The new ZEISS SFL 30 binoculars (2 Viewers)

[Pinewood]

..FL 8x32, nice, but not on pair with EL/UV optically to justify the price (to my eyes obviously, but YMMV). In short: if the SFL 8x30 deliver: I might as well sell both my EL and Traveller and have a single everyday binocular once and for all Fingers crossed. After the big disappointment I got with the MHG 8x30, I prefer to be cautious.

Hello Yareli,

Yes, my experience with the FL was different as I was completely satisfied with its size, its view, its ergonomics and its eye relief. It is so good a package, that I am not anxious to try the 8x32SF, whose size you rightly cite is much larger. I may get around to trying the 8x32SF and perhaps the SFL, but I want to read more about the SFL's view.

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[dries1]

If the SV 8X32 is too heavy, or even the SF 8X32, I wonder who is using these, are any here trekking into the alps at 15 to 18K feet with overnight camping?
If one does not have a premium glass, and wants one glass to use day in and out, the SFL will I am sure do the job.
Additionally the back and forth about certain premium glass, what about a persons eyesight or color perception, more specifically how do they perceive color in one eye vs the other eye, how good is their own eyesight.
If someone wants a small light glass because they cannot stand the pockets, then OK the SFL 30 could be the solution. But mark my words, they will be issues with the 8X30 from folks on here, it is too short, the edges are not sharp, the eyecups, the position of the focus the size of the focus in relation to the barrel..etc,,etc.
Many have made up their mind already and the 30 is not even here yet.
I am getting my popcorn.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Objective size is very likely the reason.

Theoretically, the bigger aperture of the SFL 8x40 would give you slightly better resolution than NL 8x32, but at the low magnification of 8x you will never see any difference.

"All the binocular resolution testing I've performed using a film plotted resolution test chart and controlled lighting have made me reach this conclusion:

For binoculars of the same quality level (binoculars of the same class by the same manufacturer, or same rough price range by different manufacturers with VERY few exceptions), there do NOT seem to be any resolvable resolution differences between X42 and X32 configurations. In fact, I've even done resolution tests comparing X50 and X32 configurations, and in all but one case (where there was only 1 Arc second difference), there were also no discernible differences in measurable resolution.

Where you WILL find differences between objective lens sizes, however, is in low-light performance - where the X50 and larger objectives truly excel. Between X42 and X32 models, however, I've personally found very little real-world discernible advantage - perhaps a few minutes of extra viewing during dusk at most.

This is why the 8x32 configuration is currently my favorite overall - and why I would choose that configuration for a first binocular, or as my only binoculars if that were ever a tragic necessity.

Best wishes,
Bawko"

 

[Bill Atwood]

Interesting that you feel the SFL has better resolution than the NL. Do you mean on-axis resolution? How did you determine it? Just subjectively, or did you use a USAF resolution chart? I would think both the SFL and the NL would be resolving at the limit of the human eye.

I don't have a resolution chart. As I've mentioned in other threads I base my "resolution" findings from viewing equipment name plate lettering, street signs, complicated vegetation, stone surfaces of buildings and most useful, the cobwebs and paint cracks above my back neighbor's back door. Distances of these items range from 300ft-600ft. Evaluation is multiple sessions both handheld and statically supported. I realize this method is influenced by clarity, contrast, color and perhaps other factors, and is perhaps better described as "apparent resolution." But it works for me. One thing I've discovered that at those distances air currents can affect results so it's best to avoid windy days. Maybe one of these days I'll get a chart.

 

[Bill Atwood]

Theoretically, the bigger aperture of the SFL 8x40 would give you slightly better resolution than NL 8x32, but at the low magnification of 8x you will never see any difference.

Perhaps.

Where you WILL find differences between objective lens sizes, however, is in low-light performance - where the X50 and larger objectives truly excel. Between X42 and X32 models, however, I've personally found very little real-world discernible advantage - perhaps a few minutes of extra viewing during dusk at most.

This is why the 8x32 configuration is currently my favorite overall - and why I would choose that configuration for a first binocular, or as my only binoculars if that were ever a tragic necessity.[/I]

I've also found 42 much better in tropical rainforests. Otherwise I agree with 8x32 being quite useful.

