Einblickverhalten/ease of view FL 7x42 vs FL 8x32 (1 Viewer)

[Ignatius]

Since I do not personally know anyone who has both those binos, or who could lend me an FL 8x32 for comparison, here's a question for anyone who does have both or at least has experience of both: is the ease of view or Einblickverhalten of the Zeiss FL T* 8x32 comparable that of the FL T* 7x42?
As per the marketing literature both have the same ER, but of course there is a difference of 2 mm in the EP and presumably the eyecup diameter of the 8x32 is smaller than the 41 mm of the 7x42.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Canip]

For me, the 7x42 is clearly better in terms of ease of view. The 7x42 has about 3 mm more „usable“ eye relief, since the eyecup fully screwed in is almost flush with the outmost lens of the eyepiece, on the 8x32 I „lose“ about 1.5 - 2 mm, and technical eye relief is 1 mm shorter than on the 7x42.

 

[Patudo]

If you ever visit Central London you would be most welcome to try my 8x32 FL! I find the 8x32 much more exacting in eye placement when long range scanning for distant targets (I thought jackjack addressed the reasons for this very well in some of his posts), but at more typical birding distances this isn't a problem; sweet spot seems larger at short distances too. With the wide FOV and fast focus, plus excellent brightness, light weight and superb clean image, it's a great example of the modern birding 8x32.

I haven't tried the 7x42 FL but its predecessor, the famous Dialyt, is a bit of a different animal. Focus is slower (but made up by the excellent depth of field) and it doesn't feel as handy or as "quick on the bird" because of its length, but the very wide field of view helps and the length of the binocular means you can hold it very steadily, which in conjunction with the 7x magnification makes it great if you are at sea or in a situation where there is significant buffeting from the wind. Large exit pupil indeed makes for effortless viewing. I think the 8x32 FL is better for pure birding, especially at short to medium distances where you are quickly going back and forth, but the 7x42 is probably a better "general purpose" binocular.

 

[Swissboy]

Since I do not personally know anyone who has both those binos, or who could lend me an FL 8x32 for comparison, here's a question for anyone who does have both or at least has experience of both: is the ease of view or Einblickverhalten of the Zeiss FL T* 8x32 comparable that of the FL T* 7x42?
As per the marketing literature both have the same ER, but of course there is a difference of 2 mm in the EP and presumably the eyecup diameter of the 8x32 is smaller than the 41 mm of the 7x42.
Thanks in advance.

I did own a 8x32 FL for some time, but the new 8x30 SFL is so much better. I still own the 7x42 FL and it is definitely much better than the 8x32 FL. But it is also much heavier as all x42 FLs. The x42 FL models all have Abbe-Koenig prisms which I think makes them particularly outstanding optically. The x32 FLs have the more customary Schmidt-Pechan prisms. The SFLs have the same type, but they have a considerably brighter view, reminding me of the Abbe-Koenig views. 8x40 SFL have in my opinion even a bit more comfortable ease of view. I say this as one who needs to use glasses while looking through all optics.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Regarding FL vs SFL, I concur with Swissboy. I do think the 8x32FL represents the high point of German built Zeiss bins. Everything from armor, focus mechanism, view, etc speaks of quality and thoughtfulness. My first 8x30SFL followed an 8x40 until my wife noted she preferred them to 8x30HG’s. Just recently, in an obsessive attempt to lighten my travel pack (big FF camera kit, travel scope and tripod, food, water, clothing layers…) I purchased a second pair! I’m really struggling with thought of selling the little FLs, for fear I’ll regret it.
But yes, ER (I wear specs) makes the SFLs a better choice, and they are not as tubby, so easier to fit in smaller places (in addition to being a little lighter.
Dunno…

 

[james holdsworth]

lol, back in its day people complained about the FL looking and feeling cheap and flimsy. I loved mine, but the polycarbonate body was offputting to many others.

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi Ignatius,

I’d expect a big difference in the ease of view of the FL 7x42 compared to the 8x32, due to the significant difference in the exit pupil sizes.

We often fail to appreciate EP size differences, due to the convention of expressing them in terms of diameter
(from the expedient of dividing the objective diameter by the magnification).

However, in use we experience EP’s in terms of their area. And in this instance a 6 mm diameter EP has 2.25 times the area of a 4 mm one!
(28.27 sq. mm vs 12.57 sq. mm).


John

 

[tenex]

I’d expect a big difference in the ease of view of the FL 7x42 compared to the 8x32, due to the significant difference in the exit pupil sizes.

