• 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 (1 Viewer)

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Europe
I think the SFL will sell mostly on size, name and looks. Without HT and FL glass, it seems unlikely to be a huge upgrade from the Conquest HD series, apart from the field flattener. Better contrast is possible.

I think the design is beautiful but it looks like it will come in around 2300 CAD, nearly double a Conquest which seems pretty dear for a mid tier.
It doesn't trigger the must have impulse for me either!
The price is steep, so I'd rather stick with the SF.

Andreas
 

MiddleRiver

Well-known member
United States
Ok,
A couple more illustrations.
The Swarovski 8x42 NL and the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 next to the SFL.

The Nikon is very close to the SFL, 1 mm longer and around an ounce or 28 grams more.
The NL is closer to the SF in size of course and wins the heavyweight division easily.
I’m thinking the HG and the SFL are going to be big competitors in this niche and with the Nikon’s lower price the SFL had better have both significantly better optics and build to justify the higher price.

I had to fudge the 8x42 NL image here because Swarovski only has product photos showing the eyecups extended. Not sure why they would do that but ok. I’m assuming that Swarovski’s stated measurement of 158 mm is with them down.

If I got any numbers wrong let me know and I can blame the B&H site since navigating around the various manufacturers slick websites to get info is an exercise in frustration 😉

View attachment 1439122
View attachment 1439123
Can you put a Retrovid 8x40 on there? Other than armor, it's the closest comparison as far as I can tell (both a 40 as well as sim weight ;-).

PS, these are awesome. Thanks for the effort!
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
Ok,
A couple more illustrations.
The Swarovski 8x42 NL and the Nikon Monarch HG 8x42 next to the SFL.

The Nikon is very close to the SFL, 1 mm longer and around an ounce or 28 grams more.
The NL is closer to the SF in size of course and wins the heavyweight division easily.
I’m thinking the HG and the SFL are going to be big competitors in this niche and with the Nikon’s lower price the SFL had better have both significantly better optics and build to justify the higher price.

I had to fudge the 8x42 NL image here because Swarovski only has product photos showing the eyecups extended. Not sure why they would do that but ok. I’m assuming that Swarovski’s stated measurement of 158 mm is with them down.

If I got any numbers wrong let me know and I can blame the B&H site since navigating around the various manufacturers slick websites to get info is an exercise in frustration 😉

View attachment 1439122
View attachment 1439123
BryanP,
excellent, thats good stuff. So basically we can see that the SFL is same size as one of the smallest 42’s on the market , the MHG. I’d say optically they better be a heck of a lot better. As far as build quality my opinion the the SF is closer to the MHG than an NL, EL or any of the Leica’s.

Paul
 

ZDHart

Well-known member
United States
Here ya go!
Both are really close. The Leica is a tad longer (2mm) and weighs the same as the SFL. It also seems slimmer.
B&H numbers again.

View attachment 1439127
These are all very illustrative comparisons, Bryan. Thanks so much for doing so. And... if you feel motivated to include some other bins for comparison... Swaro and Leica in particular... I look forward to seeing those too!

I have to say... I think Zeiss is going to do very well with these, even though I think the $1800 USD price point is pushed a bit high.

BUT... when you consider the current asking prices of NL ($3000 USD for 8x42), SF ($2700 USD for 8x42), and Noctivid ($2850 USD)... well - perhaps the $1800 asking pricing for the SFL is comparatively quite reasonable.

We shall know when the careful analysis and reviews are done and posted.
 
Last edited:

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
I’ll probably produce more since I’m curious too.
To be honest I’m torn about these illustrations as the images I’m using from the brand websites don’t lend themselves to consistent accuracy.

If the various brands all used the same photography/rendering approach then accuracy would be assured. Unfortunately one brand will use tilt/shift lens in their product photography and other won’t. One brand will photograph the product from one subtle angle and the others not. This all adds up to a fair amount of fudging at my end to get it right.
The best way would be technical line drawings in 3 views but that can be problematic too since many folks can have difficulty with drawings. I could overlay the plan view drawing with a photo of the binocular and then bend, shrink and stretch the photo to match the drawings exact shape and proportions. Realistic computer renderings would also work.
At any rate, all that is technical fussing since even at the current level of accuracy they at least give us an idea of size differences. As long as folks here are comfortable with the possible minor inaccuracies I’ll still crank em out.
Cheers!
Try visiting the press relations part of the brands' websites. There you can usually find the full-sized images of new products availabe to download and then you can re-size them.

Lee
 

Swedpat

Well-known member
I think the SFL will sell mostly on size, name and looks. Without HT and FL glass, it seems unlikely to be a huge upgrade from the Conquest HD series, apart from the field flattener. Better contrast is possible.

I think the design is beautiful but it looks like it will come in around 2300 CAD, nearly double a Conquest which seems pretty dear for a mid tier.

You may be right. But when I carefully compared my Conquest HD 8x42 and NL Pure 8x42 I came to the conclusion that Conquest HD does not come to shame before NL Pure. At least not when taking the price difference in consider. I hardly find it worth to pay the extra price of NL Pure for the optical quality alone.