 

[dries1]

The other factor is viewing comfort, I prefer a 5+ EP over a 4 EP, the tradeoff is weight (within limits) is a non factor for some.

 

[Paultricounty]

Theoretically, the bigger aperture of the SFL 8x40 would give you slightly better resolution than NL 8x32, but at the low magnification of 8x you will never see any difference.

"All the binocular resolution testing I've performed using a film plotted resolution test chart and controlled lighting have made me reach this conclusion:

For binoculars of the same quality level (binoculars of the same class by the same manufacturer, or same rough price range by different manufacturers with VERY few exceptions), there do NOT seem to be any resolvable resolution differences between X42 and X32 configurations. In fact, I've even done resolution tests comparing X50 and X32 configurations, and in all but one case (where there was only 1 Arc second difference), there were also no discernible differences in measurable resolution.

Where you WILL find differences between objective lens sizes, however, is in low-light performance - where the X50 and larger objectives truly excel. Between X42 and X32 models, however, I've personally found very little real-world discernible advantage - perhaps a few minutes of extra viewing during dusk at most.

This is why the 8x32 configuration is currently my favorite overall - and why I would choose that configuration for a first binocular, or as my only binoculars if that were ever a tragic necessity.

Best wishes,
Bawko"

I absolutely agree with everything that has been said here. There is no discernible difference between a 32 or 42 of the same optical level in good lighting conditions. I’ve determined this extensively multiple times with multiple groups of observers. The only thing that was gleaned from those informal tests was eye box comfort. This was done with examples of exact models from each of the three premium manufactures both with 8x and 10x with 32s and 42s. In the 10x group there was some less than unanimous outcomes, but I think there were some other reasons for that.

Dennis on we to expect you’ll to be selling some more 32 mm binoculars shortly 😂.

 

[Scott98]

Many have made up their mind already and the 30 is not even here yet.
I am getting my popcorn.

they didn't make a 6x30 like I wanted so yes, I'm already unhappy

 

[Dennis Mau]

Perhaps.



I've also found 42 much better in tropical rainforests. Otherwise I agree with 8x32 being quite useful.

I agree. If I did a lot of rainforest or low light birding, like on Monteverde in Costa Rica, I would want a 42 mm.

 

[Steve Babbs]

I have sat in the evening light comparing my 42mm to a friend's 32mm. I admit they were not the same brand but they were both 'alpha' bins in very good condition. As it got pretty dark, I could just make out a tiny difference, if I tried really hard, but it was much, much less than I expected. My next bins were 32mm and the ones after; I have spent a lot of time birding in rainforests and a night.

 

[Dennis Mau]

The other factor is viewing comfort, I prefer a 5+ EP over a 4 EP, the tradeoff is weight (within limits) is a non factor for some.

I agree a 5 mm EP is generally more comfortable, but with the nice eye box designs of the newer SF and NL an 8x32 can have pretty good eye placement comfort. It all depends on how that particular binocular fit's your eye socket depth and diameter in relation to the eye cup length and diameter of the binocular. Sometimes you can find an 8x32 that works perfect for your facial structure, but in general an 8x42 has more flexibility because of the bigger 5 mm EP.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I have sat in the evening light comparing my 42mm to a friend's 32mm. I admit they were not the same brand but they were both 'alpha' bins in very good condition. As it got pretty dark, I could just make out a tiny difference, if I tried really hard, but it was much, much less than I expected. My next bins were 32mm and the ones after; I have spent a lot of time birding in rainforests and a night.

Yup. The 42 mm probably only gives you an extra 10 minutes of viewing time at dusk. It is not worth the weight difference, IMO.

 

[Steve Babbs]

Yup. The 42 mm probably only gives you an extra 10 minutes of viewing time at dusk. It is not worth the weight difference, IMO.

I was genuinely very surprised. I was someone who'd gone on about how I always wanted 8 x 42mm for the extra light, especially being into mammals so often looking in poor light and, at the time, most of my trips were to rainforest in SE Asia or S America.

 

[dries1]

To each their own, but give me my 42s and 50s, much more flexibility for my eyes, and I have a plethora of glass to choose from.

