SFL 8x40: impressions after 20 years with Swarovski EL's (1 Viewer)

[Owlbarred]

Been using Swarovski 8x32 EL's since 2003 along with, more recently, Swaro 8x32 EL SV's. Both excellent and as durable as an anvil. The SFL's were purchaed to augment, not replace, my beloved EL's.

SFL 8x40s:
Image: Bright, sharp and clear -- very nice!!
FOV: Nearly identical to my 8x32 EL's. Edge sharpness is noticeably less than my EL SV's, but this may help when panning and makes no difference to me whatsoever when birding. Overall, the FOV is excellent.
Focusing: I really like the fast focusing speed. Slightly stiffer than my EL's, but otherwise perfect. The focusing wheel itself is big and perfectly situated. Close focus distance is mind blowingly excellent and adds to the SFL's utility.
Balance: Very good. I used the edge of a table to determine the SFL's balance point and found it is at the rear edge of the focusing wheel.
Weight: I was very surprised that the SFL’S feel heavy and bulky, though I know they weigh only 22.6 oz, less than 2 oz. more than my ELs. Too many years, I guess, with my 8x32s.
Shape: I wish the barrels were round like my Swaros. Thus far, I don't like the "squarish" barrel shape, a bit like a Leica Noctivid but not nearly as "blocky" or wide. Again, 20 years with 8x32 Swaros, I just need to get used to using SFL’s.
Diopter Adjuster: I actually like it despite its location below the eyepiece. Set it once and forget it. Less vulnerable to damage if the binos are dropped.
Eyepieces/Adjustment: I really like the eyepieces and the 4 click-stop adjusters. I was able to quickly find the perfect spot for adjustment, in my case in between the third and fourth click-stop.
Veiling glare: Hope to check soon for veiling glare about an hour before sunset at the now-abandoned harrier roost. Both my wonderful EL's
were beset by VG at this time/place. Keeping my fingers crossed for the SFL's.
Quality/Value: High quality (except for the strap attachment). Incredible optics given the price.
Case/Strap: Nice padded case. I haven't used the strap -- I always use a harness.

Am certain I forgot a few things.

 

[b-lilja]

Definitely will be interested in your glare assessment, which would be the place I'd put the SFLs ahead --

 

[Richard D]

Definitely will be interested in your glare assessment, which would be the place I'd put the SFLs ahead --

With a 5mm vs 4mm exit pupil it would be strange if they weren't. 8x32's aren't great in low light when your eye pupil is bigger than the exit pupil...

 

[AndrewC1]

Been using Swarovski 8x32 EL's since 2003 along with, more recently, Swaro 8x32 EL SV's. Both excellent and as durable as an anvil. The SFL's were purchaed to augment, not replace, my beloved EL's.

SFL 8x40s:
Image: Bright, sharp and clear -- very nice!!
FOV: Nearly identical to my 8x32 EL's. Edge sharpness is noticeably less than my EL SV's, but may actually help when panning and makes no difference to me whatsoever when birding. Overall, the FOV is excellent.
Focusing: I really like the fast focusing speed. Slightly stiff compared with my EL's The focusing wheel itself is big and perfectly situated. Close focus distance is mind blowingly excellent and adds to the SFL's utility.
Balance: Very good. Using the edge of a table to determine the SFL's balance point, it was at the rear edge of the focusing wheel.
Weight: I was very surprised that they feel heavy and bulky, though I know they weigh only 22.6 oz, less than 2 oz. more than my ELs. Too many years, I guess, with my 8x32s.
Shape: I wish the barrels were round like my Swaros. Thus far, I don't like for the "squarish" shape, a bit like a Leica Noctivid but not, as "blocky" or wide. Again, 20 years with 8x32 Swaros, I just need to get used to using them.
Diopter Adjuster: I actually like it despite its location below the eyepiece. Set it once and forget it. Less vulnerable to damage if the binos are dropped.
Eyepieces/Adjustment: I really like the eyepieces and the 4 click-stop adjusters. I was able to quickly find the perfect spot for adjustment, in my case in between the third and fourth click-stop.
Veiling glare: Hope to check soon for veiling glare about an hour before sunset at the now-abandoned harrier roost. Both my wonderful EL's
were beset by VG at this time/place. Keeping my fingers crossed for the SFL's.
Quality/Value: High quality (except for the strap attachment). Incredible optics given the price.
Case/Strap: Nice padded case. I haven't used the strap -- I always use a harness.

