Looking for comparisons between 8x32 SF and 8x40 SFL. (1 Viewer)

[A2GG]

Also, with regards to the focuser: I'm wondering if early models were adjusted differently or if I got lucky (tho it's hard to believe there would be that much variation in manufacturing)? Mine, purchased beginning of Nov from big camera store, is silky smooth and light to the touch - pretty much flawless and has remained that way even in the single-digit F temps it saw recently.

The SFL I tried in store recently had a super smooth focus not stiff at all.

 

[Bill Atwood]

The SFL I tried in store recently had a super smooth focus not stiff at all.

You guys are killing me. I need to get mine fixed.

 

[dries1]

I have seen two SFL 8X40 go for less than $1,000 on the Bay so for those looking, keep an eye out.

 

[Aquaplas]

In wich Position youse the guys the eyecup on the SFL? Iam between the last and 2nd position. But they will move sometime.
I can’t understand why they give the eyecups not more positions?!? This will a big step forward for all Binos I think.

 

[Zedster]

I appreciate the Frank discussion here. Of course I need to try them but it really is useful to hear others impressions. It gives me something to compare with when using them. Thank you for that

 

[Scott98]

I'm sorry but that green photo has to be one of the silliest things I've ever seen...starting to realize these forums get pretty far "out there" at times
suffice it to say...that is NOT what you'll be seeing from any binocular on the market today...unless you observe with cellophane from Christmas decorations taped over the lenses

 

[Bill Atwood]

I'm sorry but that green photo has to be one of the silliest things I've ever seen...starting to realize these forums get pretty far "out there" at times
suffice it to say...that is NOT what you'll be seeing from any binocular on the market today...unless you observe with cellophane from Christmas decorations taped over the lenses

Obviously you didn't read the post and you should delete this one unless you enjoy basking in your utter ignorance.

 

[A2GG]

You guys are killing me. I need to get mine fixed.

since it was a store demo unit I assume it was broken in. Have you had yours for a while or is it brand new ?

 

[tenex]

I'm sorry but that green photo has to be one of the silliest things I've ever seen...

I was tempted to say that myself, except Bill does feel it captures his experience. Obviously the image is pure Photoshop, highly exaggerated, and we've seen dumber examples that even get distortion backwards. Also curious that they would specifically malign green-tinted binoculars when their own have that reputation for some. One can understand some difficulty marketing this "new UHD concept", but if language can't make it more comprehensible, something's very wrong.

(you seem to be going through the flags of all the tiny island nations, before they have to be deleted?)

In wich Position youse the guys the eyecup on the SFL? Iam between the last and 2nd position. But they will move sometime.
I can’t understand why they give the eyecups not more positions?!? This will a big step forward for all Binos I think.

You have two different issues here. What's really needed is an eyecup that will stay in place wherever one needs it to. The Zeiss FL we recently acquired does that; I have to twist it down a bit from the outer clickstop due to its unusual width, but it stays put. Swarovskis don't, they glide down at the slightest pressure, which is probably why NLs now have six fixed positions due to their finicky eye positioning, but at that point users start complaining about the nuisance of too many stops, while a few still seem to find themselves in between.

Eyecups have been around for a long time, so they can't really be the problem. The sheer number of complaints lately must reflect increasing difficulty of use with recent optical designs.

 

[pm42]

I was tempted to say that myself, except Bill does feel it captures his experience. Obviously the image is pure Photoshop, highly exaggerated,

Exactly. This is exaggerated but what I see too. Let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with the SF view. But as I said before, I never felt in love with it.
The first time I looked through a NL Pure, it was "wow". Something clearer, whiter.
Then I tried the SFL: it is something else, higher contrast maybe but kind of Leica like, very pleasant.

It has been months now as I got one of the first SFL but I still feel like it. I cannot say this is 100% facts and indeed, when I look through the SF 8x32, I find no fault.
But this is what I feel.

 

[Bill Atwood]

since it was a store demo unit I assume it was broken in. Have you had yours for a while or is it brand new ?

I believe I was among the first purchasers in the US. There were several stiffness complaints at that time. Mine has not changed with use. I've also had to send in two different FLs for stiff focus wheels.

 

[Scott98]

Obviously you didn't read the post and you should delete this one unless you enjoy basking in your utter ignorance.

this part?

The main difference optically that I see between the SFs and SFLs is shown in this figure on Zeiss' website:

No worries, it's all good fun, I get it, green cast....just making a joke. I always wonder about the lurking neophyte though who might actually think Zeiss is selling green binoculars.......but I'm sure many of my comments can be taken out of context as well

**EDIT - in the interest of diligence, and educating myself, I checked out the Zeiss webpage - the Grinch-green image actually has a slider you can move back & forth:

ZEISS SFL 8x40 | Feel the intensity. Not your equipment.

