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

[Yarkho]

No, I have not - they are neither for sale nor for try in my country yet. And Zeiss generally have low representation here (I found only two shops).

However I trust both HenRun's description (his detailed description aligning with my experience in the past), as well as Piergiovanni's digiscoped images, which in my experience resemble what I see. Too bad he didn't do the usual "white gazebo" test, or I missed it.

I find it unlikely that cameras exaggerate some colors; if anything, in reality i see more violet. Yes there is the UV haze, but that's a different matter.

Bottom line, CA sensitivity is an individual matter, and this bino is far over my limits.

 

[Swedpat]

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.

According to my knowledge and experience photos often show CA I don't see visually through binoculars.

 

[Ignatius]

According to my knowledge and experience photos often show CA I don't see visually through binoculars.

Especially hand-held footage with a mobile phone. Ymmv.

 

[Hermann]

No, I have not - they are neither for sale nor for try in my country yet.

Interesting. For someone who hasn't seen any of the SFL 50mm binoculars yourself you seem to have rather strong opinions. Are you really sure these are justified?

However I trust both HenRun's description (his detailed description aligning with my experience in the past) ...

I personally don't trust anyone's impressions (with very, very few exeptions) when it comes to CA. I need to use a binocular (or scope) myself to form my own opinion. How much CA you "see" and whether it disturbs you or not is very much a personal matter.

... as well as Piergiovanni's digiscoped images, which in my experience resemble what I see.

But you do know that there's quite often a large difference between what you see and what the camera "sees"? Even if the photos were taken with impeccable technique?

I find it unlikely that cameras exaggerate some colors; if anything, in reality i see more violet.

You don't really have a lot of experience with digital cameras, and especially not with digiscoped images, do you? And I'm not even talking about the camera settings and the settings you use when processing the images. Or the problems of getting the focusing just right, especially if you handhold the camera.

Bottom line, CA sensitivity is an individual matter, and this bino is far over my limits.

And this is what's wrong with such threads. You formed a firm opinion about CA, one of the more difficult topics when it comes to the quality of binoculars and scopes, based on what other people saw (or think they saw ...). This in return means you'll expect to see CA whenever you finally get to try the binoculars yourself. And expectancy is a funny thing. It can shape your own perception of reality far more than most people realize. So you'll "see" (or think you see) CA no matter if it's large or small or even non-existent. You'll see it because you expect to see it. That's basic perception psychology. BTW, it's also the way self-hypnosis works.

Hermann

 

[Dennis Mau]

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.

Exactly. That is what happens. Digiscoping exaggerates CA, especially when taken with a mobile phone, and it is worse than you see with the naked eye. I have actually handled and tried the SFL 8x50, and it handles CA quite well. I know because I have compared many different binoculars for CA and I compared the SFL 8x50 directly with my EL 8.5x42, and they were almost equal and the EL has fluorite glass.

 

[Dennis Mau]

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.

You are judging the SFL 10x50 by a video taken with a mobile phone which can greatly exaggerate CA and automatically stating the CA is horrible, and you have never even handled an SFL. How much CA different people see with different binoculars can vary enormously. Digiscoping exaggerates CA, especially when it is taken with a mobile phone, and it is worse than you see with the naked eye.

I have actually handled and tried the SFL 8x50, and it handles CA quite well. I know because I have compared many different binoculars for CA and I compared the SFL 8x50 directly with my EL 8.5x42, and they were almost equal and the EL has fluorite glass. You can't judge the SFL 10x50 by a digiscoped photo, the best thing to do is try the binocular yourself with your own eyes before you rule it out.

 

[Dennis Mau]

No, I have not - they are neither for sale nor for try in my country yet. And Zeiss generally have low representation here (I found only two shops).

However I trust both HenRun's description (his detailed description aligning with my experience in the past), as well as Piergiovanni's digiscoped images, which in my experience resemble what I see. Too bad he didn't do the usual "white gazebo" test, or I missed it.

I find it unlikely that cameras exaggerate some colors; if anything, in reality i see more violet. Yes there is the UV haze, but that's a different matter.

