Are you gonna try the SFL 50s, Dennis? If so, what magnification are you thinking?
-
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.
News from Zeiss - SFL 50 (8 Viewers)
- Thread starter binomania
- Start date
John A Roberts
Well-known member
So the question that raises is: Why are you certain that the factory in Japan is not operated by Kamakura?
John
Last edited:
I am a 8x man like Henry. I like the bigger FOV, better DOF, brighter image, less shake and in the case of the 8x50 fewer aberrations because you would be in effect using a stopped down binocular in the daytime so the SFL 8x50 would be my choice. Here is a good video on the SFL 12x50, though. If you like high magnification, the 12x looks nice! He likes the eyepiece design.
Last edited:
Love 8x50s. That’s a good choice. I’ve been using my 8x50 Trinovids a lot so far this migration. Cool to see a new 8x50 on the market. A bit of an oddball size these days unfortunately.
I’d go 12s for sure. Not sure if I’ll do it, but I’m thinking it over.
I think the SFL 12x50 will be the best 12x50 on the market, and it will even give the NL 12x42 a run for its money because the FOV is almost as big at 315 feet versus the NL's 339 feet and the SFL will be pulling in 50% more light plus have much more comfortable eye placement with the bigger 4.1mm EP versus the smaller 3.5mm EP of the NL 12x42. So the only advantage the NL 12x42 will have will be slightly sharper edges, and it is just as heavy as the SFL 12x50 at about 31 oz. Even the Maven B6 12x50 is about the same weight as the SFL, but it only has a 288 foot FOV. If you can hold 12x steady, or you use a tripod, I don't think you will beat the SFL 12x50 with anything.
The western hunters are going to love the SFL 12x50 because it will be small enough and light enough to carry in a backpack, and you wouldn't necessarily need a tripod like you would with the NL 14x52. The SFL 8x50 will be very popular for it's low light capabilities with the hog hunters down in Texas also. I bet that is why Zeiss made the SFL in a 8x50. Somebody at Zeiss was really thinking when they made these 50mm SFL's. They will cannibalize a lot of the sales of the NL 10x52 and 14x52, especially since they are almost 1/2 the price and almost 6 oz. lighter.
Last edited:
Zeiss SFL 8×50
£1,855 Reviewed by Mike Weedon In 2022, I reviewed the Zeiss 8×40 SFL...
Heck yeah! I like 12x50s. I’ve never owned a keeper though.
Similarly, I like Zeiss, but have gotten rid of most pairs that I have owned. I currently only own a FL 7x42. They are phenomenal. The best 7s I've used in some ways. The clarity and brightness is amazing. The field of view is wider than any pair of 7s that I am aware of. The weird thing though, is despite their virtues, I still prefer my UV 7s for some intangible reasons.
A fun story about 8x50s: recently I was at a bon fire on the beach with some friends. After a while, they all left and I stayed behind alone. As soon as they left and it got quiet, I was able to hear a bunch of wales around me. I pulled out my 8x50s and started panning around and discovered that they were Orcas. Pretty cool. It was very dark but I was able to see them with my binoculars. I see Orcas a couple (maybe a few) times a year, so they are common enough to find them occasionally, but rare enough to be exciting when I do. Pretty cool.
8x50s are not at all a common configuration where I live, but I am not a hog hunter in Texas
. I hope you are right, and they are a good seller for Zeiss. I want there to be more big-objective/low-magnification options on the market.I'd probably be hand hold a pair of 12s most of the time, but it is pretty freaking cool that they are including a tripod mount with them. It seems like Zeiss is taking some big steps.
I think the new SFL 50mm will be great for birders, but I think they are really targeted at hunters. The SFL 8x50 are for low light hunters and the SFL 10x50 and SFL 12x50 are for the western hunters in open country or goat hunting. I think Zeiss expended the SFL line because they had a lot of success with the SFL 8x30 and SFL 8x40. I think these new 50mm SFL's will be good sellers. Like you say though, an SFL 8x50 would be good on a boat or for whale watching because it is very close to a 7x50 really. The SFL 8x50 would be a good astro binocular also because it is similar to a Fujinon 7x50 FMTR-SX. It would be very versatile just like a 8x42 except on steroids!Heck yeah! I like 12x50s. I’ve never owned a keeper though.
Similarly, I like Zeiss, but have gotten rid of most pairs that I have owned. I currently only own a FL 7x42. They are phenomenal. The best 7s I've used in some ways. The clarity and brightness is amazing. The field of view is wider than any pair of 7s that I am aware of. The weird thing though, is despite their virtues, I still prefer my UV 7s for some intangible reasons.
A fun story about 8x50s: recently I was at a bon fire on the beach with some friends. After a while, they all left and I stayed behind alone. As soon as they left and it got quiet, I was able to hear a bunch of wales around me. I pulled out my 8x50s and started panning around and discovered that they were Orcas. Pretty cool. It was very dark but I was able to see them with my binoculars. I see Orcas a couple (maybe a few) times a year, so they are common enough to find them occasionally, but rare enough to be exciting when I do. Pretty cool.
8x50s are not at all a common configuration where I live, but I am not a hog hunter in Texas
I'd probably be hand hold a pair of 12s most of the time, but it is pretty freaking cool that they are including a tripod mount with them. It seems like Zeiss is taking some big steps.
