The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars (1 Viewer)

[Canip]

The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars

PART 1: General comments and comparison of data


“Merlitz Distortion” – doesn’t ring a bell ? Well, it better would, since this term tells you why panning with the SFLs is as comfortable as has been reported by reviewers.

Holger wrote in a German optics forum about Zeiss informing him that they had considered his work on distortion when designing the panning-friendly distortion profile of the SFL (see Distortion and globe effect in binoculars, or read Holger’s book).

Good news for Holger, but also good news for all of us if annoying “moustache” type distortion profiles that have proliferated recently were to become a thing of the past and binocular optics designers were taking into account expert work by people like Holger.

No proper review of the SFL 8x30 to follow hereafter (there are some useful first reports by HenRun, Swissboy and others out already, and Lee promised to give us a detailed account of his experience with the SFL on Islay in April, and I am looking forward to that!)

Instead, I have for my own benefit (I like to understand why “things are the way they are”) put together a few comparative data about the SFL and some of its competitors: a selection of 10 current compact roof 8x30/8x32 models which I find good, whether “alpha” or not, some much cheaper, some more expensive than the SFL. Seems to me that the data explain at least part of the market success of the SFL (as given for the x40 models, and expected for the x30 ones), and the early positive reviews seem to confirm this.

Comparison of Specifications

In form of a table:

attached


And “rankings” discipline by discipline:

Weight (without accessories, according to specs)

Nikon Monarch HG 450 g
Zeiss SFL 460
Blaser Gobetrotter 475
Swarovski CL Companion 490
GPO Passion ED 520
Leica UV HD+ 535
MeoStar B1 Plus 595
Zeiss Victory SF 600
Zeiss Conquest HD 630
Swarovski NL Pure 640
Leica Trinovid HD 630

Weight (with eyepiece cover and neckstrap, measured)

Zeiss SFL 534
Nikon Monarch HG 543
Swarovski CL Companion 559
Leica UV HD+ 603
GPO Passion ED 610
Blaser Globetrotter 622
Zeiss Victory SF 673
MeoStar B1 Plus 685
Zeiss Conquest HD 697
Leica Trinovid HD 730
Swarovski NL Pure 783

Focus Speed (degrees of rotation of focus wheel from 3m to infinity)

Zeiss Conquest HD 165 degrees
Blaser Globetrotter 170
Zeiss SFL 180
Nikon Monarch HG 185
Leica Trinovid HD 195
GPO Passion ED 230
Leica UV HD+ 260
MeoStar B1 Plus 280
Zeiss Victory SF 310
Swarovski NL Pure 385
Swarovski CL Companion 400


Technical Eye Relief (according to spec.)

Zeiss Victory SF 19 mm
Blaser Globetrotter 18
Swarovski NL Pure 18
Zeiss SFL 18
Leica Trinovid HD 17
GPO Passion ED 16
MeoStar B1 Plus 16
Nikon Monarch HG 16
Swarovksi CL Companion 16
Zeiss Conquest HD 16

Leica UV HD+ 13


Useable Eye Relief (measured from rim of eyecup)

Zeiss SFL 17 mm
Swarovski NL Pure 16.5
Zeiss Victory SF 16
Nikon Monarch HG 15.5
Leica Trinovid HD 14
Zeiss Conquest HD 14
Blaser Globetrotter 13.5
MeoStar B1 Plus 13.5
GPO Passion ED 13
Swarovski CL Companion 13
Leica UV HD+ 12


Minimum Focus Distance (measured)

Leica Trinovid HD 0.95 m
Zeiss SFL 1.5
Zeiss Conquest HD 1.5
MeoStar B1 Plus 1.65
Nikon Monarch HG 1.65
Blaser Globetrotter 1.7
Zeiss Victory SF 1.95
GPO Passion ED 2.0
Swarovski NL Pure 2.0
Leica UV HD+ 2.1
Swarovksi CL Companion 2.95


Real Field of View RFOV (according to spec)

