• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Zeiss 10x42 SF -or- Leica Ultravid HD+ 10x42... that is the question! (1 Viewer)

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Ukraine
(I think Zeiss sets the standard when it comes to focuser feel and quality.)
Hi,

I think the preference is still set by the focusers of the Nikon EDG, they are hard to beat.

Today I looked through the SF 10x42 for the first time, I've had the 8x for a while!
Yes, a great glass, even for me as a spectacle wearer a little better than the UV 10x42.

I think the 7x42 and 10x50 are the best binoculars for the UV, if I had the choice here I would rather go for the 10x42 Noctivid, which is a bit better than the UV 10x42.

Ultimately, between UV 10x42 and SF 10x42, I would also see a small advantage in the Zeiss.

Andreas
 

LucaPCP

Happy User
Surprises me that there is practically no interest in this comparison among viewers here.

Oh well. Doing your own research is the best approach anyway. Carry on! :LOL:
Not quite true; I much enjoyed reading it! I simply did not have much to add :)
For the time being, I am not expanding to 10x. I have a Kite 16x42 for when I truly need more reach.
 

ZDHart

Registered User
Supporter
United States
Hi,

I think the preference is still set by the focusers of the Nikon EDG, they are hard to beat.

Today I looked through the SF 10x42 for the first time, I've had the 8x for a while!
Yes, a great glass, even for me as a spectacle wearer a little better than the UV 10x42.

I think the 7x42 and 10x50 are the best binoculars for the UV, if I had the choice here I would rather go for the 10x42 Noctivid, which is a bit better than the UV 10x42.

Ultimately, between UV 10x42 and SF 10x42, I would also see a small advantage in the Zeiss.

Andreas
Hi Andreas... thanks for chiming it! I don't have the 8x42 SF, but certainly enjoy the 10x42 SF! And, I agree with you on the 7x42 UVHD+. It's a great pair of bins.

I've never had the pleasure of handling and viewing with a Noctivid. I hope to one day.

On the focuser - I've never experienced the Nikon EDG. From what you're saying, it must have a truly exceptional focuser. So far from my experience, Zeiss focusers have really been a great pleasure for me.

Don
 
Last edited:

ZDHart

Registered User
Supporter
United States
Not quite true; I much enjoyed reading it! I simply did not have much to add :)
For the time being, I am not expanding to 10x. I have a Kite 16x42 for when I truly need more reach.

Hi Luca... being a very enthusiastic newcomer to alpha-grade bins, this was a new comparison for me. However, I do realize that for those who are thoroughly familiar with SF and UVHD+ binoculars, this thread is likely of little -if any- interest.

So, my newcomer enthusiasm having been largely curbed at this point, I get it. Old news to the veterans here.

I'm glad that you enjoyed reading it - I'm sure there are always some people here on the forum with the same kind of interest that you and I share.

That Kite 16x42 of yours sounds like an amazing pair of bins! (y)

Best wishes to you.
 

Conndomat

United States of Europe
Ukraine
On the focuser - I've never experienced the Nikon EDG. From what you're saying, it must have a truly exceptional focuser. So far from my experience, Zeiss focusers have really been a great pleasure for me.

Don
Hello Don,

The SF focuser is really very good, no question about it, but the EDG focuser is a little better, it has a little more resistance, but is buttery soft, it is downright creamy and extremely smooth feeling.

If all binoculars had such a focuser, this topic would no longer need to be discussed.
I've never had the pleasure of handling and viewing with a Noctivid. I hope to one day.
The day will come... ;)

Andreas
 

Maljunulo

Well-known member
Newcomers to alpha-grade optics should not be put off by the incessant carping criticism and obsessive fault finding sometimes found here.

Enjoy the sparkling images in a sharp, wide field. Enjoy the breathtaking color rendition, and the excellent contrast, with resolution of shading and textures beyond your previous experience. Enjoy seeing things which you would have never even known were there.

You have spent a great deal of money on the finest optics which can be produced today, which can be sold at a less than an absolutely astronomical price.

Enjoy and be delighted by your new acquisition, which should last a lifetime.
 

ZDHart

Registered User
Supporter
United States
Newcomers to alpha-grade optics should not be put off by the incessant carping criticism and obsessive fault finding sometimes found here.

Enjoy the sparkling images in a sharp, wide field. Enjoy the breathtaking color rendition, and the excellent contrast, with resolution of shading and textures beyond your previous experience. Enjoy seeing things which you would have never even known were there.

You have spent a great deal of money on the finest optics which can be produced today, which can be sold at a less than an absolutely astronomical price.

Enjoy and be delighted by your new acquisition, which should last a lifetime.
Thank you. As one of those "newcomers" to alpha-grade optics, have no worries... I haven't been put off by incessant carping criticism, nor obsessive fault finding here. In fact, there is very little, indeed, to criticize and little to find fault with, among today's alpha bins. One may certainly dislike this aspect or that aspect about a particular binocular, but all in all - the alphas are stunningly great binoculars!

Rather, I have learned much from and appreciated both the positive and the critical comments from real-life buyers and users who post here, the everyday "users" who honestly share their direct personal experiences (preferences, likes, and dislikes) from owning and using binoculars. Such man-on-the-street comments from direct experience are sometimes much more meaningful than what you get from the usual so-called "reviewers".

Rather than being put-off, I'm experiencing the wonderful joy of using my newly acquired Zeiss SFs and Leica UVHD+ bins. They truly are amazing. I have enjoyed my Swarovski bins, as well! No particular alpha binocular is going to meet any one individual's every wish and desire, but they're all amazing products! The key is to try them all, as you can, then determine for yourself which ones best meet your preferences and needs.

My enthusiasm for the various alpha bins I have recently purchased has been quite effusive at times - but that "new-to-alphas" enthusiasm is quieting down now, as I settle in to using them, as I do, for several hours, every single day! I'm definitely getting my money's worth from them.

Lastly, for those who are fortunate enough to be able to afford the very steep prices of alpha binoculars - go forth! They are fabulous. And, they are an investment in a lifetime of great enjoyment.
 
Last edited:

Maljunulo

Well-known member
No particular alpha binocular is going to meet any one individual's every wish and desire, but they're all amazing products!
Precisely.

As long as folks keep that in mind, they will do fine and be happy.

Sometimes you just have to be satisfied with the best, even if it isn't perfect.
 

DrewskiMT

Observer
Hi,

I think the preference is still set by the focusers of the Nikon EDG, they are hard to beat.

Today I looked through the SF 10x42 for the first time, I've had the 8x for a while!
Yes, a great glass, even for me as a spectacle wearer a little better than the UV 10x42.

I think the 7x42 and 10x50 are the best binoculars for the UV, if I had the choice here I would rather go for the 10x42 Noctivid, which is a bit better than the UV 10x42.

Ultimately, between UV 10x42 and SF 10x42, I would also see a small advantage in the Zeiss.

Andreas
The EDG focuser is perfection in the 2 samples I have looked through. As are the eye cups with their clicks/detents/positions. And the view is lovely. A real shame Nikon didn’t make more.
 

ZDHart

Registered User
Supporter
United States
The EDG focuser is perfection in the 2 samples I have looked through. As are the eye cups with their clicks/detents/positions. And the view is lovely. A real shame Nikon didn’t make more.
Yes. I've never experienced a Nikon EDG.

And at this point, it appears that Nikon has fully abandoned that segment of the market. Apparently, they did not feel they could successfully compete with the Big Three in the top binocular market segment?

Unfortunately, I may never experience an EDG, myself.
 

Patudo

Well-known member
Yes. I've never experienced a Nikon EDG.

And at this point, it appears that Nikon has fully abandoned that segment of the market. Apparently, they did not feel they could successfully compete with the Big Three in the top binocular market segment?

Unfortunately, I may never experience an EDG, myself.

I have, and for what it's worth, I'm not sure I would worry too much that you were missing out if you've already trialled the SF and the Ultravid. Fine binocular though it is, I found it difficult to see what the EDG offers that the other alphas don't (which may explain why Nikon decided to discontinue them). If you like saturated colours and good baffling you'll get them in the Leica, while Zeiss has greater field of view while still offering very good edge performance, if you're into that. As for the much-vaunted EDG focus feel, while indeed very pleasant (I'm not sure if I would describe it as "buttery" and "creamy" though), is it, in itself, reason enough to buy one? Not unless you've got cash to burn - in which case, go ahead - or consider what you experience through your fingers more important than what you see with your eyes.

