-
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 8x40 or 10x40? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Micealh
- Start date
Yes, I react about that this is described like a technical innovation. It's about the possibility to use thinner lenses. Were the lenses not thinner earlier when 40mm was the standard?
Ignatius
Texpat
I have no information about the thicknesses of earlier 40 mm lenses, but I think that this lightening of the product is an aggregate of all recent developments similar to advances made in formula 1 car design. Lighter materials, stronger materials, new technologies - they all add up because in every direction the envelope is being pushed. However, I am a fully paid-up member of the Know-Nothing-Club, so ...
anything's possible but I doubt it, the BROD is most likely produced by struggling with eye placement...I would think cataracts would act as a weak yellow filter over the entire FOV
I've still got fairly clear eyes (for now) and I see mini-BROD effects on several different makes and sizes of binoculars, and it's always when my eye isn't quite centered properly. Everything from old porros to pocket binos to 42mm roofs.
It's usually more like a blue flash on one border of the FOV rather than a complete ring, but I think it's the same problem. I'm fidgety and my eyes tend to roam the FOV while I'm panning and that often leads to trouble...kidney beaning or blue flashes at the periphery
I prefere 8x40 sfl much more then 10x40.
SFL's best asset even compare to top of the range is it's color fidelity
and one of the significant disadvantage from top alpha is CA control especially at the edge.
10 power significantly loses it's color fidelity and CA control compared to 8 power. you can found green tint more easily (but still much less then other 10 power zeiss) then 8 power ans purple CA emits much wider and deeper at the edge.
in short, optical advantage that lower power have over high power is well shown at Zeiss SFL.
more significant the gap between 8 / 10 power swaro EL & NL (8.5 for EL 42)
SFL's best asset even compare to top of the range is it's color fidelity
and one of the significant disadvantage from top alpha is CA control especially at the edge.
10 power significantly loses it's color fidelity and CA control compared to 8 power. you can found green tint more easily (but still much less then other 10 power zeiss) then 8 power ans purple CA emits much wider and deeper at the edge.
in short, optical advantage that lower power have over high power is well shown at Zeiss SFL.
more significant the gap between 8 / 10 power swaro EL & NL (8.5 for EL 42)
dalat
...
I have never seen anything blue in my SFL 8x30, but after trying hard now, by looking in a very weird way sidewise to the side, I can see some blue fringes near the field stop. But I really need to hurt my ears to achieve this effect. Nothing at all of this shows in looking through the binocular in normal use.
Knowing that people's eyes are different, still I can't imagine this "blue ring" is a real thing at all. If I try hard enough, I can produce strange effects in any binocular. In any case, I don't think that this effect deserves being given a name and being repeated a hundred times over It has nothing to do with the actual performance of the bin. Which is a real gem by the way. I don't think there is any other bin as compact and with that level of performance.
Knowing that people's eyes are different, still I can't imagine this "blue ring" is a real thing at all. If I try hard enough, I can produce strange effects in any binocular. In any case, I don't think that this effect deserves being given a name and being repeated a hundred times over It has nothing to do with the actual performance of the bin. Which is a real gem by the way. I don't think there is any other bin as compact and with that level of performance.
I think that there is only one person repeating this 100 times..... and I think we all know who that is. I have both the 8x40 and the 10x40 and have never seen this and find that they are excellent bins.
In fact, SFL does has more significant at the edge of the view then Similar priced bino such as Swaro SLC, Nikon EDG.
I agree it's bit much then you expect from that price point.
there are two type of bino one shows CA at the edge is much more then center ant the other shows CA bit more then center.
for instance, former shows 20 percent of it's CA at the center and 80 at edge, latter shows like 40 / 60 (not a specific portion but just a metaphor to explane there are two kinds of bino.)
Zeiss SFL is former type among with Nikon SP, Zeiss SF (8x42) Canon 10x42 IS, Opticron Aurora, Swarovski NL / EL / AXVisio, and extra and latter is Meopta meostar, Nikon EDG, Swaro Companion, Nikon monarch HG, Zeiss HT / TFL, Zeiss SF (10x42), Leica trinovid BN, and extra
Last edited:
above is a photo of edge taken with
Zeiss SFL 10x42 / Swaro EL 10x32
indeed SFL has much more CA at the edge then EL
The amount of CA at the edges (I said only on the edges) are much stronger then bino that is much lower priced bino such as Mornarch 7, Zeiss terra, Buchnell forge.
it's much worse then 8x30 and 8x40. enough to bother me when majority of uses such as birding.
so that is why I said I prefer 8x40.
CA sensitivity is differ in every users, so it is not 100% wrong to call SFL 10x40's CA as blue ring of death.
Me also, as a bino reviewer that much sensitive to abberation then average user in my contry,
have some trouble at SF 10x40's edge CA.
