The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars (2 Viewers)

[GrampaTom]

View attachment 1501840

Canip, quick question. In these various comparisons, dont think you've discussed this much, others have. Looking at the above photo, the focuser seems in a weird place for easy, comfortable use. Seems like with my size large, 9.9ish hands this might not work so well. Thoughts?

 

[KeesJ]

Canip, quick question. In these various comparisons, dont think you've discussed this much, others have. Looking at the above photo, the focuser seems in a weird place for easy, comfortable use. Seems like with my size large, 9.9ish hands this might not work so well. Thoughts?

I could only use the focuser with my middle finger, and did not like that.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes, another example:
Nikon E2 8x30 has edge blur in allbinos tests 73% similar to Nikon MHG 8x30 which has 74%. Anyone who looked through these two tools, at the same time, immediately noticed that the MHG is much more detailed on the edges. Allbinos doesn't talk about a very important thing when it comes to edge blur: For them, the intensity of difference in clarity between the center and the edges does not matter, they focus in tests only on this difference as surface and not as intensity of sharpness. But in reality, two binoculars with a same 74% clarity surface can have extremely different intensity of clarity on the edges. For example: one bino (like 8x30 Nikon E2 or 8x30 Nikon Monarch 7) has the last 26% very blurred, practically unusable, at the limit of supportability, whitout any details. And another binos (like the Nikon 8x30 MHG) has the same 26% of FOV perfectly usable with planty of details, because the difference in resolution between the edges and the center is discreet and small, and not very obvious. In reality, this translates into an infinitely better performance on the edges in the MHG, even if it is about the same last 26% FOV. This can be more quickly observed in side by side comparisons, which I understand that is impossible with every binocular for allbinos. That is precisely why I understand and appreciate a lot and find allbinos reviews very useful as they are, but we have to understand and extract selectively just like in any review

Fuzzy edges are fuzzy edges to me. The degree of fuzziness means nothing to me. If they are fuzzy, they are fuzzy and it bothers me. Fuzzy edges have become one of the first things I look for in a binocular. Even if I don't look directly at the edges, I can tell if the edges are not sharp. I like a big FOV that is sharp to the edge, and I guess it is just personal preference. The big draw of the Swarovski NL is the huge FOV that is sharp to the edge and that is what I like and apparently a lot of other people do also because that is why Swarovski developed it. There are a lot of binoculars with fuzzy edges. Leica, Meoptas, Kowa Genesis to name a few. But there is only one binocular with a huge FOV that is tack sharp to the edge. The NL.

 

[Canip]

{{ cont'd }}


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


PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons

Comparison 6: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Conquest 8x32 HD

My first Conquest HD model was the 8x42, which I immediately liked for its excellent all-round properties and superb central sharpness, although this particular model has good eye relief but too short eyecups which for many pose a problem with kidney beaning. But this slight nuisance apart, the Conquest HD, also in other configurations (10x42, 8x32), has over the years gained a place as sort of a benchmark in mechanical and optical performance for me, something like “overall best in class subprime binocular line” against which to measure other models. In addition, I find the Conquest HD competitively priced and therefore overall a very attractive proposition.

Now comes the SFL, positioned somewhere between the Conquest HD and the Zeiss SF models. The Conquest is, like the Trinovid, a bit larger and heavier than the SFL, but not as much as the Trinovid. Mechanically solid, with a focuser even faster and similarly smooth (I found the focuser on my sample of the SFL a tiny bit more responsive), the Conquest matches the good close focus of the SFL. It has less eye relief than the SFL, but probably sufficient for most.
The 8x32 model of the Conquest HD does not suffer from the above mentioned kidney beaning issue and has a good and problem-free ease of view for me; as mentioned several times before, the SFL requires a bit more attention here.

Field of view is almost identical, CA correction is good and very similar, central sharpness and contrast again very comparable at a high level.

To my surprise, edge sharpness is at least as good in the Conquest as in the SFL and perhaps even a bit better. When not comparing side-by-side, I find no noticeable difference; putting the Conquest side-by-side with the SFL, however, I have the impression that the Conquest is one step ahead.
Brightness and brilliance: hard to name the winner; color may be a tad more natural in the SFL, but not by much. Panning is slightly more comfortable in the SFL.