Zeiss Victory SF 8.9 = 155 m / 1000m
Swarovski NL Pure 8.5 = 149
Blaser Globetrotter 8.3 = 145
Nikon Monarch HG 8.3 = 145
Zeiss SFL 8.1 = 142
MeoStar B1 Plus 8.0 = 140
Zeiss Conquest HD 8.0 = 140
GPO Passion ED 7.9 = 139
Leica Ultravid HD+ 7.7 = 135
Swarovski CL Companion 7.6 = 132
Leica Trinovid HD 7.1 = 124


Apparent Field of View AFOV (spec. where available, otherwise measured and rounded)

Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 67
Swarovski NL Pure 65
Zeiss Conquest HD 64
Zeiss SFL 63
Blaser Globetrotter 62.5
GPO Passion ED 62.5
Nikon Monarch HG 62.5
MeoStar B1 Plus 61
Leica Ultravid HD+ 60.5
Swarovski CL Companion 58
Leica Trinovid HD 53


As the data above indicate, the SFL is well positioned among its “colleagues”, always in the first half of the group and sometimes at the top (weight, usable eye relief) or almost at the top (focus speed, minimum focus distance).

Some immediate impressions:

• Color fidelity is high, even if the image appears to my eyes just a tiny bit cooler in the 8x30 than in the 8x40; otherwise image characteristics appear very similar to me
  
  
• Usable eye relief (17 mm) is clearly more generous than anticipated and more generous than in the SFL 8x40
  
  
• As reported by HenRun and others, proper adjustment of eyecups needs slightly more attention than in the 8x40 model, and
  
  
• If done properly, CA should be at a comparably low level as in the 8x40 (higher amounts of CA may result depending on eye placement)
  
  
• Stray-light control is good for such a small bino, and spikes on bright light sources are minimal
  
  
• Some have reported less than soft focus on the 8x30 – in my sample, focus has just the right resistance and is smooth and precise

A few additional thoughts, fwiw:

Overall, the x40 SFL models have received very positive ratings. The owner of one of the best optics shops in Switzerland told me regarding the x40 version that he had “been waiting for a long time for such a binocular” – compact, lightweight, well built, with excellent image features (good color fidelity, great panning characteristics, low CA) and no major apparent flaws, all at a more affordable price than the top of the market models. Could well be that this is also true for the smaller x30 models; early comments and reviews seem to confirm that.

With the 8x30 and 10x30 SFL, Zeiss seems to follow the path it has started with the x40 models: bringing a compact and lightweight binocular to the market that does not try to “outperform” competition with even more field of view or edge sharpness or transmission (probably giving up some profit because of the high R&D cost), but which instead convinces as an overall package. With no immediately apparent major flaws - e.g. regarding CA, straylight etc. -, the SFL appears to be a very good compromise between mechanical and optical performance, weight, size, ergonomics and price. I find nothing especially “smart” about its focus, but focusing works extremely well indeed (smooth, fast and precise). I don’t find the image particularly “ultra highly defined”, as Zeiss claims, but the combination of excellent color fidelity, color saturation (without the hue typical for the UV), good contrast and large sweet spot produces in my view a very pleasant image. And very importantly: I am not sensitive to the globe effect and odd distortion profiles, but I found panning with the SFL extremely satisfying, compared to many other binos, esp. flat field ones.


PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons

{{ to follow }}

 

[GrampaTom]

Canip, thanks for the above. Any chance you've made a similar chart for the 40-42s?

 

[brocknroller]

The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars

PART 1: General comments and comparison of data


“Merlitz Distortion” – doesn’t ring a bell ? Well, it better would, since this term tells you why panning with the SFLs is as comfortable as has been reported by reviewers.

Holger wrote in a German optics forum about Zeiss informing him that they had considered his work on distortion when designing the panning-friendly distortion profile of the SFL (see Distortion and globe effect in binoculars, or read Holger’s book).

Good news for Holger, but also good news for all of us if annoying “moustache” type distortion profiles that have proliferated recently were to become a thing of the past and binocular optics designers were taking into account expert work by people like Holger.