That's not to say the EDG is not a high quality and well-executed product in its own right, that you shouldn't try one if you get the opportunity, or that if you do, you might not end up preferring it to everything else you've tried. But having tried what you have, I certainly wouldn't beat myself up about not having looked through the EDG.
 

PYRTLE

Old Berkshire Boy
My pennyworth. Having owned and used Leica Trinovids BA,BN : Swarovski ELs, Zeiss FLs and now SFs I can concur that " buttery and creamy " are indeed a perfect description of the then Nikon HG / HGL focusing system. But there is nowt wrong with the system on my black SFs for me.
 

ZDHart

Registered User
Supporter
United States
I have, and for what it's worth, I'm not sure I would worry too much that you were missing out if you've already trialled the SF and the Ultravid. Fine binocular though it is, I found it difficult to see what the EDG offers that the other alphas don't (which may explain why Nikon decided to discontinue them). If you like saturated colours and good baffling you'll get them in the Leica, while Zeiss has greater field of view while still offering very good edge performance, if you're into that. As for the much-vaunted EDG focus feel, while indeed very pleasant (I'm not sure if I would describe it as "buttery" and "creamy" though), is it, in itself, reason enough to buy one? Not unless you've got cash to burn - in which case, go ahead - or consider what you experience through your fingers more important than what you see with your eyes.

That's not to say the EDG is not a high quality and well-executed product in its own right, that you shouldn't try one if you get the opportunity, or that if you do, you might not end up preferring it to everything else you've tried. But having tried what you have, I certainly wouldn't beat myself up about not having looked through the EDG.
You're right. Honestly, I'm not mourning the passing of the Nikon EDG. It is unfortunate, perhaps, but not a big deal to me. We've got such a wonderful assortment of alpha and near-alpha binoculars to fill the void.

As many are, I'm pretty particular about wanting "it all" (or, as much of "all" as I can reasonably get). I've found that with Zeiss Victory SF. Having three of those (8x32 SF, 10x32 SF, and 10x42 SF) I'm feeling quite well taken care of with regard to image quality, focuser excellence, handling, and feel in-the-hand. If the Zeiss SF image quality, handling, and focuser are as good as I ever experience, I will have had a truly great "binocular life". 🦅

For low light, I fill in with Leica 7x42 UVHD+. And, for compact and very travel-worthy, I fill in with Leica 10x32 UVHD+.

There is really only one more bin that I think I would round out my stable: a light and compact 8x32.

That slot is likely to be filled with an Opticron 8x32 Traveller ED. If the Opticron doesn't float my boat... I'll just go with an 8x32 UVHD+, or perhaps a CL 8x30. Excellent optics with a light & quick focuser are important to me.

If I never own a Nikon binocular, that's ok with me. Not a big deal.
 
Last edited:

ZDHart

Registered User
Supporter
United States
To follow up on my purchase of the 10x42SF, some months on now.

I find that I have gravitated toward my x32 bins, not giving the 10x42SF much use.

Of course the 10x42SF still retains the merits it possessed when purchased, but now they seem quite large, relative to my 8x32SF and 10x32SF (and especially so, relative to my 8x32 and 10x32 UVHD+ bins) without offering significant advantage (to me) to justify that extra size and weight.

While the 10x42s may offer a slight brightness advantage over the 32s in fading light - I haven't found this difference to be of much significance to my use.

The alpha level x32 binoculars are certainly quite impressive and have become my overall preferred format. Some days I prefer the UVHD+ x32s, and other days the SF x32s - both are fantastic.
 

AlphaFan

Well-known member
United States
Been following this thread with interest. ZD - congratulations on your choices in head-to-head comparisons. It has also been fun to come along on your journey of discovering personal preferences. Have also done this quite a bit and find it very rewarding to discover some of the wonderful features and strengths, as well as minor warts of some models/brands.

After exhaustive and ongoing comparison the Victory SF 10x42 remain my go-to, all-around 10X binocular. Been that way since 2017. To me it still offers the best package of optics and ergonomics/haptics. The view is very immersive and easy for extended glassing sessions, and the physical design/mechanics are much less fatiguing than many other designs. Also find that I can hand-hold them steadier than other 10x42mm designs or any 32mm design I own or have sampled. To me the biggest flaw of the SFs are their eyecups - the detents aren’t all that firm and they are fairly easy to strip.

