I also checked in with Sportoptics. They told me they now pay sales tax on Zeiss, so they'll cover sales tax and take off maybe another 5-7%, when they get them in. Just passing on what I heard, not making any promises.Just called Time & Optics to double- check my SFL info. Pre-order price is in fact $1,599 for both 8x and 10x, and $1,799 after that.
Chuck its really good to hear from you after all this time.They were $1550 at Land, Sea, and Sky at Magee Marsh, preorder.
I looked at and thru them a bit. I like them. Feel really good in the hand. I probably would have bought them at that price if they were in stock and I could have used them over my time there.
Thanks Lee!Chuck its really good to hear from you after all this time.
Lee
I agree. They look fantastic. The specs are splendid, and the placement of that focuser looks excellent! Bravo Zeiss! They have finally made a bino that I want to purchase in addition to my 8x32 Conquest.I'm a leica fanboy but i gotta say - if there are no hidden issues, Zeiss hit the ball outta-the-park with the SFL's.
PM are you sure the Swaro is on the left? I can see some CA in both images but the one on the right has significantly less. But in any case we do not know how much of the CA is due to your phone camera.I recently bought a digiscoping kit and used it to compare the 8x40 SFL and the NL Pure 8x32 again.
I was aiming for a crow against a white sky but they do not stay put long enough for me and the weather is too nice
But I was able to shoot a dove in front of a cloud.
Distance is 60m.
iPhone 12 pro using the long lens, Swaro on the left, Zeiss on the right, 100% crop of the raw file.
As you can see, both binoculars capture a lot of details, the Swaro is AC free, as would probably the SF be and the SFL is still very good but as a little bit of AC. This was just to confirm my initial findings.
PM are you sure the Swaro is on the left?
I can see some CA in both images but the one on the right has significantly less.
As far as I know, none is this case because this is also what I see through the binocularsBut in any case we do not know how much of the CA is due to your phone camera.
No, it is not because this a 100% crop of a magnification of the center of the image. The CA is very low. Recent and even more expensive alphas such as the SF and NL Pure are better but the SFL is still excellent.That CA... That is shockingly poor control. Goodness me. I understand full well that there are dozens of variables that could effect the image, but never the less, at 1600 quid I would have expected far, far better.
Checking the images again, the bird on the left, to my eyes, has a small amount of green at the edge of its back and left edge of the tail while its breast has a little violet/purple edge. This is a very small amount but I can just see it. The bird on the right has even less to my eyes.Yes
Are you sure? If you look at the tail or the paws of the bird, you'll see the purple CA. Same on the left part of the antenna: some purple CA below the antenna, yellow above on the right image, none on the left.
Also, the wall at the bottom has yellow CA in one case, not the other.
As far as I know, none is this case because this is also what I see through the binoculars
I don't see that Andy, in fact I can barely make out any CA on the right-hand image and so suspect this is the NL.I see purple in the image on the right. No way the SFL is better glass than the NL anyway.
This is interesting because we clearly do not see the same thing even on a picture. And something that I find obvious is hardly visible to you.Checking the images again, the bird on the left, to my eyes, has a small amount of green at the edge of its back and left edge of the tail while its breast has a little violet/purple edge. This is a very small amount but I can just see it. The bird on the right has even less to my eyes.