No proper review of the SFL 8x30 to follow hereafter (there are some useful first reports by HenRun, Swissboy and others out already, and Lee promised to give us a detailed account of his experience with the SFL on Islay in April, and I am looking forward to that!)

Instead, I have for my own benefit (I like to understand why “things are the way they are”) put together a few comparative data about the SFL and some of its competitors: a selection of 10 current compact roof 8x30/8x32 models which I find good, whether “alpha” or not, some much cheaper, some more expensive than the SFL. Seems to me that the data explain at least part of the market success of the SFL (as given for the x40 models, and expected for the x30 ones), and the early positive reviews seem to confirm this.

Comparison of Specifications

In form of a table:

attached


And “rankings” discipline by discipline:

Weight (without accessories, according to specs)

Nikon Monarch HG 450 g
Zeiss SFL 460
Blaser Gobetrotter 475
Swarovski CL Companion 490
GPO Passion ED 520
Leica UV HD+ 535
MeoStar B1 Plus 595
Zeiss Victory SF 600
Zeiss Conquest HD 630
Swarovski NL Pure 640
Leica Trinovid HD 65

Weight (with eyepiece cover and neckstrap, measured)

Zeiss SFL 534
Nikon Monarch HG 543
Swarovski CL Companion 559
Leica UV HD+ 603
GPO Passion ED 610
Blaser Globetrotter 622
Zeiss Victory SF 673
MeoStar B1 Plus 685
Zeiss Conquest HD 697
Leica Trinovid HD 730
Swarovski NL Pure 783

Focus Speed (degrees of rotation of focus wheel from 3m to infinity)

Zeiss Conquest HD 165 degrees
Blaser Globetrotter 170
Zeiss SFL 180
Nikon Monarch HG 185
Leica Trinovid HD 195
GPO Passion ED 230
Leica UV HD+ 260
MeoStar B1 Plus 280
Zeiss Victory SF 310
Swarovski NL Pure 385
Swarovski CL Companion 400


Technical Eye Relief (according to spec.)

Zeiss Victory SF 19 mm
Blaser Globetrotter 18
Swarovski NL Pure 18
Zeiss SFL 18
Leica Trinovid HD 17
GPO Passion ED 16
MeoStar B1 Plus 16
Nikon Monarch HG 16
Swarovksi CL Companion 16
Zeiss Conquest HD 16

Leica UV HD+ 13


Useable Eye Relief (measured from rim of eyecup)

Zeiss SFL 17 mm
Swarovski NL Pure 16.5
Zeiss Victory SF 16
Nikon Monarch HG 15.5
Leica Trinovid HD 14
Zeiss Conquest HD 14
Blaser Globetrotter 13.5
MeoStar B1 Plus 13.5
GPO Passion ED 13
Swarovski CL Companion 13
Leica UV HD+ 12


Minimum Focus Distance (measured)

Leica Trinovid HD 0.95 m
Zeiss SFL 1.5
Zeiss Conquest HD 1.5
MeoStar B1 Plus 1.65
Nikon Monarch HG 1.65
Blaser Globetrotter 1.7
Zeiss Victory SF 1.95
GPO Passion ED 2.0
Swarovski NL Pure 2.0
Leica UV HD+ 2.1
Swarovksi CL Companion 2.95


Real Field of View RFOV (according to spec)

Zeiss Victory SF 8.9 = 155 m / 1000m
Swarovski NL Pure 8.5 = 149
Blaser Globetrotter 8.3 = 145
Nikon Monarch HG 8.3 = 145
Zeiss SFL 8.1 = 142
MeoStar B1 Plus 8.0 = 140
Zeiss Conquest HD 8.0 = 140
GPO Passion ED 7.9 = 139
Leica Ultravid HD+ 7.7 = 135
Swarovski CL Companion 7.6 = 132
Leica Trinovid HD 7.1 = 124


Apparent Field of View AFOV (spec. where available, otherwise measured and rounded)

Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 67
Swarovski NL Pure 65
Zeiss Conquest HD 64
Zeiss SFL 63
Blaser Globetrotter 62.5
GPO Passion ED 62.5
Nikon Monarch HG 62.5
MeoStar B1 Plus 61
Leica Ultravid HD+ 60.5
Swarovski CL Companion 58
Leica Trinovid HD 53


As the data above indicate, the SFL is well positioned among its “colleagues”, always in the first half of the group and sometimes at the top (weight, usable eye relief) or almost at the top (focus speed, minimum focus distance).

