Roger Vine Zeiss 10x30 SFL review (1 Viewer)

[Swissboy]

Frankly I doubt it's sample variation. Eye-socket and eye-ball variation, definitely.

...........................................

We are dealing with the removable covers. They can't have anything to do with individual body variation!

But, maybe Zeiss has adjusted those covers early on? Ours must be from very early production batches. At least, we were among the first ones who got their x30 SFLs in Switzerland.

 

[MiddleRiver]

We are dealing with the removable covers. They can't have anything to do with individual body variation!

But, maybe Zeiss has adjusted those covers early on? Ours must be from very early production batches. At least, we were among the first ones who got their x30 SFLs in Switzerland.

My bad... I thought it was eyecup and eye-placement ergos being discussed.
Covers, definitely. I've certainly seen them evolve with other brands at least ;-)

 

[pbjosh]

We are dealing with the removable covers. They can't have anything to do with individual body variation!

But, maybe Zeiss has adjusted those covers early on? Ours must be from very early production batches. At least, we were among the first ones who got their x30 SFLs in Switzerland.

I got mine recently from Orniwelt in DE. I just played with the covers a bit. They're definitely a bit tighter than the SF covers, but nowhere near as tight as my NL's (which I've had for near 2 years and have used a lot and the covers are still annoyingly tight).

 

[Swedpat]

Love my SFL 8x40. Agree with Roger that if one already owns a 32mm FL there might be less than a compelling case to upgrade to the new 30mm SFL. If someone needs/prefers an even smaller optic the SFL might just be the ticket. For me, the 8x32 FL is a gem that still sparkles.

One reason can be the eye relief which according to what I read, longer with SFL.

 

[Viraj]

A nice and descriptive review. However, I would like to know more about the comparison between SFL 10x30 and NL 10x32 regarding the contrast, resolution, CA control, and daytime brightness. I read a few reviews on the internet as well. But, I couldn't extract any detail regarding those aspects.

Furthermore, I would like to know any opinion about choosing SFL 10x30 or 10x40. Is there a significant difference in contrast, CA control, and daytime brightness among them?

Currently, I have an Ultravid 10x32 HD. I really like them, however, their poor CA control makes them not pleasant to use in certain conditions. Furthermore, they are a bit dark for my liking.

 

[Viraj]

Yesterday, Santa sent me an early gift, an SFL 10x30. I was so excited by the positive reviews I read about it so I wanted to compare it right away with my old UV 10x32 HD.

I purchased my UV 10x32 HD (non-plus) one year ago from eBay, exactly at this time of the year. I always wanted to have a pair of binoculars in 10x32 format because I like the extra large view of birds compared to the x8 power. From the beginning, I really liked the view through UV. Apart from saturated colors that I really like, it has an immersive FOV. However, I always thought the brightness of it was not enough and it produced more CA than my liking. That was the main reason to order the new SFL 10x30. I thought SFL would have a bit higher resolution as well compared to my 9-year-old UV which even has some mico scratches on ocular lenses. Furthermore, I like smaller binoculars due to my birding habits. Enough background talking and now back to the comparison.

Yesterday, right after coming home I couldn't wait but did the unboxing. This is my first Zeiss binocular purchase so I was more excited. The package and accessories are nice however I don't think it is much important here. What is important for me is the image quality. Then I took out my UV and compared the size. The SFL is a little bit smaller than UV however, it is not a significant size reduction for me. The size of the UV is still small enough for me.

Yesterday evening was a bit dark and dizzying. So, I thought it was the best time to do the comparison. Then I looked through the UV first through my window. Then the SFL got its chance. Then what has happened? (Please consider the writings after that are solely my experiences with both optics. They can be highly subjective).

