SFL30 comments and experiences (1 Viewer)

[Swissboy]

Our two SFL x30 arrived today, a 10x30 for my wife and a 8x30 for myself. The first impression is just the same as when we had our first chance to look through them two months ago. A simple WOW, again. Particularly regarding my 8x30 model. An incredibly bright and spaceous view for such a small model. I still find it mind blowing. I'm presently mostly commenting my 8x30 model, though comparing them a bit as well. And again, my 8x32 FL is used for comparisons as well.

First thing that had not struck me that much before is how large the ocular lenses are. An important point why the view is so comfortable, I think.

I'm also using my 8x42 FL for comparisons. That is a first generation FL with the corresponding neutral-purple coating. The 8x32 FL, in contrast is of the last generation with the (to me) "nasty" orange-red coating. The problem is mostly with the ocular coating and I wondered why the SFL does not show any problems. Well, unlike the FLs, the SFL has different coatings on oculars and objectives. On the front lenses, there is a reddish color, though much softer than on my 8x32 FL. The objectives look virtually neutral-colorless, thus there can't be much reflection from my eyeglasses. Looking through the binoculars from the front side to a white background, the SFLs show pure white. Pretty much the same with my old 8x42 FL. The much newer FL 8x32 with its orange-red coating shows a clear though fine greenish hue, on that white however.

The focus on my 8x30 is smooth but not as soft as I'd like. On my wife's 10x30 it is what I consider ideal, very smooth and not much resistance. Thus I wonder whether the characteristics might change after some use. My 8x42 FL that is close to my SFL 8x30 tends to lose its focus because there is obviously not sufficient internal resistance. And the softness also varies a bit depending on temperature. Thus, for the moment I think it is best not to try to have the SFL focus changed.

What strikes me in particular with the 8x30 is how impressively the well focussed items pop into view. Another reason why I see no need at present to have anything changed. I don't see the same instant "pop" in the 10x30 model.

Focus in my case is with both index and middle finger on the large barrel . (I wear size 8 for gloves.)

The models come with both ocular and objective covers. The ocular covers tend to stick too much, so I will have to rasp off some of the thickened inside parts. Better than if it were all too flimsy. The objective covers are a tight fit of the front barrels, but I don't manage to make them close completely. Protections against sandstorms would definitely not be possible.

I am used to get a warranty that includes the individual number of the model. Here, I don't see any mention of warranty or model except for very general statements. Am I missing something?

So far some first comments.

 

[Will K]

What strikes me in particular with the 8x30 is how impressively the well focussed items pop into view. Another reason why I see no need at present to have anything changed. I don't see the same instant "pop" in the 10x30 model.

This seems to be a characteristic that is often praised in Zeiss binos. The SF in particular. It’s interesting to hear that some people note differences between models in the same line. Perhaps this quick “snap” focus effect is easier to achieve with lower magnification?

Aside from weight reduction and price, is there anything that makes the SFL 8x30 stand out over an NL 8x32?

 

[Swissboy]

.................

Aside from weight reduction and price, is there anything that makes the SFL 8x30 stand out over an NL 8x32?

For my own requirements that is all I wanted. Plus: no "warts" of the FP system. And an even better close focus!

Most likely, there will also be better panning results as I can't stand the roller ball effects of flat field models.

 

[Swissboy]

Our two SFL x30 arrived today, a 10x30 for my wife and a 8x30 for myself. The first impression is just the same as when we had our first chance to look through them two months ago. A simple WOW, again. Particularly regarding my 8x30 model. An incredibly bright and spaceous view for such a small model. I still find it mind blowing. I'm presently mostly commenting my 8x30 model, though comparing them a bit as well. And again, my 8x32 FL is used for comparisons as well.

First thing that had not struck me that much before is how large the ocular lenses are. An important point why the view is so comfortable, I think.

.........................