I've always wondered whether Einblickverhalten is meant to be all about the eye-box or to involve exit pupil too. I've used 10x32 for years with no complaints, so it's hard for me to imagine that the 4mm pupil of an 8x32 can seem inadequate. I also have 10x56 and will admit that its larger EP seems quite luxurious when first bringing a bin to the eyes, or in windy or otherwise unstable conditions, but in normal use I experience no real difference in comfort. Once the EP drops to 2.5mm or less it's a different story, but anything from 3.2mm up really feels just fine to me. (One of our 10x32s is the FL and I like it very much.)

 

[John A Roberts]

Hi tenex,

It seems that only recently there’s been discussion here on BF about the eyebox in relation to binoculars,
and I’m not sure how relevant the concept is.


It’s long been significant in relation to telescopic sights, e.g.

From: Large eyebox for comfortable oberservation.

To address the recoil of a rifle, not only is the face not in physical contact with the optic, but the eye relief often needs to be several inches
(with 3” to 3 1/2” inches being not uncommon).


In contrast with a binocular, eye relief typically ranges from around 1/2” (c. 13 mm) to less than 1” (25 mm).
And once the eyecups have been correctly set, they are typically in contact with the face (or the glasses).

So the consistent indexing of the eyes - both front-to-rear, and also vertically and laterally - doesn't seem to be in the same order of concern.


John

 

[Ignatius]

The concept of eye box has been known to me for years from my crossbow/my father-in-law's hunting rifles. I just didn't know until very recently it was called an eye box. Thank you for separating the wheat from the chaff, Mr. Roberts.
As far as the area of the EP vs it's diameter goes, that is something I had made a little table of some time ago, to visualize if you want, the difference in the amount of light that reaches the eye. At the time it did not strike me as a potential influence on the ease of view. I shall now test that idea and return to that table and compare the Einblickverhalten of my binos with an eye on the respective AREA of the exit pupil - which would predict that my 6x30 Telexem has a similar ease of view to my 8x32 Steiner (discounting any other factors such as coatings, age etc.) since both have an EP area of 12.6 mm².

 

[Patudo]

t seems that only recently there’s been discussion here on BF about the eyebox in relation to binoculars,
and I’m not sure how relevant the concept is.

I think the "eye box" concept has a close relationship with ease of view (which has been discussed using various terms - "quiet" view, etc - for ages), although the specifics of eye box design for rifle scopes would obviously differ to those for binoculars. It's noticeable (to me anyway, but I'm sure to others as well) that even within the same format (eg. 8x30) eye placement in some binoculars is more exacting than others - IPD and eyecup settings need to be more precise; more familiarity/practice is needed in positioning the binocular to your eyes. I used to think the effortless eye placement and incredibly accessible view of something like the 8.5x42 EL had something to do with its flat field, but more likely it's something to do with eye box design. It would be interesting to learn more about the choices and compromises needed to achieve that generous eye box.

I think it's a highly relevant concept, even though ease of view can be quite subjective - different individuals will find certain binoculars/formats easier or more difficult to use. My brother much prefers 5mm exit pupil (traditionally the main reference point for ease of view, because more easily quantifiable) to 4mm; I'm happy with the latter (and down to 3.75mm), but something like an 8x25 Victory Pocket, though offering outstanding image quality, and excellent for the kind of birding where you find the bird with the unaided eye and use the binoculars for a (normally fairly short) look at it, gets uncomfortable for long periods of scanning.

 

[Scott98]

Sounds like the Zeiss binocular people need to talk to the riflescope people about the importance of "eye box"

 

[mbb]

I have both an FL 8x32 and an FL 7x42.
The 7x42 is clearly the one with the most amazing view: stable, wide view, with incredible transparancy and brightness, especially in low light, but e.g.also in the woods. I can't imagine selling them. Their only negative points is their sweet spot is not huge and they don't have the same 'pop' or so that e.g.a Habicht can give in good light (because of non-flat transmission curve?).
Obviously, they are bigger than the 8x32... But still not heavy for a 42mm set, and considerably shorter than the 8x or 10x or most recent alpha's (SF, NL, ...).

The 8x32 don't give me that same "wow" and I'm still sometimes puzzled about them (some lack of contrast?), but their view is that impressively free of CA, glare etc. that they are tremendously reliable, more than many other binoculars. And obviously smaller and thus I take them more quickly on more casual walks. Their a bit chubby relatively to their length,but much shorter than e.g. recent alpha's like 32mm SF or NL, and I quite like their handling, actually, and their feeling of being reliable (optically and mechanically).

