-
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.
x32 SF (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter AlbertoJ
- Start date
If the SF 10x32 controls glare well it may be the one to get. The only downside is shake and DOF versus the 8x32 SF. The FOV of the 10x32 SF is so large it is not a handicap anymore compared to an 8x32. Still the 8.8 degree FOV of the 8x32 SF is pretty tempting. Hard decision. Maybe just order them both and see which one you like the best or buy them both.
Last edited:
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
On color casts in bins, including Zeiss
Although I found the overly yellow or magenta biases of many bins of the 1990s irritating, I am not bothered by the very slight color biases of today's high-end optics. I see them when I look critically, but they don't impinge on my consciousness in regular use. My brain adjusts quite easily to accomplish "white balance" and I am quite sure that, for me, the adjustment applies to the whole scene, not just white objects within it.
Provided that my brain successfully adjusts, slight overall color biases (from relatively flat transmission but with more falloff at one end of the spectrum than the other) don't concern me because they shouldn't (and don't, as far as I can tell) interfere with color discrimination or the "sharpness" of the view. By contrast, if a bin suffers from a sharp "drop-out" of particular wavelengths, color discrimination is compromised, and I consider that a problem. It's an entirely different arena, but I will mention here that I am also usually able to ignore small amounts of chromatic aberration, but I always consider it a problem because it must be smearing the view (whether or not I am aware of it) and thus reducing sharpness.
As for Zeiss, I don't own the SF, so I can't comment on it. I do have several other Zeiss, and they all have slight color biases. My most recent Zeiss purchase was the 8x25 Victory. It has a very slight greenish bias that is not hard for me to see if I look for it, but it doesn't bother me at all in use. By comparison, my Swarovski 8.5x42 EL-SV-late production-just-prior-to-FP is much closer to neutral.
I would caution against using reflections on the outer elements as a way to predict color biases. I don't think it is as common now, but in the past, different elements could have different coatings with different colored reflections, so one of the harder to observe internal elements could admit/reflect wavelengths in compensatory fashion.
I think one of the best ways to observe color biases is to put the bins on a light box and look through them backwards from a foot or two away. The color difference through the bin versus the direct view of light box is apparent, and it is easy to put several bins on a box to allow for direct side-by-side essentially simultaneous comparison.
--AP
Although I found the overly yellow or magenta biases of many bins of the 1990s irritating, I am not bothered by the very slight color biases of today's high-end optics. I see them when I look critically, but they don't impinge on my consciousness in regular use. My brain adjusts quite easily to accomplish "white balance" and I am quite sure that, for me, the adjustment applies to the whole scene, not just white objects within it.
Provided that my brain successfully adjusts, slight overall color biases (from relatively flat transmission but with more falloff at one end of the spectrum than the other) don't concern me because they shouldn't (and don't, as far as I can tell) interfere with color discrimination or the "sharpness" of the view. By contrast, if a bin suffers from a sharp "drop-out" of particular wavelengths, color discrimination is compromised, and I consider that a problem. It's an entirely different arena, but I will mention here that I am also usually able to ignore small amounts of chromatic aberration, but I always consider it a problem because it must be smearing the view (whether or not I am aware of it) and thus reducing sharpness.
As for Zeiss, I don't own the SF, so I can't comment on it. I do have several other Zeiss, and they all have slight color biases. My most recent Zeiss purchase was the 8x25 Victory. It has a very slight greenish bias that is not hard for me to see if I look for it, but it doesn't bother me at all in use. By comparison, my Swarovski 8.5x42 EL-SV-late production-just-prior-to-FP is much closer to neutral.
I would caution against using reflections on the outer elements as a way to predict color biases. I don't think it is as common now, but in the past, different elements could have different coatings with different colored reflections, so one of the harder to observe internal elements could admit/reflect wavelengths in compensatory fashion.
I think one of the best ways to observe color biases is to put the bins on a light box and look through them backwards from a foot or two away. The color difference through the bin versus the direct view of light box is apparent, and it is easy to put several bins on a box to allow for direct side-by-side essentially simultaneous comparison.
--AP
Last edited:
Hi Andy
Take a look at this video. It features 3 people with SF32s and none of them is wearing spectacles so all of them have eyecups extended. The still pic at at the beginning before you launch the video gives the best view of SF32 with extended eyecups: https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-products/us/home/website/nature-observation/more-discoveries.html
Lee
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Currently only a limited number of SF 32 images have been released by Zeiss, including those with it’s press information at:
https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-prod...utdoors-with-the-new-zeiss-victory-sf-32.html
For convenience I’ve posted most of them here. The SF 32 seems to me to be a far more visually appealing package than the SF 42
The 42’s proportions (as seen in the 4th image) have always struck me as ungainly, though of course beauty - and especially functional beauty - is in the eye of the beholder
So to add to consumer lust for some . . .
John
https://www.zeiss.com/consumer-prod...utdoors-with-the-new-zeiss-victory-sf-32.html
For convenience I’ve posted most of them here. The SF 32 seems to me to be a far more visually appealing package than the SF 42
The 42’s proportions (as seen in the 4th image) have always struck me as ungainly, though of course beauty - and especially functional beauty - is in the eye of the beholder
So to add to consumer lust for some . . .
John
Attachments
Last edited:
John A Roberts
Well-known member
It is impossible to tell how the eye cups are going to work with your face and eye sockets until you try the binoculars. It is very important that the eye cups have enough extension and they are big enough in diameter so you can put the binoculars in your eye sockets. Anymore I don't tolerate binoculars that don't have enough eye cup extension.
Nice pictures, John. Nice looking binocular. Makes me salivate!
Last edited:
Resembling the Swaros more and more. Except, the Swaros now have those ugly "warts" on the side. :eat:
OhWeh
Well-known member
You are joking.
S: The armor thick and rough. Hunter's green.
Z: The reinforcement only as thick as absolutely necessary, but not granular. Plain black.
i think the Zeiss SF 8x32's are much better looking than the Swarovski EL 8x32's. A nice smooth understated black finish just beats that rough hunter's green finish. You can tell the focuser will fall beneath your finger better than the Swarovski also. I got to admit I prefer the standard strap attachment also. You can use your choice of straps and the Field Pro System always scared me because I was worried I didn't attach it correctly.:king:
Attachments
Last edited:
John A Roberts
Well-known member
And some comparative images: SF 32 verses SF 42
They're from the Twitter account of Steve Rogers of South West Optics at: https://twitter.com/swoptics
They seem to have been taken at an event for Zeiss retailers
I've adjusted the exposure to make the details, including the exterior lens coatings, clearer
John
They're from the Twitter account of Steve Rogers of South West Optics at: https://twitter.com/swoptics
They seem to have been taken at an event for Zeiss retailers
I've adjusted the exposure to make the details, including the exterior lens coatings, clearer
John
Attachments
Really helpful, John. You can compare the size of the eye cups in 2nd picture. Nice!
OhWeh
Well-known member
The straps can come loose, no matter how carefully you are fastening them. We just had this topic in a German forum: I had three copies with the proprietary system in test, all failed at least once. A friend of mine reported the same. In the forum, another member just reported that the belt came loose.
I also prefer my elk leather belt, but it does not fit Swarovski.
opticoholic
Well-known member
I think the 32 SF eyecups are farther away in that 2nd photo and look smaller partly for that reason. Based on the 1st photo it looks like the eyecups are pretty close to the same size.
Dave