Here are some pictures to complement post #1:
1: SFL 10x30 meant to replace the well used Victory I 10x40 from July 2001.
2: SFL 8x30 meant to replace little used FL 8x32. The FL 8x42 will remain in use.
3: Ocular lens size comparison FL 8x32 bottom vs SFL 8x30 top

 

[tenex]

Higher magnification does mean that you have to get a bit closer to proper focus for the eyes to accomodate.
That said, other factors that could affect "focus snap" in your 10x30:
(1) is diopter properly set? worth rechecking
(2) is sweet spot size comparable to the 8x30? a small one could diminish the effect
(3) is focuser too slow? unlikely, probably same as 8x30
(4) can it achieve comparable sharpness at all? could be a lemon

 

[Swissboy]

.....................

The models come with both ocular and objective covers. The ocular covers tend to stick too much, so I will have to rasp off some of the thickened inside parts. Better than if it were all too flimsy. The objective covers are a tight fit of the front barrels, but I don't manage to make them close completely. Protections against sandstorms would definitely not be possible.

...........................

After some more use and evaluation, it's clear the covers are not a fitting standard to these binoculars. Looks like a typical case of not having taken that part of the development seriously. Reminds me somewhat of the eyecups of the FLs which needed several versions till Zeiss got them right. Though, since I am wearing spectacles when using the binoculars, I was happy with all of them.

The eyepiece covers are definitely too tight. Even when removing the internal ribs, it is a rather tight fit. And removing those ribs is time consuming and one always risks to damage the covers. That is definitely not what I feel like doing on such expensive binoculars. So I hope Zeiss will bring out an ocular cover that has at least 1mm larger internal diameter. The internal ribs could then serve their purpose. And those who prefer a looser fit have a chance of removing some or all of the ribs.

I hope the solution for the objective covers will be re-evaluated too. At this point, I don't need them, but the way they are, they simply can't be used properly.

 

[lmans66]

What a visual… look at the size difference! Place it next to a few ll size 8 or 10x wow.

Now…. ‘Too small? Too light?’ (SFL)

 

[pm42]

After some more use and evaluation, it's clear the covers are not a fitting standard to these binoculars.

There must be some variability during the building process. For instance, both covers for my SFL 8x40 are perfect and much better than those of the SF 8x32 and even the NL Pure 8x32 and 8x42.

The rainguard of my SFL 8x30 is ok but the front covers are not as good. I need to push them more carefully for them to stick in place.
I could replace them with something from Opticron or another brand like I did for the NL Pure 8x32 but it seems to get better over time so this is not a big deal for me.

 

[Bill Atwood]

Just unboxed mine.

At first use (sunny & mid day) they seem as sharp and clear as the 8x40s. They do very well at acute angles against the sun. Much better than the 32NLs. Even when the NLs are repositioned to decrease glare they aren't as clear as the SFLs. Oddly, the SFLs, (30s and 40s) are also better than the NLs at exposing areas of heavily shaded undergrowth. I don't know what spec or physical attribute explains that.

Weight with all caps and old Eagle Optics neoprene strap - 18.9 oz

Diopter is quite stiff as others have reported. This is good.

Ocular and obj. covers are good. Tight, but not too tight. It can be a battle to get the obj. covers on the bins, but they are quite elastic. Don't be afraid to get one side started and use fingers from both hands to pull the other side over the barrel end.

Ergos are good for my small hands. Last 2 fingers wrap around the barrel, no little finger hanging over the end as occurred at times with the 8x32FLs. Would be nice if the focus wheel was extended to the ocular end so first or both first and middle fingers could be used.

Focus wheel. Loud "sigh." Out of 4 new Zeiss bins I've bought over the years, NONE have had a good focus wheel. This one is the least bad, useable I suppose, smooth, but far stiffer than I like. If the wheel throw was as long as the ELs or NLs I'd consider them unusable.

Biggest negative - BLACKOUTS. Worst bin I've had for those. Much improved at first stop of the eyecup, but still there when I mash the bins into my glasses as I like to do. 2nd eyecup stop eliminates blackouts, but eats FOV. I'll have to experiment to see if I can find a happy medium.

Edit: Two 3/32" thick o-rings on each barrel seems to provide the best blackout relief.