The 7x42 also clearly does have a better/easier viewing comfort, but, for me, purely because of the larger exit pupil, I think. (I don't wear glasses, thus the eye relief is fine on both for me.) I do notice it both during extended viewing as well as just when bringing them to my eyes. It's one of the reasons I like them.
Maybe there is a difference in diameter of the eyecups, but I don't know: I have never noticed or bothered about it, and thus never measured/compared it. I could measure/compare if you would like it. (In comparison: the Habicht, or 8x25 binoculars do have considerably smaller eyecups.)


Feel free to ask if you have any more questions! (I'm no expert though and have no real field experience with any of the NL, SF, HT, SFL... I hope one day I will . Only with the UV, FL, Habicht, and a small number of compacts or non-alpha's.)

 

[Ignatius]

@mbb, thank you for being on topic and sharing your insights into those two binos with me. I have the FL 7x42 myself but was looking for some input whether the 8x32 would be an option giving me the same easy viewing comfort as its physically bigger sibling. Looks as though I will stick to the 7x and not add the 8x to my stable. I am not saying it is bad, not having any 1st hand experience of it, but I do not think I would be getting the ROI I am expecting.
The 2012 FL 7x42, which I got NOS, is THE most comfortable bino I have, closely followed by the SFL 8x40 and I cannot imagine selling either one. Contrary to my 8x30 and 7x42 Habichts, both of which I got rid of in the last year. The 7x42 with its bright, sharp but limited field of view made way for the superior FL and the 8x30 with its somewhat fiddly eye placement made way for an SFL 8x30 for my wife.

 

[mbb]

@mbb, thank you for being on topic and sharing your insights into those two binos with me. I have the FL 7x42 myself but was looking for some input whether the 8x32 would be an option giving me the same easy viewing comfort as its physically bigger sibling. Looks as though I will stick to the 7x and not add the 8x to my stable. I am not saying it is bad, not having any 1st hand experience of it, but I do not think I would be getting the ROI I am expecting.
The 2012 FL 7x42, which I got NOS, is THE most comfortable bino I have, closely followed by the SFL 8x40 and I cannot imagine selling either one. Contrary to my 8x30 and 7x42 Habichts, both of which I got rid of in the last year. The 7x42 with its bright, sharp but limited field of view made way for the superior FL and the 8x30 with its somewhat fiddly eye placement made way for an SFL 8x30 for my wife.

Without wanting to diverge the topic too much, the fact that you have the two 8x SFL's (8x30 ánd 8x40, which interest me) as well as the FL 7x42 (which I have) make me véry curious about your experience comparing them, both regarding view comfort (blackouts etc.) as well as optical quality (CA, brightness, sharpness, glare resistance...).
The SFL's really have caught my interest: the 8x30 if it would be better than the FL8x32, the 8x40 if it would be the perfect combo with my pocket 8x20 as a dual-setup, e.g. for on holidays. But I have only had them in my hands for +/-15min in a shop looking through the window, without my FL's, but with the shop's 8x32 SF and 8x25 to compare.
The SFL 8x30 did give me the impression of giving more blackouts than what I have with my FL 8x32 (but didn't have at hand that time), but the SFL 8x40 did not.
I read somewhere (I think on an Italian review webpage) that the SFL 8x40 was brighter than the FL 7x42.I don't suppose that cannot apply in dim light with largely dilated pupils. I'm wondering if it's really brighter,or maybe rather more contrasty (which can be good or bad, depending to which extent: I find the Ultravid's sometimes creating a too busy image,e.g. ina view with many branches, more than realistic).

 

[Paultricounty]

As Patudo mentioned it’s very different in a rifle scope because we don’t have to align the two eyes to two different exit pupils, so it seems simpler to get a comfortable eye box, it comes down more to the distance of the eye to the focal point (if I’m explaining that right).
In the binoculars there are multiple things going on , not just eye relief and exit pupil size, but also the ocular design, whether there is truncating of the binoculars exit pupil and of course collimation all things to consider when comparing different binoculars. Imo it’s a combination of these factors that determine eye box comfort. For me I’d say the two best binoculars for eye comfort I’ve ever used, are the EL’s and and EDG’s in 42 and 32., especially the 8x and 8.5x.

