• 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.

My video review of Zeiss SFL 8x40 (1 Viewer)

If you use Google Chrome to view the site it has a translate function that works. If you want to see the video with english captioning YouTube allows you to do it.
 
Binocollector said:
How about a vintage 7x35 with 11°? That's one of the binos in my collection where you can truly see the difference between AFoV and linear FoV. Larger AFoV -- larger "circle" seen through the bino. One reason I like vintage wide angle 8x30s and 7x35s so much. The larger the AFoV the more you get the feeling the bino is actually disappearing as the edge moves further and further outwards until you feel like standing in the scenery, only closer.
A 10° 8x30 or 11° 7x35 will absolutely do this for me. The Kowa BDII 6.5x32 is getting close but still not as impressive considering that an AFoV of 80° or 77° is much more immersive than 65°.
I tried to capture that effect in a short video clip. Of course you can also see the tons of pincushion distortion but that effect always looks worse through a camera than with my own eyes.
Click to expand...

Nice! I also like the sound of the clock ticking in the background, very relaxing.
 
GrampaTom said:
Pier, mi piacerebbe leggere le tue recensioni. Soprattutto questo e quel recente Kowa 773. Sfortunatamente, anch'io non sono in grado di far funzionare la tua funzione di traduzione. Nemmeno Google Translate è l'ideale in quanto non ho trovato alcun modo per gestire l'intera trascrizione in un colpo solo.
Click to expand...
Do you like to use this link? Google Translate
 
binomania said:
Do you like to use this link? Google Translate
Click to expand...
I may not be using it correctly, but that link starts out translating your website in English but then turns back to Italian, when you get in to the substance of your review. It’s like Google sees the marketing stuff as boilerplate, maybe a shell then the unique copy as something else. I think Lee reported this also.

One can copy/paste paragraphs from your write up as a way around Google’s word limit. This instead of attempting to have the whole website transformed. Doable but not much fun.

The translate button on your website even when it allows you to select a language isn’t working for me. My problem may be Apple/Safari related. I’m not tech saavy enough to know, sorry.
 
Troubador said:
Steady on Vespo, can we really have a fov that is both real and apparent?

Lee
Click to expand...
Real vs calculated...?
"Actual value" might be better..?

64° is the calculated value (8° FOV x 8x mag = 64° used in the review discussed here)

I checked the specs:
60° is the AFOV (according to Zeiss)

To me 60° is good enough to not get the "looking down a pipe view".

Above 65° it can be hard to see the full FOV with spectacles/glasses.

So I think Zeiss hit the sweet spot with the AFOV and making most people happy.
 
Now i get mine SFL 8x40. Subjective Fiew when look trough is the same than SLC 8x42. So i think 60 Degrees is okay.
 
It seems to me this is getting to be a very complicated issue to choose to buy an SF. Why would one pay pay $700 more for an SF 32 , when most reviews are confirming the SFL are indeed high end premium (alpha) binoculars ? When the SFL has a larger exit pupil being 40’s, brighter, more neutral in color , same build quality , weighs the same, some have said more contrast and there right up there with a well corrected FOV, then why would one pay for in an SF, FOV is that it?

Then we could ask a similar question about why buy the 42SF for $900 more? It has almost the same exit pupal as the SFL and weighs six plus ounces more and is one of the biggest 42mm binoculars on the market.

If we’re looking at other examples from the other premium makers, all the top binoculars are very close in optics one way or the other and cost about the same. But here with the SF and SFL there’s a large price gap and not even much at all of a optical quality difference for the cost.

What are people thinking here.

Paul
 
Paultricounty said:
It seems to me this is getting to be a very complicated issue to choose to buy an SF. Why would one pay pay $700 more for an SF 32 , when most reviews are confirming the SFL are indeed high end premium (alpha) binoculars ? When the SFL has a larger exit pupil being 40’s, brighter, more neutral in color , same build quality , weighs the same, some have said more contrast and there right up there with a well corrected FOV, then why would one pay for in an SF, FOV is that it?

Then we could ask a similar question about why buy the 42SF for $900 more? It has almost the same exit pupal as the SFL and weighs six plus ounces more and is one of the biggest 42mm binoculars on the market.

If we’re looking at other examples from the other premium makers, all the top binoculars are very close in optics one way or the other and cost about the same. But here with the SF and SFL there’s a large price gap and not even much at all of a optical quality difference for the cost.

What are people thinking here.

Paul
Click to expand...

People in general probably don't do extensive research on every detail.
If they pay more, they think they get something better.
(which you also do in this case, at least on some accounts)

The smaller exit pupil is not an issue for everyone.
95% of birding is probably done in good light...?

Personally I prefer the larger exit pupil, and therefore looking into the SFL:s
as a lightweight alternative besides 32mm bins.

The shape, design and size might also be enough to make people choose one or another.
$700 might be worth it if the binocular feels right in the hands etc.

