A lower Focal Ratio would usually indicate a bigger aperture given the Focal Length is approximately the same, which would mean the binocular would be pulling in more light correct. For example, the SFL 8x50 has a lower Focal Ratio than the SFL 8x40, largely because it has a bigger aperture.
-
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.
SFL 50mm Second Look - does first impressions really last? (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter HenRun
- Start date
As to "8x50":
In past times, 8x50 used to be a more popular binocular configuration than it is today.
There is still a number of 8x50 binos available (mainly from Leica, Zeiss, GPO, DDoptics, Braun, Bauer, Dörr, Fomei), but in the upper end of the market, only three 8x50s, as far as I can see, are on the market today:
((Have I missed any?))
Of the five 8x50 binos in my collection, four are from Zeiss (West and Jena), see attached pic
(left to right: UVHD, Conquest, SFL, Octarem, Nobilem Super).
The UVHD has been one of my all-time favorite binoculars (so much that I also purchased the "+" version). So I will have to see how much the new SFL, which I already like a lot, will be able to win me over as much as the UVHD.
The Conquest never fully satisfied me, the image is clearly not top-notch.
The Nobilem Super and the Octarem appear a bit dated these days, but they are still formidable instruments and give evidence of the optical and mechanical achievements on which Zeiss built its reputation.
Canip
P.S. edit: measuring AFOV of the SFL, I get 58 degrees, in line with Zeiss specs (on the 10x50, I get 67 degrees, so slightly more than Zeiss specs).
In past times, 8x50 used to be a more popular binocular configuration than it is today.
There is still a number of 8x50 binos available (mainly from Leica, Zeiss, GPO, DDoptics, Braun, Bauer, Dörr, Fomei), but in the upper end of the market, only three 8x50s, as far as I can see, are on the market today:
- Leica UVHD
- Zeiss SFL
- GPO Rangeguide 2800 (with built-in laser rangefinder)
((Have I missed any?))
Of the five 8x50 binos in my collection, four are from Zeiss (West and Jena), see attached pic
(left to right: UVHD, Conquest, SFL, Octarem, Nobilem Super).
The UVHD has been one of my all-time favorite binoculars (so much that I also purchased the "+" version). So I will have to see how much the new SFL, which I already like a lot, will be able to win me over as much as the UVHD.
The Conquest never fully satisfied me, the image is clearly not top-notch.
The Nobilem Super and the Octarem appear a bit dated these days, but they are still formidable instruments and give evidence of the optical and mechanical achievements on which Zeiss built its reputation.
Canip
P.S. edit: measuring AFOV of the SFL, I get 58 degrees, in line with Zeiss specs (on the 10x50, I get 67 degrees, so slightly more than Zeiss specs).
Attachments
Last edited:
I miswrote. I did not mean focal length but focal ratio. So:
That a telescope is faster is about that a shorter focal ratio requires shorter exposing time for photography.
When an eyepiece is applied the brightness is determined by the exit pupil.
Last edited:
NatureLover123
Well-known member
No glasses. I use them with the highest eyepiece setting it feels that this gives for me the best contrast. But I can use it also with the second highest setting without issues.
I'm also interested in the 8x50 - the UVHD 8x50 is probably my favorite Leica binocular, either that or the 10x50. Light weight and big lens are my favorite, I went a whole decade using the 8x56 Dialyt. These SFL 50's are going to feel like a 42 in use.
So the SFL have a wee bit more CA that some of the expensive roofs. However, they also address other major problems of these expensive roofs. The Zeiss 8x42 SF have difficult eye placement and eyeguards that don't rise high enough. I'm guessing the 8x50 SFL will be better on both counts. The 40mm SFL focuser is much better for birding than the UVHD focuser. And the SFL weight is lighter.
The SFL remind of me of Nikon EDG in that they're priced significantly lower than the most expensive binos but may be considered the best option by many.
So the SFL have a wee bit more CA that some of the expensive roofs. However, they also address other major problems of these expensive roofs. The Zeiss 8x42 SF have difficult eye placement and eyeguards that don't rise high enough. I'm guessing the 8x50 SFL will be better on both counts. The 40mm SFL focuser is much better for birding than the UVHD focuser. And the SFL weight is lighter.
