• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

One more SF 8X32 or SFL 8X40? (1 Viewer)

I tried sometimes 8X42 and yes, it was a little more confortable for my eyes than my 8X30. But I felt always and quickly the weight and it was difficult for me to appreciate them because of that.

So, except to buy a 8X42 or 10X42 alpha with perfect balance, too expensive for my money, I think they are not for me. Even the Monarch HG 10X42 I tried in shop was not a good feeling. Just poor in my hands while the weight is only 665g. But I'm probably too demanding.
We all have different requirements - and it looks like you have a good handle on what's important to you. I agree a x32 is easier when using completely freehand. Fortunately in my viewing I can normally brace my elbows on something (either my knees or a convenient piece of structure) which lets the viewing comfort of a larger exit pupil come into its own. However ... I have to admit my most used binocular is 10x42, which of course has a similar exit pupil size to 8x32. Which raptor species do you see the most in your area?
 
It took me awhile to see the BROD (Blue Ring of Death) in the SFL 8x40. Once I saw it, they went to eBay. I saw it when I was comparing the SFL 8x40 to an SLC 8x42. Sometime compare an SFL 8x40 to an SLC 8x42 back to back, and you will see what I mean. The SLC 8x42 just kills the SFL 8x40.
Only problem is it’s the SF that has been known to have the blue ring , not the SFL. You must have a lot of visual impairments based on a lot of your posts. Or you just like to argue with blsht.
 
Is the BROD is a real problem to birding for you?
Or is it just to search (and find!) imperfections because you like that and you wish one day to find your PERFECT one. But is it really possible? If yes, you quest will be over and you too?

I won't judge your opinion but during many (looonnnggggg!) years, I searched often the perfection in all I did. Of course, it was very tiring quest and I lost lot of energy. Right now, I'm trying to let it that and breath better. ;)

Other thing: why do you always want to convince the other that you are right (this is also true for some others of course)? It's even more difficult because your feelings change a lot.

I read a lot this forum and I saw several members doing very interesting and full reports about their new binoculars, compared, etc... but they stop here. Agree or not, they just share their experience, no more, no less.
Once I saw the BROD of death and I knew it was there, it bothered me. Why put up with it when there are many other choices that don't have it. I am not saying you will see it, and it may not bother you, but it did me. I feel strongly that Zeiss SFL's are overpriced for what they are, and I have had them all. You are paying a LOT for the Zeiss name. The Nikon HG 8x42 is just as light as the SFL 8x40, has a bigger aperture, shows less glare, is $600 less expensive and doesn't have the BROD.
 
The Noctivids are nice binoculars. The only problem is that there's no 8x32 Noctivid.

Hermann
Leica will never make a Noctivid 8x32. It would not be as good as the Noctivid 8x42 with the smaller aperture, which really isn't close to competing with the NL 8x42 or SF 8x42. A Noctivid 8x32 with a maybe an 8 degree FOV would be a sales disaster compared to the NL 8x32 and SF 8x32, and Leica knows it. It would go the way of the Leica Retrovid and be discontinued.
 
Only problem is it’s the SF that has been known to have the blue ring , not the SFL. You must have a lot of visual impairments based on a lot of your posts. Or you just like to argue with blsht.
Nah. I saw a big BROD in the Zeiss SFL 8x40 and not the SF 8x32. I guess I should have taken a picture of it. Furthermore, I believe if you look at jackjack's pictures, he shows the BROD on the SFL 10x40. Jackjack calls it the BROD. The BROD is a type of CA on the edge of the FOV. Notice how much sharper the EL is than the SFL at the edges also. There is no comparison. The SLC 8x42 was also way sharper than the SFL at the edges when I compared them. That is a big reason I sold my SFL 8x40.

In fact, SFL does has more significant at the edge of the view then Similar priced bino such as Swaro SLC, Nikon EDG.

I agree it's bit much then you expect from that price point.

there are two type of bino one shows CA at the edge is much more then center ant the other shows CA bit more then center.

for instance, former shows 20 percent of it's CA at the center and 80 at edge, latter shows like 40 / 60 (not a specific portion but just a metaphor to explane there are two kinds of bino.)