Optimized to be as lightweight and compact as possible, the SFL binoculars are a perfect addition to the SF family.

www.zeiss.com

The SFL's lens type is listed as "UHD" while the SF's are "Ultra-FL". "The Ultra-High-Definition (UHD) concept features a special coating and an improved optical design that ensures the binoculars deliver the highest level of detail and reproduce colors with natural fidelity." Could this image indeed be Zeiss referring to its own (green) SF product line? Here is another review that comments on the difference:

Zeiss SFL 8×40 binoculars review

These binoculars from Zeiss somehow squeeze just about all the excellence of...

www.birdwatching.co.uk

"I found a very subtle difference in colour, with the SFs appearing very slightly yellower and very slightly flatter (in colour terms) than the slightly bluer SFLs."

My guess would be that the optics firm in Japan that applies the multicoatings to the lenses produces a different transmssion curve than the typical Zeiss drop-off in the red. So yes, there's a kernel of truth - perhaps one can expect a more natural color balance with the SFL. However, in the 8x40's this also comes at a price of 90% transmission versus 92% in the SF's.

I posted to caution anyone that anticpates a huge difference in these will be mistaken. It's very difficult to spot the putative greenish cast in the SF's. I did a long session observing the full Moon and could not discern any difference in the color tone of the white disk with SF's, SLC's and UV HD+. Only after weeks of use, finally on a cloudy day looking at lichen-covered tree trunks in deep shade I could perceive a greenish cast to the SF. One could compare them to Swaro EL's or EDG and say those binos have a reddish cast. It's an incredibly small difference. Only the guys in the Zeiss marketing dept. would think the two-toned picture makes any sense IMO.

 

[chill6x6]

Of course an argument can be made for each.

Weights (included a few others for fun)

SV 8X32- 21 ounces
SF 8X32- 21.3 ounces
SFL 8X40- 22.7 ounces
NL 8X32- 23.2 ounces
EDG 8X32- 23.1 ounces(once considered too heavy for the 32mm class)
MHG 8X42- 24.4 ounces

Eye relief
SFL=NL>SF

Focus adjustment
SFL, NL, and SF are all close enough to stay they are equal in smoothness/resistance. The SFL adjustment is a little forward of where I'd like it to be. The NL and SF are in about the perfect position. My SFL was excellent right out of the box.
Focus speed:
SF>SFL>NL. There's not a lot of difference in the 20yd to 50-75yds.

Diopter adjustment
SF and NL both center
SFL under the right eyepiece

FOV
Of course its SF>NL>SFL. 465, 450, and 420 respectively. ALL have a good numbers. A 8X32 with a 420ft FOV was considered SOTA not too long ago. If really looking I can certainly tell the difference. To be honest while using the SFL I've never felt like I had a FOV deficit but of course class leading FOV IS one of the main advantages to the SF/NL.

As several have mentioned...the SF is the binocular I WANTED to like it more than I actually do. It's class leading in about all aspects. On paper it's everything I'd want in a binocular. For me the main setback is occasional "black out" during use. Probably this is more user related since the occurrence varies and I know the binocular isn't changing. But for me this is a characteristic of this biocular. I'm not one to give up on an otherwise very nice binocular. The NL and SFL are much better in this regard. I think the SFL and NL are pretty safe bets and currently that's the two I'd pick sight unseen. If FOV and flat field is your thing, get the NL. If larger objective and cost is a deciding factor, get the SFL. If you can TRY the SF first and it works, nothing wrong with that choice either.

 

[Paultricounty]

Had a chance to visit one of my favorite stops in NYC , B&H photo video. I had the pleasure to try out the SFL 8x40 for about spend 5 minutes outside and about 15-20 minutes inside before security had to wrestle them out of my hands. I was able to grapple one of the guards to the ground before I was tasered, just kidding of course. More seriously I’m not one that likes to do reviews of high end expensive optics after only spending a few minutes with them. But I’m going to give my initial first impressions. Knowing I was going to be visiting B&H I brought along my SF32 for comparison.

Until I have more time to spend with these binoculars I’ll be brief. These are real nice high quality optics with that buttery smooth SF focuser. Size wise they’re on a very similar scale as a Nikon MHG 42 and weigh about the same. It’s hard to label what category the SFL fall in, it could be said they’re in their own category. They’re better than any of the thousand dollar price point bins, but they are not on the level of the highest premium binoculars on the market , SF, NL , EL and Noctivids, weather in 32 or 42 mm.