The SFL remind of me of Nikon EDG in that they're priced significantly lower than the most expensive binos but may be considered the best option by many.
tenex
reality-based
Why? Lower aberrations in daylight use, or was that much aperture needed to compensate for lower transmission? And why has this UV been such a favorite of yours even today?
Can you explain where you find it falls short, and SFL does better? (I don't see a review of the HD on your site, only the previous T*.)
Last edited:
For me, 7x42 shows less blackouts in use than 8x42. i.e. I can follow flying birds, or look quickly to the edge of field, without kidney beans in the 7x42. I would hope for the same thing in 8x50 vs. 10x50. I like my 7x42 a lot better than 7x35's too. Everything looks better. I get better views during the day with my 10x56 than with 10x42 or 10x35. The image quality seems better. Everything more vivid and better-defined, colors are stronger with the bigger lens.
Big aperture has its fans. Certainly for astronomy 50mm's are preferable to 42mm. I had some great views of that last comet with the 8x50 UVHD. The focuser wasn't quite what I need for birds so I parted with it. 8x50 is cool for astronomy because it's easier to hold steady than 10x50.
Big aperture has its fans. Certainly for astronomy 50mm's are preferable to 42mm. I had some great views of that last comet with the 8x50 UVHD. The focuser wasn't quite what I need for birds so I parted with it. 8x50 is cool for astronomy because it's easier to hold steady than 10x50.
Last edited:
As mentioned in earlier threads (why do the 8x50 and 10x50 Ultravid have the same FOV?) , for some reason, the 8x50 provides the most relaxing viewing experience for me.
As far as I know, there never was a Conquest HD 8x50, only the non-HD (which was part of the Conquest series with polycarbonate body).
Will I got the SFL 8x50 and the new Swarovski EL 8.5x42 I ordered today so I had a chance to compare them and decide which one I was going to keep. The SFL 8x50 is an excellent binocular, and it is strange to handle a binocular with those big 50mm objectives that is that small and light. There are some surprising things about it. Number one it has less CA than SFL 8x30, and it has sharper edges also which surprised me. The eye cups are a little rough and kind of remind me of the older Conquest HD eye cups, but not as bad. They are not silky smooth like the EL, and the whole binocular does not have the build quality of the EL. The SFL feels and looks like a less expensive binocular, and it is.
The SFL has a better, smoother focuser than the EL, but ergonomic wise I preferred the EL with its open bridge and smaller objective tubes that I could wrap my fingers around easier. It felt strange grasping the bigger tubes of the SFL 8x50, and for me was not as comfortable. Optically, I preferred the bigger 65 degree AFOV of the over the 58 degree AFOV of the SFL, and I am a sucker for sharp edges and Swarovski wins every time when it comes to sharp edges but surprisingly the edges are pretty sharp on the SFL 8x50 even sharper in fact than the SFL 8x30. The SFL 8x50 actually had quite good CA control, and I saw almost none in the center and perhaps a slight bit on the edges.
The EL with its fluorite glass was even a little bit better for CA control than the SFL, though. So CA is not really a problem for the SFL 8x50 as far as I can see. The EL had a very slight bit of NL like glare in the bottom of the FOV when looking away from the sun, but the SFL did not. So for glare control, the SFL wins. The two binoculars weighed almost exactly the same at about 30 oz. which is an amazing feat for Zeiss that they could build a 50mm binocular that is as small and light as a 42mm binocular. In low light the SFL has a slight advantage over the EL, but in daytime there is no discernible difference.
In the end I kept the EL and returned the SFL because the EL had sharper edges, a bigger AFOV, better ergonomics for me, better build quality and most importantly I feel the EL will depreciate less. You can get the smaller 30mm and 40mm SFL's for almost $500 off of retail, and I feel the same will happen to the SFL 50mm. When I purchased the EL, I had a hard time getting ANY discount on it until I found a demo for $200 off. Swarovski's hold their value better than almost any other binocular. The SFL 50mm is a very good binocular, but I would wait until the price comes down a little, and I am sure it will.