Am certain I forgot a few things.

Re edge to edge sharpness, does it have any advantage at all for bird watching? I can see the advantage for astronomy.

 

[Richard D]

Re edge to edge sharpness, does it have any advantage at all for bird watching? I can see the advantage for astronomy.

I find it has marginal advantages, a bit like a wider than average FoV - if you're looking at a mixed flock of waders for example you can quickly id the ones at the edges. If you're looking a single bird neither sharp edges (assuming the sweetspot isn't overly small) nor a wider than average FoV make much difference, both can help a little when scanning a landscape or flock. It also depends whether the edge blur is mainly curvature or coma etc.

 

[Swissboy]

I find it has marginal advantages, a bit like a wider than average FoV - if you're looking at a mixed flock of waders for example you can quickly id the ones at the edges. If you're looking a single bird neither sharp edges (assuming the sweetspot isn't overly small) nor a wider than average FoV make much difference, both can help a little when scanning a landscape or flock. It also depends whether the edge blur is mainly curvature or coma etc.

A lot depends also on your eyes. If you need glasses with your binoculars (like with astigmatism), these are likely limiting your use of those edges.

 

[Zedster]

Interestingly, I recently got a pair of Victory SFs and compared them to my Opticron Traveller EDs. So the SFs are FAR sharper at the edges compared to the Travellers. Of course the Travellers have a fairly big sweet spot and without that my opinion would likely be different.

Here's the GIANT but to that statement. In ordinary birdwatching It is not noticeable. AT ALL. I mean, yeah, I can look for the soft focus if I want but it's not something I ever do. And the tradeoff (rolling ball) isn't one I care for. I've certainly noticed it in the SFs. It's not a deal killer for me yet but I'll see how quickly I adjust. So IMHO the sharp edge/rolling ball tradeoff isn't worth it for me.

 

[[email protected]]

Re edge to edge sharpness, does it have any advantage at all for bird watching? I can see the advantage for astronomy.

Sharp edges are a dealbreaker for me. Fuzzy edges are the first thing I look for when I try a binocular. I can't tolerate soft edges. That is a big reason I like Canon IS's and Swarovski NL's. They are sharp to the edge. I have not seen rolling ball in either one. If there are no side effects of sharp edges, why would you want blurry edges outside of a cheaper binocular?

 

[Owlbarred]

Sharp edges are a dealbreaker for me. Fuzzy edges are the first thing I look for when I try a binocular. I can't tolerate soft edges. That is a big reason I like Canon IS's and Swarovski NL's. They are sharp to the edge. I have not seen rolling ball in either one. If there are no side effects of sharp edges, why would you want blurry edges outside of a cheaper binocular?

I can’t say I prefer the clearer edge of the field-flattened image of my EL SV’s compared with my 2003 EL’s. Both models afford incredible views. I rarely use the SV’s only because the old EL’s are excellent and used as my daily beater pair. Oddly, perhaps, the thing I like most about my SV’s is that the barrels are slightly narrower than my old EL’s. Both are wonderful models and incredible for birding, with views so good that their difference in edge clarity is irrelevant. Edited: Hopefully, the same will prove true for my SFL's.

 

[Zedster]

Sharp edges are a dealbreaker for me. Fuzzy edges are the first thing I look for when I try a binocular. I can't tolerate soft edges. That is a big reason I like Canon IS's and Swarovski NL's. They are sharp to the edge. I have not seen rolling ball in either one. If there are no side effects of sharp edges, why would you want blurry edges outside of a cheaper binocular?

Of course there are always side effects to optical choices. Weight, size, rolling ball are all side effects of flat field. Obviously you think the trade offs are worth it but others prefer the other way. It’s great to live in an era with such excellent choices

 

[henry link]

Weight, size, rolling ball are all side effects of flat field.

Actually, rolling ball is not a side effect of a flat field, at least when properly defined as a field that's well corrected for field curvature and off-axis astigmatism. Rolling ball is a side effect of angular magnification distortion, which can only be corrected by applying a sufficient amount of pincushion distortion. Neither of those distortions has any effect on image sharpness.

