• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

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

Just because spec sheets are similar, does not mean that optical performance is the same.

There is a bit more to it than exit pupil size and field of view.
 
Just because spec sheets are similar, does not mean that optical performance is the same.

There is a bit more to it than exit pupil size and field of view.
I’m fully aware of that, I have an extensive collection and doubles of some. Specs are specs , even if each has its own personality there is still a specific level of quality. To me the reviews here on the SFL are relaying an optical quality , if not exactly on par with SF, damn close and at a substantial price deviation.

Paul
 
That is understandable , larger objectives and higher light transmission, but at a cost of $900 and six to seven ounces in weight.
Thank you

Paul

No, its not the higher Brightness from the SF who makes the Winner in dark Situations. Its the better structured definition from dark elements. My Habicht 7x42 is brighter in Low Light than my SF 8x42 but i can see bore with the SF. I compared the SF 8x42 also with my NL 8x42. They are both same brightness, but i can see in real dark Situations more with the SF. For me the SF is the absolute Winner from all 42mm Glasses in Low Light. The only better I have was the Dialyt 7x42. The 7x42 jumps for me in low Light in a Dimesion who most 56mm Glasses give up. Here in German Forums are a lot of Hunters who use they old Dialyt 7x42 and wouldnt change to 8x56 because the Dialyt is so great in low Light.

I think Brightness only is not all for Low light Viewing. How can Handle a Glass internal the Light Headword Glare... That is in Low Light really Important.
My SFL isnt mucht darker than my SF, for my Eye its about the same. But the SF takes the Race.

The SF is also Producet in special for Hunters I think. The SFL is specialized for Birders.... Also The NL. I think its a Thing with the Transmisson Curvature.
 
No, its not the higher Brightness from the SF who makes the Winner in dark Situations. Its the better structured definition from dark elements. My Habicht 7x42 is brighter in Low Light than my SF 8x42 but i can see bore with the SF. I compared the SF 8x42 also with my NL 8x42. They are both same brightness, but i can see in real dark Situations more with the SF. For me the SF is the absolute Winner from all 42mm Glasses in Low Light. The only better I have was the Dialyt 7x42. The 7x42 jumps for me in low Light in a Dimesion who most 56mm Glasses give up. Here in German Forums are a lot of Hunters who use they old Dialyt 7x42 and wouldnt change to 8x56 because the Dialyt is so great in low Light.

I think Brightness only is not all for Low light Viewing. How can Handle a Glass internal the Light Headword Glare... That is in Low Light really Important.
My SFL isnt mucht darker than my SF, for my Eye its about the same. But the SF takes the Race.

The SF is also Producet in special for Hunters I think. The SFL is specialized for Birders.... Also The NL. I think its a Thing with the Transmisson Curvature.
Interesting read. I do have to disagree with you on being able to see more in very low light between the 742 Habichts and the SF842. I had the pleasure to have both in hand for two weeks in the late spring. I took them out every evening, I could clearly discern license plate numbers using street lights a few blocks away , where the SF could not resolve numbers clearly.
I would think that would have something to do with a much higher light transmission and less optical lenses (glass) in the porro design.

Paul
 
Personally I never thought the SF 8X42 was any better in low light than other premium 42s, wider view yes but not higher transmission.
 
Aquaplas, post 63,
What do you mean with "a thing with the transmission curvature"?
Gijs van Ginkel

The SF for me is in the green colours greener than other Glasses. My grey Version... On Daylight it is often a Disatvanteg between say the NL Pure. But i think this is the Advantage in low Light. I feel that so...
 
Interesting read. I do have to disagree with you on being able to see more in very low light between the 742 Habichts and the SF842. I had the pleasure to have both in hand for two weeks in the late spring. I took them out every evening, I could clearly discern license plate numbers using street lights a few blocks away , where the SF could not resolve numbers clearly.
I would think that would have something to do with a much higher light transmission and less optical lenses (glass) in the porro design.