 

[Ignatius]

Without wanting to diverge the topic too much, the fact that you have the two 8x SFL's (8x30 ánd 8x40, which interest me) as well as the FL 7x42 (which I have) make me véry curious about your experience comparing them, both regarding view comfort (blackouts etc.) as well as optical quality (CA, brightness, sharpness, glare resistance...).
The SFL's really have caught my interest: the 8x30 if it would be better than the FL8x32, the 8x40 if it would be the perfect combo with my pocket 8x20 as a dual-setup, e.g. for on holidays. But I have only had them in my hands for +/-15min in a shop looking through the window, without my FL's, but with the shop's 8x32 SF and 8x25 to compare.
The SFL 8x30 did give me the impression of giving more blackouts than what I have with my FL 8x32 (but didn't have at hand that time), but the SFL 8x40 did not.
I read somewhere (I think on an Italian review webpage) that the SFL 8x40 was brighter than the FL 7x42.I don't suppose that cannot apply in dim light with largely dilated pupils. I'm wondering if it's really brighter,or maybe rather more contrasty (which can be good or bad, depending to which extent: I find the Ultravid's sometimes creating a too busy image,e.g. ina view with many branches, more than realistic).

PM sent.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Without wanting to diverge the topic too much, the fact that you have the two 8x SFL's (8x30 ánd 8x40, which interest me) as well as the FL 7x42 (which I have) make me véry curious about your experience comparing them, both regarding view comfort (blackouts etc.) as well as optical quality (CA, brightness, sharpness, glare resistance...).
The SFL's really have caught my interest: the 8x30 if it would be better than the FL8x32, the 8x40 if it would be the perfect combo with my pocket 8x20 as a dual-setup, e.g. for on holidays. But I have only had them in my hands for +/-15min in a shop looking through the window, without my FL's, but with the shop's 8x32 SF and 8x25 to compare.
The SFL 8x30 did give me the impression of giving more blackouts than what I have with my FL 8x32 (but didn't have at hand that time), but the SFL 8x40 did not.
I read somewhere (I think on an Italian review webpage) that the SFL 8x40 was brighter than the FL 7x42.I don't suppose that cannot apply in dim light with largely dilated pupils. I'm wondering if it's really brighter,or maybe rather more contrasty (which can be good or bad, depending to which extent: I find the Ultravid's sometimes creating a too busy image,e.g. ina view with many branches, more than realistic).

I can't comment on the 7X but right now I have the 8x32FL, 8x30 and 8x40SFLs.

To me, the FL exudes German quality. I do think the 8x30SFL is a little brighter and the 40 again a little more (it might be largely the neutral color? Gijs' xmission spectra data show the FL top of these three!). The FL has less CA but the SFLs might be a tiny bit sharper.
30 vs 40 SFL is exactly as has been written many times: the 30 will black out if the ER and IPD are not set carefully (eye cups and hinge adjustment). The 40 permits sloppiness, the 30 required I make terms with it being a little fussier. I wear glasses with all above. In terms of IQ, I can't see wanting more than any of these, but yes other bins have wider FOV, flatter field, higher transmission specs, etc. The focus on my 3 Zeiss is very similar, and other than Noctivids, out of what I've owned, it's the best.

 

[Swissboy]

..........................

To me, the FL exudes German quality. I do think the 8x30SFL is a little brighter and the 40 again a little more (it might be largely the neutral color? Gijs' xmission spectra data show the FL top of these three!). The FL has less CA but the SFLs might be a tiny bit sharper.
30 vs 40 SFL is exactly as has been written many times: the 30 will black out if the ER and IPD are not set carefully (eye cups and hinge adjustment). The 40 permits sloppiness, the 30 required I make terms with it being a little fussier. I wear glasses with all above. In terms of IQ, I can't see wanting more than any of these, but yes other bins have wider FOV, flatter field, higher transmission specs, etc. The focus on my 3 Zeiss is very similar, and other than Noctivids, out of what I've owned, it's the best.

When comparing directly, the 8x32 FL clearly had the dullest view in my case. Not sure about that "German quality" of the 8x32 FL. I think the Zeiss designed Japanese SFLs "exude" just as much quality feel. With the added benefits of lighter weight, and closer minimum focusing . I agree that the x40 models permit more "sloppiness". But as always, one has to handle these models to get the ones that one thinks fits personal needs best.

 

[Pinewood]

Hi Ignatius,

I’d expect a big difference in the ease of view of the FL 7x42 compared to the 8x32, due to the significant difference in the exit pupil sizes.

We often fail to appreciate EP size differences, due to the convention of expressing them in terms of diameter
(from the expedient of dividing the objective diameter by the magnification).

However, in use we experience EP’s in terms of their area. And in this instance a 6 mm diameter EP has 2.25 times the area of a 4 mm one!
(28.27 sq. mm vs 12.57 sq. mm).


John

Hello,

I am getting old and my memory is a little faulty, but I do recall that comparing the square of the exit pupils was a common measurement. There may have been a name for this specification: relative light transmission?

Stay safe,
Arthur