 

[Zedster]

Actually, rolling ball is not a side effect of a flat field, at least when properly defined as a field that's well corrected for field curvature and off-axis astigmatism. Rolling ball is a side effect of angular magnification distortion, which can only be corrected by applying a sufficient amount of pincushion distortion. Neither of those distortions has any effect on image sharpness.

Huh, well another instance of correlation I suppose.

 

[henry link]

There's not always even a correlation. Canon, for example, chose an eyepiece design with excellent correction of field curvature and astigmatism combined with enough pincushion to virtually eliminate angular magnification distortion, so there's no rolling ball and the field edge is sharp. Zeiss and Swarovski could do the same thing. The SFL appears to be a step in that direction.

 

[[email protected]]

Of course there are always side effects to optical choices. Weight, size, rolling ball are all side effects of flat field. Obviously you think the trade offs are worth it but others prefer the other way. It’s great to live in an era with such excellent choices

You are not giving up much at all with a SF 8x32 or NL 8x32. They are both not overly large, they weigh under 23 oz., and I saw no RB in either, and you get a huge FOV that is sharp to the edge and wonderful transparency. The only thing you are giving up is $2.5K out of your wallet, and that is what people don't like, so they try to find a reason why they don't want one. If you're honest, you will admit either one is the best birding binocular in the world and If you want one, just pony up and open your wallet and buy one instead of coming up with a bunch of baloney excuses why they are no good.

 

[Zedster]

There's not always even a correlation. Canon, for example, chose an eyepiece design with excellent correction of field curvature and astigmatism combined with enough pincushion to virtually eliminate angular magnification distortion, so there's no rolling ball and the the field edge is sharp. Zeiss and Swarovski could do the same thing. The SFL appears to be a step in that direction.

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that the correlation was the rolling ball I’ve experienced correlated with bins that were flat field. Wasn’t implying that they always went together. Hence the comment.

 

[Zedster]

You are not giving up much at all with a SF 8x32 or NL 8x32. They are both not overly large, they weigh under 23 oz., and I saw no RB in either, and you get a huge FOV that is sharp to the edge and wonderful transparency. The only thing you are giving up is $3K out of your wallet, and that is what people don't like, so they try to find a reason why they don't want one. If you're honest, you will admit either one is the best birding binocular in the world and If you want one, just pony up and open your wallet and buy one instead of coming up with a bunch of baloney excuses why they are no good.

I already got the SF. And I’ve experienced rolling ball in them. Plus 23 ounces for an 8x32 is quite heavy and the SF and Nal are huge

 

[[email protected]]

An SF 8x32 is 6"x4.4", NL 8x32 is 5.7"x5.1" and a UVHD+ is 4.5"x4.5". The SF and NL are only 1 1/2 inches longer than the UVHD+ because they have a longer, more complex eyepiece to achieve the much bigger FOV that is sharp to the edge. The SF weighs 21 oz., NL 23 oz. and the UVHD+ 19 oz. and you get almost an increase of 70 feet in the FOV with either the SF or NL over the UVHD+! Now you have to ask yourself isn't 1 1/2 inches worth it for that gain in FOV and edge sharpness? Many people appreciate the extra real estate when holding the binocular because you have more room to wrap your fingers around the tubes and a little extra weight helps you hold the binoculars steadier also.

 

[Zedster]

We are saying the same thing. Longer, heavier, more complicated glasses lead to sharper images and wider FOV. That's the tradeoff. We're well aware that you prefer the longer heavier side. Rather than comparing to the UVHD+ at 19oz I am comparing to the SFL or the MHG or the Traveller at 160z. That's 5-7 ounces lighter than the SF or NL. THAT is huge.

 

[CharleyBird]

Fuzzy edges are the first thing I look for when I try a binocular.

Really, the first thing?

My first things to look for are appropriate size, weight, comfortable armour, comfortable oculars, a smooth focus, easy diopter, bright view, sharp central image area where subjects are viewed, no CA, large afov...

They are all things I look for before looking for fuzzy edges.

 

[pm42]

Really, the first thing?

I thought the first thing he was looking for was "how can I write a review saying this is the best binocular ever up to the point where it cures sickness and old age ?".
And the second thing was "how can I wrote another review 2 weeks later because I've sold them because I've discovered they are very bad, gave me a limp and their performance is inadequate when one looks through them with both eyes closed".