I definitely can see were non-eyeglass users would prefer longer eyecups with the SFs and SFLs.

 

[lmans66]

‘Fun factor’…., are they manufactured so they are a pair you want to hold all day long…. You teach for them… you just enjoy in your hands.

Have you tried a MHG and if so… where do they fit in relation to SFL and the fun factor?

 

[b-lilja]

My 8x30 SFLs arrived today. It is possible I like them even better than my 8x40s, which I proclaimed recently as my favorite of all bins.

Zeiss has pulled off a major score with these bins (ie the SFLs overall), there is no doubt - the best comments I've seen echo mine from my 8x40 review - these are the ultimate all-rounders - balancing everything at once - I think these two bins are hands down the best at any price for general birding use.

Quick impressions:

• View is terrific, in full light as good as the 8x40s. Crisp as all get out, almost seems better than 8x40s. Nice full view, feels like a big bin view.
• Color is perfect.
• Some blackouts, but honestly not that bad to me - not like the Conquest HDs, and they didn't bother me there either.
• Handling to me is just fine - I do have small hands. I wouldn't even think twice about it. Focus with middle finger.
• My focuser is fine - not quite as perfect as my 8x40, but close enough.
• These feel like the smallest you could go and still feel like you're dealing with a full size bin. I don't think these are compacts.
• However - they are just so darn portable and handy. Stuffable.
• I was dubious about the carryover of the 8x40 focus knob, but actually love it as it lends to the "big boy" feel.
• Diopter too stiff, but not to the degree it is a fatal flaw. Maybe it'll loosen a bit.

The ultimate grab and go, shove in a cagoule pocket or pack top lid. I don't know about climbing a cliff with them in hand like that purple lady with the photoshopped zombie eyes in the crazy ad at the top of the page, but close.

The best test: I handed them to my wife when she walked in from the office, and she looked through them, and then brought them up and looked again, and said, "Ooh, these are good". Done.

 

[samp1800]

Could you comment on blackouts/kidney beaning when panning either on the 8x30 or 10x30? I saw another post about kidney beaning on the 8x30 but not yet on the 10x30 as it hasn't shipped yet in the US. I know the SF 10x32 is slightly finicky with eye placement for some (myself included) and am wondering about how the SFL fares.

 

[brocknroller]

For my own requirements that is all I wanted. Plus: no "warts" of the FP system. And an even better close focus!

Most likely, there will also be better panning results as I can't stand the roller ball effects of flat field models.

Glad to see that a "Rolling Ball Rebellion" is brewing. When I first introduced the phrase on Cloudy Nights, few people knew what I was talking about since until the 42mm Nikon LX/HG binoculars were introduced, about the only others that had too little pincushion to to prevent smooth panning were military binoculars with reticles. Pincushion was introduced into binoculars in the 1940s, so people were used to smooth panning binoculars. Even those Tasco and Sears 7x50 and 7x35 single coated binoculars of my youth panned smoothly.

Then some optics engineer with loads of pincushion in his eyes had the idea to stretch image to the very edge, even though in my experience, every pair of Nikon binoculars I owned had good edges, even the WF series (the 7x35 WF had a 9.3* FOV). The 8x32 LX had enough pincushion to stop rolling ball and it was sharp to the edge. So designing binoculars without almost no pincushion was unnecessary, but once the design became a fad, other brands followed suit.

At first those who didn't experience "rolling ball" with the LX or SV EL, tried to downplay it, suggesting that only a very small minority of users experinced this. It began at 2% (a number pulled out of thin air) and later after many others began reporting RB, it went up to 2-10%; however, from reading reviews by professional reviewers and owners of LXs, ELs, and Kowas, it seemed to me that it was a larger group than that.

Then Hogler published his ground-breaking paper on what he termed the "globe effect," complete with equations and diagrams (which can now be found in Wikipedia), and the phenomenon grew to national attention, including most recently the attention of Zeiss. And the percentage of users who experience it in hight AMD binoculars.

Further study of this by Holger and Henry came up with the culprit (the mustache effect) that made panning with high AMD binoculars like walking by a Funhouse mirror. And the number of users affected by "rolling ball/globe effect" jumped to 30%.