Nothing happened but I was utterly disappointed. The first things I noticed were the color reproduction and AFOV and then the clarity. They all were in favor of the UV. Even though UV stated its FOV as 118 m / 1000 m, it felt bigger than the FOV of SFL (120 m / 1000 m) and more immersive. Also, it felt the magnification of UV was higher than that of SFL. Maybe, they all are due to the differences between the flat field of SFL and the more conventional image of UV. Previously also I preferred the more conventional view of UV to the flat field of my NL 8x42. The colors of autumn leaves were pop through the UV and it had an extra sparkle and clarity. Unfortunately, I didn't experience anything like that with SFL. Then the comparison was so short and I just kept SFLs inside the box hoping to send them back. Please consider this experience was so subjective. I might like SFL after extensive use. However, that short comparison did not convince me to keep them with UV. Finally, I am happy with my UV 😉

However, one thing that is important to mention the SFL had superior eye comfort. I didn't experience any blackouts. It was so easy to use. Even the position of the focus wheel was fine for me. It rotated evenly and smoothly. However, the focus knob of my UV is not so bad, it is smooth and has good focus capture (the first owner of it has serviced it from Leica).

After deciding to send SFL 10x30 back I had a dilemma to ask Santa to send me which binoculars instead. I found two choices, SFL 10x40 and EL 10x42. The price difference between them was 250 euros which is not a big difference for me. It was a hard decision because I know EL is superior optically. But it is heavy and some reported glare in it. Therefore, finally, I decided on 10x40 SFL as it is lighter and has a better focus knob. Let's see what will be the experience with SFL 10x40 after a few days 😀

 

[james holdsworth]

A few minutes inside and you send them back? It can take me weeks, in all situations, to evaluate a binocular.

There’s something to be said for decisiveness I suppose.

 

[Viraj]

A few minutes inside and you send them back? It can take me weeks, in all situations, to evaluate a binocular.

There’s something to be said for decisiveness I suppose.

As I said I wanted to have a better binocular with higher low-light capabilities and better CA control to replace the UV 8x32 HD. It was clear at the movement I brought up SFLs in my eyes to know that it was not the binoculars I was looking for. Not to be rude but I don't need weeks to compare the brightness difference between them. On the other hand, I cannot send them back if I keep them for weeks.

 

[tenex]

Even though UV stated its FOV as 118 m / 1000 m, it felt bigger than the FOV of SFL (120 m / 1000 m) and more immersive.

SFL has a strong field flattener. If this is a problem, you will find it also in the 40mm.

However, I always thought the brightness of it was not enough and it produced more CA than my liking.

If these are your objections to UV 32, then consider finding a nice example of FL 10x32. I highly recommend it.

P.S. The subjective impression of "brightness" may be complex, involving contrast and color as well as transmission.

 

[Ted Y.]

Through to the window?

hen I looked through the UV first through my window. Then the SFL got its chance.

Is this changing the results compared with "no window" comparison?

 

[Viraj]

Today I got the 10x40 version of SFL. I compared both of them together. They both have similar color reproduction and similar daytime brightness. The FOV is a bit wider in SFL 10x30. However, the size of the SFL 10x40 impressed me. It is so small and well-fitted into my small hands.

Then I compared both with my UV and realized I previously didn't like SFL 10x30 because of the different color palette it had. UV has more contrast and it helps to recognize more details on some occasions. However, now I like SFL and think it is better overall compared to the Habicht 10x40 I had.

Unfortunately, the focus wheel of 10x40 is not as good as the 10x30 version. It had some small play and was not as smooth as 10x40. Eyecups were also a bit loose. Therefore, I am looking forward to getting a replacement.

P.S. I did the same test out of the window as yesterday 😉 I have a quite nice view out of the window. I can see birds, trees, and some buildings ranging from a few meters to a few hundred meters. So the window test is not so bad 😀😀😀

 

[pbjosh]

A few minutes inside and you send them back? It can take me weeks, in all situations, to evaluate a binocular.

There’s something to be said for decisiveness I suppose.

Or even longer for me. Months perhaps to really decide how I feel and how it performs birding in varied circumstances.

