New Zeiss binos 8x40 SFL and 10x40 SFL (1 Viewer)

[brocknroller]

Now that I look for the phenomenon, it is present to varying (minimal) degree in many binoculars, more so in the wider angle eyepieces. None are bothersome though, just something to be aware of down the list.

My 8x30 E2 has an 8.8* FOV. I haven't seen chromatic aberration of the exit pupil, and I'm not sure I want to look for it since once I see it, I may not be ablel to stop seeing it!

 

[ZDHart]

It's not just the "view". One may have specific priorities such as glare, weight, or even just whether one likes brand specific gimmicks such as FP etc.

In my post, when I say the "view", that includes color quality, sharpness, field-of-view, glare resistance, etc. How pleased you are with what you see when you look through the binoculars.

And when I say "feel-in-the-hand", that includes size, weight, balance, focus wheel feel and positioning, surface texture, etc. How pleased you are with the handling and operation when using the binoculars.

As an aside... the more I use my 10x42SF, 10x42 Conquest HD, 8x32 Conquest HD, 10x32SF, 8x32SF, 7x42 UVHD+, 10x32UVHD+, and 8x32UVHD+... the more I would choose the 8x32 UVHD+ to be my "one-and-only" pair of binoculars.

Why? The 8x32 UVHD+ come up to the eyes so swiftly, so easily, and so well-balanced, the feel-in-the-hand (see definition above), and that "view" (see definition above). Not too big, not too small, not too heavy, not too light... just right! Yes.. for me, Leica 8x32 UVHD+ represent the pinnacle of binocular design that suits me perfectly.

Further, as a runner-up to the superb 8x32 UVHD+, I could happily live with the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, as well. I think Zeiss hit that one out of the park! Excellent "view" and, especially, "feel-in-the-hand."

YMMV, but that's how binoculars stack up to my preference.

 

[Paultricounty]

In my post, when I say the "view", that includes color quality, sharpness, field-of-view, glare resistance, etc. How pleased you are with what you see when you look through the binoculars.

And when I say "feel-in-the-hand", that includes size, weight, balance, focus wheel feel and positioning, surface texture, etc. How pleased you are with the handling and operation when using the binoculars.

As an aside... the more I use my 10x42SF, 10x42 Conquest HD, 8x32 Conquest HD, 10x32SF, 8x32SF, 7x42 UVHD+, 10x32UVHD+, and 8x32UVHD+... the more I would choose the 8x32 UVHD+ to be my "one-and-only" pair of binoculars.

Why? The 8x32 UVHD+ come up to the eyes so swiftly, so easily, and so well-balanced, the feel-in-the-hand (see definition above), and that "view" (see definition above). Not too big, not too small, not too heavy, not too light... just right! Yes.. for me, Leica 8x32 UVHD+ represent the pinnacle of binocular design that suits me perfectly.

Further, as a runner-up to the superb 8x32 UVHD+, I could happily live with the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, as well. I think Zeiss hit that one out of the park! Excellent "view" and, especially, "feel-in-the-hand."

YMMV, but that's how binoculars stack up to my preference.

Don,
What’s your thoughts on the 7x42 UVHD? Other than delicious 😜.

Paul

 

[ZDHart]

Don,
What’s your thoughts on the 7x42 UVHD? Other than delicious 😜.

Paul

The 7x42s have the great UVHD+ qualities that I appreciate, but I clearly prefer the 8x32 UVHD+ overall.

I prefer the slightly extra reach with the 8x vs. 7x, and the slightly shallower depth-of-focus with the 8x make them a bit quicker to get sharp focus. And, I prefer the size/weight/form factor of the 8x32.

My typical environment is Arizona bright and open, so I have little need for 42mm objectives. And, I only rarely use binoculars in the dim evening. I do keep 42mm objectives for that, if need be.

If I spent much time in dense forest environments, I might prefer the 7x42s in that closer-in, dimmer environment. I keep the 7x42s around for that possible use. They would also be great for boating.

Some people may prefer the deeper depth-of-focus with the 7x42s for some situations, but overall, I find the shallower depth-of-focus quicker to obtain sharp focus.

 

[ZDHart]

When doing carefully-done, side-to-side comparisons, differences (sometimes very minor) in the "view" (sharpness, color quality, field-of-view, glare resistance, etc.) can be found between various "higher end" binoculars... UVHD+, SF, SFL, NL, even including models like Conquest HD, etc.

