SFL 50mm Second Look - does first impressions really last? (7 Viewers)

[HenRun]

So, around noon I rode into town on my trusty Outback, the belt weighed heavy, strapped to my chest.

A belt loaded with eight x forty mil, medium calibre. And expectations, lots of expectations, some mine, some others.

My spurs zinged as I parked up the store front and swung my heels out of the chariot. I squinted, and gazed at the surrounding. A lonely squawk from a bird, as to greet me - or warn me? I don't know which.

Today would be a good day, not matter the outcome. Saloon door was open, beckoning me in - was it a trap?
Adjusted my ole eight-by and stepped into the abyss, the optical abyss, were money burns and dreams come to either be fulfilled, or die, slowly.

 

[HenRun]

They actually had all three in stock now, but just one of each. I felt I could not ask them to unbox all three since they were planning on having the 10x50 on display and the others unpacked. So I decided to focus (pun intended) on the 8X and 10X50 SFL's.

The 8x50 looks pretty massive.
But it is as well balanced as the SFL 8x40 and swinging it around is not cumbersome.

The view and handling is about the same. A good thing.
A little better for me with the SFL50 and I don't have any AFOV numbers but going between the two the view felt a little bigger in the 50. Eye box is well forgiving but I had a little more trouble getting everything aligned even so compared to the 40.
I was just off with the click stops by a small margin with my glasses but after some tweaking I had it down.

So, what's to like and what's not to like?
Snap to focus is great. Very clean looking image. Looking at billboards and posters along the street the crispness and "snap to" was distinct.
Just like with the 40 it is quite easy getting to the small details.

Distortion seems a bit higher than in the 40, and watching a white grid (iron bars) across the street the pincushion distortion is quite apparent and CA is creeping in from all sides. Not the best subject for this binocular! It was a little much with the CA gleaming of the washed out white in the sun. Color signature (or lack thereof) is same as previous SFL's, very neutral to my eyes and neither cold nor warm.

Scanning the roofline with antennae and the metal roofs the CA is always present, more so than in the 40 but for the most part tolerable.
Would I have wished for better? Yes. Looking at an angle at the adjacent roof structure and down the depth perspective reveals CA on both sides against the sky and still some in the middle. A large antenna is scary sharp but with some fringing going on.

So compared to the SFL40, more CA, but compared to others?

 

[HenRun]

Compared to the Leica Ultravid HD Plus 8x50 made by Leica and currently still at LARGE:



Well, this will be interesting, the Leica is HUUUUUUGE. But elegant. They are the same class so out with the Leica I went.

Ultravid series has always been a hit or miss with me. Frustratingly differing from model to model in eye relief and use with glasses.
This one proved the WORST so far. It was atrocious with glasses for me. Black beans or looking down a small diameter tube view.

AFOV was quite small, coming from the SFL50. Handling was also much worse for me and the provided eye cups did not allow me for a comfortable position, or view, with glasses. A huge disappointment.

BUT, as far as the image quality, I have to hand it to the Leica. "Smaller" view but there was lesser and better controlled CA throughout. It was more pleasing to me for the high contrast views and was not as "impressive" for some things in comparison to the SFL but after seeing what the old Ultravid can do and at a similar price point I have to say I am a little disappointed that a more modern optic which is at the same price point as the Leica was just a few years back is not a step forward in all areas.

Focuser on the SFL is perfect. It really is. On the UVHD+ this was a very good sample.

 

[HenRun]

Switching from the 8X I decided to skip the 12x50 and give the 10x50 a more thorough workout since they are the same size, weight and very similar in everything they bring to the table and I was mostly interested in the 10x50 since I have my Meopta Meostar B1 Plus 12x50 HD (there, got all the model info in there) and it is going nowhere.

Compared to the SFL 8x40 the 10x50 is larger, of course. But the size difference is not as conspicuous as the 8x50 vs the 8x40, they are after all different magnification binoculars.




And since the 10x50 is both same size and weight as the 12x50 (which is impressive for the 12X) I decided to keep the 10X on the table and picked a Swarovski EL12x50 from the cabinet for size comparison. The Swarovski is about the same size and weight as the Leica UVHD+ so makes for a good size reference for a known 12x50 against the 10/12x50 SFL.

 

[HenRun]

So, here it is:



I did not bring the 12x50 Meopta but it is twixt the two in size, a little bit taller than, and weighs 200g more than the SFL.

For comparison with the 10x50 I decided to go for the Swarovski EL12x50 (the 10x50 was not in stock at the moment) and also a Leica Noctivid 10x42. Unfortunately I forgot to take a picture of the Noctivid for comparison, though it is a fairly compact 10x42 I figured you guys could do without the picture. In retrospect it would have made for a better thread, pictures are always nice to sprinkle in now and then.

The view from the SFL 10x50. Coming from a great (but not perfect) first impression from the first visit, this was to be seen through more scrutinizing eyes and in comparison to some other great glass.

General viewing impressions from the first visit are the same: great view, large AFOV and very distinct snap to focus. Focuser is perfect and geared well for following bicyclists, birds and traffic. I have not seen or felt better interaction between focuser and moving the plane of focus in the field. This is the new benchmark for me, extremely fluid in action. TOP score.

Fly in the Chardonnay of praise: distortion again, quite high, and coupled with more CA than in the 8x50SFL. Sure, I honestly did not notice either to any larger extent for most of the time and moving around the ease with which I could distinguish detail and read labels, signs, lock onto birds or anything of interest is top notch.

But, looking at the crest of the sloped road at incoming pedestrians coming down, with the sun high up and slightly backlit scene there is a slight halo of CA on the edge of that sharp "cut out" of subject matter. Distracting? Nah, a little bit, only when you have seen what the very best glass can do. But not a deal breaker.

Scanning the roof tops and looking at high contrast scenes, chimneys, traffic lights suspended across the street, the occasional bird etc, as well as a well placed vendor sign with white letters on a black box however, there is more concern.

CA never goes away and is higher than I would like in the center and grows even more so towards the edges. For comparison the Ultravids (all of them) I feel have similar CA characteristics, but less so, and better handled I think.

This, to me is the dealbreaker. I tried to "not look for it" and just go "huh, I wonder what this looks like" but all the time there was that trace of CA that I cannot personally overlook. And on the 10X50 as well as the 12X50 it is too much.

How does the 10x42 Noctivid stack up:
Handles nicely. Nice grip, feels very slim compared to the 10X50SFL though the 10x50 SFL is nicer for me to hold. Eye relief is great on the Noctivid and it was my first look through a 10X Noctivid, ever. The eye relief caused some initial problems and again I struggled to find an eye cup position that worked for me. AFOV shrunk down considerably from the SFL10x50 to this and black beans occured so I ended up free floating the Noctivid in front of my glasses and could see the whole view with ease but quite pronounced field stop.

I did feel the Noctivid has a better image. Not as generous nor as impressive at first glance but scanning the whole scenario up and down again I feel the Noctivid has a cleaner look, not the color palette, but every transition from an edge on a high contrast scene is handled better.
Both are "high contrast" binoculars but the Noctivid handles CA better. It still has it, and still a little present at the cery center but so little it was not a concern for me and the gradual increase from the center felt gentler.

If the Noctivid had better AFOV and had worked better with glasses this binocular would really sit well with me.
But, the focuser is very loose, felt like it was on the last thread before falling off. Don't get that wrong, it was supersmooth, and zero play.
The focuser is smaller and a bit hard to the touch in a plastic way and I felt it was too light in action for me, personally.
The SFL series is the new benchmark for gearing and feel to me.

Overall I would rank the Noctivid as optically ahead of the SFL in some areas. Again, the Noctivid is priced a bit higher and is up there with the most expensive ones, like Pure NL and SF.

 

[PatR]

since I have my Meopta Meostar B1 Plus 12x50 HD (there, got all the model info in there) and

So typical of you Swedish Cowboys, detail when all that was needed was a simple, 'Meopta 12x50'.

I will test these new Zeiss x50's when they are available and especially against the Leica equivalents as I have, of late, become rather fond of the Leica 'look' from a view and design perspective. Your comment regarding a lack of optical progress is disappointing. Not the comment, but the missed opportunity have a really top class product. Great write ups as always so thank you for taking the time and trouble to provide such a comprehensive and superbly illustrated report.

