SFL 8x40 or 10x40? (2 Viewers)

[Davide_Videvitt]

IMO, the SFL's are overpriced for what they are. You're paying a lot for the Zeiss name, and they are still MIJ. They have a mediocre FOV with soft edges, average build quality and in my case the 'Blue Ring of Death'.

I would take a Nikon MHG over them any day for less money. No glare, no deteriorating rubber armour, light and a more reasonable price.

I think if you compared a Swarovski SLC 8x42 which you can buy for less than the price of a SFL 8x40 back to back like I did, you would much prefer the SLC. The SLC is brighter, the FOV seems larger and the FOV is sharper to the edge and no 'Blue Ring of Death'.

I am relatively new here and don't want to be rude, but I have recently read several threads about the SFL 8x40s because I think they may be the right binoculars for a future upgrade from the M7 (I will definitely have to try them out properly first, but on paper they seem perfect for my priorities). In many of these threads, sometimes only a few months old, I have read your completely different opinions from what you are writing here. I'm sure I've even read posts in which you call them the best binoculars overall, with the weight/brightness/quality/price ratio superior to the NL and SF. No mention of blue death ring or other things you are saying here. All this to say that I had also read with interest your remarks in the other threads, but now I feel a bit confused.

 

[[email protected]]

I am relatively new here and don't want to be rude, but I have recently read several threads where about the SFL 8x40s because I think they may be the right binoculars for a future upgrade from the M7 (I will definitely have to try them out properly first, but on paper they seem perfect for my priorities). In many of these threads, sometimes only a few months old, I have read your completely different opinions from what you are writing here. I'm sure I've even read posts in which you call them the best binoculars overall, with the weight/brightness/quality/price ratio superior to the NL and SF. No mention of blue death ring or other things you are saying here. All this to say that I had also read with interest your remarks in the other threads, but now I feel a bit confused.

I didn't see the 'Blue Ring of Death' at first in the SFL 8x40's. It wasn't until I started comparing them to the SLC 8x42 that I noticed it.

When I compared them back to back, I could tell the SFL's had softer edges than the SLC's, and then I started looking at the edges of the SFL and I could see they were blue.

The 'Blue Ring of Death' had reared its ugly head. I sold the SFL's the next day. You may not see the 'Blue Ring of Death'. A lot of times glare is a personal thing and what one person sees another may not.

All our eyes are different, and our brains interpret the nerve signals coming from the optic nerve of our eyes differently also.

But next time you are using your SFL's if that is what you have, look closely at the edges and see if they are blue. The 'Blue Ring of Death' might be there.

By the way, if you ever have a pair of SFL's DON'T compare them to the SLC 8x42's. The SLC's just kill them optically. You will be selling your SFL's and buying some SLC's.

 

[Ignatius]

I am relatively new here and don't want to be rude, but I have recently read several threads about the SFL 8x40s because I think they may be the right binoculars for a future upgrade from the M7 (I will definitely have to try them out properly first, but on paper they seem perfect for my priorities). In many of these threads, sometimes only a few months old, I have read your completely different opinions from what you are writing here. I'm sure I've even read posts in which you call them the best binoculars overall, with the weight/brightness/quality/price ratio superior to the NL and SF. No mention of blue death ring or other things you are saying here. All this to say that I had also read with interest your remarks in the other threads, but now I feel a bit confused.

Don't worry. You'll get used to it eventually. It's like a rite of passage here and eventually you will decide whether you continue visiting denco's funhouse - or whether you will put him on ignore.

 

[Paultricounty]

I am relatively new here and don't want to be rude, but I have recently read several threads about the SFL 8x40s because I think they may be the right binoculars for a future upgrade from the M7 (I will definitely have to try them out properly first, but on paper they seem perfect for my priorities). In many of these threads, sometimes only a few months old, I have read your completely different opinions from what you are writing here. I'm sure I've even read posts in which you call them the best binoculars overall, with the weight/brightness/quality/price ratio superior to the NL and SF. No mention of blue death ring or other things you are saying here. All this to say that I had also read with interest your remarks in the other threads, but now I feel a bit confused.

lol, welcome to the Denco club. 😜😉. But we love him, some of us 😆.

Just kidding Dennis, kind of ✌🏼🙏🏼

 

[Paultricounty]

I didn't see the 'Blue Ring of Death' at first in the SFL 8x40's. It wasn't until I started comparing them to the SLC 8x42 that I noticed it.

