• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

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

I've no idea where they have chosen to compromise, but unless Leica are the most alturistic company in the world you are either directly paying for the increased production costs with a more complex optical drive train so it's priced ?% higher than it would be without those costs or for the same cost they could have improved something else.
So I am paying for a pair of binoculars that have the capabilities that I desire. Seems fair enough to me. Probably my favourite binos (Zeiss SF8x32) could be cheaper if they had a narrower field of view, but I like them just the way they are.

Lee
 
Hello Lee,

Unfortunately, in the last few years I had moved four binoculars whose focus lenses were no longer synchronized to the close-up distance.
A Conquest 10x32, a Swarovski EL 8.5x42 and two Noctivids 8x42.
With the Conquest and the Swarovski this problem only developed over time, with the Noctivids it was from the beginning, I immediately sent these glasses back to the dealer.
I think a longer focus path requires more precision, that increases the probability of defects, the focuser simply becomes more fragile and the optical calculation becomes even more complex, if you also want to have a good picture "behind" you have to do something "in front". take away.
Unfortunately, all Alpha binoculars now have these extreme close-up distances, even if you don't need them, you have to accept these compromises.
At this point I wish there were more alternatives.

Andreas
A few years ago Pete Gamby of Opticron looked at their customer complaints records to see if these showed an increase when the binoculars had a really close close-focus distance. IIRC there was no significant increase in customer complaints with close focusing binos. I own about 10 binos that focus closer than 2.0m and haven't had any focusing problems with any of them.

Lee
 
Last edited:
So I am paying for a pair of binoculars that have the capabilities that I desire. Seems fair enough to me. Probably my favourite binos (Zeiss SF8x32) could be cheaper if they had a narrower field of view, but I like them just the way they are.

Lee
Yes or the Trinovids could possibly have made with a wider FoV and only 2m close focus for the same price point, or less CA, which might suit other users better. Adding close focus requires a more complex mechanism and/or optics and increases production costs.
If you only want to carry one device for all nature viewing I can see the appeal of close focus binoculars - I know some people will carry Papillio binoculars for insects as well as a pair of birding binoculars. Personally I carry a Minox Makroscope with my binoculars. We make the choice that suits us best.
 
Yes, but I want it all 😁. I’ll trade a meter in close focus for the extra FOV.
Wish we could discuss use cases in person.

A wide field Sir is welcome. But a ‘less wide’ field doesn’t limit spotting and viewing birds. A longish MFD can lead to missing something.
Regards,
Arijit
 
It's repeatedly surprising how many trade-offs are involved in optical design. I could do without eye relief above ~15mm, or sharp field edges, and imagine a truly lovely bin could be built without them in exchange for wide FOV and other features of real value to me, probably even at lower cost. But that isn't going to happen, is it. Choice is limited not only by the number of quality manufacturers but by group-think among them.
 
Yes or the Trinovids could possibly have made with a wider FoV and only 2m close focus for the same price point, or less CA, which might suit other users better. Adding close focus requires a more complex mechanism and/or optics and increases production costs.
If you only want to carry one device for all nature viewing I can see the appeal of close focus binoculars - I know some people will carry Papillio binoculars for insects as well as a pair of birding binoculars. Personally I carry a Minox Makroscope with my binoculars. We make the choice that suits us best.
I would like to quote Holger on this:

"I don't want any misunderstandings to arise: the modern glasses with short near points are very good! However, when performing an optical calculation, one must first specify the desired parameters and then force the software to optimize the system within those parameter values. If I uncompromisingly optimize sharpness in the long range, then the optics at 3m are not as good. So I give a little in the far range and optimize the 3m as well, so that the binoculars image sufficiently well over the entire distance range. If I want the same procedure for the close range of 1.5m, then I either lose even more performance in the long range, or I add more lenses to have more degrees of freedom for optimization. But more glass also means a loss, maybe a very small one, but in any case higher costs and more weight. These are optical laws that cannot even be overturned.

Therefore, you should only demand a function like the near point if you really need it and are willing to accept compromises elsewhere (among others: more complicated, error-prone mechanics, additional lenses, i.e. heavier and in connection with a lighter one loss of contrast, etc ...)."

Andreas
 
I suppose, although I’m not sure what “good” means in any particular context.

Its meaning seems to vary widely, according to who uses it and how.
 
Wish we could discuss use cases in person.

A wide field Sir is welcome. But a ‘less wide’ field doesn’t limit spotting and viewing birds. A longish MFD can lead to missing something.
Regards,
Arijit
I agree. My current bins are Swarovski SLC MK II and they close focus at 3M or so. While a 1M close focus would be awesome it would lead to unacceptable tradeoffs so I was saying I'd trade for a 2M close focus and a moderately wide FOV. And while it is true you can't have it all I know from my Opticrons that it is entirely possible to have a 1.5-2M focus and a decently wide FOV without weighing 700+ grams.
 
I agree. My current bins are Swarovski SLC MK II and they close focus at 3M or so. While a 1M close focus would be awesome it would lead to unacceptable tradeoffs so I was saying I'd trade for a 2M close focus and a moderately wide FOV. And while it is true you can't have it all I know from my Opticrons that it is entirely possible to have a 1.5-2M focus and a decently wide FOV without weighing 700+ grams.

I know you were looking at a higher price point, but it might be worth considering the Conquest 8x32 - they give a decent close focus (1.5m ish if I recall correctly), reasonable FoV - 140m I think and optically are very good for the price point - I'd rate them as a little better than the Trinovids in terms of contrast and apparent resolution and much better at CA control. Finish isn't up to Leica standards, but the body armour seems functionally rugged, eyecups being the only thing that really disappointed, and that's a personal thing. I wasn't overly impressed with the bigger Conquests, but thought the 8x32s punched above their price point.
 
I know you were looking at a higher price point, but it might be worth considering the Conquest 8x32 - they give a decent close focus (1.5m ish if I recall correctly), reasonable FoV - 140m I think and optically are very good for the price point - I'd rate them as a little better than the Trinovids in terms of contrast and apparent resolution and much better at CA control. Finish isn't up to Leica standards, but the body armour seems functionally rugged, eyecups being the only thing that really disappointed, and that's a personal thing. I wasn't overly impressed with the bigger Conquests, but thought the 8x32s punched above their price point.
Originally I looked at the conquests but the reviews are pretty mixed. I’ll certainly look through them but I’m thinking that the SF or SFL are more what I’m looking for
 
And what I ended up with was...none of the above. I got a pair of 10x32 SFs from another member. They are amazing bins. Astonishingly wide FOV for a 10x. I mean not even that bad for an 8x really.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top