But for me, when I grab up any one of these binoculars - to include the very moderately-priced Conquest HD, every one of them gets the job done, quite enjoyably. And the differences aren't all that significant.

My point is that while this pair or that pair may be tested and deemed technically superior in some way to another one of these, when it comes down to just using them, that technical superiority may involve spending perhaps $2500-$3000 and in general use, may not really count for as much, value-wise.

I can grab up a pair of Zeiss Victory SF 8x32s one minute, then a pair of Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 the next... and while there are differences between them... still find either one comparably satisfying to use.

Sometimes chasing that last, possible, small bit of technical "superiority" can mean spending 2.5x to 3x as much money - and for many folks, that juice just may not be worth the squeeze!

Of course, we're all individuals, with individual priorities, and individual budgets.... so, what some folks choose to do (chasing the last possible enhancement, at very significant cost) won't necessarily be the sensible choice for others.

Thought for those who wish to conserve their binocular budget - you CAN be quite well-served, and extremely pleased, with binoculars as economically-priced as Zeiss Conquest HD. Don't feel that you need to spend upward of $3000 to have a great pair of very well-made binoculars.

 

[DrewskiMT]

I completely agree. I like the SV EL32 better than my 8x32 Conquest, but not 3 times better. More like .3x times better.

 

[Thotmosis]

When doing carefully-done, side-to-side comparisons, differences (sometimes very minor) in the "view" (sharpness, color quality, field-of-view, glare resistance, etc.) can be found between various "higher end" binoculars... UVHD+, SF, SFL, NL, even including models like Conquest HD, etc.

But for me, when I grab up any one of these binoculars - to include the very moderately-priced Conquest HD, every one of them gets the job done, quite enjoyably. And the differences aren't all that significant.

My point is that while this pair or that pair may be tested and deemed technically superior in some way to another one of these, when it comes down to just using them, that technical superiority may involve spending perhaps $2500-$3000 and in general use, may not really count for as much, value-wise.

I can grab up a pair of Zeiss Victory SF 8x32s one minute, then a pair of Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 the next... and while there are differences between them... still find either one comparably satisfying to use.

Sometimes chasing that last, possible, small bit of technical "superiority" can mean spending 2.5x to 3x as much money - and for many folks, that juice just may not be worth the squeeze!

Of course, we're all individuals, with individual priorities, and individual budgets.... so, what some folks choose to do (chasing the last possible enhancement, at very significant cost) won't necessarily be the sensible choice for others.

Thought for those who wish to conserve their binocular budget - you CAN be quite well-served, and extremely pleased, with binoculars as economically-priced as Zeiss Conquest HD. Don't feel that you need to spend upward of $3000 to have a great pair of very well-made binoculars.

Just a short observation because after all this is the Zeiss section.

The use of a binocular is often influenced by the geographical location. In Arizona most likely -as i experienced on Crete- you have in most situations more than sufficient glass with a 7/810x32. While in other locations you will be better off with a 7/8/10x42. Just my 2 (euro)cents.

 

[ZDHart]

Just a short observation because after all this is the Zeiss section.

The use of a binocular is often influenced by the geographical location. In Arizona most likely -as i experienced on Crete- you have in most situations more than sufficient glass with a 7/810x32. While in other locations you will be better off with a 7/8/10x42. Just my 2 (euro)cents.

Yes, indeed. Arizona is largely very brightly lit, nearly every day. With some vast distance views and a great many mountains. 8x32 covers this wonderfully. No 42s needed except perhaps in the dim evening.

A good part of the higher elevation area of the state is covered with a massive pine forest - still relatively bright, though.

As I mentioned above, in closer-range, less-bright locations/situations the 42 objectives may be preferred!

I keep the UVHD+ 7x42 bins around just for situations like that - like using in a dense, wooded forest, especially on dimmer, cloudy days. And I keep some 10x42 Zeiss bins around, for occasional use. They're not my preferred bins, though.

 

[brocknroller]

The 7x42s have the great UVHD+ qualities that I appreciate, but I clearly prefer the 8x32 UVHD+ overall.

I prefer the slightly extra reach with the 8x vs. 7x, and the slightly shallower depth-of-focus with the 8x make them a bit quicker to get sharp focus. And, I prefer the size/weight/form factor of the 8x32.

My typical environment is Arizona bright and open, so I have little need for 42mm objectives. And, I only rarely use binoculars in the dim evening. I do keep 42mm objectives for that, if need be.

If I spent much time in dense forest environments, I might prefer the 7x42s in that closer-in, dimmer environment. I keep the 7x42s around for that possible use. They would also be great for boating.

Some people may prefer the deeper depth-of-focus with the 7x42s for some situations, but overall, I find the shallower depth-of-focus quicker to obtain sharp focus.

Z,

I also appreciate a fast (but not Terra/Conquest too fast) focuser. I was at Fisherman's Paradise yesterday, and I saw sandpipers, a Merganser hen with her ducklings, Mother Goose, who I've been watching and taking photos of for weeks as she lay on her next, with her newly hatched goslings, crows, vultures, eagles, eagles' nest, and a water snake. I also found a goose egg near Mother Goose's nest and tried to coax her into coming back and hatch it, but she told me, "I already have five goslings to worry about, that egg wouldn't hatch, so make am omelet for yourself." I thanked her but for fear of breaking open an embryo in my frying pan, I showed the egg to some other gease in the stream, and one stood up and looked very interested, so I put it back and in the nest, and she started coming to the shore, but would only come so close, so I left it in the nest, and I'm hoping like Horton, she will hatch Maize's egg.

Then suddenly out from behind me came a bird I've never seen before fly over the stream and into a tree. It was medium-sized and mostly black with some orange and an orange beak. I quickly grabbed my SE but "to everything turn, turn, turn," and it was "Gone in 60 Seconds." Amazingly sharp views of what wasn't moving a lightning speed but I'm not sure even the faster focuser of the 8x32 EDG could have caught a glimpse since it ducked behind a tree within a few seconds after I spotted it.

You'd think that with the better "depth-of-focus" of the 7x42 UV, more ground/sky would be in focus, so unless the bird was far out of range of where you were looking, the 7x42's depth-of-focus would be an advantage rather than a detriment. My two binoculars with the best depth-of-focus are the Vixen 7x50 Foresta and Fuji 6x30 FMTR-SX. Except at close range, they are basically "set and forget."

Got a better camera (Olympus w/30x WA optical zoom) but it's hard to see the L.E.D. screen in bright light, so half the time I'm shooting "blind."

Here are some pix from yesterday.

B

 

[Thotmosis]

Yes, indeed. Arizona is largely very brightly lit, nearly every day. With some vast distance views and a great many mountains. 8x32 covers this wonderfully. No 42s needed except perhaps in the dim evening.

A good part of the higher elevation area of the state is covered with a massive pine forest - still relatively bright, though.

As I mentioned above, in closer-range, less-bright locations/situations the 42 objectives may be preferred!

I keep the UVHD+ 7x42 bins around just for situations like that - like using in a dense, wooded forest, especially on dimmer, cloudy days. And I keep some 10x42 Zeiss bins around, for occasional use. They're not my preferred bins, though.

Sounds like a great setup! I use mostly bigger objectives here in the Netherlands but i have a UVHD (not+) 8x32 that i use for hiking. Everytime i use it I’m surprised about the image and handling: compact, crystal clear and super sharp. Oh and of course the colors . Sometimes i want to buy also the 10x32 safari but i have already too much binoculars.

 

[brocknroller]

When doing carefully-done, side-to-side comparisons, differences (sometimes very minor) in the "view" (sharpness, color quality, field-of-view, glare resistance, etc.) can be found between various "higher end" binoculars... UVHD+, SF, SFL, NL, even including models like Conquest HD, etc.

But for me, when I grab up any one of these binoculars - to include the very moderately-priced Conquest HD, every one of them gets the job done, quite enjoyably. And the differences aren't all that significant.

My point is that while this pair or that pair may be tested and deemed technically superior in some way to another one of these, when it comes down to just using them, that technical superiority may involve spending perhaps $2500-$3000 and in general use, may not really count for as much, value-wise.

I can grab up a pair of Zeiss Victory SF 8x32s one minute, then a pair of Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 the next... and while there are differences between them... still find either one comparably satisfying to use.

Sometimes chasing that last, possible, small bit of technical "superiority" can mean spending 2.5x to 3x as much money - and for many folks, that juice just may not be worth the squeeze!

Of course, we're all individuals, with individual priorities, and individual budgets.... so, what some folks choose to do (chasing the last possible enhancement, at very significant cost) won't necessarily be the sensible choice for others.

Thought for those who wish to conserve their binocular budget - you CAN be quite well-served, and extremely pleased, with binoculars as economically-priced as Zeiss Conquest HD. Don't feel that you need to spend upward of $3000 to have a great pair of very well-made binoculars.

I have more expensive binoculars, but my "Go To" birding bins are $200 8x32 Cabela Guides, which were MIJ by Kamakura. The discerning eye will notice that the Nikon 8x32 EDG is sharper, has better edges, better CA control, better flare control, and a better focuser than the Cabela Guide but it's not 10x better. But with alphas you pay a premium to eek out that extra performance.

How is the focuser on the 8x32 Conquest? I found the focuser too fast on the 8x42 model. Like the 8x32 Terra ED, I kept overshooting my target, and had to keep toggling back. And They both had a very shallow depth-of-focus. I know that you like binoculars that "snap to focus." Both of those Zeiss bins did not for me.

Brock

 

[ZDHart]

I have more expensive binoculars, but my "Go To" birding bins are $200 8x32 Cabela Guides, which were MIJ by Kamakura. The discerning eye will notice that the Nikon 8x32 EDG is sharper, has better edges, better CA control, better flare control, and a better focuser than the Cabela Guide but it's not 10x better. But with alphas you pay a premium to eek out that extra performance.

How is the focuser on the 8x32 Conquest? I found the focuser too fast on the 8x42 model. Like the 8x32 Terra ED, I kept overshooting my target, and had to keep toggling back. And They both had a very shallow depth-of-focus. I know that you like binoculars that "snap to focus." Both of those Zeiss bins did not for me.

Brock

Brock... the 8x32 Conquest HD has quite a fast and exceptionally smooth focuser... it is just exactly how I like them to be.

Ultimately, I think it just comes down to one becoming accustomed to the speed of the focuser that they are using. I like them quick, so I'm accustomed to just making relatively small adjustments.

On a different subject, while I prefer a relatively shallow depth-of-focus (as with 8x and 10x), I know that in some situations, binoculars with deep depth-of-focus (e.g. Leica 7x42 UVHD+) can certainly be advantageous! It's all good, man. (Saul Goodman)

 

[Troubador]

Brock... the 8x32 Conquest HD has quite a fast and exceptionally smooth focuser... it is just exactly how I like them to be.

Ultimately, I think it just comes down to one becoming accustomed to the speed of the focuser that they are using. I like them quick, so I'm accustomed to just making relatively small adjustments.

And while I prefer a relatively shallow depth-of-focus, I know that in some situations, binoculars with deep depth-of-focus can certainly be advantageous! It's all good, man. (Saul Goodman)

Although I prefer the moderate focus speed of SF 8x32 for use in the UK, when visiting France, which has many more species of fast flying butterflies, dragonflies and birds with which I am unfamiliar than the UK, the Conquests faster focus was more able to get me a view of these, so appropriate focus speed may depend on habitat.

 

[Canip]

so appropriate focus speed may depend on habitat.

It won‘t be long then before someone here comes along and asks for an adjustable focus speed 🧐

 

[brocknroller]

Brock... the 8x32 Conquest HD has quite a fast and exceptionally smooth focuser... it is just exactly how I like them to be.

Ultimately, I think it just comes down to one becoming accustomed to the speed of the focuser that they are using. I like them quick, so I'm accustomed to just making relatively small adjustments.

And while I prefer a relatively shallow depth-of-focus, I know that in some situations, binoculars with deep depth-of-focus can certainly be advantageous! It's all good, man. (Saul Goodman)

PERFECTION IS THE ENEMY OF PERFECTLY ADEQUATE. (another Saulism)​

 

[brocknroller]

It won‘t be long then before someone here comes along and asks for an adjustable focus speed 🧐

Brunton made them. Brunton 8.5x43 or 10.5x43 Epoch binoculars.

Not sure why they never caught on. Thought they looked cool, too. As I recall, the FOV was narrow, but that was on the first version, the v.2 had a better but barely wide by today's standards, 7.2* FOV.

B&H had them specked with a 38.6 ft close focus! That's wrong. Another website listed them as having a close focus of 3 ft! That's certainly variable.

I checked Brunton's website, and it appears they no longer make binoculars only monoculars.

Here's a BF thread on the Epochs.

Brunton Epoch 8.5x43 vs. Swaro EL 8.5x42

Had a good opportunity to compare my Brunton Epoch's with a pair of Swarovski EL 8.5x42's today. A nice birder allowed me to borrow hers for a little while and compare them side by side. I'm very glad I did. The image the Brunton's gave me seemed as sharp to my eyes and dare I say, even a...

www.birdforum.net

 

[DrewskiMT]

I have more expensive binoculars, but my "Go To" birding bins are $200 8x32 Cabela Guides, which were MIJ by Kamakura. The discerning eye will notice that the Nikon 8x32 EDG is sharper, has better edges, better CA control, better flare control, and a better focuser than the Cabela Guide but it's not 10x better. But with alphas you pay a premium to eek out that extra performance.

How is the focuser on the 8x32 Conquest? I found the focuser too fast on the 8x42 model. Like the 8x32 Terra ED, I kept overshooting my target, and had to keep toggling back. And They both had a very shallow depth-of-focus. I know that you like binoculars that "snap to focus." Both of those Zeiss bins did not for me.

Brock

In the 8x32 focus is crazy fast. Too fast for me also. But I live with it just fine. The sharpness/resolution gives good focus snap, but it is easy to overshoot. Swarovski has the moderate focus speed you are looking for.

 

[brocknroller]

In the 8x32 focus is crazy fast. Too fast for me also. But I live with it just fine. The sharpness/resolution gives good focus snap, but it is easy to overshoot. Swarovski has the moderate focus speed you are looking for.

It sounds like the Terra ED. I couldnt rest my finger on the focuser without moving it. As to Swaro focusers, perhpas the CL or NL might work, but the 8x32 EL (pre-SV) had a focuser that turned fast to the left and hard and notchy to the right. So was the 8.5x EL I tried. The SLC's focusers were similar. The Nikon EDG has the smoothest focuser (in both directions) I've tried, which is in part why I have the 8x32 EDG II.

In the 8x32 focus is crazy fast. Too fast for me also. But I live with it just fine. The sharpness/resolution gives good focus snap, but it is easy to overshoot. Swarovski has the moderate focus speed you are looking for.

Like Sherry, a girl I dated in 10th grade, the Conquest focuser was too fast for me!

However, it's not only speed but smoothness of a focuser that matters, and in that regard the EL and SLC both fail since they turn smoothly only one direction and turn harder and often sticky in the other direction, some samples are worse, some better than others. Swarovski apparenlty reinvented the (focuser) wheel for the CL and NL, so that after 40 years, the Wizads of Absam finally figured out how to make a focuser that turns smoothly in both directions!

For me, Nikon designed the best focuser with the EDG, which turns buttery smooth in both directions with just the right amount of speed and dampening. I was back at Fisherman's Paradise today, this time with the 8x32 EDG, to watch Mother Goose and her goslings and the Merganser hen and her ducklings (boy, did they move fast in the water when they saw me!). The goose egg in the nest was crushed and its contents eaten. Not sure by whom, but I did see a Great Blue Heron nearby. Unforunately, my camera battery was drained, so I didn't get a shot of it. When it went airborne, it looked like a Pterodactyl. They are HUGE.

Brock

 

[GrampaTom]

However, it's not only speed but smoothness of a focuser that matters, and in that regard the EL and SLC both fail since they turn smoothly only one direction and turn harder and often sticky in the other direction, some samples are worse, some better than others. Swarovski apparenlty reinvented the (focuser) wheel for the CL and NL, so that after 40 years, the Wizads of Absam finally figured out how to make a focuser that turns smoothly in both directions!

Not my experience. Cant imagine smoother focuser, in either direction, then is on either my EL or NL. Cant speak for the SLC

 

[Richard D]

Not my experience. Cant imagine smoother focuser, in either direction, then is on either my EL or NL. Cant speak for the SLC

I can feel the extra resistance on both my ELs and SLCs when turning in reverse, but none of mine feel sticky. I'd describe all of them as smoother than my Trinovids (not that they're bad in any way). Terra's I found unusable because of the fast 'twitchy' focus. I could probably adapt to the 8x32 Conquest's speed with time, but I prefer a slower more precise focuser (I liked the Noctivid I tried recently).