One could say that it’s a step backwards from Zeiss, an optic with a smaller FOV , no field flattener, more noticeable CA , no central diopter and not quite up to the resolution of the best. On the other hand Zeiss has just come up with a product that easily competes with the best 32’s on the market, while being about the same weight with bigger objectives. It’s the quality optics and larger exit pupal that makes them competitive with the the best 32’s.

The conversation of color palette difference to me is over blown. I for one completely dismiss the color picture image difference on the Zeiss website, as I do with with the overblown descriptions on vortex boxes. The green color hue in the FS is not noticeable (and it’s there for a purpose) unless in direct side by side comparison with another optic that has difference coatings. I’m not an optical engineer but I don’t believe this change in the SFL was done to enhance anything. Could be less expensive to manufacture, could be for a different emphasis on perceived color. But I truly don’t believe it’s an enhancement to the SF. I believe people who are emphasizing its improvement over the SF32, more likely are experiencing the benefits of a larger more comfortable exit pupil in combination with very good optics.

If you had an SF in 32 I wouldn’t be running out and buying an SFL. if I was trying to choose between an SF32 or SFL40 , that becomes a much more difficult choice. You could save yourself a few hundred bucks and gain some exit pupil. But on the other hand you’re giving up an incredible usable FOV , slightly better resolution and most likely a little bit of resale value if that matters to you. The top of the line always hold their value very well , we’re already seeing SFL’s selling on the used market at substantial discounts.

Happy new year

Paul

 

[Bill Atwood]

Of course an argument can be made for each...

Weights (included a few others for fun)

SV 8X32- 21 ounces
SF 8X32- 21.3 ounces
SFL 8X40- 22.7 ounces
NL 8X32- 23.2 ounces
EDG 8X32- 23.1 ounces(once considered too heavy for the 32mm class)
MHG 8X42- 24.4 ounces

Eye relief
SFL=NL>SF

Focus adjustment
SFL, NL, and SF are all close enough to stay they are equal in smoothness/resistance. The SFL adjustment is a little forward of where I'd like it to be. The NL and SF are in about the perfect position. My SFL was excellent right out of the box.
Focus speed:
SF>SFL>NL. There's not a lot of difference in the 20yd to 50-75yds.

Diopter adjustment
SF and NL both center
SFL under the right eyepiece

FOV
Of course its SF>NL>SFL. 465, 450, and 420 respectively. ALL have a good numbers. A 8X32 with a 420ft FOV was considered SOTA not too long ago. If really looking I can certainly tell the difference. To be honest while using the SFL I've never felt like I had a FOV deficit but of course class leading FOV IS one of the main advantages to the SF/NL.

As several have mentioned...the SF is the binocular I WANTED to like it more than I actually do. It's class leading in about all aspects. On paper it's everything I'd want in a binocular. For me the main setback is occasional "black out" during use. Probably this is more user related since the occurrence varies and I know the binocular isn't changing. But for me this is a characteristic of this biocular. I'm not one to give up on an otherwise very nice binocular. The NL and SFL are much better in this regard. I think the SFL and NL are pretty safe bets and currently that's the two I'd pick sight unseen. If FOV and flat field is your thing, get the NL. If larger objective and cost is a deciding factor, get the SFL. If you can TRY the SF first and it works, nothing wrong with that choice either.

Chuck nailed it all except I don't find the focus smoothness of 2 of the 3 NLs I own as smooth as the FLs, SF and SFL. Not that the NLs are awful but there can be a little grittiness and difference in turning resistance in the 8x & 10x32s I have. Not noticed for the most part until you try the Zeiss.

 

[Dennis Mau]

The big difference between the SFL and the NL or SF is the FOV. If you like a big FOV and is there anybody that doesn't you will like the SF or NL better. I had the SFL 8x40 and the Swarovski NL 8x32. I got rid of the SFL. The NL is just as light, and it has a much bigger FOV with sharper edges. It is a no brainer IMO which one to keep. You're paying the big money for the huge FOV in the NL and SF because of the more complex eyepieces.

 

[Bill Atwood]

With the caveats that my resolution testing is based on viewing of details and lettering on distant surfaces and objects, and the sample size of each brand and size of bin is one, the 8x40 SFLS do not give up any resolution to the ELs, NLs or SFs, except perhaps to the 8x42 NLs. This has been difficult to judge since the sharpest focus if much easier to dial in on the 42 NLs vs the much faster focusing SFLs. My gut tells me the NLs are better but then I'll pick up the SFLs for another shot and they seem just as good. It's possible air currents and slight eye changes are adding to the difficulty.