Some immediate impressions:

• Color fidelity is high, even if the image appears to my eyes just a tiny bit cooler in the 8x30 than in the 8x40; otherwise image characteristics appear very similar to me
  
  
• Usable eye relief (17 mm) is clearly more generous than anticipated and more generous than in the SFL 8x40
  
  
• As reported by HenRun and others, proper adjustment of eyecups needs slightly more attention than in the 8x40 model, and
  
  
• If done properly, CA should be at a comparably low level as in the 8x40 (higher amounts of CA may result depending on eye placement)
  
  
• Stay-light control is good for such a small bino, and spikes on bright light sources are minimal
  
  
• Some have reported less than soft focus on the 8x30 – in my sample, focus has just the right resistance and is smooth and precise

A few additional thoughts, fwiw:

Overall, the x40 SFL models have received very positive ratings. The owner of one of the best optics shops in Switzerland told me regarding the x40 version that he had “been waiting for a long time for such a binocular” – compact, lightweight, well built, with excellent image features (good color fidelity, great panning characteristics, low CA) and no major apparent flaws, all at a more affordable price than the top of the market models. Could well be that this is also true for the smaller x30 models; early comments and reviews seem to confirm that.

With the 8x30 and 10x30 SFL, Zeiss seems to follow the path it has started with the x40 models: bringing a compact and lightweight binocular to the market that does not try to “outperform” competition with even more field of view or edge sharpness or transmission (probably giving up some profit because of the high R&D cost), but which instead convinces as an overall package. With no immediately apparent major flaws - e.g. regarding CA, straylight etc. -, the SFL appears to be a very good compromise between mechanical and optical performance, weight, size, ergonomics and price. I find nothing especially “smart” about its focus, but focusing works extremely well indeed (smooth, fast and precise). I don’t find the image particularly “ultra highly defined”, as Zeiss claims, but the combination of excellent color fidelity, color saturation (without the hue typical for the UV), good contrast and large sweet spot produces in my view a very pleasant image. And very importantly: I am not very sensitive to the globe effect and odd distortion profiles, but I found panning with the SFL extremely satisfying, compared to many other binos, esp. flat field ones.


PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons

{{ to follow }}






View attachment 1501124View attachment 1501125

Thanks for those comparisons and the "family photo." I hope in Part 2 you will address the Smart Fouser position. It seems too low on the 8x32 model from the photos I've seen of user's fingers reaching down to turn it instead of straight across on the 8x40 version, which was the intention of the Smart Focuser, according to Zeiss's advertising.

It's great to hear that Zeiss considered Holger's advice on the distortion necessary for smooth panning. If anything, the Zeiss FL had too much pincushion, and the HT and SF moderate amounts, so there was little worry about the mustache effect unless Zeiss decided to follow Swaro and stretch the edges to wrap around the barrel.

Nikon started "the barrel rolling" with its 42mm LX/HG line and continued that with its 42mm MHGs. Fortunately, they deciced to add enough pincushion in their EDG line for smooth panning in the 42mm EDGs.

I've been buying Nikon binoculars since the WF series porros, which even for their wide field of view, had surpringly good edges. And the 8x32 EL was sharp to 90% from the center, so there was no need to go to extremes by either manufacturer. I can see streteching the edges for big format binoculars for stargazing but not for sports optics where smooth panning outweighs perfect edges. I hope sports optics designs with excessive AMD are on the way out.

