SFL 50mm first look, first touch. (1 Viewer)

[HenRun]

I see you still have your gasket ER hack installed on the Meoptas! Perhaps the police wanted to check what was going on there

Interesting comparison. It's clearly a lot lighter and quite a bit smaller. Nice to know that the focuser is excellent.

Very low CA is my favourite thing about the Meostar - I haven't seen anything better at 12x and for my use cases this trumps everything else such as flat/wide field - neither of which does it possess. It also handles potential glare situations very well and is easy to use for long periods.

I wouldn't call the SF 'warm', I would call it 'greenish', or at least I would the three I looked through a few years ago (one grey armour, two black armour). The Meostar however I would call 'warm' - a kind of mild amber tint.

Exactly my take on the Meopta, it feels like a Unicorn in some regards.

Also, the warmth of the SF was the rep saying (my interpretation and not 100% verbatim) that Zeiss purposely matched the color balance to resemble the fiercest competition (S) and that the rep then went on saying the result was an overemphasis on green.
He said "warmth" and not me.

I often refer to the Meopta as "neutral-ish" but I agree, it is a slight amber tint. Which I like, or at least I don't mind. It was evident today in comparison to the SFL 50 line up which I feel are more neutral/cleaner. Again, mentioned by the Zeiss rep as color neutral by coating design, to my eyes it works very well.

The SFL I have feels as neutral as I have seen. The Meopta is not so far off I flinch going between them. Since there is much greenery around here the difference is pretty well masked off I guess. Looking through my older FL8x32 in the same environment was something that could not be unseen - it was definitely an overemphasis on green. And it was not pretty in that environment. Still loved that little pocket rocket though.

 

[Scott98]

So the 12x50 is the only Meopta 50mm - allbinos gives it 8.6 on the CA score, that is one of the highest rated binos on CA. Very nice! They say 90% sharp to the edge, also impressive. So the SFL would give you a lighter bino. The Meopta is slightly less money in the US. Interesting, they also have 15x56 and 8x56.

There is a lot to be said for lighter binoculars, especially at 50mm+. I recently added some 12x50 Nikon SE, same 30-ounce weight as the SFL, it's really nice. For me it's the difference between wearing them on a neck strap or not. Don't want to go above 30 ounces for 1-2 hours on the neckstrap.

 

[HenRun]

I agree, green is not known as a warm color.

SFL:s 40 look more neutral than the SF:s, which is a good thing, but I wouldn't call them "warm" like Leica's etc.

I totally agree, as I replied to Hopster it was the Zeiss rep that said "warmth" in this case, not me.

I think the Meopta is neutral-warm (amber) for me
Leica is neutral-warm (redder) for me
SFL is simply neutral
FL was green/cyan to me in the shade. So, colder if you will. But never neutral to my eyes.

Swarovski I have no clear recollection of, they did vary a little between models. I still look through the NL now and then at my friends place but I don't think of the color - which is a good thing. Fairly neutral perhaps?

I vaguely remember some older Swaro CL as yellow-ish.
Older Meoptas more yellow-amber and more distinctly so. I think the CL and older Meoptas were quite similar to me at the time and that Zeiss were distinctly cooler (Victory Pocket 8x20 and 8x25).

But all of the above is a minds construct of different times and scenarios and with the exception of those binoculars that were distinctly biased to my eyes the result might have differed in other circumstances.

 

[HenRun]

So the 12x50 is the only Meopta 50mm - allbinos gives it 8.6 on the CA score, that is one of the highest rated binos on CA. Very nice! They say 90% sharp to the edge, also impressive. So the SFL would give you a lighter bino. The Meopta is slightly less money in the US. Interesting, they also have 15x56 and 8x56.

There is a lot to be said for lighter binoculars, especially at 50mm+. I recently added some 12x50 Nikon SE, same 30-ounce weight as the SFL, it's really nice. For me it's the difference between wearing them on a neck strap or not. Don't want to go above 30 ounces for 1-2 hours on the neckstrap.

Yes, the Meopta has a bit smaller FOV but has a good AFOV so they balanced it right for me.
I have yet to look through the Meopta 8x56 but I have heard here on the forum it is quite nice.

Lighter binoculars is where the market is heading it seems, according to the sales rep today in one of the largest bino stores in the country, selling a lot of binoculars online as well. Stabilized binos are also gaining ground a little but still have some ways to go for me.