Zeiss SFL is former type among with Nikon SP, Zeiss SF (8x42) Canon 10x42 IS, Opticron Aurora, Swarovski NL / EL and extra and latter is Meopta meostar, Nikon EDG, Nikon monarch HG, Zeiss HT, extra
1000233592.jpg

1000233591.jpg

"Above is a photo of edge taken with Zeiss SFL 10x40 / Swaro EL 10x32 indeed SFL has much more CA at the edge then EL The amount of CA at the edges (I said only on the edges) are much stronger than bino that is much lower priced bino such as Monarch 7, Zeiss Terra, Bushnell forge. it's much worse than 8x30 and 8x40. enough to bother me when the majority of uses, such as birding. so that is why I said I prefer 8x40. CA sensitivity is differing in every user, so it is not 100% wrong to call SFL 10x40's CA as blue ring of death. I am also, as a bino reviewer that much sensitive to abberation then average user in my country, I have some trouble at SF 10x40's edge CA.SFL control CA nicely at Center of the view. much better than Zeiss conquest, Leica Ultravid, and Swaro companion. so overall, CA rate may not that unforgivable at the price point. But I agree edge CA in the SFL 10x40 (among with SF 8x42) need to me improved. it's indeed not worthy to carry the 'FL' name when reminding of the CA control that 'TFL' shown, that's why I prefer 8x40 SFL much more than 10x40 SFL. don't have a bit of a CA problem at edge and have significantly better color fidelity. SFLs are nice bino, lightweight, good focusing, near alpha center sharpness, top of the pack color fidelity. but EVERY bino has its Cons. There are NO bino that is just excellent in ALL ways. Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed at 10x40 SFL in comparison with 8x40 SFL, which I really liked. but I won't underestimate the whole SFL include 10x40. because they have other advantages. I'm just focused on telling brights and dark that every bino has."
 
Last edited:
Tomorrow I'll receive the SF 8X32.

The only fear I have is to get a bad item.

If you have any tests to detect if it's a bad optical one, please post here.
Even if I suppose for a alpha one, quality control have to be very serious.
 
Tomorrow I'll receive the SF 8X32.

The only fear I have is to get a bad item.

If you have any tests to detect if it's a bad optical one, please post here.
Even if I suppose for a alpha one, quality control have to be very serious.
Test it for collimation right off. You never know when a binocular can get knocked out of collimation. The Zeiss SF 8x32 being sealed is probably too new to worry about mold, fungus, dust and haze but look for it anyway. It is unlikely an SF 8x32 will be bad.

"To test for binocular collimation, look at a distant object with distinct lines or details, like a building or fence, while alternately closing one eye at a time; if the object appears to "jump" or shift significantly between eyes, the binoculars are likely out of collimation, meaning the images from each lens are not aligned properly; for a more precise check, you can also try focusing on a bright star at night and observing if the star image appears centered and identical when viewed through each eyepiece."
 
Last edited:
Nah. You don't make any sense at all! The UVHD+ might seem a little brighter than the BN because it has slightly higher transmission, but there might be some people, including you, that prefer a less bright binocular. Remember how you praised the EDG because it wasn't as bright as an EL and was easier on your tired eyes. Personally, I prefer the view through a BN over a UVHD+ because it has a more relaxing, natural slightly less bright view and a lot of other people do too. You have to be kidding about going from an EL to an NL. There is a BIG difference in FOV and transparency. Leica's are all the SAME FOV because they have not changed their optical train or eyepiece design in 20 years, like I said.
Actually, that’s about common for most binoculars on the market, give or take a few degrees. There’s only a small number, like Zeiss SF and Swaro NL to name the most known, and both have issues for many observers (like you) because of pushing the FOV envelope. You'd be better off staying with the Leica BN like no glare, no blue ring, no edge distortion like FL.
All Leica has changed is a few incremental coating changes. Leica's have not changed in sharpness at all because they are the same optical design they were 20 years ago. The Noctivids have none of the issues that the SF or NL do because they have a puny 7.7 degree FOV like all the rest of the Leica's do. Give me a break, a 7.7 degree FOV in their top binocular is ridiculous. The UVHD+ 8x42 has a tiny 7.4 degree FOV. A Noctivid may have a good image, but it is miniscule compared to an SF or NL or even Nikon HG. FOV is VERY important for a birder also because it helps you find birds and if you say it doesn't you are wrong. A large FOV that is corrected sells binoculars, and that is why Swarovski and Zeiss sells tons more binoculars than Leica.