Paul

I have both. I have the 7x42 Habicht GA. The newest Version only a few months old. And the SF 8x42 but the old grey Version from 2015. The Habicht here have no Chance. But when I say low Light i dont mean Twilight or a Situation where are Artificial Lights there from Laterns, i mean realy Night. Realy Dark. Try that out.
For Me here Is the 7x40 Dialyt and the SF (can only speak for the Grey Version) the best in 42mm. My NL Pure have the Same Brightness, but the fine Structures in Black and Grey, i think it is the Black Grey Contrast is for me on the SF way better than on NL Pure. The SFL isnt here also not so good than the SF.
 
Last edited:
The SF for me is in the green colours greener than other Glasses. My grey Version... On Daylight it is often a Disatvanteg between say the NL Pure. But i think this is the Advantage in low Light. I feel that so...
The NL also have 92% transmission, but a flatter curve.

I think Henry Link suggested that the magnification in the 8x42 NL is more like 8.3x?

That makes a ≈4% difference in exit pupil (≈8% in area),
which probably is more than the difference in transmission...

In very low light that might give the SF an advantage?
 
Another Example that is a Riddle for me.
I have a Zeiss 15x60 Leatheret Version from tha Late 70ties. And a Zeiss Dialyt 15x60 Rubber Version from the early 90ties with T Coatings. But not the newest B Version i have the Dialyt with the Older Occulars with More Field.
On Daylight the clear Winner is the Dialyt with the T Coatings. Colours, Contrast,.....
But in real Low Light the older 15x60 is better. No, its not Brighter. The Dialyt is much brighter. But in real Low Light the Viewing is more a looking for Silhouettes. And in this Discipline the older 15x60 is the Winner. The same Impression i Have with the SF. Silhuttes can the SF Distinguish for me better.
Sorry, my Englisch i think is not good enough for such a Discussion... :)
 
Last edited:
The NL also have 92% transmission, but a flatter curve.

I think Henry Link suggested that the magnification in the 8x42 NL is more like 8.3x?

That makes a ≈4% difference in exit pupil (≈8% in area),
which probably is more than the difference in transmission...

In very low light that might give the SF an advantage?

I dont know.
My Personal Declaration was always that the More Brightness from the brighter Parts in the Field are so bright by some Glasses that the Human Eye is Blinded a bit so that the darker Areas were Overpovered... I dont know, but I feel That so...
 
I have both. I have the 7x42 Habicht GA. The newest Version only a few months old. And the SF 8x42 but the old grey Version from 2015. The Habicht here have no Chance. But when I say low Light i dont mean Twilight or a Situation where are Artificial Lights there from Laterns, i mean realy Night. Realy Dark. Try that out.
For Me here Is the 7x40 Dialyt and the SF (can only speak for the Grey Version) the best in 42mm. My NL Pure have the Same Brightness, but the fine Structures in Black and Grey, i think it is the Black Grey Contrast is for me on the SF way better than on NL Pure. The SFL isnt here also not so goot than the SF.
In that case, it can be other aberrations that affect the contrast, that come into play.
Also about blackening inside the tubes etc.
It might not be about pure transmission.
 
In that case, it can be other aberrations that affect the contrast, that come into play.
Also about blackening inside the tubes etc.
It might not be about pure transmission.

I think the same. The pure Transmission alone is it not. But i think The Curvature. Only EP and Transmission from a Glass cant tell all I think. But I dont know exactly. I riddled about this Thing for a longe Time...
 
Yes, OK, but I would argue that fov is an optical characteristic just as much as resolution and contrast.

Lee
Would you agree when that larger FOV is mostly usable. There are quite a bit of binoculars with extremely white fields of you on paper what a sweet spot doesn’t coincide with the numbers. Of course we’re not talking about SF, NL, EL and so on.

Paul
 
Would you agree when that larger FOV is mostly usable. There are quite a bit of binoculars with extremely white fields of you on paper what a sweet spot doesn’t coincide with the numbers. Of course we’re not talking about SF, NL, EL and so on.

Paul
By 'mostly usable' you mean sharp enough to recognise what you are looking at? If so, then yes, I agree.