Brock

 

[Holger Merlitz]

The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars

PART 1: General comments and comparison of data


“Merlitz Distortion” – doesn’t ring a bell ? Well, it better would, since this term tells you why panning with the SFLs is as comfortable as has been reported by reviewers.

Holger wrote in a German optics forum about Zeiss informing him that they had considered his work on distortion when designing the panning-friendly distortion profile of the SFL (see Distortion and globe effect in binoculars, or read Holger’s book).

Good news for Holger, but also good news for all of us if annoying “moustache” type distortion profiles that have proliferated recently were to become a thing of the past and binocular optics designers were taking into account expert work by people like Holger.

No proper review of the SFL 8x30 to follow hereafter (there are some useful first reports by HenRun, Swissboy and others out already, and Lee promised to give us a detailed account of his experience with the SFL on Islay in April, and I am looking forward to that!)

Instead, I have for my own benefit (I like to understand why “things are the way they are”) put together a few comparative data about the SFL and some of its competitors: a selection of 10 current compact roof 8x30/8x32 models which I find good, whether “alpha” or not, some much cheaper, some more expensive than the SFL. Seems to me that the data explain at least part of the market success of the SFL (as given for the x40 models, and expected for the x30 ones), and the early positive reviews seem to confirm this.

Comparison of Specifications

In form of a table:

attached


And “rankings” discipline by discipline:

Weight (without accessories, according to specs)

Nikon Monarch HG 450 g
Zeiss SFL 460
Blaser Gobetrotter 475
Swarovski CL Companion 490
GPO Passion ED 520
Leica UV HD+ 535
MeoStar B1 Plus 595
Zeiss Victory SF 600
Zeiss Conquest HD 630
Swarovski NL Pure 640
Leica Trinovid HD 65

Weight (with eyepiece cover and neckstrap, measured)

Zeiss SFL 534
Nikon Monarch HG 543
Swarovski CL Companion 559
Leica UV HD+ 603
GPO Passion ED 610
Blaser Globetrotter 622
Zeiss Victory SF 673
MeoStar B1 Plus 685
Zeiss Conquest HD 697
Leica Trinovid HD 730
Swarovski NL Pure 783

Focus Speed (degrees of rotation of focus wheel from 3m to infinity)

Zeiss Conquest HD 165 degrees
Blaser Globetrotter 170
Zeiss SFL 180
Nikon Monarch HG 185
Leica Trinovid HD 195
GPO Passion ED 230
Leica UV HD+ 260
MeoStar B1 Plus 280
Zeiss Victory SF 310
Swarovski NL Pure 385
Swarovski CL Companion 400


Technical Eye Relief (according to spec.)

Zeiss Victory SF 19 mm
Blaser Globetrotter 18
Swarovski NL Pure 18
Zeiss SFL 18
Leica Trinovid HD 17
GPO Passion ED 16
MeoStar B1 Plus 16
Nikon Monarch HG 16
Swarovksi CL Companion 16
Zeiss Conquest HD 16

Leica UV HD+ 13


Useable Eye Relief (measured from rim of eyecup)

Zeiss SFL 17 mm
Swarovski NL Pure 16.5
Zeiss Victory SF 16
Nikon Monarch HG 15.5
Leica Trinovid HD 14
Zeiss Conquest HD 14
Blaser Globetrotter 13.5
MeoStar B1 Plus 13.5
GPO Passion ED 13
Swarovski CL Companion 13
Leica UV HD+ 12


Minimum Focus Distance (measured)

Leica Trinovid HD 0.95 m
Zeiss SFL 1.5
Zeiss Conquest HD 1.5
MeoStar B1 Plus 1.65
Nikon Monarch HG 1.65
Blaser Globetrotter 1.7
Zeiss Victory SF 1.95
GPO Passion ED 2.0
Swarovski NL Pure 2.0
Leica UV HD+ 2.1
Swarovksi CL Companion 2.95


Real Field of View RFOV (according to spec)

