How did they make the SFL so much lighter than the SF? (1 Viewer)

[Jaywalk]

How did Zeiss make the SFL so much lighter than the SF, and cheaper? Is it less robust because of the lightening process? Is it perhaps smaller?

I've had my 8x42 SF happily for seven years, but somehow it became heavier over the years and I'm looking to add something lighter. I may go with a small pocket 7-8x20-25 to complement the SF, or perhaps the 8x30 SFL to replace the heavier unit. I could use some advice as to what the tradeoffs were to achieve the significant weight reduction in the SFL.

Thanks.

 

[Ignatius]

By skimping on the glass

 

[Scott98]

The 8x42 SF is only 3-4 ounces heavier than the 8x40 SFL I think? The objective lenses and barrel tubes are smaller. The AFOV is slightly smaller, so the prisms are probably smaller as well. The ocular lenses probably weigh slightly less. The SF's are long, the SFL's are shorter for more weight savings.

I'm the same way on a smaller bino - the 40mm SFL's aren't small enough. I wanted something under 20 ounces. After looking into the smaller Zeiss, Nikon and Swaro options, I settled on a pair of 1980's Nikon 7x35E for my lightweight bino at 19 ounces. I liked the 8x30 Nikon Monarch HG (16 ounces) but didn't want to spend that much money.

 

[MiddleRiver]

How did Zeiss make the SFL so much lighter than the SF, and cheaper? Is it less robust because of the lightening process? Is it perhaps smaller?

I've had my 8x42 SF happily for seven years, but somehow it became heavier over the years and I'm looking to add something lighter. I may go with a small pocket 7-8x20-25 to complement the SF, or perhaps the 8x30 SFL to replace the heavier unit. I could use some advice as to what the tradeoffs were to achieve the significant weight reduction in the SFL.

Thanks.

If you really want to go light/compact, but keep a big-bin view, try and 8x30. I can speak to SFL and HG (both excellent) and some praise the CL of course.

 

[Jaywalk]

Good points. Smaller is okay, but thinner and not as robust would be a little less so.

I have finally realized that the SF is discontinued while the SFL is a different line, not a modification to the older one. It's embarrassing to think that I care about the marketing targets for binoculars. (Edit: discovered that I had erred in stating the SF was discontinued.)

The ProStaff 8x25 looks to be about 12 ounces, while the 8x30 is about 16 ounces. It hardly seems worthwhile from a weight perspective to lose that much performance for four ounces.

 

[Jaywalk]

If you really want to go light/compact, but keep a big-bin view, try and 8x30. I can speak to SFL and HG (both excellent) and some praise the CL of course.

You're referring to the Monarch HG? In 8x30, how do the Monarch HG and the SFL compare?

 

[MiddleRiver]

You should go back and read other threads to get a balanced opinion.

We own 8x30 MHG and 8x30 SFL. My wife compared them and preferred the Zeiss (they are her everyday bins). I prefer the view of the Nikon (more Leica like and the specs are generally similar, but the SFL has - by far imho - the better focuser and I like the 'germanic' aesthetics. Purely subjective. They are both completely useable binoculars for everyday birding, and very well suited for travel and hiking. The Zeiss is several hundred dollar more expensive.

 

[fazalmajid]

I have finally realized that the SF is discontinued while the SFL is a different line, not a modification to the older one.

When was the SF discontinued? Are you thinking of the HT, perhaps?

 

[MiddleRiver]

You're referring to the Monarch HG? In 8x30, how do the Monarch HG and the SFL compare?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/ZEISS_SFL_vs_Nikon_Monarch+HG/BHitems/1753442-REG_1465198-REG

 

[Pinewood]

The 8x42 SF is only 3-4 ounces heavier than the 8x40 SFL I think? The objective lenses and barrel tubes are smaller. The AFOV is slightly smaller, so the prisms are probably smaller as well. The ocular lenses probably weigh slightly less. The SF's are long, the SFL's are shorter for more weight savings.

I'm the same way on a smaller bino - the 40mm SFL's aren't small enough. I wanted something under 20 ounces. After looking into the smaller Zeiss, Nikon and Swaro options, I settled on a pair of 1980's Nikon 7x35E for my lightweight bino at 19 ounces. I liked the 8x30 Nikon Monarch HG (16 ounces) but didn't want to spend that much money.

Hello Scott,

Shorter suggests a shorter focal length of the objectives, which may mean more chromatic aberration. Does the SFL have any problems with CA?

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[Maljunulo]

I have finally realized that the SF is discontinued while the SFL is a different line, not a modification to the older one. It's embarrassing to think that I care about the marketing targets for binoculars.

Cite, please?

 

[Jaywalk]

When was the SF discontinued? Are you thinking of the HT, perhaps?

I have no idea what I meant, sorry. I can only say I probably found some SF I was looking at online listed as "discontinued."

 

[fazalmajid]

I have no idea what I meant, sorry. I can only say I probably found some SF I was looking at online listed as "discontinued."

Perhaps version 1 (the ones with a gray armor and dodgy focuser).

 

[Jaywalk]

Perhaps that's what I saw.

 

[Ignatius]

To my eyes neither the 8x30 nor the 8x40 SFL suffers from CA. But then again I might not be overly susceptible to it.

 

[Swedpat]

I personally don't consider CA as a problem with binoculars at normal handholdable magnifications. And I wonder: if someone find it as a problem with binoculars, then they could never find spottingscopes acceptable, or?

 

[delia todd]

How did Zeiss make the SFL so much lighter than the SF

By adding an L to the name!??

 

[Tringa45]

I personally don't consider CA as a problem with binoculars at normal handholdable magnifications. And I wonder: if someone find it as a problem with binoculars, then they could never find spottingscopes acceptable, or?

Birding scopes with focal ratios around f5,5 - f/7 are not as "fast" as most binoculars at f/3,5 - f/4.
Also, the ED glass used in binoculars would have Abbe numbers of little over 80, whereas the fragile and expensive ED glasses or fluorite crystal used in the best scopes would have values as high as 95 and scopes can make good the apparent disadvantage of high magnification.
As lateral colour arises in the eyepieces, there would be no significant differences here.

John

 

[dorubird]

SF 10x42 has no chromatic aberrations, except only very few and only on the edges, in extreme conditions! I think this is due to two things:
1 in the optical formula of Sf 10x42 Schott Fluoride glass is used.
2 SF seems to have a longer focal length than ordinary binoculars

 

[Jaywalk]

Roger Vine suggests: "So these are a premium binocular, albeit lighter, more conventional and cheaper than the current top-of-the-range SFs."

Zeiss 10x30 SFL Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk