• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

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

Perhaps it’s already been commented on, but I do hope Zeiss will be bringing out an 8x30 SFL and 10x30 SFL in the future. Given how good the Victory Pockets are at 8x25, they could be excellent. As much as I enjoy my 8x30 HG’s there’s room for improvement in overall quality, and similarly with Swarovski’s 8x30 CL. There’s an opportunity for Zeiss to lead the pack in this format.
 
This offering is very appealing, although IMO at full list price is skirting a little close to the $2k mark for my tastes. But on sale for 20% off or used for 30% off…. I’d be verrrry tempted to ditch 8x32 completely and have this be my premium light weight option (when I don’t feel like carrying the 7x42 UV) and just keep my 8x20 UV for when I need to go ultra light. The SFL is barely heavier than a Kowa 8x33 or Meostar 8x32, but with a 5mm exit pupil.

For those speculating/asking…. I wouldn’t expect a huge difference in color balance. Zeiss does Zeiss, and every measured transmissivity test I can recall from Gijs or Allbinos of “modern” Zeiss (ie FL and newer) shows a consistent profile: high transmission in the 500-600nm zone, peaking near 550nm, but falling off on either end (blue/red, although the red end usually falls off more steeply than blue, which I assume is why many describe the color balance as slightly “cold” even though it’s more green biased than “cold” in the typical blue sense).

Whether or not one perceives the green bias, and/or is bothered by it, the data show it’s objectively a thing. Just like it’s a thing that Leica transmission rises into the red zone and peaks above 600nm. It’s also objectively validated that Swaro has very flat transmission down into deep blue, but has a sharp cut off way out in the far red end (above 650nm). Again, this has been quite consistent across the EL and now NL models:

1649462500916.jpeg
1649464645590.png

The HT, FL, and CHD also all have roughly similar shapes to their transmissivity plots:
1649462787246.jpeg
It’s so consistent it’s clearly part of their design philosophy. They are aiming for that as their target, it’s not a coincidence. We had the exact same discussions when the 32 SF came out, people hoping “will this one not look green to me?” Lo and behold it’s the same transmissivity profile as other Zeiss.

If you see “Zeiss green” and it’s bothersome to you, I wouldn’t expect a different result with these.
 
I threw together a quick composite illustration of the size differences of the SF 8x32, SF 8x42 and the SFL 8x40. This was done in Procreate on the iPad.
I don’t think this will stand up to rigid scrutiny but it will give a close ballpark of the size differences of the three. Apologies in advance for any glaring inaccuracies.
According to the Zeiss website the height measurements of all three are;
173 mm for the SF 8x42,
144 mm for the SFL 8x40
152 mm for the SF 8x32.
When I got everything lined up I thought I’d messed up somewhere as it seems like the SFL should be bigger. If I did get this right the SFL is very petite. If this really is the case I’m very interested in the SFL.
If something is backwards or I missed something maybe folks can let me know and I’ll give it another go.

Edit, I cleaned up the illustration for better accuracy.

F2C2BAB5-B262-4132-8A47-F164DE49E289.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I can’t say I have tried any of these, but the focus wheel being so far away from the oculars would probably be a bit of a challenge for me. I’m sure I would get used to it though. Do you SF users use your middle finger to focus?
 
The ‘model’ is Debby Doodeman, one of Hollands best female birders, who also happens to be my girlfriend 😃. We were invited as ZEISS ambassadors to the photoshoot last year. I will pass on your compliments to her.

Cheers
James
She looks like she would be a wonderful girlfriend - and strikingly attractive. How cool that this is such a small 'binocular' world we live in. Yes, please, pass my compliments along to her.
 
The ‘model’ is Debby Doodeman, one of Hollands best female birders, who also happens to be my girlfriend 😃. We were invited as ZEISS ambassadors to the photoshoot last year. I will pass on your compliments to her.

Cheers
James
Also... isn't it quite nice that Zeiss actually selected a genuine 'birder' and binocular enthusiast to be featured in the brochure, rather than just hiring a typical model from an agency. Few in the general public would ever even know that!

It's very nice to know that Zeiss did just that!
 
I can’t say I have tried any of these, but the focus wheel being so far away from the oculars would probably be a bit of a challenge for me. I’m sure I would get used to it though. Do you SF users use your middle finger to focus?
No, no, no. I just put my second finger (+third and little finger) underneath the second bridge, wrapped around the tube, and my first finger falls naturally on the focus wheel without needing to hunt or stretch to find it. It is like putting on a pair of well-loved gloves: comfortable and ergonomically brilliant. I can post a photo of this grip if you wish.

Lee
 
I can’t say I have tried any of these, but the focus wheel being so far away from the oculars would probably be a bit of a challenge for me. I’m sure I would get used to it though. Do you SF users use your middle finger to focus?
I have the 10x32 SF and it did take a while for me to get used to the placing of the focus wheel. But now that I am use to it, I find that it is in a very comfortable and natural position, so much so that when I use a different binocular I automatically reach too far forward to focus. I use my index finger as I tend to hold the SF much further towards the objective lenses than with other models. This definitely helps with keeping the bins steady I feel.
 
I have the 10x32 SF and it did take a while for me to get used to the placing of the focus wheel. But now that I am use to it, I find that it is in a very comfortable and natural position, so much so that when I use a different binocular I automatically reach too far forward to focus. I use my index finger as I tend to hold the SF much further towards the objective lenses than with other models. This definitely helps with keeping the bins steady I feel.
Excellent. The whole idea of the 'open hinge' design is that the bridge/hinge is split to make room for your fingers around the barrels of the binos for a more secure grip. However some designs placed the focus wheel too far away from the barrels so that you had to 'reach' rather awkwardly to place your finger on it. See pic below of Fr Schiestel-Swarovski holding an early EL and having to bend her finger. Of course she could have moved her hand up the bino somewhat to get easier access to the focus, but then there would be little point in the open hinge design.

Later designs with the focus wheel moved from the top of the hinge to the middle, such as the SF, allowed easy access to the focus wheel, so that you don't have to modify your hand position to reach the focus, see second pic, which is of my hand holding an SF32.

Lee

CSS2.jpgIMG_4361.JPG
 
Last edited:
Most birders tuck their thumbs underneath the binocular and ‘freehand’ them to their eyes. I find it advantageous to use the thumbs as an anchor point against the cheeks, particularly for extended viewing. Moving the hands away from the oculars makes this harder, but maybe the SFL is compact enough that it could work.
 

Attachments

  • 1BF18371-F5CC-484B-B86B-32AB59FC247D.jpeg
    1BF18371-F5CC-484B-B86B-32AB59FC247D.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 31
For me.
#1 Worst GPO 10x42, a stretch.
#2 SF 8x32 tough to get three fingers between barrels.
#3 Kowa 8x33.
#4 & 5 Noctivids depending on hold.

Paul
 

Attachments

  • D459C728-9989-4E3B-A811-0299DD25F273.jpeg
    D459C728-9989-4E3B-A811-0299DD25F273.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 29
  • D6D2A9A7-111A-41C8-ADB8-1ECFB2365F66.jpeg
    D6D2A9A7-111A-41C8-ADB8-1ECFB2365F66.jpeg
    1.9 MB · Views: 27
  • BFFA8662-E7B7-447A-A018-12946B5E4967.jpeg
    BFFA8662-E7B7-447A-A018-12946B5E4967.jpeg
    1.8 MB · Views: 28
  • 7FF22BCC-2D20-4141-AF83-72F36FFCAEF0.jpeg
    7FF22BCC-2D20-4141-AF83-72F36FFCAEF0.jpeg
    2.9 MB · Views: 29
  • 96D1F38C-2234-4D2D-A1BB-44FD4D323B21.jpeg
    96D1F38C-2234-4D2D-A1BB-44FD4D323B21.jpeg
    2 MB · Views: 29
I threw together a quick composite illustration of the size differences of the SF 8x32, SF 8x42 and the SFL 8x40. This was done in Procreate on the iPad.
I don’t think this will stand up to rigid scrutiny but it will give a close ballpark of the size differences of the three. Apologies in advance for any glaring inaccuracies.
According to the Zeiss website the height measurements of all three are;
173 mm for the SF 8x42,
144 mm for the SFL 8x40
152 mm for the SF 8x32.
When I got everything lined up I thought I’d messed up somewhere as it seems like the SFL should be bigger. If I did get this right the SFL is very petite. If this really is the case I’m very interested in the SFL.
If something is backwards or I missed something maybe folks can let me know and I’ll give it another go.

Edit, I cleaned up the illustration for better accuracy.

View attachment 1438774
Nice work, the SFL:s do look tiny. Rubber armor and maybe the housing as well must be thinner than the SF:s.
 
I threw together a quick composite illustration of the size differences of the SF 8x32, SF 8x42 and the SFL 8x40. This was done in Procreate on the iPad.
I don’t think this will stand up to rigid scrutiny but it will give a close ballpark of the size differences of the three. Apologies in advance for any glaring inaccuracies.
According to the Zeiss website the height measurements of all three are;
173 mm for the SF 8x42,
144 mm for the SFL 8x40
152 mm for the SF 8x32.
When I got everything lined up I thought I’d messed up somewhere as it seems like the SFL should be bigger. If I did get this right the SFL is very petite. If this really is the case I’m very interested in the SFL.
If something is backwards or I missed something maybe folks can let me know and I’ll give it another go.

Edit, I cleaned up the illustration for better accuracy.

View attachment 1438774

Interesting that SFL 8x40 is 8mm higher/longer than Victory SF 8X32. But that shows the SF Victory models are long for their aperture.
Conquest HD 8x42 is 150mm so it's very marginal difference to SFL 8x40. The important difference in this case is the weight: SFL 8x40 is 155g lighter.
 
Most birders tuck their thumbs underneath the binocular and ‘freehand’ them to their eyes. I find it advantageous to use the thumbs as an anchor point against the cheeks, particularly for extended viewing. Moving the hands away from the oculars makes this harder, but maybe the SFL is compact enough that it could work.
Don't remember ever seeing that grip on this side of the pond.

Lee
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top