In an 8x glass I prefer something a bit smaller (which I use more in a forested environment).
 

ZDHart

Registered User
Supporter
United States
Been following this thread with interest. ZD - congratulations on your choices in head-to-head comparisons. It has also been fun to come along on your journey of discovering personal preferences. Have also done this quite a bit and find it very rewarding to discover some of the wonderful features and strengths, as well as minor warts of some models/brands.

After exhaustive and ongoing comparison the Victory SF 10x42 remain my go-to, all-around 10X binocular. Been that way since 2017. To me it still offers the best package of optics and ergonomics/haptics. The view is very immersive and easy for extended glassing sessions, and the physical design/mechanics are much less fatiguing than many other designs. Also find that I can hand-hold them steadier than other 10x42mm designs or any 32mm design I own or have sampled. To me the biggest flaw of the SFs are their eyecups - the detents aren’t all that firm and they are fairly easy to strip.

In an 8x glass I prefer something a bit smaller (which I use more in a forested environment).
AF... yes, the 10x42SF are a superb pair of binoculars, indeed. Mine are presently mounted on a burly tripod for star gazing. (My 8" f/5.9 Dobsonian arrives tomorrow! Woo Hoo). I can't see ever letting the 10x42SFs go, even if they aren't my usual "go to" for viewing with. I probably just need to set them next to my 10x32SFs and alternate between them for a bit! I'll do that after my Telescope takes over the night sky duties.

I have two "holes" on my binocular "line-up" at present (even while having three 8x32s, Conquest HD, SF, and UVHD+, and two 10x32s, SF and UVHD+) - lacking an 8x42 and a great quality pocket pair. (My 1982 Leitz 8x20 Trinovid are too outdated, optically, for my liking). I've held off on an 8x42, as I have the 7x42 UVHD+, in addition to the others, and find it quite enjoyable. I feel quite blessed with these bins - kind of an embarrassment of riches, as they say.
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
For those of you who have had the opportunity to compare and contrast these two 10x42s, I would appreciate your thoughts..

Generally speaking and from other experience, I like the SF models for the wide FOV, easy operating focus wheel, and ease of grabbing around the barrel.

And I like the Ultravids for that Leica image "look". And that they might possibly have a tiny little bit sharper/crisper image?

So, while I have experience with my 8x32SF and 7x42 UVHD+, I've never had the opportunity to check out and compare the SF and UVHD+ in the 10x42 size.

I would consider 10x42 Noctivid design (similar to SF), but the price is just "out there", in my opinion, and I'm not sure that the image quality/sharpness with Noctivid would be noticeably superior to that of Ultravid. I get the sense that the biggest difference between Ultravid and Noctivid is the design of the barrels/hinges.

Anything you can contribute here would be much appreciated.
Kind of new to the forum wasn’t sure where to post this. We’ve been talking about the topic so I figured here is a good place to post. Not to mention you were a motivating factor in the purchases

Comparing Zeiss & Leica.
11/26
My first impressions comparing the 8x32 Zeiss victory SF and the Leica Ultravids HD+. I’m not gonna get too deep into the optical properties and deficiencies, until I spend more time with both of them. IMO these two binoculars have completely different optical and mechanical design priorities their manufactures are trying to achieve. The build quality on both can be considered equal. One person may like the feel over the other, but thats very subjective to each individual. I don’t wanna get too much into the form factor because I love them both, it all depends on what you’re in the mood for.

The Ultravid is unusually small and light for a 32, yet feels solid and dense because all its weight is distributed evenly throughout the binocular. Feels really nice & balanced in hand and is so compact for a serious optic. Materials are luxurious, fit and finish is gorgeous. Without looking through it, it’s evident it’s a well made piece of equipment. The glass & coatings are beautiful.

The SF is large in size for a 32 , the direct opposite of the Ultravid. Yet it feels exceptionally light , even though its 3oz heavier. The feel is different, they feel like a larger binocular and they are. They are almost the same size as my Nikon MHG 8x42 and almost the same weight. Materials here are well made but lean more utilitarian. Balance is weighted more to the back ocular area. I would imagine the size and balance will make for a more enjoyable long day of observing, There are other reasons as well for my opinion on that, Ill go into in this review.