Zeiss Victory SF 8.9 = 155 m / 1000m
Swarovski NL Pure 8.5 = 149
Blaser Globetrotter 8.3 = 145
Nikon Monarch HG 8.3 = 145
Zeiss SFL 8.1 = 142
MeoStar B1 Plus 8.0 = 140
Zeiss Conquest HD 8.0 = 140
GPO Passion ED 7.9 = 139
Leica Ultravid HD+ 7.7 = 135
Swarovski CL Companion 7.6 = 132
Leica Trinovid HD 7.1 = 124


Apparent Field of View AFOV (spec. where available, otherwise measured and rounded)

Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 67
Swarovski NL Pure 65
Zeiss Conquest HD 64
Zeiss SFL 63
Blaser Globetrotter 62.5
GPO Passion ED 62.5
Nikon Monarch HG 62.5
MeoStar B1 Plus 61
Leica Ultravid HD+ 60.5
Swarovski CL Companion 58
Leica Trinovid HD 53


As the data above indicate, the SFL is well positioned among its “colleagues”, always in the first half of the group and sometimes at the top (weight, usable eye relief) or almost at the top (focus speed, minimum focus distance).

Some immediate impressions:

• Color fidelity is high, even if the image appears to my eyes just a tiny bit cooler in the 8x30 than in the 8x40; otherwise image characteristics appear very similar to me
  
  
• Usable eye relief (17 mm) is clearly more generous than anticipated and more generous than in the SFL 8x40
  
  
• As reported by HenRun and others, proper adjustment of eyecups needs slightly more attention than in the 8x40 model, and
  
  
• If done properly, CA should be at a comparably low level as in the 8x40 (higher amounts of CA may result depending on eye placement)
  
  
• Stray-light control is good for such a small bino, and spikes on bright light sources are minimal
  
  
• Some have reported less than soft focus on the 8x30 – in my sample, focus has just the right resistance and is smooth and precise

A few additional thoughts, fwiw:

Overall, the x40 SFL models have received very positive ratings. The owner of one of the best optics shops in Switzerland told me regarding the x40 version that he had “been waiting for a long time for such a binocular” – compact, lightweight, well built, with excellent image features (good color fidelity, great panning characteristics, low CA) and no major apparent flaws, all at a more affordable price than the top of the market models. Could well be that this is also true for the smaller x30 models; early comments and reviews seem to confirm that.

With the 8x30 and 10x30 SFL, Zeiss seems to follow the path it has started with the x40 models: bringing a compact and lightweight binocular to the market that does not try to “outperform” competition with even more field of view or edge sharpness or transmission (probably giving up some profit because of the high R&D cost), but which instead convinces as an overall package. With no immediately apparent major flaws - e.g. regarding CA, straylight etc. -, the SFL appears to be a very good compromise between mechanical and optical performance, weight, size, ergonomics and price. I find nothing especially “smart” about its focus, but focusing works extremely well indeed (smooth, fast and precise). I don’t find the image particularly “ultra highly defined”, as Zeiss claims, but the combination of excellent color fidelity, color saturation (without the hue typical for the UV), good contrast and large sweet spot produces in my view a very pleasant image. And very importantly: I am not sensitive to the globe effect and odd distortion profiles, but I found panning with the SFL extremely satisfying, compared to many other binos, esp. flat field ones....

Dear Canip,

Yes, so, after all, the 'Merlitz distortion' does in fact work out. I should get one of these SFL for the simple reason that their distortion curves were intentionally designed for smooth panning - quite amazing to realize how long it took until the panning (which is such a common process during observation) once again entered the merit functions of the optical designers. Even now, the spec sheets contain no entry that refers to the smoothness of panning. It is getting time to think about some sort of quality label which a binocular earns if its panning is pleasant. I will think about how that could be defined in a most simple and comprehensive way.

Thanks a lot for the nice comparison chart!
Holger

 

[Troubador]

Thanks for those comparisons and the "family photo." I hope in Part 2 you will address the Smart Focuser position. It seems too low on the 8x32 model from the photos I've seen of user's fingers reaching down to turn it instead of straight across on the 8x40 version, which was the intention of the Smart Focuser, according to Zeiss's advertising.