I hope that optics manufacturers have finally gotten the message, you can make binoculars with low field curvature without "rolling ball." The pre-SV 8x32 EL was sharp to 90% of the FOV and dropped off gradually in that last 10%, so getting rid of the pincushion to squeeze out that last 10% (of which some was blurry in the "Absam Ring," another term I coined) was simply not worth the trade-off of losing 30% of potentional customers.

Zeiss got the message, now let's see if Swaorvski, Nikon, Leica, and Kowa also do.

Brock

 

[brocknroller]

My 8x30 SFLs arrived today. It is possible I like them even better than my 8x40s, which I proclaimed recently as my favorite of all bins.

Zeiss has pulled off a major score with these bins (ie the SFLs overall), there is no doubt - the best comments I've seen echo mine from my 8x40 review - these are the ultimate all-rounders - balancing everything at once - I think these two bins are hands down the best at any price for general birding use.

Quick impressions:

• View is terrific, in full light as good as the 8x40s. Crisp as all get out, almost seems better than 8x40s. Nice full view, feels like a big bin view.
• Color is perfect.
• Some blackouts, but honestly not that bad to me - not like the Conquest HDs, and they didn't bother me there either.
• Handling to me is just fine - I do have small hands. I wouldn't even think twice about it. Focus with middle finger.
• My focuser is fine - not quite as perfect as my 8x40, but close enough.
• These feel like the smallest you could go and still feel like you're dealing with a full size bin. I don't think these are compacts.
• However - they are just so darn portable and handy. Stuffable.
• I was dubious about the carryover of the 8x40 focus knob, but actually love it as it lends to the "big boy" feel.
• Diopter too stiff, but not to the degree it is a fatal flaw. Maybe it'll loosen a bit.

The ultimate grab and go, shove in a cagoule pocket or pack top lid. I don't know about climbing a cliff with them in hand like that purple lady with the photoshopped zombie eyes in the crazy ad at the top of the page, but close.

The best test: I handed them to my wife when she walked in from the office, and she looked through them, and then brought them up and looked again, and said, "Ooh, these are good". Done.

"Ooh, these are good. The 10x30s don't have the same focus 'pop,' how about if we swap?"

 

[brocknroller]

Here are some pictures to complement post #1:
1: SFL 10x30 meant to replace the well used Victory I 10x40 from July 2001.
2: SFL 8x30 meant to replace little used FL 8x32. The FL 8x42 will remain in use.
3: Ocular lens size comparison FL 8x32 bottom vs SFL 8x30 top

Huge occulars like the 8x42 EDG II and 7x50 Foresta, which both have a wide AFOV that belies their moderate TFOV.

 

[dries1]

Glad to see that a "Rolling Ball Rebellion" is brewing,

Ugh, there are very few folks are prone to this condition, and they exist on BF Binocular forum.

 

[Paultricounty]

Here are some pictures to complement post #1:
1: SFL 10x30 meant to replace the well used Victory I 10x40 from July 2001.
2: SFL 8x30 meant to replace little used FL 8x32. The FL 8x42 will remain in use.
3: Ocular lens size comparison FL 8x32 bottom vs SFL 8x30 top

What a perfectly beautiful place to put the focusers on the FL’s, nice. 😆

 

[Richard D]

Glad to see that a "Rolling Ball Rebellion" is brewing,

Ugh, there are very few folks are prone to this condition, and they exist on BF Binocular forum.

I wouldn't expect non-flat field binoculars like the SFL to exhibit roling ball - the similar older CL's don't either. Nothing particularly revolutionary...

I can see roling ball in my ELs but I can't say it bothers me at all.

 

[Bill Atwood]

Don't think anyone has mentioned the eyecup click stops. They are very "retentive", if that's a word. Deliberate action needed to move out of a setting.

 

[Canip]

Zeiss got the message, now let's see if Swaorvski, Nikon, Leica, and Kowa also do.

I‘m not sure Leica needs to learn much in this respect, are you?