 

[henry link]

SFL has a strong field flattener. If this is a problem, you will find it also in the 40mm.

I measured the off-axis astigmatism and field curvature of the 8x40 SFL and found the corrections (expressed in diopters) to be fairly mild for both aberrations compared to other "flat field" binoculars I've measured the same way.

But, looking at the 32mm Ultravid specs reveals something interesting: two extra lens elements in the 10x compared to the 8x. My assumption is that they are likely to be a doublet Barlow in front of the eyepiece for increasing the magnification, but that arrangement should also act as a field flattener, possibly as strong or stronger than the one in the SFL 10x30.

Viraj's impression of a wider FOV in the Ultravid could be true (even if the Ultravid's real field is narrower) from the high pincushion distortion for which the Ultavids are known expanding the size of the AFOV compared to the relatively low pincushion SFL. That's easily tested by placing an eyepiece from each binocular to each eye and aligning the field stops closely together so their relative sizes can be compared.

 

[dries1]

Weeks to evaluate a binocular?. Perhaps the time is needed to convince oneself they made the right decision.

 

[Patudo]

higher low-light capabilities and better CA control to replace the UV 8x32 HD.

I don't know about CA control, but 10x30 doesn't strike me as a great candidate if you want low-light capabilities...

The 10x40 SFL or indeed your 10x40 Habicht should be better in that respect.

 

[Rg548]

Viraj.... I'd just get yourself a 10x Ultravid....
Ultravids are still one of my favourite bins..... old school supremacy!!
Stunning Leica build.

 

[William Lewis]

The ultravid 32 is a very good binocular, I think that's the conclusion, it's mine too.
I tried one for the umpteenth time yesterday, if it wasn't a little too small for me to hold comfortably it would be near the top of my shopping list.

 

[james holdsworth]

Weeks to evaluate a binocular?. Perhaps the time is needed to convince oneself they made the right decision.

I’m a biologist that uses binoculars every day, all weather, all conditions, so it has to work in a great variety of situations. It can take quite some time to find suitable conditions to actually test for whatever attribute I’m interested in. I’ve had many binoculars that, on first blush, really didn’t do it for me, but the sum of its positives over time win me over.

Conversely, I have spent many hours with several versions of Zeiss Night Owls, and I come to the same conclusion every time - overhyped, overheavy and not fit for purpose.

 

[Viraj]

Viraj.... I'd just get yourself a 10x Ultravid....
Ultravids are still one of my favourite bins..... old school supremacy!!
Stunning Leica build.

UV 10x32 was a love of first sight. Indeed it is a good idea to go for a UV 10x42. I think they are as small as SFL 10x40. However, I couldn't find a better deal for one and really wanted to have a Zeiss 😉

SFL 10x40 fits into my hands very well and ergonomics works for me. I sent it back today hoping for a better replacement. SFL 10x30 is not that smaller than UV but is difficult to use due to the focus knob position. SFL 10x40 is also not much bigger than UV 10x32. I feel it is just right for me. Even though I still feel NL 8x42 is too big and heavy. There is always a sacrifice for one over the other. I would be much happy if NL optics in SFL 40mm body with better glare control 😀😀

 

[Viraj]

I don't know about CA control, but 10x30 doesn't strike me as a great candidate if you want low-light capabilities...

The 10x40 SFL or indeed your 10x40 Habicht should be better in that respect.

That is true. Even though their daytime brightness is almost equal things would change as the darkness comes. I liked Habicht 10x40 however, the ergonomics of the GA version didn't work out for me. I think the better-suited one for me is the leather armored version (I have a very old Habicht 10x40 in that version). The reason why I didn't go for a Habicht is it had reflections in eyepieces in dark conditions. So I couldn't use it in dark forest areas. Also, the eye comfort of it was poor due to the eye cup design. SFL 10x40 has neither of those problems even though the CA control is not as good as Habicht. So, the winner is the SFL 10x40.