Zeiss SFL 10x50 review with digiscoping video samples (3 Viewers)

[binomania]

Good evening everyone! This time I tested the brand new Zeiss SFL 10x50 in all conditions: from birdwatching to astronomical observation, through breathtaking landscapes to digiscoping.

Full article: Recensione del binocolo Zeiss SFL 10x50 - Un nuovo punto di riferimento?

Video:

You can use audio in English and various subtitles.
Kind Regards from Italy.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Nice review! Another review that confirms the Zeiss SFL 10x50 have well controlled CA, even though they use ED glass instead of fluorite glass. The digiscoping especially when viewing the white power tower at 8:39 and the white birch tree at 8:59 shows very little CA around the edges of the tree. I agree that the SFL 50mm has very good CA control because they were very close to my Swarovski EL 8.5x42 in CA control despite the EL's having fluorite glass. From your observation on edge sharpness, I think the SFL 8x50 I had probably has sharper edges than the SFL 10x50 because of the smaller AFOV. Your comments on how good the Zeiss SFL are at glare control agrees with my observations. It was nice that you added the astronomical observations because that is a good way to tests the optical quality of binoculars.

 

[binomania]

Dear Dennis, i am very Happy to read your impressions, regarding the suppression of CA my Victory SF Is a little more correct in bad conditions, but right now, since I use binoculars a lot even at dusk, I think that at least for me the SFL 8x50 could be an ideal choice.

 

[Ignatius]

Thanks for putting the CA panic in perspective. I look forward to taking one in hand personally.
What really interests me is whether the 50s are robust, what with those big and thin lenses. If you dare, do another one of your infamous 8 m drop tests, please.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Thanks a lot for this review! I feel better now regarding the 10x50, since I couldn’t detect any excessive CA in the „through the SFL“ videos. It can’t be that bad Hope I will have a chance to see this amazingly compact SFL soon, and a comparison with the 10x50 SRBC would be fun!

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Dennis Mau]

Thanks for putting the CA panic in perspective. I look forward to taking one in hand personally.
What really interests me is whether the 50s are robust, what with those big and thin lenses. If you dare, do another one of your infamous 8 m drop tests, please.

After handling the SFL 8x50, I would say they are typical Zeiss, being quite robust. Having such a large objective lens in such a short binocular is a little different as far as handling, but I don't think it affects the durability of at all. They are a very powerful, amazingly compact binocular.

 

[binomania]

Thanks for putting the CA panic in perspective. I look forward to taking one in hand personally.
What really interests me is whether the 50s are robust, what with those big and thin lenses. If you dare, do another one of your infamous 8 m drop tests, please.

Dear Ignazio, the Conquest to "torture" was sent to me directly by Zeiss Germany, the 10x50 SFL was from the Italian distributor and was already sent back after the test. I cannot keep the products on display for long unless they are for endurance tests or a little special.

 

[binomania]

Thanks a lot for this review! I feel better now regarding the 10x50, since I couldn’t detect any excessive CA in the „through the SFL“ videos. It can’t be that bad Hope I will have a chance to see this amazingly compact SFL soon, and a comparison with the 10x50 SRBC would be fun!

Cheers,
Holger

Dear Holger, as you know better than me, it is always a problem to show what you see with your eyes using a simple smartphone. In videos you will perceive a little more residual chromatism than with the naked eye, however, since I own a SF 8x42 (even though it is not the same format) the SF was more capable of containing the CA in critical conditions. What I liked about the SFL 10x50 is the compactness that also combines good optical quality and brightness. It is a binocular to be used at 360° in birdwatching, at twilight and also in astronomy even if it does not have a flat field. I really appreciated the stars that in this specimen were pinpoints in the center of the field, like a refractor, my previous HT 8x54 does not provide a similar pinpointity. even if "from memory" it was brighter also thanks to the AK prisms. Best regards from Italy.

 

[Holger Merlitz]

Dear Piergiovanni,

The star test is definitely a very senstitive test. If a binocular offers nice pinpoint stars over large parts of its field, then its optics cannot be bad. In fact, I even detect the deficiencies of my own eyes (due to minor astigmatism) in such a test and need to use my glasses (which I never do in daytime) to appreciate the full quality of good optics under the stars.

Cheers,
Holger

 

[Yarkho]

Piergiovanni, thank you for an excellent review with real digiscoping.

Regarding CA, there were 3 images of birds, each with horrible violet halos. (So much for "putting the CA panic in perspective".)

 

[Isthatascratch?]

Piergiovanni, thank you for an excellent review with real digiscoping.

Regarding CA, there were 3 images of birds, each with horrible violet halos. (So much for "putting the CA panic in perspective".)