That’s why I’ve been refraining from giving first impressions and wait a bit after spending some time before I post something that could mislead someone. But I’ve been guilty of the same thing Dennis..

When I compared them back to back, I could tell the SFL's had softer edges than the SLC's, and then I started looking at the edges of the SFL and I could see they were blue.

The 'Blue Ring of Death' had reared its ugly head. I sold the SFL's the next day. You may not see the 'Blue Ring of Death'. A lot of times glare is a personal thing and what one person sees another may not.

All our eyes are different, and our brains interpret the nerve signals coming from the optic nerve of our eyes differently also.

I think that’s the point , not everybody is seeing what you’re seeing in specific models, and you have a history here of being more sensitive to all kinds of glare, more than some others. There have been more people noticing the blue ring in SF’s than SFL’s.

But next time you are using your SFL's if that is what you have, look closely at the edges and see if they are blue. The 'Blue Ring of Death' might be there.

And why do we call it the blue ring of death? Why not the blue ring of glare , or the blue ring of CA being that we haven't established what it is.

By the way, if you ever have a pair of SFL's DON'T compare them to the SLC 8x42's. The SLC's just kill them optically. You will be selling your SFL's and buying some SLC's.

Not if he doesn’t like the weight and the focuser. 😉

 

[[email protected]]

lol, welcome to the Denco club. 😜😉. But we love him, some of us 😆.

Just kidding Dennis, kind of ✌🏼🙏🏼

You're the only one that can say that about me because you are the only one who approaches my level of optical knowledge. Maybe you and Henry Link.

 

[[email protected]]

That’s why I’ve been refraining from giving first impressions and wait a bit after spending some time before I post something that could mislead someone. But I’ve been guilty of the same thing Dennis..

I think that’s the point , not everybody is seeing what you’re seeing in specific models, and you have a history here of being more sensitive to all kinds of glare, more than some others. There have been more people noticing the blue ring in SF’s than SFL’s.

And why do we call it the blue ring of death? Why not the blue ring of glare , or the blue ring of CA being that we haven't established what it is.

Not if he doesn’t like the weight and the focuser. 😉

I sold the SLC 8x42 because of the focuser that was harder in one direction and the weight. I had cataracts when I was testing the SFL's I wonder if that had something to do with the 'Blue Ring of Death'.

I should have photographed it through the binoculars and posted it on the forum. Now that I had my cataracts removed, I can see like an eagle, maybe better.

With my new Toric AOL's I am 20/20 in the right eye and 20/25 in the left eye which works out great and give me kind of mico-monovision for long range vision and closer up vision.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I sold the SLC 8x42 because of the focuser that was harder in one direction and the weight. I had cataracts when I was testing the SFL's I wonder if that had something to do with the 'Blue Ring of Death'.

I should have photographed it through the binoculars and posted it on the forum. Now that I had my cataracts removed, I can see like an eagle, maybe better.

Curious why you sold the 8x32NL? I thought a couple of posts/threads back you recommended them as the go-to-bino (!). May I ask what went wrong and what's your current one-bin-to-rule-them-all?

 

[Paultricounty]

Curious why you sold the 8x32NL? I thought a couple of posts/threads back you recommended them as the go-to-bino (!). May I ask what went wrong and what's your current one-bin-to-rule-them-all?

😂🤪🙄😵‍💫🤷🏼‍♂️.

 

[Paultricounty]

You're the only one that can say that about me because you are the only one who approaches my level of optical knowledge. Maybe you and Henry Link.

I won’t speak for you, but I think Henry is way above me, and in a different league .

 

[[email protected]]

Curious why you sold the 8x32NL? I thought a couple of posts/threads back you recommended them as the go-to-bino (!). May I ask what went wrong and what's your current one-bin-to-rule-them-all?

Even though the NL 8x32's are maybe 10% better optically because of the bigger FOV and sharper edges, I went to the Nikon MHG 8x42 because I like the 42mm aperture better for the easier eye placement and brighter image and the 8.3 degree FOV isn't too shabby either, and the softer edges are not that noticeable on the MHG.

The Nikon MHG 8x42 also has less glare than the NL 8x32, which without a doubt has some glare in certain situations at the bottom of the FOV.

Also, honestly I hate the Field Pro strap attachment because it is always getting twisted, and it is hard to figure out which way to untwist because you have two things twisting, the strap and the Field Pro attachment.

I also dislike the goofy side load case Swarovski gives you, I worry about the armor cracking, the objective lens covers breaking off and I hate the tight-fitting rain guard.