Similar to SLC vs EL SV or even EL SV vs NL perhaps.
The law of diminishing returns etc.

I guess the "thing" in this case is that the SFL defines a "new" class of binoculars.
Competing with both 32 and 42mm binos.
 
Last edited:
Paultricounty said:
It seems to me this is getting to be a very complicated issue to choose to buy an SF. Why would one pay pay $700 more for an SF 32 , when most reviews are confirming the SFL are indeed high end premium (alpha) binoculars ? When the SFL has a larger exit pupil being 40’s, brighter, more neutral in color , same build quality , weighs the same, some have said more contrast and there right up there with a well corrected FOV, then why would one pay for in an SF, FOV is that it?

Then we could ask a similar question about why buy the 42SF for $900 more? It has almost the same exit pupal as the SFL and weighs six plus ounces more and is one of the biggest 42mm binoculars on the market.

If we’re looking at other examples from the other premium makers, all the top binoculars are very close in optics one way or the other and cost about the same. But here with the SF and SFL there’s a large price gap and not even much at all of a optical quality difference for the cost.

What are people thinking here.

Paul
Click to expand...
I have both. The SFL only 2 Days. One Thing i can tell you, The SF is in Lowlight better. The Contrast in Lowlight Situations is better. The SFL is also very bright, but not so Structured in Lowlight.
Also in Daylight the SF is amazing, because the FOV and AFOV Difference is there. When it comes to Colours in Daylight it is a Matter of taste i think. The SF is more warm than the SFL. But also very clean.
But only 2 Days with the SFL is to little for a Complete Compare. They are both very good, but the SF have still as before his Entitlement i think.
 
Last edited:
Paultricounty said:
It seems to me this is getting to be a very complicated issue to choose to buy an SF. Why would one pay pay $700 more for an SF 32 , when most reviews are confirming the SFL are indeed high end premium (alpha) binoculars ? When the SFL has a larger exit pupil being 40’s, brighter, more neutral in color , same build quality , weighs the same, some have said more contrast and there right up there with a well corrected FOV, then why would one pay for in an SF, FOV is that it?

Then we could ask a similar question about why buy the 42SF for $900 more? It has almost the same exit pupal as the SFL and weighs six plus ounces more and is one of the biggest 42mm binoculars on the market.

If we’re looking at other examples from the other premium makers, all the top binoculars are very close in optics one way or the other and cost about the same. But here with the SF and SFL there’s a large price gap and not even much at all of a optical quality difference for the cost.

What are people thinking here.

Paul
Click to expand...
Its a good question Paul and for me the answer is easy: although SFL handles nicely there is no getting away from those 40mm optical tubes and I simply prefer the handling of SF32 with its slimmer tubes. Not only is it more comfortable (for me) in the hand, it is less bulky hanging against my chest and it feels like a minor miracle to have such a slim bino delivering a field of view 23% bigger than SFL. I don't go out in the twilight so don't miss those few extra minutes that a 40mm might provide. Having had both SFL 8x40 and SF 8x32 together for 3 weeks I have no hesitation in nominating the SF as my favourite.

Lee
 
Aquaplas said:
I have both. The SFL only 2 Days. One Thing i can tell you, The SF is in Lowlight better. The Contrast in Lowlight Situations is better. The SFL is also very bright, but not so Structured in Lowlight.
Also in Daylight the SF is amazing, because the FOV and AFOV Difference is there. When it comes to Colours in Daylight it is a Matter of taste i think. The SF is more warm than the SFL. But also very clean.
But only 2 Days with the SFL is to little for a Complete Compare. They are both very good, but the SF have still as before his Entitlement i think.
Click to expand...
Are you comparing the SFL to the SF42 or are you saying the SF32 is better in low light?
 
Troubador said:
Its a good question Paul and for me the answer is easy: although SFL handles nicely there is no getting away from those 40mm optical tubes and I simply prefer the handling of SF32 with its slimmer tubes. Not only is it more comfortable (for me) in the hand, it is less bulky hanging against my chest and it feels like a minor miracle to have such a slim bino delivering a field of view 23% bigger than SFL. I don't go out in the twilight so don't miss those few extra minutes that a 40mm might provide. Having had both SFL 8x40 and SF 8x32 together for 3 weeks I have no hesitation in nominating the SF as my favourite.

Lee
Click to expand...
Hi Lee,

So for you it’s about ergonomics and FOV, not necessarily which one is superior optically. That definitely is a legitimate reason to spend $700 more for binoculars relatively close optically.

Paul
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

mgp13
Zeiss SFL 8x40 review from Australia
Replies
7
Views
3K
GrampaTom
G
J
Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Declan Joseph Deasy
D
F
zeiss sfl 40 8x40
Replies
10
Views
3K
Rg548
R
Troubador
Zeiss SFL 8x40, A Field Review
28 29 30
Replies
597
Views
88K
HenRun
H
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars. Part 2 first anniversary
Replies
2
Views
655
Scott98
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top