This is what I plan to do as I have both. The SFL 40 is more comfortable. However when I want to travel light or pack a lot of cameras/lenses but still have something better than the Curio, I'll take the SFL 8x30.
-
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.
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Canip
- Start date
{{ cont'd }}
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons
Comparison 2: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Swarovski CL 8x30
Despite Swarovski's major upgrade of the CL in 2017, it seems to me that some still seem to regard and treat the CL as some sort of “stepchild” who isn’t invited to sit at the table with the family. Yet the CL is a serious competitor in the market of small, lightweight 8x30s. Roughly the size of the SFL and just 1 ounce heavier, the CL costs a little less than the SFL in most markets, but offers very good mechanical and optical performance.
If I have one criticism about the CL, it’s about the diopter adjustment knob which sits at the top of the central hinge between the eyepieces; I find it not only tricky to operate, but also impossible to adjust while observing at the same time. Maybe someone here can name a trick how to make good use of this odd mechanism. Mechanically, it works fine.
Focusing works fine in both, a tad smoother in the SFL. Achieving sharp focus is easy in both, ease of view comparable in my experience, despite the very different eyecup anatomy and size. Position of the focus wheel is very different and you may prefer one over the other, but both allow easy handling in their way.
The CL has less eye relief than the SFL, but still sufficient if I were to use my glasses when observing. The eyecups of the SFL provide for nice, firm clickstops, the CL doesn’t have any intermedieate stops, just “in” or “out”, but they keep their position while observing; they risk to move, however, once you take the eyecaps off or put them back on.
The FOV of the SFL is half a degree wider, which can be felt when observing. Central sharpness and image brightness are comparable, edge sharpness for my eye a bit better in the SFL, panning nice in both. For my eyes, the image of the CL is a tiny bit warmer than in the SFL.
Both binos require careful eye positioning if you want to avoid any central CA. Otherwise, CA remains very moderate. I would rate the SFL slightly ahead of the CL.
Stray-light control is at a good level in both binos; spikes on bright light sources are very slightly more pronounced in the CL (not really disturbing).
Overall, I found the optical differences between the SFL and the CL smaller than expected. Any birder should be able to happily use both with good success.
Personal verdict in a nutshell:
fwiw Canip
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons
Comparison 2: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Swarovski CL 8x30
Despite Swarovski's major upgrade of the CL in 2017, it seems to me that some still seem to regard and treat the CL as some sort of “stepchild” who isn’t invited to sit at the table with the family. Yet the CL is a serious competitor in the market of small, lightweight 8x30s. Roughly the size of the SFL and just 1 ounce heavier, the CL costs a little less than the SFL in most markets, but offers very good mechanical and optical performance.
If I have one criticism about the CL, it’s about the diopter adjustment knob which sits at the top of the central hinge between the eyepieces; I find it not only tricky to operate, but also impossible to adjust while observing at the same time. Maybe someone here can name a trick how to make good use of this odd mechanism. Mechanically, it works fine.
Focusing works fine in both, a tad smoother in the SFL. Achieving sharp focus is easy in both, ease of view comparable in my experience, despite the very different eyecup anatomy and size. Position of the focus wheel is very different and you may prefer one over the other, but both allow easy handling in their way.
The CL has less eye relief than the SFL, but still sufficient if I were to use my glasses when observing. The eyecups of the SFL provide for nice, firm clickstops, the CL doesn’t have any intermedieate stops, just “in” or “out”, but they keep their position while observing; they risk to move, however, once you take the eyecaps off or put them back on.
The FOV of the SFL is half a degree wider, which can be felt when observing. Central sharpness and image brightness are comparable, edge sharpness for my eye a bit better in the SFL, panning nice in both. For my eyes, the image of the CL is a tiny bit warmer than in the SFL.
Both binos require careful eye positioning if you want to avoid any central CA. Otherwise, CA remains very moderate. I would rate the SFL slightly ahead of the CL.
Stray-light control is at a good level in both binos; spikes on bright light sources are very slightly more pronounced in the CL (not really disturbing).
Overall, I found the optical differences between the SFL and the CL smaller than expected. Any birder should be able to happily use both with good success.
Personal verdict in a nutshell:
- Size and weight are comparable
- Ease of view is comparable
- FOV is wider in the SFL
- Sharpness and contrast are comparable, edge sharpness a bit better in the SFL
- Image brightness is comparable, image tone slightly warmer in the CL
- CA correction is slightly better in the SFL
- Usable eye relief is much better in the SFL, sufficient for many spectacle wearers in the CL
fwiw Canip
Last edited:
{{ cont'd }}
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons
Comparison 3: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Nikon MHG 8x30
How small is too small ? Early reviews of the SFL have occasionally mentioned that the users with large hands might find the SFL almost too small to find comfortable holding positions. The Nikon MHG, as the Leica UV HD+, is even a bit smaller than the SFL; it is hard for me, with relatively small hands, to say whether either of them is too small for large hands. I find good holding positions for both.
Nikon sure knows how to make good binoculars (just think of the WX). The limited success of the EDG line has less to do with performance limitations and more with a less than ideal marketing strategy (and perhaps a bit with the “VW Phaeton Experience” – if the price is the same as for a Mercedes, your car can be better than the rest of the market, people will buy the Mercedes and not the VW).
Leaving the WX aside, the MHG line is now Nikon’s top line after the end of the EDGs, and my personal opinion is that the MHG are a clear “step down” form the EDG level, both mechanically and optically (just compare a Monarch HG 8x30 with the EDG 8x32). This does not mean that the MHG is not a fine binocular in its own right. It is! But it’s performance is in line with its price (and this was also true for the EDG).
Mechanically, I have not found a significant flaw with the SFL. I find the diopter adjustment of the MHG (below the right eyepiece) a bit fiddly; locking and unlocking is not a very precise operation, and if you want to unlock, you first have to twist the eyecup out by one clickstop. Then, the diopter adjustment itself works fine.
Otherwise, mechanics are good on the MHG. Focusing is precise and almost as smooth as on the SFL; close focus is almost as good as on the SFL, focusing speed almost identical.
There is not as much eye relief as on the SFL, but still plenty for most situations. The FOV is a bit wider in the MHG, but not by much, and you only recognize it side-by-side. Ease of view is quite similar in my eyes.
The image in the MHG is clearly warmer for my eyes than in the SFL, but not to a degree that color fidelity would be compromised; many people will probably only see it when comparing side-by.-side.
CA is low and comparable in both binos; stray-light control is equally good, the MHG may exhibit the occasional slight reflection in certain situations. On the other hand, spikes on bright light sources, recognizable but not bothersome in the SFL, are absent in the MHG.
I found central sharpness and contrast again very similar. Edge sharpness: with the “unfair” advantage of flattening lenses, the MHG is better, although I have to say that I found the sweet spot in the SFL quite wide, and together with its excellent panning behaviour, I actually prefer the image in the non-flatfield SFL.
To also consider when choosing between the two: the SFL costs roughly 40% more than the MHG.
Personal verdict in a nutshell:
fwiw Canip
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons
Comparison 3: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Nikon MHG 8x30
How small is too small ? Early reviews of the SFL have occasionally mentioned that the users with large hands might find the SFL almost too small to find comfortable holding positions. The Nikon MHG, as the Leica UV HD+, is even a bit smaller than the SFL; it is hard for me, with relatively small hands, to say whether either of them is too small for large hands. I find good holding positions for both.
Nikon sure knows how to make good binoculars (just think of the WX). The limited success of the EDG line has less to do with performance limitations and more with a less than ideal marketing strategy (and perhaps a bit with the “VW Phaeton Experience” – if the price is the same as for a Mercedes, your car can be better than the rest of the market, people will buy the Mercedes and not the VW).
Leaving the WX aside, the MHG line is now Nikon’s top line after the end of the EDGs, and my personal opinion is that the MHG are a clear “step down” form the EDG level, both mechanically and optically (just compare a Monarch HG 8x30 with the EDG 8x32). This does not mean that the MHG is not a fine binocular in its own right. It is! But it’s performance is in line with its price (and this was also true for the EDG).
Mechanically, I have not found a significant flaw with the SFL. I find the diopter adjustment of the MHG (below the right eyepiece) a bit fiddly; locking and unlocking is not a very precise operation, and if you want to unlock, you first have to twist the eyecup out by one clickstop. Then, the diopter adjustment itself works fine.
Otherwise, mechanics are good on the MHG. Focusing is precise and almost as smooth as on the SFL; close focus is almost as good as on the SFL, focusing speed almost identical.
There is not as much eye relief as on the SFL, but still plenty for most situations. The FOV is a bit wider in the MHG, but not by much, and you only recognize it side-by-side. Ease of view is quite similar in my eyes.
The image in the MHG is clearly warmer for my eyes than in the SFL, but not to a degree that color fidelity would be compromised; many people will probably only see it when comparing side-by.-side.
CA is low and comparable in both binos; stray-light control is equally good, the MHG may exhibit the occasional slight reflection in certain situations. On the other hand, spikes on bright light sources, recognizable but not bothersome in the SFL, are absent in the MHG.
I found central sharpness and contrast again very similar. Edge sharpness: with the “unfair” advantage of flattening lenses, the MHG is better, although I have to say that I found the sweet spot in the SFL quite wide, and together with its excellent panning behaviour, I actually prefer the image in the non-flatfield SFL.
To also consider when choosing between the two: the SFL costs roughly 40% more than the MHG.
Personal verdict in a nutshell:
- Size and weight are comparable, the MHG is slightly smaller
- Ease of view is comparable
- FOV is slightly wider in the MHG, but not by much
- Central sharpness and contrast are comparable, edge sharpness is better in the MHG
- Panning is more comfortable in the SFL
- Image brightness is comparable, the image tone a bit warmer in the MHG
- CA correction and stray-light control are comparable
- Usable eye relief is sufficient in the MHG, the SFL has even more
- Diopter adjustment is a bit fiddly on the MHG
fwiw Canip
Last edited:
At least for the moment, I do have larger models (x42) as well. Whether I'm going to keep them in the long run is open. But I foresee their main use around the house now with the SFL probably being predominantly used for trips and hikes.
Last edited:
You "forgot" the minimum close focus 1.5 vs almost 3 meters. For insects and flowers that is often a major decisive element. Not so much for "pure" birding.
Last edited:
What is the size of the NL 8x32? 5.7””….. too long for a compact 8x32. Swaro missed the mark. They have a beautiful binocular, just too big
You mean "close focus" - thanks for the hint!
Yes, it is quite large and heavy. Even heavier than Swarovski states.
Yep, it's corrected now. Sorry-You mean "close focus" - thanks for the hint!
My point… too heavy, too large… more the size of a full size bin. So a deal breaker for me + the $$$$.
Depends on what you want. I've been pretty happy with them before using the NL 8x42 more even though they are bigger and heavier. But ergonomics and the immersive view make up for it.
Swarovski had to make the Nl 8x32 longer because it has complex eyepieces that have more elements in them to achieve the huge FOV and that requires more glass elements, hence they are going to be longer and the binocular is going to be longer and heavier and more expensive. If you want a short compact binocular like the Leica UVHD+8x32, you give up the huge FOV. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Last edited:
Canip. In your own opinion, and I know it doesn't apply to everybody, which 8x30 do YOU prefer if price is not a factor? And if price is a factor, which one do you think is the best value, the CL 8x30, HG 8x30 or SFL 8x30? Just your opinion.You mean "close focus" - thanks for the hint!
FOV…. How much does one really need. I look at my Retro and wow… looks good to me. Why do I need the NL mile wide view? ( and the size and the $$$)
Dennis...to copy a post I placed in another discussion:
A trend toward smaller bins… YES… THiS is where Swaro missed with the 8x32 NL. Their R&D concentrated on developing a bin with a ‘ more than needed ‘ FOV and while they did that, the consumer demand on 7-8x 30-32 shifted from FOV to Smaller size/dimensions. Swaro missed and were thinking of old needs according to market research. I am not saying the NL isn’t quality, isn’t selling… but surely they blew it by putting out a product and then seeing consumer demand going for smaller size such as the MHG, SFL, Retro bins.
FOV size is just personal preference. I personally like the bigger FOV that is sharp to the edge on the NL. A lot of people must like a bigger FOV though, or Zeiss and Swarovski wouldn't have spent so much money developing the NL and SF. If you are satisfied with an 8 degree FOV you are lucky because you just saved a boat load of money.
