Looking for comparisons between 8x32 SF and 8x40 SFL. (2 Viewers)

[Maljunulo]

Now, if the SF and the SFL were priced the same, what would the outcome of opinions be? I wonder.

Comment deleted

 

[Dennis Mau]

I don’t see how this question is relevant ….. they aren’t.

Not trying to be a wise guy, or provoke an argument.

It is relevant. I believe what he is saying is how many people would really prefer the SFL over the SF if the price points were the same. Even if people say price doesn't matter, I sometimes think preference for one binocular over the other is largely swayed by costs. They might say they like the SFL better than the SF, but in reality they are just rationalizing the fact that they don't want to pay 2x as much for a binocular.

 

[Paultricounty]

Why are you dredging up a post from 3 months ago? A post you already made a snide remark about.

And based on your posts in this thread I don't believe you at all about not wanting to provoke an argument.

I don’t think it’s a great idea to provoke an argument from Dries1, it won’t end well for you 🥷🏼.

 

[Paultricounty]

It is relevant. I believe what he is saying is how many people would really prefer the SFL over the SF if the price points were the same. Even if people say price doesn't matter, I sometimes think preference for one binocular over the other is largely swayed by costs. They might say they like the SFL better than the SF, but in reality they are just rationalizing the fact that they don't want to pay 2x as much for a binocular.

Wow, such a impressive and accurate assessment. I even think many of the people who feel that way , will never admit it here.

 

[GrampaTom]

I don’t think it’s a great idea to provoke an argument from Dries1, it won’t end well for you 🥷🏼.

Wasnt Dries1, was it?

 

[Maljunulo]

Oops!

Failing memory led to forgotten previous “snide remark”.

I’ll remove the latest one.

Bill Atwood; I have no control over what you believe.

 

[brocknroller]

I have both. It is a matter of preference. I do not use the SF 8x32 as I prefer the SFL 8x40 or the NL Pure 8x32. I do not know why but I never "clicked" with the SF.
But they are very, very good and Troubador's favorite if memory serves.

Handling and ergonomics are different and a matter of personal preference: the SFL is bigger and the focuser is stiffer.
Optically, the SF has a wider field and less CA but the SFL is no slouch.
I also prefer the SFL's rainguard and caps.

So do you want the top optical quality and wider field or a bigger diameter and exit pupil and consider they are worth x% less in optics, x being small, less than 10% I would say?

Why settle for either/or when you can have it all (except the extra mm exit pupil, which you won't need with a 90%+ transmission porro) for a fraction of the cost? (hat umbrella not included)

Brock

 

[Zedster]

Why settle for either/or when you can have it all (except the extra mm exit pupil, which you won't need with a 90%+ transmission porro) for a fraction of the cost? (hat umbrella not included)

Brock

Well it’s all personal preference but I very much dislike porro prisms. Awkward to hold, too large, no waterproofing (usually), poor eye relief, and the ones I’ve used all had stupid folding eyecups. The negatives far outweigh the positives in my experience. YMMV

 

[dries1]

Like Oberwerk copying the SE name from Nikon and even making the same formats, 8X32, 10X42 and 12X50. They will only sell porros to a very limited crowd.

 

[brocknroller]

Well it’s all personal preference but I very much dislike porro prisms. Awkward to hold, too large, no waterproofing (usually), poor eye relief, and the ones I’ve used all had stupid folding eyecups. The negatives far outweigh the positives in my experience. YMMV

Zedster,

My mileage is 50 mpg city/49 mpg highway (Kia Niro ).

For me, it's the opposite. To use Lee's terms, roofs feel like "shaking hands with an alien." That was the case with the 8x42 EDG II, which I could not hold steady no matter what grip I tried. I would have to mount it on a tripod, which takes away the freedom of movement I expect with an 8x bin. It's smaller brother, the 8x32 EDG, while still somewhat "alien," has at least enough fingers to shake hands with. The 8x42 EDG had a great image but was a poor fit for my hands/fingers. I preferred the EDG I with the open bridge design, which were on the market for 60 seconds before Nikon replaced them with the EDG II.

I can hold steady two roof designs: open bridge (double bridge) such as the EDG I and Swaro EL and "open hinge" designs such as the Swaro CL and Cabela Guide, which have small bridges that are set back toward the EPs, which allows enough room for my fingers to wrap around the barrels. Same with the SLC HD, which also has deep thumb indents.

Porros offer more "real estate" for my large hands, and better thumb support, even the dimunitive E2. I don't wear glasses, but that would be a factor with the E2s with thier 13.3mm ER.

I agree about twist-up cups being better than the rubber fold-down kind since you can adjust them to the height that works best for you, whether you wear glasses or not. However, in general, porro prism eyecups tend to be wide, so large that sometimes I can't fit them the into my eye sockets including the Swift 8.5x44 820 Audubon, Nikon 7x35 Aculon, and Vixen 7x50 Foresta. Even the 8x32 SE's eyecups barely fit. I had to replace the SE's wide and deep eyecups with the shorter but same diameter E2's.

The new Oberwerk SEs are supposed to give a great "bang for the buck," another benefit of porros, because the design is simple. Porro prisms don't need phase coatings or dielectric coatings, and they don't need a dozen lens elements on each side to give a sharp image. And the collimation doesn't have to be as precise as roofs. The Obies have twist-up eyecups, but maybe not enough useable ER for eyeglasses wearers (15mm useable). They are also a bit heavy for their size but they are waterproof/fogproof.

What wasn't mentioned is porros superior 3-D image, which I think you once wrote doesn't matter to you. I find porros helps bring out the birds from the background better than roofs. But I also find the 3-D view more natural and aesthetically pleasing.