Here is a good thread that explains why usually a binocular with a larger aperture will have a smaller FOV than a binocular with a smaller aperture even if they have the same magnifications, as in a 8x50 versus a 8x32.
Why less F O V with larger aperture?
How come that a Xx30 bino of the same line (almost always, what I've seen) have larger F O V than a Xx40, or even more than a Xx50? It can't just be to compensate for less light gathering, can it? ;) (I mean, that's what the lesser weight does!) :-O
www.birdforum.net
Last edited:
Here is a good thread that explains why usually a binocular with a larger aperture will have a smaller FOV than a binocular with a smaller aperture even if they have the same magnifications, as in a 8x50 versus a 8x32.
Why less F O V with larger aperture?
How come that a Xx30 bino of the same line (almost always, what I've seen) have larger F O V than a Xx40, or even more than a Xx50? It can't just be to compensate for less light gathering, can it? ;) (I mean, that's what the lesser weight does!) :-O
Nice one, will have a read at that. Thanks!
tenex
reality-based
Aperture is not the principal factor here; SFL 10 and 12x50 have excellent FOV. Lower magnification also dictates a longer focal length for the eyepiece, which is why 7/8x bins generally have less AFOV than 10x+ (given that they must share components with other models in the line for economy). A similar pattern is often seen in other lines too: it's the already FOV-challenged 7/8x that suffers further at larger apertures.
Last edited:
I’m curious bout something. Prolly a bit of an obscure thing. We’ve read and repeated multiple times throughout life of various SFLs about “thinner” lens, most often described as a contributor to lighter weight of these.
Wonder how/what that means in more detail? Thinner contributing to lower weight but at what price? Durability? Optical compromise? Maybe not an optical performance price, as much as an optical design feat?
In order to protect durability would a different lens formulation have been required?
Zeiss seemingly not elaborating much. There would seem more to the story.
Wonder how/what that means in more detail? Thinner contributing to lower weight but at what price? Durability? Optical compromise? Maybe not an optical performance price, as much as an optical design feat?
In order to protect durability would a different lens formulation have been required?
Zeiss seemingly not elaborating much. There would seem more to the story.
Well if you compare the "thinner lens" 8x40 SLF to the SF 8x42, you see a little smaller FOV and less sharp at the edge in the SFL. And a little more CA at the edge in the SFL. So those are the optical changes. We don't know if they're because of light weight or just a cheaper design.
I would think it's possible to use thinner lens elements and get the same performance in certain cases. Maybe with more expensive glass types or trickier designs. It might just mean the designer used weight as one of the performance criteria.
I would think it's possible to use thinner lens elements and get the same performance in certain cases. Maybe with more expensive glass types or trickier designs. It might just mean the designer used weight as one of the performance criteria.
Thanks Scott,
These sorts of optical performance differences happen all the time between various brands and models of binos, never methinks, are they correlated, described as, do to "thinner" lens, you agree?
"So those are the optical changes. We don't know if they're because of light weight or just a cheaper design." Well, yes, or for that matter anything else. The basic optical parameters are not being claimed by Zeiss as do to the "thinner" glass. The only claim seems thinner lens combined with magnesium for the body combined to make an overall lighter bino.
My question - are there other benefits to overall performance?
Or maybe... this'd be cool, what if there is no implication to optical performance or even "robustness" (some have conjectured about here), this is just a very cool bit of engineering involving materials science (aka lens material), some lens making technology, enabling thinner, that lightens things but loses nothing else?
Guess Im looking for an answer beyond the normal conversations. What are the implications to the whole bino of these thinner lens?
I agree with your latter. Zeiss is the source of this thin lens thing.
This from Zeiss website,
“The lens diameter has been reduced by 2 mm, making it possible to use thinner lens elements at closer spacing and thus reduce the binoculars’ weight by up to 20% and their volume by up to 13% compared to the ZEISS Victory SF models. As a result, the SFL binoculars are up to 30% lighter than comparable products from competitors.”
Trying to understand the reference to thinner. How?
“The lens diameter has been reduced by 2 mm, making it possible to use thinner lens elements at closer spacing and thus reduce the binoculars’ weight by up to 20% and their volume by up to 13% compared to the ZEISS Victory SF models. As a result, the SFL binoculars are up to 30% lighter than comparable products from competitors.”
Trying to understand the reference to thinner. How?
The SF has a larger FOV and sharper edges than the SFL because of a more complex ocular lens, which makes it more expensive. The SF controls CA a little better than the SFL because of the higher fluoride Ultra FL glass used in the SF. The SF 8x32 and 10x32 have exceptional CA control because of their optical design using a moving objective focusing system. So glass quality and optical design can affect CA control. From Scopeviews.
Zeiss 10x32 Victory SF Review
Carl Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com
The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.
"Like the larger SFs, these employ a long-focal-length doublet with an Ultra-FL ED glass crown, instead of the usual triplet, to reduce weight. But instead of focusing with a moving lens behind the objective, here the objectives themselves move on a carriage behind a thin optical window. Those promo’ images aren’t photoshopped, the pink circles at the barrel ends look flat because they are! Moving-objective focus isn’t new - most Canon IS bino’s work that way. But it is unusual in a top-line Alpha binoculars. Advantages might include better false color suppression (the focusing lens can be a source of chromatic aberration). The downside is another optical element in the light path, perhaps explaining part of that 2% loss in transmissivity compared with the 42mm model."
Last edited:
