SFL30 comments and experiences (1 Viewer)

[MiddleRiver]

I had the same opinion when I tried the 30’s, ergos are terrible. The design while excellent on the 40’s doesn’t work on the 30’s. The glass is nice, but they should’ve redesigned the focuser position. And imo both should be $300+ less retail.

I’ll have a better opinion in a couple of days but I have to say the transmission curves are impressive! Of course that’s just one set of criteria. For some size is a non-starter and for others MIJ, etc.

 

[wllmspd]

Thanks for the link Gijs, I’ll bookmark it this time so we don’t have to ask again for a link. It’s great that we now have the tools to remove language as a barrier to wider availability of high quality information!

Keep up the amazing work

Peter

 

[Paultricounty]

I’ll have a better opinion in a couple of days but I have to say the transmission curves are impressive! Of course that’s just one set of criteria. For some size is a non-starter and for others MIJ, etc.

People have an issue with MIJ? Are you pertaining to people want Zeiss to be MIG? I personally have no issues what’s so ever with MIJ, MIG or Portugal. I see absolutely no qualitative difference. I just don’t do MIC.

 

[tenex]

That said, the fact that some binos are good on the 'tails' of the curve, likely have something to do with 'blue cast' and 'leica color' etc.

Yes, exactly, although having only a limited effect on overall perceived brightness.

I had the same opinion when I tried the 30’s, ergos are terrible. The design while excellent on the 40’s doesn’t work on the 30’s.

Swarovski also used the identical bridge on NL 32 and 42, but in that case it worked well because the 32s are barely shorter.

 

[tzed]

I'm curious to hear others experience with CA on these bins. I tried a pair at the CFO/WFO conference in Colorado going on presently and found the chromatic aberration to be quite poor. I was expecting much better. Maybe it was a bad sample? As reference the SF 8x32 had no problems but the Swarovski Companion CL 8x30 also had poor CA.
My comparison binocular which I use regularly is the Hawke Frontier ED X 8x42 and I found it had less CA than either of the compact binoculars from Zeiss or Swarovski

 

[Ted Y.]

I am impressed by the flat transmission graph in the blue and green light zone, as published here:

https://www.houseofoutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The-performance-of-Zeiss-SFL-8x30-and-10x30-and-of-32-mm-rangefinders-from-GPO-and-Leica.pdf

 

[Ratal]

I'm curious to hear others experience with CA on these bins. I tried a pair at the CFO/WFO conference in Colorado going on presently and found the chromatic aberration to be quite poor. I was expecting much better. Maybe it was a bad sample? As reference the SF 8x32 had no problems but the Swarovski Companion CL 8x30 also had poor CA.
My comparison binocular which I use regularly is the Hawke Frontier ED X 8x42 and I found it had less CA than either of the compact binoculars from Zeiss or Swarovski

100% the same. Far more CA than my Zeiss 8x25 VP. Won't be buying ANY of this range. Hard pass.

 

[Canip]

I'm curious to hear others experience with CA on these bins.

No issues here at all with CA.

 

[pm42]

No issues here at all with CA.

Same here: I'm sensitive to CA and have no problem the SFL 8x40 and 8x30. It is better controlled on the NL Pure and the Zeiss SF indeed but the difference is not an issue in real use unless I'm watching a crow on a white background.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Ditto. Excellent CA control in both 8x30 and 8x40 SFLs for me.

 

[Bartgeier]

I find the weakest points of my SFL 10x30 are CA control and blackouts. It's still good enough but I would prefer better for both.

 

[AndrewC1]

100% the same. Far more CA than my Zeiss 8x25 VP. Won't be buying ANY of this range. Hard pass.

By ‘this range’ do you mean all of the SFL’s? Not just the SFL30s?

 

[Ratal]

All of them. The SFL range is totally off the table. Took the 8x30 and 8x40mm out on snow to test, and ridge line blew up , and frankly it was shocking. Never again. The VP 8x25 I love, wouldn't trade them. Same as my Opticron Aurora. Both handle snowy mountains with aplomb.

SFL is a hard pass.

 

[tzed]

I was very surprised as well. I agree that the VP 8x25 was better than the SFL but I had a harder time holding them as steady as the SFL or SF. I should see if I can give them another try.

 

[Ratal]

Yep. I would NOT put the SFL as a 1500£ bin. Not a chance.

I was very surprised as well. I agree that the VP 8x25 was better than the SFL but I had a harder time holding them as steady as the SFL or SF. I should see if I can give them another try.

Yeah, the VP25 does need a little more TLC in that respect, but the view is crispy wonderful. As for the SFL? i would NOT pay that amount for what was presented. As I say, hard pass from me.

 

[Ted Y.]

Far more CA than my Zeiss 8x25 VP.

Is this about lateral CA or longitudinal CA?

 

[Canip]

As I say, hard pass from me.

You seem to be repeating this statement quite a bit lately (posts 87, 93, 95). Why?

 

[Troubador]

You seem to be repeating this statement quite a bit lately (posts 87, 93, 95). Why?

What is a hard pass?

 

[Ignatius]

What is a hard pass?

I think it's Americans being emphatic. (Does it really matter?)

 

[pm42]

What is a hard pass?

"No and I will not change my mind". I guess this goes with "because I have no good reason to think what I think in the first place".

BTW, here is a comparison between the VP 8x25 and the SFL 8x30. I let you guess which one as more CA.