Lee
 
I have both. I have the 7x42 Habicht GA. The newest Version only a few months old. And the SF 8x42 but the old grey Version from 2015. The Habicht here have no Chance. But when I say low Light i dont mean Twilight or a Situation where are Artificial Lights there from Laterns, i mean realy Night. Realy Dark. Try that out.
For Me here Is the 7x40 Dialyt and the SF (can only speak for the Grey Version) the best in 42mm. My NL Pure have the Same Brightness, but the fine Structures in Black and Grey, i think it is the Black Grey Contrast is for me on the SF way better than on NL Pure. The SFL isnt here also not so good than the SF.
I’m not sure I got that. Are you saying SF is better at night with with artificial lighting?

That seems to be where we disagree if that’s the case.
The Habichts have larger exit pupil (if your eyes are up to it) higher transmission, less glass and at least equal quality coatings. The swaro & Zeiss I had are both of the latest models (black SF42) and one year old Habicht. I’ve confirmed my observations with a few other observers that concur.

I’d love to hear some other opinions from members who have both of these fine optics.

Paul
 
I’m not sure I got that. Are you saying SF is better at night with with artificial lighting?

That seems to be where we disagree if that’s the case.
The Habichts have larger exit pupil (if your eyes are up to it) higher transmission, less glass and at least equal quality coatings. The swaro & Zeiss I had are both of the latest models (black SF42) and one year old Habicht. I’ve confirmed my observations with a few other observers that concur.

I’d love to hear some other opinions from members who have both of these fine optics.

Paul
I say SF is better when the light is really low. Without no artificial lightning from street lamps or so. Sf performs for me at a dark night who cannot read numbers or see small Details with all glasses. A light situation where you only can see silhouette. An example. A deer on a field. The field ist brighter in the Habicht. Also the deer is brighter in the Habicht. So the brightness of the deer and the field is like the same. On the SF the brightness difference from the deer and the field is bigger. I call that black white contrast. So the overall picture in the Habicht is brighter, but I can see more detail on my sf.
Sorry, my English ist not the best. But in my Opinion brightness from EP and transmission is not all for a good view in darkness.
 
Sorry, my Englisch i think is not good enough for such a Discussion...
No, you're doing fine. You're talking about contrast (not brightness), and how high contrast can be a liability in low light due to loss of detail in dark/shadow areas. And contrast is largely a function of lens coatings, so it makes sense that the older 15x60 (Porro not Dialyt) could have lower contrast than the later GAT* version (which I had for decades myself, until replacing it with the SLC) and therefore see more detail in very low light. (My father had the older one long ago but I never had them side by side for comparison.) And similarly SF has somewhat lower contrast than SFL, so it all makes sense, at least comparing 42 to 40.

Comparing SF 32 to SFL 40 is apple to orange, much more complicated. Still I'd take SF 32 myself if Zeiss was my thing, for the wider FOV, better CA control, more moderate contrast etc.

(Off the wall question: does Zeiss still have straps/lugs that are narrower than everyone else's, and did their cameras also?)
 
Last edited:
I say SF is better when the light is really low. Without no artificial lightning from street lamps or so. Sf performs for me at a dark night who cannot read numbers or see small Details with all glasses. A light situation where you only can see silhouette. An example. A deer on a field. The field ist brighter in the Habicht. Also the deer is brighter in the Habicht. So the brightness of the deer and the field is like the same. On the SF the brightness difference from the deer and the field is bigger. I call that black white contrast. So the overall picture in the Habicht is brighter, but I can see more detail on my sf.
Sorry, my English ist not the best. But in my Opinion brightness from EP and transmission is not all for a good view in darkness.
No apologies necessary I understand where you were going with that. I do agree that it’s not just about exit pupil and transmission. That’s why I made mention to lesser glass elements and also equivalent coatings which can have a great effect in low light conditions. We definitely seem to have a difference in our opinions as to which pair of binoculars between an Habicht 7x42 and an SF 8 x 42 is brighter in very low lighting. I have not tried anything that was brighter in very low light than thsee Habicht’s, and that includes 742 UVHD+, 10x56 SLC’s, 8x42 SF and 8x42 Noctivids. It’s the only reason I keep the Habicht’s considering what I consider multiple shortcomings, tunnel vision FOV, very heavy focuser and a small eyebox with short eye releif.

I know there are a few other members here that have tried both that should be able to weigh in.

Thank you
Paul
 
Warning! This thread is more than 3 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top