The SFL has a better, smoother focuser than the EL, but ergonomic wise I preferred the EL with its open bridge and smaller objective tubes that I could wrap my fingers around easier. It felt strange grasping the bigger tubes of the SFL 8x50, and for me was not as comfortable. Optically, I preferred the bigger 65 degree AFOV of the over the 58 degree AFOV of the SFL, and I am a sucker for sharp edges and Swarovski wins every time when it comes to sharp edges but surprisingly the edges are pretty sharp on the SFL 8x50 even sharper in fact than the SFL 8x30. The SFL 8x50 actually had quite good CA control, and I saw almost none in the center and perhaps a slight bit on the edges.
The EL with its fluorite glass was even a little bit better for CA control than the SFL, though. So CA is not really a problem for the SFL 8x50 as far as I can see. The EL had a very slight bit of NL like glare in the bottom of the FOV when looking away from the sun, but the SFL did not. So for glare control, the SFL wins. The two binoculars weighed almost exactly the same at about 30 oz. which is an amazing feat for Zeiss that they could build a 50mm binocular that is as small and light as a 42mm binocular. In low light the SFL has a slight advantage over the EL, but in daytime there is no discernible difference.
In the end I kept the EL and returned the SFL because the EL had sharper edges, a bigger AFOV, better ergonomics for me, better build quality and most importantly I feel the EL will depreciate less. You can get the smaller 30mm and 40mm SFL's for almost $500 off of retail, and I feel the same will happen to the SFL 50mm. When I purchased the EL, I had a hard time getting ANY discount on it until I found a demo for $200 off. Swarovski's hold their value better than almost any other binocular. The SFL 50mm is a very good binocular, but I would wait until the price comes down a little, and I am sure it will.
ArchStanton
Well-known member
Well, that was quick. You must have not been that impressed by the SFL 8x50 if you sent it back the same day you received it. Maybe if it cost less, it would have been worth keeping.
Very impressive size comparison to the EL, wow. I have the 8x30 and 8x40 SFL, might need to complete the set!
I think once you can pick the SFL 50mm up for less than $1400 they will be a good deal. Now you can get SFL 30mm for $950 and the SFL 40mm for $1100 so the price of the SFL 50mm is bound to come down. It doesn't take me long to decide which binocular I prefer when comparing two binoculars. I have compared so many, I know what I like. I think for hunters that hunt in low light the SFL 50mm's will be fantastic but for birding in daylight I like the EL 8.5x42 for it's bigger AFOV, sharper edges, slightly better CA control, better ergonomics and better build quality. If you like 10x for birding, the SFL 10x50 would be nice and if I was getting a 10x I might choose the SFL 10x50 over the EL 10x42 or NL 10x42 because the difference between a 4mm EP and a 5mm EP will give you more of an advantage than the difference between a 5mm EP and a 6mm EP. A 5mm EP is about all your eyes can use if you just daylight bird, which the EL 8.5x42 has.
Last edited:
That is one of the most impressive things about the 50mm SFL. It is like you have a binocular that is the size and weight of a 42mm, but it has this massive 50mm objective lens. The objective lens looks huge compared to the rest of the binocular. There really has never been a binocular like it.
The surprising thing is the SFL 8x50 has sharper edges and better CA control than the SFL 8x30. The SFL 8x50 is almost EL sharp at the edge, but not quite. One thing I didn't like about the SFL 8x50 is how fat the objective tubes are. It just feels weird trying to wrap your fingers around such a fat tube. It just feels chunky! Likewise, it is something you would have to get used to because you have never grasped objective tubes that big. It almost feels like you are holding up two telescopes in your hands. Your fingers don't wrap entirely around the tubes unless you have big hands.
Last edited:
I have not seen much of any CA in the 8x30 SFL, but I also have not yet used them under the most challenging conditions. That being said, of 8x50 SFL is indeed lower, that would speak well for them. I am not in a rush to try them but certainly would like to compare them to the Leica UVHD 8x50 and the Zeiss 8x42 HT for low light use.
Take your SFL 8x30 look at the top edge of a dark black or brown vent pipe on the roof of a house and move your binoculars from the top field stop to the bottom field stop, and you will definitely see CA. That is one way I test for CA. The thicker the ribbon of color is, the worse the binocular is for CA. The SFL 8x50 would definitely beat the Leica UVHD 8x50 in low light because it has higher transmission, and it would kill the HT 8x42 in low light because of the bigger 50mm aperture which pulls in 42% more light than the 42mm aperture of the HT.
