that Nikon M7 8x30 is also a binocular I hoped for, and tried. Unfortunately the eye relief was not sufficient. But the image was excellent, very sharp.
I noticed it has a bit unnecessary high eyecup edge wasting a bit of the ER. And here we can praise SFLs eyepiece design which allows to make use of as much as possible of the ER.
Swarovski Curio 7x21 and NL models the same.
There are many examples of binoculars where ER should allow satisfying views with eyeglasses but several mm of the ER is wasted because of a bad design.
 
Thanks. If I didn't have the Swarovski SLC 8x42 I think I would go for the SFL 8x40 as well. They are really comfortable in de hands and the focuser is on the right spot. I have my doubts about the placement of the focuser of the SFL 30's.
Why not just go with SFL 8x40...that's what I would do. If you like them better than the 8x30 SFL or 8x30 CL then that's it. The SFL 8x40's are the ones you like. They're quite a bit lighter than the SLC's so you could justify it that way :)

When I tried the SFL's I particularly liked the focuser, seemed the same as the SF's, and I did not like the focuser on the CL's at all. The 8x30 SFL seems small for holding comfortably, I would just take the 8x40's and enjoy the benefits of more aperture and longer tubes for your hands to grasp.
 
Today I will pick up the SFL 8x30.
This will be very interesting. If the optical quality is as good as Conquest HD 8x32 but with sufficient eye relief I will be completely satisfied.
 
I bought the Zeiss SFL 8x30 as a successor to my Nikon M7 8x30. I think the Zeiss is the most beautiful 8x30 binoculars available and it looks robust, which does not mean that it is. It fits comfortably in the hand and I quickly got used to the center position of the focuser. But visually I never experienced the wow feeling. That may be because my Nikon was also very good optically. So I don't experience the Zeiss as clearly better than my much cheaper Nikon. I find the field stop in the Zeiss annoying, which is a vague black edge and if I press my eyes deeper into the eyepiece, it improves slightly, but then ends up in black spots. On my Nikon, the field stop is razor-sharp, which gives a more pleasant and tidy overall image. In retrospect, I actually think the Zeiss is a bit too expensive for what it offers. I would like to compare my Zeiss with the Swaro Companion, which I think are nice binoculars, but as someone once wrote here "too boutique appearance"
I agree that the Zeiss SFL's are much too expensive for what they offer. The field stop in both my SFL's had a blue tint, probably similar to the black edge you are describing, which I found very annoying.

I found the Nikon M7 equal to it optically also and the Nikon MHG, Zeiss Conquest HD, Swarovski CL and especially the Swarovski SLC superior in optics for the same or less money.
 
It will be an absolute delight to hear from someone who is actually pleased, if not delighted, with their purchase.

We look forward to your report.
 
Based on three SFL I have owned, I think they are priced where they’fit in’. Dennis is obsessed with blue ring (which I have never seen). I find the SFL’s equal or better than anything short of NL or NV.
The constant downplaying of these models by Dennis, more than all other models combined I suspect, is strange to be honest.

However, as a birder, do I want everyone walking round with the exact same binoculars as me? No, I don't. I know the advantages and I know where I have an "edge" with sfl's and my other equipment each time I venture out.

Is the constant criticism going to affect the resale value/demand? Not really, I'm expecting to keep my sfl's for at least 5 years.

"Birdwatch them into the ground "!
 
Based on three SFL I have owned, I think they are priced where they’fit in’. Dennis is obsessed with blue ring (which I have never seen). I find the SFL’s equal or better than anything short of NL or NV.
Other birders see the 'Blue Ring of Death' or rather the 'Black Ring of Death' in this case. It is not just me. He didn't think the SFL was any better than his M7, and I agree.

"So I don't experience the Zeiss as clearly better than my much cheaper Nikon. I find the field stop in the Zeiss annoying, which is a vague black edge and if I press my eyes deeper into the eyepiece, it improves slightly, but then ends up in black spots. On my Nikon, the field stop is razor-sharp, which gives a more pleasant and tidy overall image. In retrospect, I actually think the Zeiss is a bit too expensive for what it offers."
 
Why is that exactly? The newer CL is a bit lighter, a bit brighter (according to a test of HouseOfOutdoors), has a bit larger FOV and eye relief. Or is het just the ergonomics that suite you better?
Sorry I didn't get to this before now...

So we have basically 17oz vs 18oz via my scale. Really that's no difference at all IMO.
Light transmission- 90% vs. 92%. I sure can't tell the difference.
FOV- Really...this was the whole reason I purchased the new Companion CL B, increased FOV. For me at least, the difference is minor in actual use. I'll be the first to admit to being a FOV junky....and it certainly is a box I would have checked and in fact did check.
ER- the difference has been of no consequence for me either way. I use both all the way in/down.
Focus- the previous CL focus is linear and smooth. Excellent. For me the CL B while still a good focus IS a step down from the CL.
Diopter adjustment- I wonder if the CL B is the worst designed diopter adjustment? It's pretty close.
Size- The CL is just a little bit smaller/compact. At one time this was the smallest binocular I had so at one point this made a difference. Now, I have more compact choices!

Yes, on paper the CL B SEEMS as if it would bury the model it replaced. As binocular buyers we are swooned by charts/graphs/photos/reviews UNTIL we actually own/use said products. As experience grows and our optic rearview mirror has many roads we have once traveled we realize the differences between two really good binoculars are in fact very small indeed. Much wisdom is gained by spending $1100 on a "better" binocular only to realize there was nothing wrong with the previous binocular to start with!
 
Last edited:
Other birders see the 'Blue Ring of Death' or rather the 'Black Ring of Death' in this case. It is not just me. He didn't think the SFL was any better than his M7, and I agree.

"So I don't experience the Zeiss as clearly better than my much cheaper Nikon. I find the field stop in the Zeiss annoying, which is a vague black edge and if I press my eyes deeper into the eyepiece, it improves slightly, but then ends up in black spots. On my Nikon, the field stop is razor-sharp, which gives a more pleasant and tidy overall image. In retrospect, I actually think the Zeiss is a bit too expensive for what it offers."
I don't know if your "blue ring of death" is the same phenomenon as my hazy fieldstop. What is strange is that I have not heard any other SFL 8x30 owners complain about the "blue ring of death" or a hazy fieldstop
 
Other birders see the 'Blue Ring of Death' or rather the 'Black Ring of Death' in this case. It is not just me. He didn't think the SFL was any better than his M7, and I agree.

"So I don't experience the Zeiss as clearly better than my much cheaper Nikon. I find the field stop in the Zeiss annoying, which is a vague black edge and if I press my eyes deeper into the eyepiece, it improves slightly, but then ends up in black spots. On my Nikon, the field stop is razor-sharp, which gives a more pleasant and tidy overall image. In retrospect, I actually think the Zeiss is a bit too expensive for what it offers."
I don't object to other's opinions/reviews. At this level of quality they are just POV's and very subjective. I simply prefer to present my opinion with the YMMV caveat, rather than repeatedly hammering some awful perceived fault.
 
As binocular buyers we are swooned by charts/graphs/photos/reviews UNTIL we actually own/use said products. As experience grows and our optic rearview mirror has many roads we have once traveled we realize the differences between two really good binoculars are in fact very small indeed. Much wisdom is gained by spending $1100 on a "better" binocular only to realize there was nothing wrong with the previous binocular to start with!
Yea verily!

This should be graven in stone.

Selecting binoculars by reading spec sheets is absolute folly, and a good way to end up with a binocular you dislike.

Somewhere, somehow, somewhen, find a copy and actually look through it. (look into the end with the small lenses)
 
Today I will pick up the SFL 8x30.
This will be very interesting. If the optical quality is as good as Conquest HD 8x32 but with sufficient eye relief I will be completely satisfied.

 
Sorry I didn't get to this before now...

So we have basically 17oz vs 18oz via my scale. Really that's no difference at all IMO.
Light transmission- 90% vs. 92%. I sure can't tell the difference.
FOV- Really...this was the whole reason I purchased the new Companion CL B, increased FOV. For me at least, the difference is minor in actual use. I'll be the first to admit to being a FOV junky....and it certainly is a box I would have checked and in fact did check.
ER- the difference has been of no consequence for me either way. I use both all the way in/down.
Focus- the previous CL focus is linear and smooth. Excellent. For me the CL B while still a good focus IS a step down from the CL.
Diopter adjustment- I wonder if the CL B is the worst designed diopter adjustment? It's pretty close.
Size- The CL is just a little bit smaller/compact. At one time this was the smallest binocular I had so at one point this made a difference. Now, I have more compact choices!

Yes, on paper the CL B SEEMS as if it would bury the model it replaced. As binocular buyers we are swooned by charts/graphs/photos/reviews UNTIL we actually own/use said products. As experience grows and our optic rearview mirror has many roads we have once traveled we realize the differences between two really good binoculars are in fact very small indeed. Much wisdom is gained by spending $1100 on a "better" binocular only to realize there was nothing wrong with the previous binocular to start with!

Thanks for the reply!
You have explained that the newer CL isn't really an upgrade (for you) and I get that. However, you have not explained why you like the older CL better. Or are they just equal? Ah wait, now I say you prefer the focuser of the older one and the compactness as well.
I see a good deal (800 euros) for the older CL 8x30, but somehow I am willing to to spend 300-400 euro more for the newer one (I like anthracite and the older one is green). I am asking myself what the reason is, except for the colour.
Good to know the old CL is a good option as well!
 
For what it's worth I've tried both the old and new CL 8x30. I much preferred the feel of the old version in the hand - it's nicely compact and doesn't use the FieldPro system. However I thought the view through the new one was definitely a step up. The only thing that stopped me buying the new model was that damned dioptre! Optically though, I thought it was pretty decent.
 
For what it's worth I've tried both the old and new CL 8x30. I much preferred the feel of the old version in the hand - it's nicely compact and doesn't use the FieldPro system. However I thought the view through the new one was definitely a step up. The only thing that stopped me buying the new model was that damned dioptre! Optically though, I thought it was pretty decent.
I came to the same conclusions when I compared my 8x30 original CL to the CL-b. Overall I prefer the original CL even though the CL-b image is a bit better.

I also find the usable eye relief to be a little more in the original CL; the eyecups are almost flush with the ocular lenses which helps for people with eyeglasses. The CL-b eyecups sit substantially higher above the ocular lenses. I felt usable ER wasn't quite enough in the CL-b for me. The original CL has barely enough ER but I get by; could use an extra mm.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth I've tried both the old and new CL 8x30. I much preferred the feel of the old version in the hand - it's nicely compact and doesn't use the FieldPro system. However I thought the view through the new one was definitely a step up. The only thing that stopped me buying the new model was that damned dioptre! Optically though, I thought it was pretty decent.
It sounds like you hate the FP system as much as I do. I have actually grown to hate it because when your strap gets twisted you have TWO different things to untwist the FP attachment swivel AND the strap, and you have to figure out which one is twisted which by trial and error.

It is a royal PIA, and It has caused me to avoid Swarovski binoculars, even though they are excellent optically outside of the glare. 😁
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top