Brock

I will be collecting a review SFL8x30 on 6th April and am looking forward to finding out how it handles including the focuser position. It seems likely the SFL's ultra-compact format may make using my ring finger to focus the most comfortable. Photos of folks reaching down to the focuser were probably due to their insistence on using their first finger to focus while at the same time trying to keep their fingers from drooping in front of the objectives. All pocket / ultra-compact binos require some adjustment of how you handle them. Anyway, I am taking it to the isle of Islay for 3 weeks from mid-April so will have ample opportunity to experiment.

 

[pm42]

It seems likely the SFL's ultra-compact format may make using my ring finger to focus the most comfortable. Photos of folks reaching down to the focuser were probably due to their insistence on using their first finger to focus

I'm using both, ring & first. The ones from my left hand are above them and I move them up slightly when focusing instinctively.

 

[Swissboy]

I'm using both, ring & first. The ones from my left hand are above them and I move them up slightly when focusing instinctively.

My left hand fingers remain on the left barrel, As mentioned in my post #1 here ( SFL30 comments and experiences), the focusing is done by joint use of my index and middle fingers of the right hand.

 

[brocknroller]

I will be collecting a review SFL8x30 on 6th April and am looking forward to finding out how it handles including the focuser position. It seems likely the SFL's ultra-compact format may make using my ring finger to focus the most comfortable. Photos of folks reaching down to the focuser were probably due to their insistence on using their first finger to focus while at the same time trying to keep their fingers from drooping in front of the objectives. All pocket / ultra-compact binos require some adjustment of how you handle them. Anyway, I am taking it to the isle of Islay for 3 weeks from mid-April so will have ample opportunity to experiment.

Better start exercising your middle finger in preparation.

 

[Troubador]

Better start exercising your middle finger in preparation.

Already started due to our neighbours letting their dog roam over adjacent gardens doing what dogs do............

 

[dries1]

I thought Nikon already made a binocular with great panning behavior; so is it really a new feature?.

 

[brocknroller]

Already started due to our neighbours letting their dog roam over adjacent gardens doing what dogs do............

Yeah, got one of those, too. Woke me up at 5 am this morning, despite me buying the owner a training leash (they never take him for a walk, so anything he sees or hears is a threat). I also bought them a muzzle. They used the muzzle to take him for a walk, once I think, but don't put it on the in the morning when they put him out, which is why I bought it, because the owner said: If I put the muzzle on him, he thinks I'm going to take him for a walk. This was five days after I bought it. Yeah, right. They are so lazy that instead of taking him in the backyard (about 10 ft from the porch) to do his duty in the morning and scoop the poop like all my other neighbors do, they let him crap and pee on the porch! Dogs shouldn't have licenses, pet owners should.

The only bin I used my middle finger to focus with was the 804 Audubon, which has a long, cyclindrical ribbed focuser. I also used my index finger since the focuser wheel was so long and so well positioned. Good design. Miss that bin, and I missed the opportunity to replace it with the FMC ED version sold by none other than Fan Tao, which Paul nabbed up in 60 seconds.

Other exceptions to using my index finger to focus was the Swarovski 7x and 8x30 SLC Habichts, whose objective side focusers required me to use my ring finger and/or pinky finger to focus. Didn't care for that, but Steve Moore (mooreorless) liked them for hunting, so he didn't have to push his hat up in the winter to reach the focuser wheel when he was hunting deer. He would appreciate the SFL.

I wanted to ask him about the SFL, but I'm sure what happened to Steve. He was last seen on BF in October 22 on the spotting scopes forum asking about a zoom EP. He's been MIA since. Before the pandemic, we used to get together regularly after he left work and test and swap binoculars.

Steve's posts on BF were always terse but in person he could chew the fat off a polar bear.