At first glance with each, you could say that the colors pop a bit more in the Leica’s. Greens are more green , browns are more brown and so on. Let me be clear , I’m splitting hairs here.
It’s a very dreamy view, delicious as one member here described. I like that description. All mechanicals are real nice and smooth, (at over $2000 it’s supposed to be that way). The eye cup settings are ok, not the best in the business, but certainly not the worst. I think the best eye pieces in the business are the GPO, Swaro EL’s, the Kowa Genesis are pretty good as well. I like the diopter better on the Ultravids

The Ultravid is Very contrasty and sharp. They are warm, if that makes sense. Also they feel more solid. I think that’s because even though their 3oz lighter they feel heavier because they’re so compact.

The Zeiss are clearly brighter and sharper to me. Also are more neutral in color than the Leica. Maybe that’s why the UV’s feel warmer. The Zeiss are a little like the Swarovski Habicht porros.

The focuser is as good as it gets, you just wanna keep looking at things near and far just to turn the wheel, it’s that good. The focuser feels more like a dial on old high end German or Japanese tube style stereo tuner of years gone by. It’s not like, just a nice light, smooth focus wheel, it has a slight consistent resistance equal in each direction. It really has to be felt. I love it.

Between the larger FOV , larger oculars on the SF, with more eye relief to get the eyecups into your eye sockets, it’s a more immersive view. These are just my first impressions. I believe it’s possible that someone else’s eyeballs might see the Leica as being sharper. Ill spend more time with them soon and look a lot deeper into the glass and post my observations.
Thank you
Paul
 

ZDHart

Registered User
Supporter
United States
Kind of new to the forum wasn’t sure where to post this. We’ve been talking about the topic so I figured here is a good place to post. Not to mention you were a motivating factor in the purchases

Comparing Zeiss & Leica.
11/26
My first impressions comparing the 8x32 Zeiss victory SF and the Leica Ultravids HD+. I’m not gonna get too deep into the optical properties and deficiencies, until I spend more time with both of them. IMO these two binoculars have completely different optical and mechanical design priorities their manufactures are trying to achieve. The build quality on both can be considered equal. One person may like the feel over the other, but thats very subjective to each individual. I don’t wanna get too much into the form factor because I love them both, it all depends on what you’re in the mood for.

The Ultravid is unusually small and light for a 32, yet feels solid and dense because all its weight is distributed evenly throughout the binocular. Feels really nice & balanced in hand and is so compact for a serious optic. Materials are luxurious, fit and finish is gorgeous. Without looking through it, it’s evident it’s a well made piece of equipment. The glass & coatings are beautiful.

The SF is large in size for a 32 , the direct opposite of the Ultravid. Yet it feels exceptionally light , even though its 3oz heavier. The feel is different, they feel like a larger binocular and they are. They are almost the same size as my Nikon MHG 8x42 and almost the same weight. Materials here are well made but lean more utilitarian. Balance is weighted more to the back ocular area. I would imagine the size and balance will make for a more enjoyable long day of observing, There are other reasons as well for my opinion on that, Ill go into in this review.

At first glance with each, you could say that the colors pop a bit more in the Leica’s. Greens are more green , browns are more brown and so on. Let me be clear , I’m splitting hairs here.
It’s a very dreamy view, delicious as one member here described. I like that description. All mechanicals are real nice and smooth, (at over $2000 it’s supposed to be that way). The eye cup settings are ok, not the best in the business, but certainly not the worst. I think the best eye pieces in the business are the GPO, Swaro EL’s, the Kowa Genesis are pretty good as well. I like the diopter better on the Ultravids

The Ultravid is Very contrasty and sharp. They are warm, if that makes sense. Also they feel more solid. I think that’s because even though their 3oz lighter they feel heavier because they’re so compact.

The Zeiss are clearly brighter and sharper to me. Also are more neutral in color than the Leica. Maybe that’s why the UV’s feel warmer. The Zeiss are a little like the Swarovski Habicht porros.

The focuser is as good as it gets, you just wanna keep looking at things near and far just to turn the wheel, it’s that good. The focuser feels more like a dial on old high end German or Japanese tube style stereo tuner of years gone by. It’s not like, just a nice light, smooth focus wheel, it has a slight consistent resistance equal in each direction. It really has to be felt. I love it.

Between the larger FOV , larger oculars on the SF, with more eye relief to get the eyecups into your eye sockets, it’s a more immersive view. These are just my first impressions. I believe it’s possible that someone else’s eyeballs might see the Leica as being sharper. Ill spend more time with them soon and look a lot deeper into the glass and post my observations.
Thank you
Paul
Paul... thanks for your report. I'm thinking you must be replying to a post I made quite some time ago.

For a while now, I've had and am using both SF and UVHD+, in both 8x32 and 10x32 formats, on a daily basis. And SF 10x42, UVHD+ 7x42, Conquest HD 8x32 and 10x42. I really appreciate and enjoy them all.

I fully agree with pretty much all that you expressed, except I perceive the UVHD+ models to be just a hair sharper with just a tad more clarity than the SF models, though the SF are quite wonderful, indeed, and very, very close to the optical sharpness and clarity of the UVHD+ models.

It was probably me who wrote a post you read saying that the UVHD+ view is absolutely "delicious" in one of my posts regarding the Leica. I'm very much thrilled with the view that the UVHD+ models present to the eyes. I think if I were only allowed to keep one pair of binoculars, the Leica UVHD+ 8x32 would be my choice, followed very closely by the UVHD+ 10x32s.
 

Paultricounty

Well-known member
United States
Paul... thanks for your report. I'm thinking you must be replying to a post I made quite some time ago.

For a while now, I've had and am using both SF and UVHD+, in both 8x32 and 10x32 formats, on a daily basis. And SF 10x42, UVHD+ 7x42, Conquest HD 8x32 and 10x42. I really appreciate and enjoy them all.

I fully agree with pretty much all that you expressed, except I perceive the UVHD+ models to be just a hair sharper with just a tad more clarity than the SF models, though the SF are quite wonderful, indeed, and very, very close to the optical sharpness and clarity of the UVHD+ models.

It was probably me who wrote a post you read saying that the UVHD+ view is absolutely "delicious" in one of my posts regarding the Leica. I'm very much thrilled with the view that the UVHD+ models present to the eyes. I think if I were only allowed to keep one pair of binoculars, the Leica UVHD+ 8x32 would be my choice, followed very closely by the UVHD+ 10x32s.
Hi ZD
I wonder sometimes if there is a unit to unit difference between the same models. Possibly very similar to testing two of the same Colt (or other brand) 1911‘s, and noticing a better trigger on one of them. All within tolerances as the manufacturers say.

My eye may not be as good as yours or possibly one persons eyes perceives slightly different results based on the optical and coating design as well as the condition of the persons eyes. I might be reaching here. I know there’s a few guys out there that actually measure the optics for these differences. I had thought I read read the SF had more light transmission that the UV, but I could be mistaken. And even if it did that still doesn’t necessarily mean that one could see that small difference.

I haven’t really spent much time with either. It’s possible that the larger oculars and huge FOV could be making the SF appear sharper than the UV to me. I did feel the SF was a noticeable amount brighter.

In any even I’m now waiting for the replacement for the SF that was returned due to what I perceived to be a powdery substance on the bino.

if I were only allowed (only if the government said so 😏) one binocular , I’d choose the Swaro 10x42NL Pure. They have the FOV of an 8x, with the head rest thingy it’s almost as stable as an 8x, the view is so immersive , breathtaking and build quality looks like it will last longer than me, definitely longer than me.

The second choice (if allowed) would be a much harder choice, considering I have some really nice Porros.

Check out photos of the SF issue I had.


Good talk, much enjoyed.

Paul.
 

Attachments

  • 260C3CAE-A9D0-4BFC-9EA6-F3B12CF4B858.jpeg
    260C3CAE-A9D0-4BFC-9EA6-F3B12CF4B858.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 19
  • 2DF1DC24-3A2F-4FDF-8188-8A2282DF1E15.jpeg
    2DF1DC24-3A2F-4FDF-8188-8A2282DF1E15.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 19
  • C154485C-DCA9-4E23-8037-1CF699898BCD.jpeg
    C154485C-DCA9-4E23-8037-1CF699898BCD.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 19

ZDHart

Registered User
Supporter
United States
Paul... did you have a try at wiping off the powdery substance?

As for difference in sharpness and clarity between SF and UVHD+, to my eyes it is a very minor difference, probably not noticeable without giving some close comparison to notice. The difference in color quality, the "view" as it might be called, is more readily apparent.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top