It's a good thing you live in a time when roofs rule the world. When I was growing up, there were few roof prism binoculars, and those that existed were not as bright and not as sharp as porros, because they didn't have phase or dielectric coatings on their prisms. Porros dominated the market, and they all had fold-down rubber eyecups. Now with a plethora of roofs to chose from, the only factor you have to consider is if they have enough ER for your glasses. In terms of sports optics, we are living in the Golden Age.

Brock

 

[Dennis Mau]

I don’t think it’s a great idea to provoke an argument from Dries1, it won’t end well for you 🥷🏼.

I wouldn't mess with Dries 1 either. 😬

 

[Dennis Mau]

Well it’s all personal preference but I very much dislike porro prisms. Awkward to hold, too large, no waterproofing (usually), poor eye relief, and the ones I’ve used all had stupid folding eyecups. The negatives far outweigh the positives in my experience. YMMV

Have you tried a Habicht 10x40?

 

[dries1]

While there is a minority who likes the porro better, the majority have moved on. While I have a nice collection of porros from Zeiss, Zeiss Jena, Kern Aarau, Hensoldt, Nikon and Fujinon - I appreciate them for what they are, a history. I have moved on to the roof with no looking back except to reminisce a bit once in a while.

 

[Thotmosis]

I like roofs and i like Porro’s, had a great hour watching boats on the river through my Zeiss FL 7x42 and Habicht 10x40.
Both outstanding binoculars, both roofs and Porro’s have their value. Just my 2 cents.

 

[dries1]

I like roofs and i like Porro’s, had a great hour watching boats on the river through my Zeiss FL 7x42 and Habicht 10x40.
Both outstanding binoculars, both roofs and Porro’s have their value. Just my 2 cents.

I can agree with this, I just get tired of the rambling of some posts saying the same thing over and over again.

 

[Thotmosis]

I understand.

 

[John M Robinson]

I like roofs and i like Porro’s, had a great hour watching boats on the river through my Zeiss FL 7x42 and Habicht 10x40.
Both outstanding binoculars, both roofs and Porro’s have their value. Just my 2 cents.

Exactly! On my boat, especially at night, I love my Fujinon 7x50 MRTC porros, my 8x32 SE Porto’s are a delight to hold and look through, but my absolute favorite are my 7x35 Retrovids, a sixty year old design.

 

[Canip]

They will only sell porros to a very limited crowd

Hmm … not so sure about that …

 

[dries1]

Time will tell how many they sell in a year.

 

[Paultricounty]

Zedster,

My mileage is 50 mpg city/49 mpg highway (Kia Niro ).

My mileage is about 6 mpg in track mode running 11 second quarter miles, on highway 30 miles to the gallon with the adaptive cruise control set at 70mph. 🤪

For me, it's the opposite. To use Lee's terms, roofs feel like "shaking hands with an alien." That was the case with the 8x42 EDG II, which I could not hold steady no matter what grip I tried. I would have to mount it on a tripod, which takes away the freedom of movement I expect with an 8x bin. It's smaller brother, the 8x32 EDG, while still somewhat "alien," has at least enough fingers to shake hands with. The 8x42 EDG had a great image but was a poor fit for my hands/fingers. I preferred the EDG I with the open bridge design, which were on the market for 60 seconds before Nikon replaced them with the EDG II.

Hey Brock, I think the shaking from 8x binocular might more about your physical attributes more than the binoculars. Did you say roof prism binoculars feel like an alien in your hands , I think you’ve been writing ro many sci-fi books. That’s ridiculous come back down to earth please. 😉

I can hold steady two roof designs: open bridge (double bridge) such as the EDG I and Swaro EL and "open hinge" designs such as the Swaro CL and Cabela Guide, which have small bridges that are set back toward the EPs, which allows enough room for my fingers to wrap around the barrels. Same with the SLC HD, which also has deep thumb indents.

Porros offer more "real estate" for my large hands, and better thumb support, even the dimunitive E2. I don't wear glasses, but that would be a factor with the E2s with thier 13.3mm ER.

I agree about twist-up cups being better than the rubber fold-down kind since you can adjust them to the height that works best for you, whether you wear glasses or not. However, in general, porro prism eyecups tend to be wide, so large that sometimes I can't fit them the into my eye sockets including the Swift 8.5x44 820 Audubon, Nikon 7x35 Aculon, and Vixen 7x50 Foresta. Even the 8x32 SE's eyecups barely fit. I had to replace the SE's wide and deep eyecups with the shorter but same diameter E2's.

The new Oberwerk SEs are supposed to give a great "bang for the buck," another benefit of porros, because the design is simple. Porro prisms don't need phase coatings or dielectric coatings, and they don't need a dozen lens elements on each side to give a sharp image. And the collimation doesn't have to be as precise as roofs. The Obies have twist-up eyecups, but maybe not enough useable ER for eyeglasses wearers (15mm useable). They are also a bit heavy for their size but they are waterproof/fogproof.

What wasn't mentioned is porros superior 3-D image, which I think you once wrote doesn't matter to you. I find porros helps bring out the birds from the background better than roofs. But I also find the 3-D view more natural and aesthetically pleasing.

It's a good thing you live in a time when roofs rule the world. When I was growing up, there were few roof prism binoculars, and those that existed were not as bright and not as sharp as porros, because they didn't have phase or dielectric coatings on their prisms. Porros dominated the market, and they all had fold-down rubber eyecups. Now with a plethora of roofs to chose from, the only factor you have to consider is if they have enough ER for your glasses. In terms of sports optics, we are living in the Golden Age.

Brock