Stray-light appears well controlled in both; while the SFL exhibits very moderate spikes on bright light sources, the Conquest does not show them.

Personal verdict in a nutshell:

• the Conquest is a bit larger and heavier
• Ease of view is better on the Conquest
• FOV is almost identical
• Central sharpness and contrast are at a similar level
• Edge sharpness may be a little bit better in the Conquest
• Image brightness and brilliance are comparable
• Panning is a tiny bit more comfortable in the SFL
• Stray-light control is comparable
• CA correction is at a similarly good level
• Usable eye relief appears sufficient in the Trinovid, the SFL has plenty
• Close focus is comparable

(Or in other words: don’t write off the Conquest HD yet!)
(if only the Conquest rubber parts would not constantly get covered in whitish powder - not a severe problem, but a nuisance)

fwiw Canip

 

[Canip]

nevertheless, I would be very interested in hearing your findings comparing the FL and the SFL
The SFL seems like the ‘obvious’ successor to the FL and the FL can still be found quite regularly in second hand.

I was tempted to compare those as well, may still do it

 

[GrampaTom]

Canip, this is cool stuff, thank you for doing it. Confess it feels like watching a new Netflix series unfold. Cant wait till the next. Bet we each have our favorite comparo awaiting hopefully....

Can I offer this suggestion for a table of contents?


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

PART 1: General comments and comparison of data
PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons
Comparison 1: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica UV 8x32 HD+
Comparison 2: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Swarovski CL 8x30
Comparison 3: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Nikon MHG 8x30
Comparison 4: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and MeoStar 8x32 B1 Plus
Comparison 5: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD
Comparison 6: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Conquest 8x32 HD

 

[Canip]

nevertheless, I would be very interested in hearing your findings comparing the FL and the SFL
The SFL seems like the ‘obvious’ successor to the FL and the FL can still be found quite regularly in second hand.


Very interesting, thanks!
I had expected/hoped to hear about increased brightness and/or whiteness/sparkle(?) in the Zeiss SFL compared to the UV HD(+) (I have the HD, but heard that there was no noticeable difference with the HD+ in the 8x32 version.).
Reading this, apart from the slightly larger FOV, there might be less for me to find in the SFL than I thought (I have no issue with the small eye relief of the UV).

In my search for the ‘ideal’ compact 8x30-32mm, I was hoping for the SFL to bring together the best of the FL and of the UV, even if I would probably still keep 1 of the 2 😊
I would really love to try out the SFL and find out 🙃

I find the UV HD+ simply superb - some, including revered Holger Merlitz who once wrote (not verbally) that with the 8x32, Leica simply tried too much in miniaturisation, find the FL better, but for my eyes, the UV wins. I would never trade the UV for an SFL.
The 8x30 SFL - I can say that now, having finished a number of the planned side-by-sides - is great as a small, light bino with good optics and mechanics, but for me not the perfect package mainly because of the less than ideal ease of view ("Einblickverhalten"), which I think is the main reason why HenRun returned his 8x30, as I understood. The SFL 8x40 is very different in this regard and for me much more attractive, but I am sure many here will see things differently. Just my 2 ct.

 

[Canip]

Canip, this is cool stuff, thank you for doing it. Confess it feels like watching a new Netflix series unfold. Cant wait till the next. Bet we each have our favorite comparo awaiting hopefully....

Can I offer this suggestion for a table of contents?


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

PART 1: General comments and comparison of data
PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons
Comparison 1: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica UV 8x32 HD+
Comparison 2: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Swarovski CL 8x30
Comparison 3: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Nikon MHG 8x30
Comparison 4: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and MeoStar 8x32 B1 Plus
Comparison 5: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD
Comparison 6: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Conquest 8x32 HD

Great, thank you - I thought about putting the entire second part with all the comparisons in one new post, if that works.

 

[GrampaTom]

Great, thank you - I thought about putting the entire second part with all the comparisons in one new post, if that works.

Happy to help, but you dont need any! Was thinking to put a link to the actual posted review opposite the title to facilitate folks coming and seeing the whole, looking for a favorite comparo, and going to it easily.

 

[Canip]

Canip, quick question. In these various comparisons, dont think you've discussed this much, others have. Looking at the above photo, the focuser seems in a weird place for easy, comfortable use. Seems like with my size large, 9.9ish hands this might not work so well. Thoughts?

Thank you, Tom.
You are absolutely correct, beside moaning about Zeiss' marketing lyrics ("Smart Focus", "UHD") and stating that I neither find the focuser particularly smart nor the optics particularly ultra highly defined, I never paid much attention to the position of the focuser, perhaps mainly because as a collector, I am used to handle a large number of different binos, some with focusers close to the eyepieces, a number with the focuser close to the objectives (Zeiss, Kern, Optolyth), and all sorts of variations in between, so since many years I have been using almost all my fingers, including the thumbs, to operate the focusers one way or the other.
For me, much more important than the position of the focuser are the characteristics of the focus mechanics: precision, responsiveness, smoothness, speed, etc.
I don't mind much where the focuser is placed, but I do mind a bit if focus direction is counterclockwise
I admit that with my smallish hands, I may not experience certain issues that you would with large hands (on the other hand, you can probably focus the huge CZJ Nobilem Super 8x50 without one hand letting go of the binocular body; I can't!).

 

[AndrewC1]

{{ cont'd }}


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


PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons

Comparison 6: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Conquest 8x32 HD

My first Conquest HD model was the 8x42, which I immediately liked for its excellent all-round properties and superb central sharpness, although this particular model has good eye relief but too short eyecups which for many pose a problem with kidney beaning. But this slight nuisance apart, the Conquest HD, also in other configurations (10x42, 8x32), has over the years gained a place as sort of a benchmark in mechanical and optical performance for me, something like “overall best in class subprime binocular line” against which to measure other models. In addition, I find the Conquest HD competitively priced and therefore overall a very attractive proposition.

Now comes the SFL, positioned somewhere between the Conquest HD and the Zeiss SF models. The Conquest is, like the Trinovid, a bit larger and heavier than the SFL, but not as much as the Trinovid. Mechanically solid, with a focuser even faster and similarly smooth (I found the focuser on my sample of the SFL a tiny bit more responsive), the Conquest matches the good close focus of the SFL. It has less eye relief than the SFL, but probably sufficient for most.
The 8x32 model of the Conquest HD does not suffer from the above mentioned kidney beaning issue and has a good and problem-free ease of view for me; as mentioned several times before, the SFL requires a bit more attention here.

Field of view is almost identical, CA correction is good and very similar, central sharpness and contrast again very comparable at a high level.

To my surprise, edge sharpness is at least as good in the Conquest as in the SFL and perhaps even a bit better. When not comparing side-by-side, I find no noticeable difference; putting the Conquest side-by-side with the SFL, however, I have the impression that the Conquest is one step ahead.
Brightness and brilliance: hard to name the winner; color may be a tad more natural in the SFL, but not by much. Panning is slightly more comfortable in the SFL.

Stray-light appears well controlled in both; while the SFL exhibits very moderate spikes on bright light sources, the Conquest does not show them.

Personal verdict in a nutshell:

• the Conquest is a bit larger and heavier
• Ease of view is better on the Conquest
• FOV is almost identical
• Central sharpness and contrast are at a similar level
• Edge sharpness may be a little bit better in the Conquest
• Image brightness and brilliance are comparable
• Panning is a tiny bit more comfortable in the SFL
• Stray-light control is comparable
• CA correction is at a similarly good level
• Usable eye relief appears sufficient in the Trinovid, the SFL has plenty
• Close focus is comparable

(Or in other words: don’t write off the Conquest HD yet!)
(if only the Conquest rubber parts would not constantly get covered in whitish powder - not a severe problem, but a nuisance)

fwiw Canip

View attachment 1501872

Ok, so optically speaking, is there any point in 'upgrading' from the Conquest 8x32 to the SFL 8x30 or 8x40?

From your findings, it appears not.

 

[Canip]

Ok, so optically speaking, is there any point in 'upgrading' from the Conquest 8x32 to the SFL 8x30 or 8x40?

From your findings, it appears not.

Optically speaking, and in my personal opinion; no.

 

[A2GG]

Comparing it to the Zeiss SFL, three things become apparent immediately: The Trinovid, in size moderately larger than the SFL, is about 40% heavier; its field of view is one degree narrower, which may not seem much, but feels like a substantial difference (almost 20m/1000m less in the Trinovid); and CA correction is much better in the SFL, where there is almost none in the center of the FOV, whereas I always see color fringes also in the center of the image of the Trinovid, despite its “HD” label.

Otherwise, the Trinovid is for me a pleasant all purpose binocular. Central sharpness and contrast are good, but I find it a level below the SFL; this goes together with a much warmer image tone in the Trinovid, so the Trinovid would not get top marks in color fidelity from me. Overall, I find the image in the SFL brighter and more brilliant. Also, edge sharpness is clearly better in the SFL than in the Trinovid.

I finally got to try the Trinovid HD 8x32 recently. It is a bit heavy and large.

Interesting you found sharpness a step below the SFL while finding the MHG 8x30 on similar level as SFL. I had the Trinovid for a couple days. On the first day I looked through it (briefly) I thought uh oh this seems a little sharper than my MHG. Overall resolution initially seemed better at first to me. The next day I had a little more time with it and felt sharpness was about the same as my MHG. It was a very gray overcast morning and I checked for CA in the Trinovid. I found it towards the edges but never in the center on target. CA seemed somewhat strong off center at times though. But I admit I didn’t really have enough time to fully evaluate the bino.

I liked the Trinovid HD more than I anticipated. It’s very user friendly! I’m surprised by your ‘gummy’ description of its focus action. My Trinovid’s focuser was beautifully smooth and I found it more enjoyable to use than my Nikon.

IPD range is small and wish Leica would have done a better job here. I had to close the tubes down to the stop or very close to it.

I returned it reluctantly and afterwards experienced some remorse. I probably shouldn’t have returned it. I may buy one down the road again.

 

[Paultricounty]

Fuzzy edges are fuzzy edges to me. The degree of fuzziness means nothing to me. If they are fuzzy, they are fuzzy and it bothers me. Fuzzy edges have become one of the first things I look for in a binocular. Even if I don't look directly at the edges, I can tell if the edges are not sharp. I like a big FOV that is sharp to the edge, and I guess it is just personal preference. The big draw of the Swarovski NL is the huge FOV that is sharp to the edge and that is what I like and apparently a lot of other people do also because that is why Swarovski developed it. There are a lot of binoculars with fuzzy edges. Leica, Meoptas, Kowa Genesis to name a few. But there is only one binocular with a huge FOV that is tack sharp to the edge. The NL.

All fuzziness is not created equal, some are not that fuzzy and others are extremely fuzzy. Then there is the area that just starts to be a little fuzzy and goes all the way to the edge or it’s a little fuzzy then gets really fuzzy as you approach the edge , the Kowa 6.5 comes to mind 😜. I can clearly tell the difference of different degrees of fuzziness , of course your eyes might not be able to pick up those differences.

Of course a wide FOV with very sharp optics across the whole field is very nice. But then most of the time you’re giving up something else, like the immersive feeling which is lacking in most flat field binoculars, except maybe the Noctivids.

I have the vintage Rangemaster (over 60 years old) which gives a 10° field and about 80% is completely sharp, then the next 10% is ever so slightly a little fuzzy and the fall off of the last 10% is very gradual. So that’s giving you over 500 feet at 1000 yards of extremely sharp high resolution image and it didn’t cost $3000. But it’s not water proof.