I agree with your comment re CA, it would be interesting to see how my eyes see birds against a bright blue sky or water.

My favourite part is where the English translation refers to Beard watching!

Very good review though, thank you.

 

[Scott98]

maybe not "horrible" CA but definitely visible. I'd like to see if the 8x50 is better as you would expect.

 

[Canip]

I'd like to see if the 8x50 is better as you would expect

It definitely is.

 

[Hermann]

The 8x50 is quite an interesting pair. I always liked 8x50s, and I still use my old Zeiss 8x50B quite a lot. I'll certainly have a look at the SFL.

Hermann

 

[Dennis Mau]

maybe not "horrible" CA but definitely visible. I'd like to see if the 8x50 is better as you would expect.

The SFL 8x50 is about equal to the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 for CA which has fluorite glass, so it will be better than the SFL 10x50 which is not horrible. I would say the SFL 10x50 is above average for CA for an ED binocular. Almost any binocular is going to have some edge CA like that violet band around those white birds. Even binoculars with fluorite glass like the EL and SF will have some edge CA, as can be seen in the green lines around the top edge and the violet lines along the bottom edge of the white car windshield in these digiscoped photos by jackjack. Also, as Binomania has pointed out in digiscoped videos, you will perceive a little more residual CA than you will with the naked eye and the reasons are listed below. The fact is, the SFL 50mm controls CA very well for an ED glass binocular with a relatively short Focal Ratio.

These are the reasons you see more CA in digiscoped videos than the human eye perceives.

• Magnification:
  Digiscoping uses a scope to magnify the image, which brings chromatic aberration, a natural optical phenomenon, into sharper focus.
  
  
• Lens Quality:
  Lower-quality lenses are more prone to chromatic aberration, and this can be more visible when the image is magnified.
  
  
• Human Eye:
  The human eye has a curved sensor and is more adept at seeing images like video, making it less susceptible to the same level of chromatic aberration as digital sensors, according to a post on Lensrentals.com.
  
  
• Digital Sensors:
  Digital sensors tend to be more sensitive to wavelengths outside the visible spectrum, which can also amplify the perception of chromatic aberration.
  
  
• Brain Correction:
  The human brain actively works to correct for natural optical imperfections like chromatic aberration, which can make it less noticeable when looking at an image directly.
  
  HD / HDX / EL
  

 

[Yarkho]

Dennis, I really don't know why you need to write yet another lecture about CA. (Really, it almost sounds like you are trying to convince yourself).

Yes the CA is horrible; to me. I wrote that in unambiguous terms. Even through a camera lens/sensor that likely crops part of the spectral range. Yes it's in the center, so it's longitudinal CA not lateral ("edge") CA. Yes it's there even on subjects that are not white.

Not every one of us can consider "ED" binos like this one or the Monarch HG 8x42 satisfactory in terms of CA control. Certainly not for 2k€.

And yes, birding, and especially my birding, involves a lot of difficult lighting situations.

You've already taken over several threads related to the SFL, and then didn't buy it. We've read enough.

 

[Canip]

We've read enough.

So you are still reading his posts?

 

[Ignatius]

Regarding the 8x50: I remember once writing to Leica, asking them why they do not make 'nightglasses' such as a 10 or 8 x 56 (in view of the Zeiss offerings). Their answer was: we do - the Ultravid 8x50 and 10x50. Looks like things are kinda coming full circle. Bigger is not necessarily always better. Or as Dieter Rams said: less is more.

 

[Yarkho]

This trend is apparent I think. While aperture rules for astronomy, handheld binoculars are a different matter. The Zeiss HT are 54mm, and the new NL Pures are 52mm, indicating the manufacturers are aware of the need for optimization. Now with the SFL we are back to 50mm.

 

[temmie]

Dennis, I really don't know why you need to write yet another lecture about CA. (Really, it almost sounds like you are trying to convince yourself).

Yes the CA is horrible; to me. I wrote that in unambiguous terms. Even through a camera lens/sensor that likely crops part of the spectral range. Yes it's in the center, so it's longitudinal CA not lateral ("edge") CA. Yes it's there even on subjects that are not white.

Not every one of us can consider "ED" binos like this one or the Monarch HG 8x42 satisfactory in terms of CA control. Certainly not for 2k€.

And yes, birding, and especially my birding, involves a lot of difficult lighting situations.

You've already taken over several threads related to the SFL, and then didn't buy it. We've read enough.

Could it be that the camera lens / sensor exaggerates chromatic aberration, and thus what we're seeing in pictures, is worse, and not what we would see with the naked eye? Just asking. Also curious if you have looked through this bin (maybe you have and shared this somewhere in a topic over here?). I hope to do so somewhere in the coming weeks.