I like the Nikon MHG 8x42 better than the EDG 8x42 also because it is smaller, lighter, has a bigger FOV and is less expensive. The weight and smaller FOV of the EDG make it less appealing for me even though it is a very nice binocular.

Also, carrying a $2800 binocular kind of worries me if I drop it or somebody steals it. I don't worry about a $1000 Nikon MHG 8x42 that much, and I can relax when I use it in the field and leave it in the car.

 

[Swedpat]

You're the only one that can say that about me because you are the only one who approaches my level of optical knowledge. Maybe you and Henry Link.

I feel discriminated Dennis! 😉

 

[[email protected]]

I won’t speak for you, but I think Henry is way above me, and in a different league .

Maybe above you, but not me. I think he is a few links below me.

 

[Paultricounty]

Even though the NL 8x32's are maybe 10% better optically because of the bigger FOV and sharper edges, I went to the Nikon MHG 8x42 because I like the 42mm aperture better for the easier eye placement and brighter image and the 8.3 degree FOV isn't too shabby either, and the softer edges are not that noticeable on the MHG.

Not brighter under most lighting conditions.

The Nikon MHG 8x42 also has less glare than the NL 8x32, which without a doubt has some glare in certain situations at the bottom of the FOV.

MHG does suffer, or maybe I should say a little weak on whites, it washing out a bit.

Also, honestly I hate the Field Pro strap attachment because it is always getting twisted, and it is hard to figure out which way to untwist because you have two things twisting, the strap and the Field Pro attachment.

I also dislike the goofy side load case Swarovski gives you, I worry about the armor cracking, the objective lens covers breaking off and I hate the tight-fitting rain guard.

I never use the the factory bags anyway, I like to keep pristine. I use the Zeiss bags on almost all my binoculars or the GPO hard case.

I like the Nikon MHG 8x42 better than the EDG 8x42 also because it is smaller, lighter, has a bigger FOV and is less expensive. The weight and smaller FOV of the EDG make it less appealing for me even though it is a very nice binocular.

Actually the sweet spot is bigger on the EDG than the MHG because of the field flatteners.

Also, carrying a $2800 binocular kind of worries me if I drop it or somebody steals it. I don't worry about a $1000 Nikon MHG 8x42 that much, and I can relax when I use it in the field and leave it in the car.

Cost is another story , I’m with you there. Am I making you change your mind yet? 😜✌🏼

 

[Davide_Videvitt]

I sold the SLC 8x42 because of the focuser that was harder in one direction and the weight. I had cataracts when I was testing the SFL's I wonder if that had something to do with the 'Blue Ring of Death'.

I should have photographed it through the binoculars and posted it on the forum. Now that I had my cataracts removed, I can see like an eagle, maybe better.

Admit then, no offence, that if you had cataracts at that time you were not in the best condition to judge binoculars, especially when it comes to comparing them with binoculars tested after the operation. In any case I am glad your eyesight is fine now.

I didn't see the 'Blue Ring of Death' at first in the SFL 8x40's. It wasn't until I started comparing them to the SLC 8x42 that I noticed it.

When I compared them back to back, I could tell the SFL's had softer edges than the SLC's, and then I started looking at the edges of the SFL and I could see they were blue.

The 'Blue Ring of Death' had reared its ugly head. I sold the SFL's the next day. You may not see the 'Blue Ring of Death'. A lot of times glare is a personal thing and what one person sees another may not.

All our eyes are different, and our brains interpret the nerve signals coming from the optic nerve of our eyes differently also.

But next time you are using your SFL's if that is what you have, look closely at the edges and see if they are blue. The 'Blue Ring of Death' might be there.

By the way, if you ever have a pair of SFL's DON'T compare them to the SLC 8x42's. The SLC's just kill them optically. You will be selling your SFL's and buying some SLC's.

Let's put aside the blue ring of death for a moment, which can be annoying but if I understand correctly does not affect the IQ of binoculars. I have read posts written by you comparing the SFL 8x40 with the NL Pure and SF judging them almost identical from an optical point of view except for the FOV. How can you now say that SLC even 'kill' SFL? Following your reasoning would mean that they also kill the NLs and the SF: is that so?

 

[Paultricounty]

Admit then, no offence, that if you had cataracts at that time you were not in the best condition to judge binoculars, especially when it comes to comparing them with binoculars tested after the operation. In any case I am glad your eyesight is fine now.