SFL control CA nicely at Center of the view. much better then Zeiss conquest, leica ultravid, and Swaro companion.
so overall, CA rate may not that unforgiveable at the pricepoint. But I agree edge CA in the SFL 10x40 (among with SF 8x42) need to me improved.
it's indeed not worthy to carry the 'FL' name when reminding of the CA control that 'TFL' shown
that's why I prefer 8x40 SFL much more then 10x40 SFL.
don't have that amint of CA problem at edge and have significantly better color fidelity.
SFLs are nice bino, lightweight, good focusing, near alpha center sharpness, top of the pack color fidelity.
but EVERY bino has it's CONs.
there are NO bino that is just excellent in ALL ways.
Frankly, I'm bit disappointed at 10x40 SFL in comparison with 8x40 SFL which I really liked.
but I won't underestimate the whole SFL includi g 10x40. because they have other nice advantages.
I'm just focused at telling brights and darks EVERY bino has.
Last edited:
I've just had a look thru 10x40 sfl. I can see exactly that blue blurry ring around the edge, like the pic above.
The problem I have is that you really have to go some distance to see it. It depends on me closing one eye, looking at an angle to the edges. It has nothing to do with using a pair of binoculars "normally".
I doubt anyone would be able to see it looking straight thru the binoculars with both eyes.
You're birding, you're looking at wildlife, and you are hampered by this edge view.. you need to learn to look thru binoculars, and use them correctly? Unless I have peculiarly incredible eyes perfectly compatible with the binoculars, which I doubt.
The problem I have is that you really have to go some distance to see it. It depends on me closing one eye, looking at an angle to the edges. It has nothing to do with using a pair of binoculars "normally".
I doubt anyone would be able to see it looking straight thru the binoculars with both eyes.
You're birding, you're looking at wildlife, and you are hampered by this edge view.. you need to learn to look thru binoculars, and use them correctly? Unless I have peculiarly incredible eyes perfectly compatible with the binoculars, which I doubt.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I tried the 10x40 SFL on two occasions and spent a good amount of time with them, and I didn’t anything like the CA in those pictures. I’m wondering how much of the fringing is in the photo optical chain. I have $400 MIC bins that don’t have that much CA.
Even though I don’t see something like a blue ring of death, I am certainly seeing a lot of CV at the field edge of my SFL 10x40 just like in photos posted by @jackjack. However it is better than my UV 10x32 HD. Therefore I am thinking about buying an NL in 10x32 or 10x42 (maybe 52). Did any of you compare the sharpness difference between SFL 10x40 and NL 10x32 during normal viewing conditions? Will it be a big advantage to take 10x32 NL over SFL 10x40?
I tried to point out the really obvious chromatic aberrations in the center of the field of my friend's binoculars and he couldn't see it. We even switched binoculars to mine that had even more and while looking at a bird on a dead tree backlit by a bright overcast sun he couldn't see it. I thought it was obvious but he didn't even know the term. I wouldn't say one of us was using them correctly and the other wasn't. Same way he could differentiate terns better than I ever could. It's all about knowledge and experience. Anybody with experience in uncorrected photographic lenses will always notice CA in optics. Be grateful if you are blind to it, we can't all be that lucky.
I wouldn't either in that scenario.
But in our example, people don't seem to be seeing this effect when looking at wildlife...
they see it when they are "testing" the binoculars.
So just use them properly, watch wildlife through them and chances are you won't see it.
Again, unless I have strangely compatible eyes
tenex
reality-based
I tried SFL 40s only briefly myself when they came out, but didn't notice anything like what's shown or described here. (I am capable of seeing CA, and agree that Leicas often show more.) It's hard to guess what's an artifact of a phone camera, or how one person's vision differs from another's. So what I'd like to know is whether the people who do see high levels of CA at the edge of SFLs (possibly including the blue ring) can avoid it with slight adjustments of IPD, angle of holding etc, as some can with glare in other cases, and as I may have by instinct or luck. In other words, does SFL have a surprising level of CA, or a tricky eyebox?
Bingo!!
This simple bit of logical thinking seems to elude many in here.
(see line one below)
Last edited:
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
SFL’s have very little CA, if any at all.
The 8x30 is a little finicky but once you figure out eyecup setting and IPD, it’s not an issue.
For birding, at least the 8x SFL’s are hard to beat. Deciding criteria (confirmed by actual test drive) should focus on ergos, specially things like focus knob and mechanism, weight, eyecup fit to individual face, size in-hand, etc. Not whether 3people on BF can see blue edge while squinting and staring at 80deg from optic tube axis.
These conversations get totally off topic and off rails simply because connoisseurs of fine optics love to argue which bino is flawless. I do find useful real world reviews but you have to be willing to wade through a lot of stuff that frankly, ought to be in separate threads (and prolly ruffled feathers).