NL Pure excels with the significantly wider FOV and flat field. But optically the difference is very subtle in my eyes. Conquest HD really is a very high class glass. So if I find SFL 8x40 to be optically at least as good as Conquest HD 8x42 and at the same time fall in love with the size and weight of SFL I am tempted to replace Conquest HD with SFL. For sure it seems unjustified to pay that price for maybe not getting better optics at all...
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
It’s too bad that something like this isn’t available for every binocular. Thanks to dorubird.

I would love to see one for the 8X32 SF
1649688611587.jpeg
 
Last edited:

BryanP

Little known member
Canada
BryanP,
excellent, thats good stuff. So basically we can see that the SFL is same size as one of the smallest 42’s on the market , the MHG. I’d say optically they better be a heck of a lot better. As far as build quality my opinion the the SF is closer to the MHG than an NL, EL or any of the Leica’s.

Paul
Thanks to these comparisons I'm now considering adding an HG to the household. I'd also agree with your statement about the build quality of the SF.
I love my SF and its a part of the family but its build quality and although nicely finished doesn't quite match the price point.
 

adhoc

Well-known member
After the initial excitement, I see there are other very good or good binoculars only a little more in weight and about the same size as the Zeiss SFL, at a lower or much lower price.

These are all in the 8x42 spec.
FOV as stated by the manufr.
Length, weight (rounded to nearest x5g).

Celestron Trailseeker-ED, FOV 8.1°
5.5" 665g
Leupold ProGuide-BX4, FOV 7.0°
5.6" 665g
Nikon Monarch-HG, FOV 8.3°
5.7" 665g

Of lesser optical quality but still good:

Bushnell Engage, FOV 8.1°
5.5” 665g

The Celestron seldom flies into the BirdForum radar. The CA control of the Leupold is rated 8.9/10 by AllBinos (see post # 188 above for comparison of CA in Zeiss models).
 

A2GG

Beth
United States
Indeed! The 8x30 HG looks mighty interesting as and EDC bino!
I enjoy mine ! It's my only binocular right now. I do want to buy a secondary bino eventually and keep it at 2.
It will be another around the 1k price range and should also be light weight.
This price level is where I feel comfortable these days. Quality is very good at this price point and it's enough for me.
 

BryanP

Little known member
Canada
Ok,
By now most folks have a sense of the scale of the SFL relative to other offerings but since there’s been requests for other models I’ll include a few of them here.

This time its the Optiicron Traveller 8x32, Trinovid 8x32, Nikon HG 8x30, Noctivid 8x42, Conquest 8x32 and Swarovski EL 8x32.

Swarovski doesn’t supply photos of their products that are “square on” in other words every binocular photo their marketing dept releases is foreshortened (shot from slightly above). This means fitting the bin to the correct height is problematic so can’t really vouch for a 100% accurate scale for this bin.

After this comparison exercise I was surprised to see how close the Nikon HG 8x42 and the SFL are in size and weight. It remains to be seen if the SFL’s optics and fit and finish justify the higher price compared to the Nikon offering. The SFL’s announcement has put the HG back in the spotlight for me.

If there’s enough interest we could start another thread that features comparisons that don’t centre around the SFL.
Cheers,
Bryan
Edit; removed the faulty Conquest illustration and added the correct illustration. See post #281

26203D1C-225A-4A61-AB78-5F80303E898A.jpeg 7EBBDD94-8F83-4935-ACFC-4D20B8F9F696.jpeg C7866DD5-8375-4161-A8C7-2E393AEB5FAA.jpeg F9EACEA3-B46D-4AA6-A91F-E17F7900F427.jpeg DFC2745A-0D55-419B-9AB8-09859BE5AA22.jpeg 711FDE66-9FF8-47C4-85B6-D123292EDCA7.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Sc0tty

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Ok,
By now most folks have sense of the scale of the SFL relative to other offerings but since there’s been requests for other models I’ll include a few of them here.

This time its the Optiicron Traveller 8x32, Trinovid 8x32, Nikon HG 8x30, Noctivid 8x42, Conquest 8x32 and Swarovski EL 8x32.

Swarovski doesn’t supply photos of their products that are “square on” in other words every binocular photo their marketing dept releases is foreshortened (shot from slightly above). This means fitting the bin to the correct height is problematic so can’t really vouch for a 100% accurate scale for this bin.

After this comparison exercise I was surprised to see how close the Nikon HG 8x42 and the SFL are in size and weight. It remains to be seen if the SFL’s optics and fit and finish justify the higher price compared to the Nikon offering. The SFL’s announcement has put the HG back in the spotlight for me.

If there’s enough interest we could start another thread that features comparisons that don’t centre around the SFL.
Cheers,
Bryan

View attachment 1439588 View attachment 1439589 View attachment 1439590 View attachment 1439591 View attachment 1439592 View attachment 1439593
Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 is 132mm according to the Zeiss website
 

DrewskiMT

Observer
I was surprised to see how close the Nikon HG 8x42 and the SFL are in size and weight. It remains to be seen if the SFL’s optics and fit and finish justify the hi
I was thinking the exact same thing. Ergonomics look far superior in the SFL though. You are really gonna be paying for that big chunky low down focus wheel, and hopefully some turbocharged optics!

I have the Traveler, MHG42, Conquest32, and DBAVHD+. I'll get actual measurments and a side by side photo posted later.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top