The Zeiss SF and Swarovski NL have some problems because they are pushing the envelope of what you can do with the optics in a binocular, something Leica has never attempted. Leica has decided 20 years ago their binoculars were perfect and there is no reason to improve them. Where is the innovation there? If you like Leica's that is fine but buy a UVHD, BR or Trinovid BN and save your self some money because regardless of what baloney you come up with they are all pretty much the same. I know I have had them all and the only Leica I would say is slightly better is the Noctivid, and it is still behind Zeiss, Swarovski and Nikon in their top offerings.
Many reasons why Leica sells less than Zeiss and Swarovski. Your argument is baloney and you know it. I think baloney should be your middle name from now on 😂. Do you know what company sells the most binoculars? If Nikon sells more camera lenses than Zeiss, does that mean they're better? I guess, by your thinking, Canon camera lenses are much better than Leica, they sell more. Do you know how foolish you sound? Money is not an issue for a guy like you who has been independently wealthy for the last 12 years. So don't think about money when you buy the Leica UV+, just buy the newest version.
 
I don't know what do you mean Dennis and what will be the test for that? Please give details.
I would just look for excessive dust or scratches on the optics. If they're out of collimation you will have trouble merging the images. I like to check on a bright star at night for collimation - you'll see 2 stars and have trouble merging them if it's out of collimation.
 
Is the BROD is a real problem to birding for you?
Or is it just to search (and find!) imperfections because you like that and you wish one day to find your PERFECT one. But is it really possible? If yes, you quest will be over and you too?
He's found the perfect binoculars many times until he sells them and another perfect binocular goes into the BF binoculars discussion.
I won't judge your opinion but during many (looonnnggggg!) years, I searched often the perfection in all I did. Of course, it was very tiring quest and I lost lot of energy. Right now, I'm trying to let it that and breath better. ;)

Other thing: why do you always want to convince the other that you are right (this is also true for some others of course)? It's even more difficult because your feelings change a lot.
I read a lot this forum and I saw several members doing very interesting and full reports about their new binoculars, compared, etc... but they stop here. Agree or not, they just share their experience, no more, no less.
 
I think the subject Dennis is now over.

I would prefer more advices about possibility to shake my SF 82 in the next days.

I have to remember you I thought to buy a 700 euros binoculars and I bought an alpha for 1400.🫣
So it's important for to control the quality during the next 15 days.

Thank you to all members who already gave me informations. 🙂
 
Lol, the new member is not here three days and he already knows Dennis's MO.
I knew him before to register because I read many threads.
I have many experiences with forums in other hobbies and there are always same profils of members.
You will enjoy them as they are very very good….Bon chance
Thank you very much.
I just would like to be sure it was a good opportunity and shake it has no problem.
About performances, I don' have doubt.
 
If you have any tests to detect if it's a bad optical one, please post here.
Be sure you have no doubts about sharpness of the image, focusing is smooth, objects snap into focus well, you can easily find the right diopter setting, and it doesn't need to be redone. This is where most problems occur.
 
Actually, that’s about common for most binoculars on the market, give or take a few degrees. There’s only a small number, like Zeiss SF and Swaro NL to name the most known, and both have issues for many observers (like you) because of pushing the FOV envelope. You'd be better off staying with the Leica BN like no glare, no blue ring, no edge distortion like FL.

Many reasons why Leica sells less than Zeiss and Swarovski. Your argument is baloney and you know it. I think baloney should be your middle name from now on 😂. Do you know what company sells the most binoculars? If Nikon sells more camera lenses than Zeiss, does that mean they're better? I guess, by your thinking, Canon camera lenses are much better than Leica, they sell more. Do you know how foolish you sound? Money is not an issue for a guy like you who has been independently wealthy for the last 12 years. So don't think about money when you buy the Leica UV+, just buy the newest version.
Sometime try a Habicht 7x42 compared to a Leica UVHD+ 7x42. You will be surprised. You will go from a Leica fanboy to a Habicht fanboy. I did, and I had the Leica boxed up for return in less than an hour.:ROFLMAO:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top