 

[William Lewis]

I still choose to take the 8x 56's out most of the time. Just don't have to worry about not having the optimal whatever the weather/light condition chucks my way so I can have a nice relaxing bird up.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I don't have a resolution chart. As I've mentioned in other threads I base my "resolution" findings from viewing equipment name plate lettering, street signs, complicated vegetation, stone surfaces of buildings and most useful, the cobwebs and paint cracks above my back neighbor's back door. Distances of these items range from 300ft-600ft. Evaluation is multiple sessions both handheld and statically supported. I realize this method is influenced by clarity, contrast, color and perhaps other factors, and is perhaps better described as "apparent resolution." But it works for me. One thing I've discovered that at those distances air currents can affect results so it's best to avoid windy days. Maybe one of these days I'll get a chart.

Using your method of resolution testing is a pretty good way to do it. Especially the stone surfaces of buildings, brick walls and cobwebs. Anything with a very fine structure like that is excellent. Your right windy days are not good and neither are extremely hot days when there is a lot of solar radiation. In fact, solar radiation and the resolution reduction it causes with higher magnifications is one reason I like 8x better than 10x.

 

[Dennis Mau]

To each their own, but give me my 42s and 50s, much more flexibility for my eyes, and I have a plethora of glass to choose from.

42s and especially 50s are without a doubt easier for eye placement. The Fujinon FMTR-SX 7x50 exemplifies that. You just pop it up to your eyes and bang you have a full FOV with no black-outs. A 50 mm is just easy peasy. Quite the contrast to an 8x20 pocket binocular.

 

[Binocollector]

I still choose to take the 8x 56's out most of the time.

I used a 10x56 and even my Fujinon FMTR 7x50 while hiking, wearing them bandolier style. No problem at all since I rarely take walks that are longer than an hour or one and a half max. If I'd go for a day-long hike, it might be a different matter but even then I could take a larger bino in a backpack.
Funny enough, the most annoying bino I ever took on a hike was the small Kowa BDII 6.5x32! It was because the strap is so short that it was constantly bouncing around in front of me and the strap is too short for wearing it bandolier style. I definitely need to change that strap. It's just bad. For me even a small bino profits in wearing comfort from a longer strap.

 

[dries1]

I used a 10x56 and even my Fujinon FMTR 7x50 while hiking, wearing them bandolier style. No problem at all since I rarely take walks that are longer than an hour or one and a half max. If I'd go for a day-long hike, it might be a different matter but even then I could take a larger bino in a backpack.
Funny enough, the most annoying bino I ever took on a hike was the small Kowa BDII 6.5x32! It was because the strap is so short that it was constantly bouncing around in front of me and the strap is too short for wearing it bandolier style. I definitely need to change that strap. It's just bad. For me even a small bino profits in wearing comfort from a longer strap.

Yes philipp you are very correct on the straps that they provide with the BD II series glass, they could have been longer.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I have! You have written exactly what I think to myself
Every single day I use my 8x32 EL SV I wish they weighted 450 g, just like the SLF 8x30. This is the reason (besides the price tag) I've never had any interest in the NL/SF bunch: why carry a 8x30 the size/weight of a 8x42 MHG or 8x40 SLF? I just don't get it. I'd be more inclined to get a 8x40 SFL than a 8x32 NL even if they had the same price. As a matter of fact, thinking about price/usability, if I had to choose between my two favourite 8x32 the EL SV and the Opticron Traveller and keep just one for every single activity, I'd probably choose the latter. Because it can do things (or I can take it places) the EL can't (due to weight/portability). I've tried many 8x32, and while the UVHD was very nice, my hands around its body felt crumped, and my big expectations towards the MHG 8x30 (which was supposed to be THE binocular) met terrible eye comfort, constant blackouts (that I never got with the Monarch 7 8x30. So, while it remains to be seen whether or not the SFL 8x30 can offer enough eye comfort (something my EL SV excels at), I thin it's a really wise move from Zeiss.
Yes, I've tried the CL 8x30, again, narrow eyecups. The Conquest HD 8x32: too heavy, slight tendency to blackouts; FL 8x32, nice, but not on pair with EL/UV optically to justify the price (to my eyes obviously, but YMMV). In short: if the SFL 8x30 deliver: I might as well sell both my EL and Traveller and have a single everyday binocular once and for all Fingers crossed. After the big disappointment I got with the MHG 8x30, I prefer to be cautious.

Your kind of thinking out loud aren't you?