I have just spent an hour outside in the pitch black watching cows arses at 100m and a pair of particularly amourous Hares doing what amourous Hares do. Completely oblivious that they were being watched in the interest of testing my just arrived thermal bino's. Not the top of the range but must admit that the Hikmicro HH35L's are a quite remarkable bit of kit.

But it has just started to get a little chilly so I am going to read through your fantastic reports again and warm me cockles with a soothing glass of Penderyn Malt, and likely accompany it with a refreshing Westmalle Trappist.

God natt!

 

[HenRun]

Swarovski EL 12x50.
I have looked forward to handling this again. It was a few years back I had a very brief look through it.

I was really not disappointed. I wish I had a little more time to compare 12X binoculars but the EL felt right at home with me.

Clean look, great handling, great focuser and a very nice view through it. I wish I had some more time to compare it to the Leica UVHD+ but that one was out of stock at the moment so I could not do that today.

Where would I rank the EL? I don't know. It is too short of an experience but initial view is great.
In terms of CA handling I could tell straight away that this was on a level that I have no problems with, at all.

To my eyes it outperformed the SFL10x50 - by some margin - and that of course translates to it besting the SFL 12x50 as well.
At least if we are talking about CA management.

I am not saying the UVHD+ and EL are very similar, but they both immediately give a good impression. There is a difference and I would say that I think I would prefer the AFOV and general view of the UVHD+ to the EL. But, if I had the EL I would not bother to swap against the UVHD+.
Does that make sense? What I mean is that they are both so good that either one is a matter of taste.

Focuser on the EL12x50 is better than on the UVHD+, the latter for me is a two finger operation in order to not be a bit jerky.

Comparing the SFL10x50 to the EL12x50 I would say I actually slightly preferred the EL. Since the SFL10 and 12X are so similar in character and view I felt no need to ask the staff to unbox the SFL12x50 for direct comparison.

One thing I did notice going between the SFL, the Noctivid, the EL and Ultravid is that the EL had a view that I liked, but the distortion - or lack thereof - was something that I noticed, and not really in the best way. When I notice things like that it usually means there is something "off" to my eyes.

Panning was not as comfortable with the EL for my eyes and some subjects did look "different" in a way I did not like as much as I did the others. I did not notice any panning discomfort with the SFL50's but I know my SFL8x40 does not pan nicely when scanning an open field, not to my eyes. I though the SFL 10x50 panned very well compared to my SFL 8x40, did not register anything negative with the SFL8x50.

If I owned the EL12x50 I would probably get used to it but going back and forth between a few different brands and series I would say I arrive at the usual conclusion:

Ultravids are always nice to look through, but not always to handle. And in the case of the 8x50, horrible to look through, for me.
SFL are always nice to handle and for the most part to look through.
Noctivid is very nice to look through, and decent to handle all in all, but viewing comfort was off.
EL is very nice to look through and handle and it is just the perhaps "2D view" that is a little bit off for me.

 

[HenRun]

CONCLUSION:

I did not end up bringing an SFL50 home with me. They are simply not for me.
I think Zeiss thinks they have figured out the target audience for this.
I think they are falling short of what could have been done, they are simply adding a "high end filler" line with the SFL50 mm binoculars.

They have the Conquest HD, and now HDX to already compete with the SFL - and the SFL 40 as a budget "near alpha" and priced a decent step under the SF. The SFL50 brings too little to the near top end to compete with the SF but I think the price has been jacked up too close to the SF to really matter if you are up there poking around anyway - and at the same time they are so much more expensive than the Conquest HDX that it makes very little sense to me.

People that think that I am overreacting on the CA issue will probably find the HDX being directly comparable to the new SFL, and that is wherein the problem lies to me, I might think so too.

For quite a few people Zeiss has done the right thing: upsizing while keeping them compact and most importantly: light.
The staff thinks the 10x50 will be the top seller. 8x50/56 do not move much at all.

The 10x50 has the best chance to make an impression for people who want some reach. I am hoping more will look at the 12x50 and consider it since I want that class of binoculars to thrive and evolve. Plus, they get the tripod adapter included and the bino is the same size as the 10x50 and also priced the same.

I would look forward to the next generation SF binoculars it they managed to advance the concept of the SFL towards the SF: more compact and lighter but equivalent performance. "Just throw that fluoride lens in there and make it happen"...

I think my SFL8x40 represents a good option to the SF since it does what I need at a level not too far off where it matters to me and at a price point where I think it is good value.

With the new SFL50 mm line I am not so sure, in this price range there are options I find more appealing unless you want that innovative lightweight concept - and don't mind the penalty in absolute performance.

Spoke to the Zeiss rep and people coming in with their old top dog binocular to compare to the new SFL50 line up are blown away by the difference. And they have had that old bino for quite some time and always though it could not get much better.

 

[Vespobuteo]

I did feel the Noctivid has a better image. Not as generous nor as impressive at first glance but scanning the whole scenario up and down again I feel the Noctivid has a cleaner look, not the color palette, but every transition from an edge on a high contrast scene is handled better.
Both are "high contrast" binoculars but the Noctivid handles CA better. It still has it, and still a little present at the very center but so little it was not a concern for me and the gradual increase from the center felt gentler.

Indeed, the Noctivids are crisp and contrasty, and have that "looking through and open rather than a closed window quality", but they have a tad too much CA for me.

So if the NV:s handle CA better I'm pretty sure the SFL:s isn't for me. Thanks for saving me a trip to the binocular store...
It wasn't completely unexpected though...(see my first post on the SFL:s and possible CA problems in compact 50mm bins..)

If the Noctivid had better AFOV and had worked better with glasses this binocular would really sit well with me.

The Noctivids probably have the longest eye relief of any of the alphas. Even I need to pop up the eye cups to the first notch.

Overall I would rank the Noctivid as optically ahead of the SFL in some areas. Again, the Noctivid is priced a bit higher and is up there with the most expensive ones, like Pure NL and SF.

20% more expensive?

Can't help thinking the SFL 50 feels a bit overpriced, or both perhaps...

 

[Vespobuteo]

CONCLUSION:

I did not end up bringing an SFL50 home with me. They are simply not for me.
I think Zeiss thinks they have figured out the target audience for this.
I think they are falling short of what could have been done, they are simply adding a "high end filler" line with the SFL50 mm binoculars.

Hunters won't care about CA...they just won't something brighter...and lighter.

People that think that I am overreacting on the CA issue will probably find the HDX being directly comparable to the new SFL, and that is wherein the problem lies to me, I might think so too.

I don't think you are, the SFL50 aren't cheap...I would expect better.

Spoke to the Zeiss rep and people coming in with their old top dog binocular to compare to the new SFL50 line up are blown away by the difference. And they have had that old bino for quite some time and always though it could not get much better.

Sure, must be the top dog binos from the 70's-90's in that case... before ED/FL glass was introduced..

 

[Isthatascratch?]

Swarovski EL 12x50.
I have looked forward to handling this again. It was a few years back I had a very brief look through it.

I was really not disappointed. I wish I had a little more time to compare 12X binoculars but the EL felt right at home with me.

Clean look, great handling, great focuser and a very nice view through it. I wish I had some more time to compare it to the Leica UVHD+ but that one was out of stock at the moment so I could not do that today.

Where would I rank the EL? I don't know. It is too short of an experience but initial view is great.
In terms of CA handling I could tell straight away that this was on a level that I have no problems with, at all.

To my eyes it outperformed the SFL10x50 - by some margin - and that of course translates to it besting the SFL 12x50 as well.
At least if we are talking about CA management.

I am not saying the UVHD+ and EL are very similar, but they both immediately give a good impression. There is a difference and I would say that I think I would prefer the AFOV and general view of the UVHD+ to the EL. But, if I had the EL I would not bother to swap against the UVHD+.
Does that make sense? What I mean is that they are both so good that either one is a matter of taste.

Focuser on the EL12x50 is better than on the UVHD+, the latter for me is a two finger operation in order to not be a bit jerky.

Comparing the SFL10x50 to the EL12x50 I would say I actually slightly preferred the EL. Since the SFL10 and 12X are so similar in character and view I felt no need to ask the staff to unbox the SFL12x50 for direct comparison.

One thing I did notice going between the SFL, the Noctivid, the EL and Ultravid is that the EL had a view that I liked, but the distortion - or lack thereof - was something that I noticed, and not really in the best way. When I notice things like that it usually means there is something "off" to my eyes.

Panning was not as comfortable with the EL for my eyes and some subjects did look "different" in a way I did not like as much as I did the others. I did not notice any panning discomfort with the SFL50's but I know my SFL8x40 does not pan nicely when scanning an open field, not to my eyes. I though the SFL 10x50 panned very well compared to my SFL 8x40, did not register anything negative with the SFL8x50.

If I owned the EL12x50 I would probably get used to it but going back and forth between a few different brands and series I would say I arrive at the usual conclusion:

Ultravids are always nice to look through, but not always to handle. And in the case of the 8x50, horrible to look through, for me.
SFL are always nice to handle and for the most part to look through.
Noctivid is very nice to look through, and decent to handle all in all, but viewing comfort was off.
EL is very nice to look through and handle and it is just the perhaps "2D view" that is a little bit off for me.

Having owned the EL 12x50 maybe 9 months I find the image is clear, detailed and with very low distortion.

It ‘does what it says on the tin’ and that dependability is what you need.

Leica’s are well designed and built but optically they aren’t evolving a great deal, not there’s anything wrong with that.

I’ve been a bit disappointed with Zeiss of late, I had a new HDX for a couple of days and it had a fault. I couldn’t believe it passed quality control and the response from Germany was inadequate.

These new ones sound a bit underwhelming to me.

 

[HenRun]

Hunters won't care about CA...they just won't something brighter...and lighter.

I don't think you are, the SFL50 aren't cheap...I would expect better.



Sure, must be the top dog binos from the 70's-90's in that case... before ED/FL glass was introduced..

I agree, to all of the above.

The Zeiss rep specifically stated hunters, as did the sales staff.
And that category is not too sensitive about size, or even weight, bigger is better for them. They might appreciate the light weight for sure!

If I remember one story right: one of the older blokes that came in with his son and brought his old top of the range binocular had an old Leupold and they were both amazed by the difference.
Doubt that neither of them had looked through any top binoculars the past twenty years.

 

[HenRun]

Having owned the EL 12x50 maybe 9 months I find the image is clear, detailed and with very low distortion.

It ‘does what it says on the tin’ and that dependability is what you need.

Leica’s are well designed and built but optically they aren’t evolving a great deal, not there’s anything wrong with that.

I’ve been a bit disappointed with Zeiss of late, I had a new HDX for a couple of days and it had a fault. I couldn’t believe it passed quality control and the response from Germany was inadequate.

These new ones sound a bit underwhelming to me.

I think the EL12x50 seems like a great binocular, I liked it immediately going straight from the 10x50 SFL. Thirty seconds in my eyes went "we like this" and there was not too much to add to it after that. That is a good thing.

I did check the distortion and it looked way better than the SFL on the iron grid I mentioned earlier, and with less CA despite 12X against 10X.

The flat field and low distortion is probably something I am not used to and I am not sure I like it as much as I like the traditional pincushion distortion of the Ultravid and others.

I might not have noticed it as much unless I had just looked through both SFL, Ultravid and Noctivids just prior to the EL. To be clear, I don't think the EL distortion correction is a deal breaker, I just slightly prefer the UVHD+. There might be some other things the EL does better as well.

For me the EL12x50 is a good reference bino - it was very nice in every aspect and easy to reach a conclusion simply because there was nothing to complain about.

I agree about the Leicas also, I think exactly the same. They are great companions but sometimes looking through more modern glass gives you a little bit extra - but not always without a slight penalty. The Ultravid 12x50 is more of a binocular I grew into liking, despite a few niggles.

 

[HenRun]

It was a "fun" day as a Binowrangler.

I did run into an old friend at the store, had not seen him for eight to ten years (!).

I figured him for a Swaro guy and it turns out he had a EL 8.5x42 - hahaa - and he was in the store to pick up a pocket companion.

We had a good talk and me knowing the staff from before made them open up the cabinets so we popped in and out with a quite a few binoculars. He settled for a 8x25 Swarovski. Good choice for him. Great little pocket rocket.

He asked me about his Swarovski 8.5x42 and whether he should upgrade it. I asked him what he thought about it and he thought it was amazing, and I said: there you have it. No need to get rid of that. They had it in store and I was going to have a look through it for reference but it never came around to that.

I want to express my appreciation for the patience and trust of the GoFoto staff for letting me mind my own business and they simply said: you are good on your own, let us know if you need anything, and took care of other customers while I was trying out a bunch of models. Normally when I come in I have it down to one or two models, now I had a field day for sure!

Also took a little walk down memory lane and since I have new glasses from last year I decided to try out the Ultravid range again, appalled by the horrible experience with the UVHD+ 8x50...

...the UVHD+ 7x42 in store had a very fine focuser(best so far out of the six or seven I have handled) and I love the format.
It is one of the nicest binoculars to look at for me. I love the design. It was my dream binocular. But then I had to wake up.
The view reminded me of two things: why I like it so much and why it is not for me.

Eye ergonomics and a slightly too small AFOV. Everything else I can live with.

The UVHD+ 8x32 has shot up in price and is now at a price point where it is beyond consideration for me, for this class of binoculars.
With my previous glasses I did not gel with the eye box and got too much tunnel effect, affecting the AFOV.
But optically I thought it was really, really good.

To my surprise the view with my new glasses was much improved, to the point I really enjoyed using the 8x32 UVHD+.
So much so that I thought it was one of the better experiences of the day out of the 10-12 binos I looked through.

So, all in all, my reference point has shifted a little from just a few years back since I can accommodate to a few more binoculars than before.
Except for the ones listed above we looked through a bunch of others, but none worth mentioning.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I have had a lot of binoculars, as we all know, and I always test them for CA. I have a Zeiss SFL 8x30 now, and it is as good at controlling CA as 90% of the binoculars out there, including those with HD and ED glass. The SFL's do have ED glass to control CA, but they don't have the more expensive and heavier fluorite glass used in the SF, NL, EDG, EL and some HD Meopta's and Kowas. Fluorite glass will control CA better, but it is also heavier, and I think that and the fact that Zeiss doesn't want to cannibalize sales of their SF is the reason they don't use fluorite glass in the SFL. The SF has to have something better about it to justify it's much higher price point, and fluorite glass is one of those marketing strategies Zeiss uses to keep the SF ahead of the SFL that and the bigger FOV. So if CA is something you can't stand, stick with the binoculars that use fluorite in their lenses.

If I had to rank binoculars for CA control the SF would be first, especially the 32mm SF's, followed closely by the FL, then the EDG, and then the HD Meopta's and Kowas with the EL last. The EL really is not much better at controlling CA than the SFL, even though it does use fluorite glass. The older EL's were even worse for CA control. The SFL is kind of a jack of all trades. It does everything pretty well, and some things very well. Of course, it's claim to fame is its weight and size to aperture ratio. Almost no other premium binocular with the same aperture as the SFL is as compact and light as the SFL. The SFL is also known for it's extremely comfortable eye box for its EP size. I have the SFL 8x30, and it is as easy for eye placement as most 8x42 binoculars. Another advantage the SFL has over most binoculars is its color neutrality. The colors in an SFL are pure and accurate. The SF and FL are infamous for their green tint, and the Meopta has a very noticeable yellow tint that can be very disagreeable to a lot of people.

The EDG has the famous Nikon red tint that adds warmth to the view, but is really unnatural and dulls the view. Swarovski's tend to have a bluish, cold tint that some people like and some don't. The SFL has no tint of any kind, which is very appealing, and I think it increases contrast and resolution. Also, the SFL is better than most of the alpha binoculars at handling glare. The SFL handles glare better than the SF, and especially the NL which is known for glare, and the EL. The EDG and Meostar probably come close at handling glare to the SFL, being much better than the other alphas. So even though the SFL is not the best at controlling CA, you have to realize no binocular is perfect, and it has it's strong and weak points, but it's one big advantage is its compact size and weight for its aperture size. The SFL packs a lot of punch for being such a small light binocular and that is the big appeal of it to birders and hunters and Zeiss took it to another level with the new SFL 8x50, 10x50 and 12x50's. As they say, the SFL is 42mm light but 50mm bright.