Brock

 

[Troubador]

Yeah, got one of those, too. Woke me up at 5 am this morning, despite me buying the owner a training leash (they never take him for a walk, so anything he sees or hears is a threat). I also bought them a muzzle. They used the muzzle to take him for a walk, once I think, but don't put it on the in the morning when they put him out, which is why I bought it, because the owner said: If I put the muzzle on him, he thinks I'm going to take him for a walk. This was five days after I bought it. Yeah, right. They are so lazy that instead of taking him in the backyard (about 10 ft from the porch) to do his duty in the morning and scoop the poop like all my other neighbors do, they let him crap and pee on the porch! Dogs shouldn't have licenses, pet owners should.

The only bin I used my middle finger to focus with was the 804 Audubon, which has a long, cyclindrical ribbed focuser. I also used my index finger since the focuser wheel was so long and so well positioned. Good design. Miss that bin, and I missed the opportunity to replace it with the FMC ED version sold by none other than Fan Tao, which Paul nabbed up in 60 seconds.

Other exceptions to using my index finger to focus was the Swarovski 7x and 8x30 SLC Habichts, whose objective side focusers required me to use my ring finger and/or pinky finger to focus. Didn't care for that, but Steve Moore (mooreorless) liked them for hunting, so he didn't have to push his hat up in the winter to reach the focuser wheel when he was hunting deer. He would appreciate the SFL.

I wanted to ask him about the SFL, but I'm sure what happened to Steve. He was last seen on BF in October 22 on the spotting scopes forum asking about a zoom EP. He's been MIA since. Before the pandemic, we used to get together regularly after he left work and test and swap binoculars.

Steve's posts on BF were always terse but in person he could chew the fat off a polar bear.

Brock

Come to think of it my Audubon (my first ever bino) was like that.

Yes I miss Steve Moore's contributions too.

 

[Yellow hammer]

Canip! What a lovely comparison! I read it with a lot of enthusiasm. I believe I need a SFL more and more.
Do you perhaps have a clue wich of the binoculars who has the largest ocular lens diameter? Maybee add that measurement to the chart.

 

[Canip]

wich of the binoculars who has the largest ocular lens diameter?

Sure I can add that information, but is it lens diameter or diameter of the eyecup that you are looking for?

 

[[email protected]]

Already started due to our neighbours letting their dog roam over adjacent gardens doing what dogs do............

Just get revenge the way Jim Carrey does. 😁

 

[lmans66]

Should include the Leica 7x35 in this comparison

 

[pm42]

Should include the Leica 7x35 in this comparison

One could argue that the 7x35 are somewhere in-between the SFL 8x30 and 8x40 when it comes to size, weight, etc.
SFL selling points are that they are small but modern binoculars: fast focus, waterproof, big eye-relief, good FOV for a x8 (same as the 7x35).
One can prefer the Leica of course as they are lovely but it is more a matter of taste IMHO.

 

[brocknroller]

One could argue that the 7x35 are somewhere in-between the SFL 8x30 and 8x40 when it comes to size, weight, etc.
SFL selling points are that they are small but modern binoculars: fast focus, waterproof, big eye-relief, good FOV for a x8 (same as the 7x35).
One can prefer the Leica of course as they are lovely but it is more a matter of taste IMHO.

And the SFL focuses 8 ft closer!

Despite the SFL being the "Next Little Big Thing," if I had $1499 burning a hole in my pocket, I'd chose the "splash proof" 13 ft close focus 7x35 Retrovid because 7x35 is my favorite configuration and as the update of a classic, the design will outlive the latest and greatest that come after it. An heirloom.

Brock

 

[lmans66]

One could argue that the 7x35 are somewhere in-between the SFL 8x30 and 8x40 when it comes to size, weight, etc.
SFL selling points are that they are small but modern binoculars: fast focus, waterproof, big eye-relief, good FOV for a x8 (same as the 7x35).
One can prefer the Leica of course as they are lovely but it is more a matter of taste IMHO.

Size and weight ; the retro more equal to a 8x30.

 

[Yellow hammer]

Sure I can add that information, but is it lens diameter or diameter of the eyecup that you are looking for?

The glas lens. A Big thanks in advance! /Magnus