 

[Conndomat]

Nice reports @HenRun

Andreas

 

[HenRun]

Is it safe to say the eye lenses on the 12x50 are huge? They appear much wider than the Meoptas and wider than the UVHD. Hopefully this leads to comfortable eye placement

So if your regular diopter is 0 then most likely it was set correctly. I've always been dead-on "0" in all the Zeiss binoculars I've used. I've never had to move it off zero for any of the modern roof binoculars.

Yes, the eye box is very forgiving and the ocular lenses are larger than on Meopta by some margin. From memory and guesstimation same or slightly larger than on 12x50 UVHD.

Eye placement on the 10x50 and 12x50 is very comfortable on both. I felt I had room to spare and that is not always the case.

Not that it was that kind of weather or lighting conditions but it did not feel like the large ocular lenses caused any trouble with my glasses in terms of reflections from ambient light. The rubber stops are meaty and perhaps seal off enough from the sides

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes, the eye box is very forgiving and the ocular lenses are larger than on Meopta by some margin. From memory and guesstimation same or slightly larger than on 12x50 UVHD.

Eye placement on the 10x50 and 12x50 is very comfortable on both. I felt I had room to spare and that is not always the case.

Not that it was that kind of weather or lighting conditions but it did not feel like the large ocular lenses caused any trouble with my glasses in terms of reflections from ambient light. The rubber stops are meaty and perhaps seal off enough from the sides

If you are not worried about weight and size but want an alpha level 12x50 that isn't priced like most alpha level binoculars, try the Vortex Razor UHD 12x50. The AK prism in the Razor UHD really makes a difference in contrast, clarity and brightness IMO and the price has been coming down on them also lately.

Binoculars rankings - 12x50 - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[hopster]

So the 12x50 is the only Meopta 50mm - allbinos gives it 8.6 on the CA score, that is one of the highest rated binos on CA. Very nice! They say 90% sharp to the edge, also impressive.

I certainly agree on the CA but as much as I like the Meostar I wouldn't agree that it's 90% sharp to the edge and there is significant field curvature too. Anyway, when I'm using a 12x50 I'm invariably focusing in the centre on something a long way away, so the edge is kind of irrelevant! If I want to scan the wider scene I'll put up an 8x with a wider and flatter field like the Noctivid; a much better tool for that job.

 

[Yarkho]

HenRun, thanks for an excellent writeup (including the police). Sometimes the "wow" factor is important in using a bino.

I am surprised at the reported CA levels. Yes it's likely minor, and most likely a design choice, but it makes me appreciate the Meoptas, which are superb in this regard.

One thing I would like to learn about is the field flatness in SFLs.

Meopta B1+ are not flatfield binos. As I just learned, this is an advantage for suburban astronomy. I did a comparo of my 10x binos (NL 10x42, CL 10x30 and B1+ 10x42) and noticed the bright outer ring in NL Pure.. a consequence of the k-value and flat field. Meopta has a nicely homogeneous sky background, even if there is a touch of sagittal astigmatism + coma at the field edges. Still nicer to look through at the sky, though. Makes me want to get the B1+ 15x56 for astronomy.

 

[Scott98]

I certainly agree on the CA but as much as I like the Meostar I wouldn't agree that it's 90% sharp to the edge and there is significant field curvature too. Anyway, when I'm using a 12x50 I'm invariably focusing in the centre on something a long way away, so the edge is kind of irrelevant! If I want to scan the wider scene I'll put up an 8x with a wider and flatter field like the Noctivid; a much better tool for that job.

Probably similar to the SFL's, they are not fully sharp to the edge either. The SFL's are interesting, they're not perfect but they have some type of advantage over everything else, one way or another. My own 12x50 SE are tough competition. They can match the SFL on weight. CA and edge sharpness are excellent. The SFL's advantage here would be smaller size and nitrogen-sealed. And probably better focuser.

With the Meopta and UVHD it's the ligher weight and the focuser. The 40mm SFL appeared very sharp (high resolution) in my brief testing too.

 

[ads]

I certainly agree on the CA but as much as I like the Meostar I wouldn't agree that it's 90% sharp to the edge and there is significant field curvature too. Anyway, when I'm using a 12x50 I'm invariably focusing in the centre on something a long way away, so the edge is kind of irrelevant! If I want to scan the wider scene I'll put up an 8x with a wider and flatter field like the Noctivid; a much better tool for that job.