Paul

 

[brocknroller]

{{ 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:

• 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

View attachment 1501547

Thank you for that comparison btw the two "sub-alpha" 8x30s. Apparently, the position of the focuser in the SFL didn't bother you since you gave it only one line although from the photos you can see there's quite a difference, which could be a deal breaker or maker for some. I like the extra room at the bottom on the CL, which reminds me of my Cabela 8x32 Guide, which is small like these but I find very comfortable to hold because I can wrap my fingers around the barrels.

So if the view of the CL as the some sort of “stepchild” who isn’t invited to sit at the table with the family is unjustified and the CL and SFL are bruders by anuder mudder, ipso facto, the SLF is also not some sort of “stepchild” who isn’t invited to sit at the table with the family.

Is not having ED glass what makes them "stepchildren?" Or not having a wider FOV?

Considering the cost of ED glass has come down considerably to the point where even affordable Chinese bins have it (though perhaps not as high quality ED glass), it seems that not using ED glass in these "step children" was done to distinquish the CL/SFL from the alphas rather than a cost consideration.

What's your take on this?

Brock

 

[Paultricounty]

Ok, so optically speaking, is there any point in 'upgrading' from the Conquest 8x32 to the SFL 8x30 or 8x40?

From your findings, it appears not.

Probably if going from conquest 32 to the SFL 40. I tried the 8 x 40 in direct comparison with an SF 8 x 32 and in my opinion I felt the SF was better in almost every category. I also think the SFL taps that alpha level and is a step up from the $1000 price point of the Conquest, MHG etc. etc.

 

[Dennis Mau]

All fuzziness is not created equal, some are not that fuzzy and others are extremely fuzzy. Then there is the area that just starts to be a little fuzzy and goes all the way to the edge or it’s a little fuzzy then gets really fuzzy as you approach the edge , the Kowa 6.5 comes to mind 😜. I can clearly tell the difference of different degrees of fuzziness , of course your eyes might not be able to pick up those differences.

Of course a wide FOV with very sharp optics across the whole field is very nice. But then most of the time you’re giving up something else, like the immersive feeling which is lacking in most flat field binoculars, except maybe the Noctivids.

I have the vintage Rangemaster (over 60 years old) which gives a 10° field and about 80% is completely sharp, then the next 10% is ever so slightly a little fuzzy and the fall off of the last 10% is very gradual. So that’s giving you over 500 feet at 1000 yards of extremely sharp high resolution image and it didn’t cost $3000. But it’s not water proof.

Paul

I get more of the immersive feel from a larger AFOV with sharp edges than I do with the field curvature from a Leica. It feels like that huge FOV is just surrounding me, and I am in the middle of it. A lot of the immersive feel I get with the NL comes also from the transparency of the view also. It feels like there is no glass between you and the bird. It is weird how Swarovski can do that when you know there is a lot of glass in the NL.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Probably if going from conquest 32 to the SFL 40. I tried the 8 x 40 in direct comparison with an SF 8 x 32 and in my opinion I felt the SF was better in almost every category. I also think the SFL taps that alpha level and is a step up from the $1000 price point of the Conquest, MHG etc. etc.

Exactly. I compared the NL 8x32 and SFL 8x40 and IMO there was no contest. The NL was superior in almost every way. Especially FOV, edge sharpness and transparency. The SFL is not near as transparent as the NL. It is almost like there is a film over the view compared to the NL.

 

[Richard D]

Is not having ED glass what makes them "stepchildren?" Or not having a wider FOV?

Considering the cost of ED glass has come down considerably to the point where even affordable Chinese bins have it (though perhaps not as high quality ED glass), it seems that not using ED glass in these "step children" was done to distinquish the CL/SFL from the alphas rather than a cost consideration.

What's your take on this?

Brock

Do we know for definite that neither model has an ED element? The bigger manufacturers don't tend to make a song and dance over ED these days.

 

[pm42]

I tried the 8 x 40 in direct comparison with an SF 8 x 32 and in my opinion I felt the SF was better in almost every category.

I own both and think the opposite. Well, to be fair the SF as a wider field and slightly less CA but I prefer everything else about the SFL 8x40: the view, comfort, ergonomics and 40mm instead of 32mm in the same size.