• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

New Zeiss binos 8x40 SFL and 10x40 SFL (4 Viewers)

Dr. K

Bad Weather Birder
United States
Damn.

+2oz for 25% increase in exit pupil diameter and larger fov than my 1yr old EL8x32...

good of them to tell us early so I can budget for this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

batho66

Member
Germany
Now I see the first price tag in a German shop: 1800 € for the 8x40 SFL, 1850 € for the 10x40 SFL.
 
Last edited:

pm42

Well-known member
Seems like a very interesting product but I wonder how they will compare with the SF.
Because if they are as good or even "almost as good", I see no point in getting something bigger & heavier.

But I would be very interested as they would replace my NL Pure 8x32 & 8x42.
 

PeterPS

MEMBER
The SFL follows the NL: single bridge/hinge, likely Zeiss has abandoned the double bridge/hinge to get a lighter and smaller bino.
 

Hermann

Well-known member
The SFL follows the NL: single bridge/hinge, likely Zeiss has abandoned the double bridge/hinge to get a lighter and smaller bino.
Well, well. I'd rather think they went back to their roots, after following Swarovski when they introduced binoculars with a double bridge. That's a concept I never understood.

And I must admit, these new bins look rather interesting. I think I'd prefer them over heavier bins even IF the heavier bins are a bit "better" optically. Light, slim, reasonably priced. Looks good.

Hermann
 

henry link

Well-known member
A few things caught my eye.

The diopter adjustment appears to be done the simplest way, by rotating the right eyepiece. Presumably to save weight.

The AFOV (subjective viewing angle) appears to conform to the ISO method. An odd choice since it almost certainly understates the true AFOV.

Field flatteners are not mentioned. A simple eyepiece would save weight, but at the inevitable cost of higher field curvature and off-axis astigmatism.

What does "designed by Zeiss" on the hinge cap mean? "Designed by" is usually a euphemism for outsourced manufacturing.

What is the "UHD concept"? It's said to include a "special coating" and an "improved optical design". How is the coating "special" and compared to what? How are the optics "improved" and compared to what?
 
Last edited:

Dr. K

Bad Weather Birder
United States
A few things caught my eye.

The diopter adjustment appears to be done the simplest way, by rotating the right eyepiece. Presumably to save weight.

The AFOV (subjective viewing angle) appears to conform to the ISO method. An odd choice since it almost certainly understates the true AFOV.

Field flatteners are not mentioned. A simple eyepiece would save weight, but at the inevitable cost of higher field curvature and off-axis astigmatism.

What does "designed by Zeiss" on the hinge cap mean? "Designed by" is usually a euphemism for outsourced manufacturing.

What is the "UHD concept"? It's said to include a "special coating" and an "improved optical design". How is the coating "special" and compared to what? How are the optics "improved" and compared to what?
I’m grateful that more discerning eyes are inspecting the images. It may be dangerous to assume that this is a reconfigured SF and not something new, warranting new evaluation.
 

MiddleRiver

Well-known member
United States
Trinovid HD’s focus on barrel and I’ve never had issues with it. Seems like it eliminates many issues.
That said, my favorite is still a simple wheel as the retrovids use… so easy to tweak on the fly.
I’m also attracted to weight reduction. Maybe Leica will rethink their top line ;-)
 

Brummie

Well-known member
It may be dangerous to assume that this is a reconfigured SF and not something new, warranting new evaluation.
Well, they're not part of the Victory line, so I doubt they're reconfigured SF. More likely a reconfiguration of the Conquests and perhaps to compete with a variety of other Japanese-made lightweight, mid-range binoculars.

Will the optics be significantly better than those competitors (to justify the higher price), and will they rival the SF (other than in FOV)? If the answers are yes, then these could be a good option for folks wanting a lightweight alpha binocular and willing to sacrifice FOV over exit pupil to achieve that.
 

dries1

Member
A slightly better Conquest here, I wonder if they will have decent eyecups. The price is even higher than the SLC, but it should be good for the geriatric community.
 

henry link

Well-known member
The downloadable brochure confirms field flatteners are fitted to SFL.

Lee
Thanks Lee, much better information there.

Unfortunately, the cutaway is done in Zeiss' current obfuscating style and leaves us guessing about things that should be clear. Still, it looks like the objective design has returned to the fixed triplet and moving focusing element from pre-SF Zeiss binoculars. The eyepiece looks like it could be a 4 element Konig with a one or perhaps two element field flattener in front, a bit more like the Swarovski EL/NL eyepiece than the SF eyepieces, especially the 32mm SF.

Things in the SF left out of the SFL include UFL (Ultra-FL lens design) and oddly HT (High Transmission) glass.

Here's a link to the brochure: https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/c...re-zeiss-sfl-and-victory-sf-binoculars-en.pdf
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top