I don't know how allbinos.com comes up with their "Blur occurs in a distance of x% from the FOV centre" numbers, but the threshold that they use for blurriness seems to be rather high, leading to high results.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I don't know how allbinos.com comes up with their "Blur occurs in a distance of x% from the FOV centre" numbers, but the threshold that they use for blurriness seems to be rather high, leading to high results.

BLURRING AT THE EDGE OF FOV (10 points) - We arrange binoculars in opposite to the wall where we previously hung a lightened graph paper. Several testers personally determine field of view tested binoculars and focusing binoculars at the central field of view. Then starting from the central, most sharp point and moving to the corners, they consider where on graph paper lines start to get fuzzy and blur.

How do we test binoculars? - Description of test methods and categories.

Binoculars tests, published on Optyczne.pl/Allbinos.com are conducted by a group of great optics enthusiasts with a lot of experience under their belts. We’ve handled about 500 pairs of binoculars so far plus several dozen of spotting scopes, telescopes, many eyepieces and plenty of other...

www.allbinos.com

 

[HenRun]

Probably similar to the SFL's, they are not fully sharp to the edge either. The SFL's are interesting, they're not perfect but they have some type of advantage over everything else, one way or another. My own 12x50 SE are tough competition. They can match the SFL on weight. CA and edge sharpness are excellent. The SFL's advantage here would be smaller size and nitrogen-sealed. And probably better focuser.

With the Meopta and UVHD it's the ligher weight and the focuser. The 40mm SFL appeared very sharp (high resolution) in my brief testing too.

One thing that probably had me end up with SFL 8x40/Meopta is the similarity in the view.
Center resolution and similar fall off from the sweetspot makes for a similar view and AFOV is close enough.
Color matching is not 100% (SFL more neutral) but not off in a way that is conspicuous.

Small nitpick with the SFL 8x40 is that panning is not as comfortable.
The distortion pattern/curve is not nice for panning to my eyes. This is mostly noticeable when panning a field.

I was not in the right spot for noticing panning behaviour, distortion or guesstimating sharpness fall off with the SFL50's as I was in the "corridor" of a busy street on a slope so these things went by unnoticed.

CA was evident from the start with the 12X so I spent a little more time trying adjust the bino and then had that as a comparison factor between the three. That would also had drawn attention from other things in that limited time.

CA is of course something that will annoy some people more than others and some will not pay attention to it as much as I and some others do. I don't really want to throw the 12X under the bus in this regard but to me, personally, it was something that I am not sure I could adjust to.

I had a similar first experience with the Leica UVHD+ 12x50 and I adjusted to the point I really warmed up to and enjoyed the bino except for occasional birds in flight where CA flashes to me were too distracting in comparison to the Meopta.

This is why I also want to revisit the 12X50 at some point. First impressions can sometimes change after the second impression, not always for the better.

They also have the UVHD+ as well as Swaro EL 12x50 in store for a direct comparison between the SFL and a "known" binocular other than the Meopta.

The UVHD+ is priced about 15-20% higher than the SFL12x50 and they are more different in some regards than the Meopta and the SFL is to me. The Swaro EL12x50 is mostly unknown to me, I have only looked through it briefly in the shop. And that was some time ago.

There is a possibility to devote one afternoon to compare all of them but I would have to a little more stringent in what and how I would like to compare them all.

I could have paid more attention to the 8X50 but time was limited and and main interest was the 12X and the 10X.

In regards to the 10X50 this class is virtually unknown territory for me and I had no expectations or previous comparisons.
Perhaps that wow factor is inherent in the top range binoculars in this class?

 

[Ignatius]

@HenRun, thank you so much for some hands and eyes-on observations and real facts in this wilderness of braying donkeys. I was looking at the 10x40 to complement our 8x40/30s, but now I think I will check out that 10x50. Same power but also some more light. The SFLs are our holiday/roadtrip/hiking kit.

 

[Swedpat]

I read that while extracted eye pupil size decreases with age the size is individual.
I want to measure it, think an eye doctor or optician can do that, so I get to know how large exit pupil is worth using.

 

[Vespobuteo]

I read that while extracted eye pupil size decreases with age the size is individual.
I want to measure it, think an eye doctor or optician can do that, so I get to know how large exit pupil is worth using.

It's quite easy to measure/estimate for yourself.

Take a selfie after the eyes has adapted for a while in dim light, hold a ruler in the same plane as the eye as a reference.

Use a photo editing software to get the measurements (comparing the pixel count of the pupil diameter with the scale on the ruler).