 

[Ignatius]

Thank you for that detailed write-up. I will still check the 10x50 out if/when I get a chance, but I am already less enthusiastic about it.

 

[Yarkho]

HenRun, thank you for yet another excellent write up, it almost felt like being in the store myself.

What color was the CA in the SFLs? You wrote about halos, were they the usual violet and light-green as in other binoculars?

 

[Dennis Mau]

Thank you for that detailed write-up. I will still check the 10x50 out if/when I get a chance, but I am already less enthusiastic about it.

You can't always judge a binocular by somebody else's review. Remember, your eyes and brain are different from theirs. You have to try them yourself. Seeing CA or not seeing CA is very personal and depends on the individual. I have seen CA in some binoculars that other people simply don't even see, and CA bothers some people way more than other people.

 

[CharleyBird]

I have had a lot of binoculars, as we all know, and I always test them for CA. I have a Zeiss SFL 8x30 now, and it is as good at controlling CA as 90% of the binoculars out there, including those with HD and ED glass. The SFL's do have ED glass to control CA, but they don't have the more expensive and heavier fluorite glass used in the SF, NL, EDG, EL and some HD Meopta's and Kowas. Fluorite glass will control CA better, but it is also heavier, and I think that and the fact that Zeiss doesn't want to cannibalize sales of their SF is the reason they don't use fluorite glass in the SFL. The SFL has to have something better about it to justify it's much higher price point, and fluorite glass is one of those marketing strategies Zeiss uses to keep the SF ahead of the SFL. So if CA is something you can't stand, stick with the binoculars that use fluorite in their lenses.

If I had to rank binoculars for CA control the SF would be first, especially the 32mm SF's, followed closely by the FL, then the EDG, and then the HD Meopta's and Kowas with the EL last. The EL really is not much better at controlling CA than the SFL, even though it does use fluorite glass. The older EL's were even worse for CA control. The SFL is kind of a jack of all trades. It does everything pretty well, and some things very well. Of course, it's claim to fame is its weight and size to aperture ratio. Almost no other premium binocular with the same aperture as the SFL is as compact and light as the SFL. The SFL is also known for it's extremely comfortable eye box for its EP size. I have the SFL 8x30, and it is as easy for eye placement as most 8x42 binoculars. Another advantage the SFL has over most binoculars is its color neutrality. The colors in an SFL are pure and accurate. The SF and FL are infamous for their green tint, and the Meopta has a very noticeable yellow tint that can be very disagreeable to a lot of people.

The EDG has the famous Nikon red tint that adds warmth to the view, but is really unnatural and dulls the view. Swarovski's tend to have a bluish, cold tint that some people like and some don't. The SFL has no tint of any kind, which is very appealing, and I think it increases contrast and resolution. Also, the SFL is better than most of the alpha binoculars at handling glare. The SFL handles glare better than the SF, and especially the NL which is known for glare, and the EL. The EDG and Meostar probably come close at handling glare to the SFL, being much better than the other alphas. So even though the SFL is not the best at controlling CA, you have to realize no binocular is perfect, and it has it's strong and weak points, but it's one big advantage is its compact size and weight for its aperture size. The SFL packs a lot of punch for being such a small light binocular and that is the big appeal of it to birders and hunters and Zeiss took it to another level with the new SFL 8x50, 10x50 and 12x50's. As they say, the SFL is 42mm light but 50mm bright.

I disagree.

 

[CharleyBird]

You can't always judge a binocular by somebody else's review. Remember, your eyes and brain are different from theirs. You have to try them yourself. Seeing CA or not seeing CA is very personal and depends on the individual. I have seen CA in some binoculars that other people simply don't even see, and CA bothers some people way more than other people.

Ahh the irony