Let's put aside the blue ring of death for a moment, which can be annoying but if I understand correctly does not affect the IQ of binoculars. I have read posts written by you comparing the SFL 8x40 with the NL Pure and SF judging them almost identical from an optical point of view except for the FOV. How can you now say that SLC even 'kill' SFL? Following your reasoning would mean that they also kill the NLs and the SF: is that so?

Maybe there was some other eye procedure being done, sorry couldn’t resist 🤭.

Don’t be to hard on him, he does know his glass very well, but there are three Dennises , there’s the new binocular reviewer Dennis, who likes everything about the new acquisition, then there is the seller Dennis, where the item being sold is best thing since sliced bread, then there’s the critical previous owner Dennis, that tears apart the sold item. That’s where all the confusion and contradiction comes from. Do you get it now?

 

[Davide_Videvitt]

Maybe there was some other eye procedure being done, sorry couldn’t resist 🤭.

Don’t be to hard on him, he does know his glass very well, but there are three Dennises , there’s the new binocular reviewer Dennis, who likes everything about the new acquisition, then there is the seller Dennis, where the item being sold is best thing since sliced bread, then there’s the critical previous owner Dennis, that tears apart the sold item. That’s where all the confusion and contradiction comes from. Do you get it now?

Ok, if that's the pattern I think I got it 😂 thanks

 

[[email protected]]

Not brighter under most lighting conditions.
I know the theories, but I really don't agree with them. I think your eyes could dilate to 5mm in the daytime because when I compared the MHG 8x42 to the NL 8x32 it seemed brighter most of the time. It could be that the MHG appeared brighter than the NL because of its color rendering. I find most 8x42's brighter than 8x32's even in the daytime.

MHG does suffer, or maybe I should say a little weak on whites, it's washing out a bit.
The MHG IMO opinions handles whites just as well as the EDG. They are both slightly skewed towards the red spectrum, like most Nikon's. Allbinos agrees.

Nikon 10x42 EDG - binoculars review - 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

Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 - binoculars review - 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

I never use the factory bags anyway, I like to keep pristine. I use the Zeiss bags on almost all my binoculars or the GPO hard case.

The Zeiss bags are nice, but I am too cheap to buy all those extra bags. The factory should include a serviceable bag with a $3000 binocular.

Actually, the sweet spot is bigger on the EDG than the MHG because of the field flatteners.

Yes, I have heard that rationalization before, but it really doesn't hold mustard. The MHG has an 8.3 degree FOV and the EDG has an 7.8 degrees FOV.

Even though the MHG has a slight softening at the edge, you really don't notice it because it is gradual and when you compare the two binoculars there is no doubt the MHG has a much wider FOV. Even though the edges of the MHG are not quite as sharp as the EDG, they are usable for spotting birds.

Cost is another story, I’m with you there. Am I making you change your mind yet?

No, I tried the EDG and I liked the MHG better. It is smaller, lighter, brighter, cheaper and has a bigger FOV. The EDG is a big, heavy binocular with a small 7.8 degree FOV, it is kind of dim, and I think it has been out of production for so long that it is getting a little long in the tooth compared to the newer choices.

The EDG is overbuilt and outdated. You don't need the big heavy rubber armor and heavy eyecups with thick rubber around them. The MHG is a more modern binocular. My EDG went back to Japan.

 

[Paultricounty]

Not brighter under most lighting conditions.
I know the theories, but I really don't agree with them. I think your eyes could dilate to 5mm in the daytime because when I compared the MHG 8x42 to the NL 8x32 it seemed brighter most of the time. It could be that the MHG appeared brighter than the NL because of its color rendering. I find most 8x42's brighter than 8x32's even in the daytime.

I didn’t compare the NL 8X32 side by side with the 842 MHG or the EDG, but I did compare both the Nikons to the EL 8X32 side by side. On bright sunny days neither Nikon appeared any brighter to me or anybody else that was with us than the EL. If anything one would think the bino with the more neutral color leaning would appear brighter, but with these binoculars being discussed , the EL is so sharp that one could confuse that with being brighter. The other thing is the EDG is much more into the red than the MHG, and the eye box comfort is easier in the EL32 than the MHG42, which is a little sensitive to blackout.

MHG does suffer, or maybe I should say a little weak on whites, it's washing out a bit.
The MHG IMO opinions handles whites just as well as the EDG. They are both slightly skewed towards the red spectrum, like most Nikon's. Allbinos agrees.