You can also use the iris diameter as a reference, instead of a ruler, it's 12mm in average, but using a ruler will be more accurate.

(If you feel comfortable to use a flash, you will get a sharper photo, which is easier to get correct measurements of, the pupil is not fast enough to react.)

 

[hopster]

Meopta B1+ are not flatfield binos. As I just learned, this is an advantage for suburban astronomy. I did a comparo of my 10x binos (NL 10x42, CL 10x30 and B1+ 10x42) and noticed the bright outer ring in NL Pure.. a consequence of the k-value and flat field. Meopta has a nicely homogeneous sky background, even if there is a touch of sagittal astigmatism + coma at the field edges. Still nicer to look through at the sky, though. Makes me want to get the B1+ 15x56 for astronomy.

I'm surprised that you prefer the B1+ to the NL for astronomy, not because I have compared them myself but from everything I have read the NL gets such rave reviews for this e.g. Roger Vine.

 

[hopster]

One thing that probably had me end up with SFL 8x40/Meopta is the similarity in the view.
Center resolution and similar fall off from the sweetspot makes for a similar view and AFOV is close enough.
Color matching is not 100% (SFL more neutral) but not off in a way that is conspicuous.

Small nitpick with the SFL 8x40 is that panning is not as comfortable.
The distortion pattern/curve is not nice for panning to my eyes. This is mostly noticeable when panning a field.

I was not in the right spot for noticing panning behaviour, distortion or guesstimating sharpness fall off with the SFL50's as I was in the "corridor" of a busy street on a slope so these things went by unnoticed.

CA was evident from the start with the 12X so I spent a little more time trying adjust the bino and then had that as a comparison factor between the three. That would also had drawn attention from other things in that limited time.

CA is of course something that will annoy some people more than others and some will not pay attention to it as much as I and some others do. I don't really want to throw the 12X under the bus in this regard but to me, personally, it was something that I am not sure I could adjust to.

I had a similar first experience with the Leica UVHD+ 12x50 and I adjusted to the point I really warmed up to and enjoyed the bino except for occasional birds in flight where CA flashes to me were too distracting in comparison to the Meopta.

This is why I also want to revisit the 12X50 at some point. First impressions can sometimes change after the second impression, not always for the better.

They also have the UVHD+ as well as Swaro EL 12x50 in store for a direct comparison between the SFL and a "known" binocular other than the Meopta.

The UVHD+ is priced about 15-20% higher than the SFL12x50 and they are more different in some regards than the Meopta and the SFL is to me. The Swaro EL12x50 is mostly unknown to me, I have only looked through it briefly in the shop. And that was some time ago.

There is a possibility to devote one afternoon to compare all of them but I would have to a little more stringent in what and how I would like to compare them all.

I could have paid more attention to the 8X50 but time was limited and and main interest was the 12X and the 10X.

In regards to the 10X50 this class is virtually unknown territory for me and I had no expectations or previous comparisons.
Perhaps that wow factor is inherent in the top range binoculars in this class?

I'm interested in your opinion comparing Meostar, Swaro EL and Leica if you get the chance. In the time I had with it, the EL had an impressively wide & flat field but with the attendant disadvantages about panning and maybe '2D poster view'. Also the colour balance was a bit bluer than the naked eye. Meopta was a little better on CA in the sweet spot.

 

[Maljunulo]

Different country, different traditions 😂

I bet it‘s normal there, that cops point a loaded and ready gun at you when they just doing normal license checks or asking you if you know that your rear light is broken 😅

I've been driving in the US for 75 years, have been pulled over a few times, and have never seen a cop with his gun in his hand, either then or any other time.

You need to dial back your fantasies.

 

[Swedpat]

It's quite easy to measure/estimate for yourself.

Take a selfie after the eyes has adapted for a while in dim light, hold a ruler in the same plane as the eye as a reference.

Use a photo editing software to get the measurements (comparing the pixel count of the pupil diameter with the scale on the ruler).

You can also use the iris diameter as a reference, instead of a ruler, it's 12mm in average, but using a ruler will be more accurate.

(If you feel comfortable to use a flash, you will get a sharper photo, which is easier to get correct measurements of, the pupil is not fast enough to react.)

I actually tried this earlier with the mobile phone. But I could not get the camera to focus at the eye pupil in low light. It needs to be in focus before the flash.
Maybe I need a camera with manual focus.