As far as the green color produced by the chlorophyll infused SF lenses is concerned, it is something I've read about here on BF for years, but figured was overblown. However with these recently acquired 8x32s it is indeed often noticeable and really seems to interfere with the contrast and color of various field marks. It does not help when trying to pick LBJs out of vegetation. Yes, this is based on comparison to other alpha bins, however I don't see how that makes the issue dismissible. The OP asked for opinions on a comparison and there has been plenty of other bin attributes such as weight, size, FOV, CA, etc. I believe it's an issue the OP may want to consider. If the SFs were the only bin one ever used, but if you pick up NLs or SFLs it's readily apparent. I can't absolutely say the tint results in poorer apparent contrast or not, but that poorer contrast is the one big negative I find in this bin. I hate it, I like everything else about this bin, but the contrast problem is ugh.

 

[Paultricounty]

With the caveats that my resolution testing is based on viewing of details and lettering on distant surfaces and objects, and the sample size of each brand and size of bin is one, the 8x40 SFLS do not give up any resolution to the ELs, NLs or SFs, except perhaps to the 8x42 NLs. This has been difficult to judge since the sharpest focus if much easier to dial in on the 42 NLs vs the much faster focusing SFLs. My gut tells me the NLs are better but then I'll pick up the SFLs for another shot and they seem just as good. It's possible air currents and slight eye changes are adding to the difficulty.

As far as the green color produced by the chlorophyll infused SF lenses is concerned, it is something I've read about here on BF for years, but figured was overblown. However with these recently acquired 8x32s it is indeed often noticeable and really seems to interfere with the contrast and color of various field marks. It does not help when trying to pick LBJs out of vegetation. Yes, this is based on comparison to other alpha bins, however I don't see how that makes the issue dismissible. The OP asked for opinions on a comparison and there has been plenty of other bin attributes such as weight, size, FOV, CA, etc. I believe it's an issue the OP may want to consider. If the SFs were the only bin one ever used, but if you pick up NLs or SFLs it's readily apparent. I can't absolutely say the tint results in poorer apparent contrast or not, but that poorer contrast is the one big negative I find in this bin. I hate it, I like everything else about this bin, but the contrast problem is ugh.

I guess opinions I like that body part. I actually think the green enhances the resolution , deer pop right out at you in the woods. I’ve done side by side with the SF, EL, UV, Noctivids in various lighting and forest cover and I think the SF is one of the best in this regard. I think I did give opinions for the OP. I think everybody’s eyes are a little bit different and I think people pick things up more or less differently.

Happy new year.

 

[Zedster]

With the caveats that my resolution testing is based on viewing of details and lettering on distant surfaces and objects, and the sample size of each brand and size of bin is one, the 8x40 SFLS do not give up any resolution to the ELs, NLs or SFs, except perhaps to the 8x42 NLs. This has been difficult to judge since the sharpest focus if much easier to dial in on the 42 NLs vs the much faster focusing SFLs. My gut tells me the NLs are better but then I'll pick up the SFLs for another shot and they seem just as good. It's possible air currents and slight eye changes are adding to the difficulty.

As far as the green color produced by the chlorophyll infused SF lenses is concerned, it is something I've read about here on BF for years, but figured was overblown. However with these recently acquired 8x32s it is indeed often noticeable and really seems to interfere with the contrast and color of various field marks. It does not help when trying to pick LBJs out of vegetation. Yes, this is based on comparison to other alpha bins, however I don't see how that makes the issue dismissible. The OP asked for opinions on a comparison and there has been plenty of other bin attributes such as weight, size, FOV, CA, etc. I believe it's an issue the OP may want to consider. If the SFs were the only bin one ever used, but if you pick up NLs or SFLs it's readily apparent. I can't absolutely say the tint results in poorer apparent contrast or not, but that poorer contrast is the one big negative I find in this bin. I hate it, I like everything else about this bin, but the contrast problem is ugh.

These are exactly the differences I was looking for. Now when I get to try them out I’ll have some things to look for. Obviously many of these are personal preferences but knowing what to look for is half the challenge.

I really appreciate the opinions and observations

 

[kabsetz]

When I tested the SFL's in June, I got resolution of group 2, element four with the Zeiss 3x12 tripler boosting the mag to 24x on the 8x40 at 10 meters distance. This is about as good as I get with any 8x binocular. From what I can tell, there's no reason to expect any other 8x binocular to be sharper, but as always there will be individual differences and between any two specimen, it is a matter of luck.