Take another look on a bright day at white swans or some other white object with a darker background, I think you’ll change your mind. I like allbinos, it was an excellent read when I got started, but as I started buying and collecting binoculars that were reviewd, there were to many inconsistencies.

Nikon 10x42 EDG - binoculars review - 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

Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 - binoculars review - 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

I never use the factory bags anyway, I like to keep pristine. I use the Zeiss bags on almost all my binoculars or the GPO hard case.

The Zeiss bags are nice, but I am too cheap to buy all those extra bags. The factory should include a serviceable bag with a $3000 binocular.

They do supply nice bags, that’s why I don’t use them. I sometimes lay my binoculars in their bag/case on the car floor or trunk and I don’t care about the $30 Zeiss bags. I don’t have a Zeiss bag for every pair of binoculars I have, I have enough where I can swap out whatever binoculars are in one of the bags.

Actually, the sweet spot is bigger on the EDG than the MHG because of the field flatteners.

Yes, I have heard that rationalization before, but it really doesn't hold mustard. The MHG has an 8.3 degree FOV and the EDG has an 7.8 degrees FOV.

True that the FOV by measurement and even looking through the bins, but the actual usable FOV is very close because of the good edges in the EDG.

Even though the MHG has a slight softening at the edge, you really don't notice it because it is gradual and when you compare the two binoculars there is no doubt the MHG has a much wider FOV. Even though the edges of the MHG are not quite as sharp as the EDG, they are usable for spotting birds.

I thought you like good edges, which Dennis am I talking too? 😵‍💫

Cost is another story, I’m with you there. Am I making you change your mind yet?

No, I tried the EDG and I liked the MHG better. It is smaller, lighter, brighter, cheaper and has a bigger FOV. The EDG is a big, heavy binocular with a small 7.8 degree FOV, it is kind of dim, and I think it has been out of production for so long that it is getting a little long in the tooth compared to the newer choices.

Definitely not dim, just appears ever so slightly less bright under certain lighting condition than the MHG. Im still under the belief that the EDG’s are still being made. From side by side comparisons over weeks under different conditions, my opinion is these two binoculars are on two different tiers , the MHG being an upper midrange optic and the EDG being on the cusp of alpha level. Between the better glare control, more pop in the image, easier on the eyes, more comfortable eye box, snaps into focus (never hunt for focus) like a true alpha, a better focuser , probably the best, and built to last a lifetime.

The EDG is overbuilt and outdated. You don't need the big heavy rubber armor and heavy eyecups with thick rubber around them. The MHG is a more modern binocular. My EDG went back to Japan.

To each his own , to me the EDG’s are built a littler better with all that metal and thick rubber, more robust. The MHG is more like an EDG light, nice build but not as rugged. You really should spend more time with your binoculars and live with them for a while, it’s the only way you truly find all the characteristics. And I’d ad that without side by side comparisons, it’s extremely difficult to make definitive conclusions.

 

[Swedpat]

Regarding brightness at daytime.
A sunny day it can be 100000+ lux. I am sitting on my balcony with a cup of coffee just now and it's cloudy. I have a lux meter app on my phone and measure 13000 lux.
I read that an approved work lighting indoors is 500-1500 lux depending on the work task. So it's about 9 times brighter outdoors in cloudy weather here right now than it is with bright indoor lighting.
The question is how many lux can reach the eye through binoculars at daytime. And how many lux are required for the pupil to contract maximally.
Anyway: I just compared my old Zeiss 6x20(3,3mm exit pupil) to Vortex 6x32(5,3mm exit pupil). I have hard to see any difference in brightness between them. Maybe a very very subtle difference. And for sure the coating of the old 6x20 is not as good as the new 6x32.
I also compared to my Zeiss miniquick 5x10. Here I notice a dimmer image, and it is 2mm exit pupil. But I still wonder how much of this depends on the coating.
Miniquick 5x10 is probably the most overpriced optics you can find and while the sharpness is good the contrast is bad.
Therefore I draw the conclusion that a larger exit pupil than 2,5-3mm will not provide a brighter image in full daylight. Not when it's cloudy, even less when it's sunny.
Indoors is another thing.

Apart from that it has to be debunked that the same exit pupil provides brighter image if the aperture is larger. The statement (in a now closed thread) that a 10x52 is brighter than a 8x42 is false. It is only possible if the 8x42 has lower light transmission. And it is not enough with a 1-2% difference to be detected by the eye. In the mentioned case it was between two models of same brand and series, with the same AR coating. The only explanation to a perceived difference is imagination impacted by a wrong understanding of how optics works.