Bottom line, CA sensitivity is an individual matter, and this bino is far over my limits.

You haven't even tried the SFL and you are saying the CA is way over your limits. Furthermore, you can't trust somebody else's opinion when it comes to CA because everybody differs in how much CA they see with different binoculars and digiscoped images made with a mobile phone are not going to be an accurate representation of how much CA a binocular has.

 

[Scott98]

One of the reasons I've trended back toward older design binos is this false pretense that one must spend upwards of $1,000 or $2,000 to get a binocular free of CA. I've got several older 35mm-50mm binos, purchased for $90, $65, $150, $400, that show that is simply not the case. It's a design choice of a few large binocular-making companies today.

I think making false marketing constructs like this is what makes one a ripe target for new competitors, outside competitors, and that's exactly what we're seeing today.

 

[Scott98]

According to my knowledge and experience photos often show CA I don't see visually through binoculars.

It could be your eyes. Everybody's different.

 

[Dennis Mau]

One of the reasons I've trended back toward older design binos is this false pretense that one must spend upwards of $1,000 or $2,000 to get a binocular free of CA. I've got several older 35mm-50mm binos, purchased for $90, $65, $150, $400, that show that is simply not the case. It's a design choice of a few large binocular-making companies today.

I think making false marketing constructs like this is what makes one a ripe target for new competitors, outside competitors, and that's exactly what we're seeing today.

Are the older binoculars you have porros? Porros usually don't need ED or fluorite glass to control CA. It is true though that usually the more expensive binoculars control CA better because they use more expensive ED and fluorite glass, and sometimes they have additional ED or fluorite glass elements in their optical train. The best roof prisms for CA control that I have found are the Zeiss SF and Zeiss FL, especially the smaller aperture 32mm SF, which have a longer Focal Length. The two best roof prism binoculars for CA control are the SF 8x32 and SF 10x32. Some of the Kowas and Meopta Meopro HD's with fluorite glass are quite good also. Unfortunately, it seems the binoculars with fluorite glass are in the top tier of prices.

 

[Yarkho]

So you are still reading his posts?

No, not anymore.

Hermann, post 24, thank you for trying to educate me. Let's just say i have some experience in "advanced" techniques such as narrowband astrophotography and visual observations of "UV" structures on Venus. And I do prefer the HD Meostars to other binos specifically because of CA.

 

[HenRun]

Hello all,
and thank you PerGiovanni for the review, always interesting to see your reviews.

However I think there is a lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread when it comes to the performance of the SFL50 mm line up in regards to other "more or less top end or Alpha" glass if you will. Especially by people who have not looked through them yet.

Comments like "CA panic" are not helpful and trying to put things into "perspective" is more or less a hit and miss if your perspective is to wish away things that most people with a relatively sane standard of glass quality is likely to encounter and see.

Many of them would be everyday scenarios for birders and while you would most likely NOT see it while scanning a distant tree line or even in general when you are out in the forest where I do think the SFL50 line up will perform very, very well.

But, I find that things are much worse at close quarters and mid range - where I do most of my birding.

Anything with "depth" to it, in my case scanning a roof line with birds on it: in the center of the image there is moderate amounts of CA in the 10x50 and more pronounced on the 12x50 whereas there was not much at all in the 8x50. I could live with that for sure.

But looking at a bird on a chimney or on a rooftop is not so uncommon - is it?
Or on a branch against a bright sky? In this case I was surprised to see that the new SFL50 was bested by several older top range binos.

All of the SFL50's had that CA "leading in and out of the center of the image at mid range, something I find "excessive" and quite ugly.
The left edge trails with CA which fades out going to the center of the image and picks up again on the other side of the image center and leads off with an equally strong CA on the outer edge towards the field stop. And top and bottom of course.
My objection was that it was so much of it in the 10X and the 12X.

Remember that Ultravids have often been criticized for having "too much CA" compared to other "Alpha" glass. If the same crowd that thinks the Ultravids are below par for CA can't see CA in the SFL50 line up I would be amazed and puzzled. And these SFL50's are priced the same as Ultravids were just a few years back. And I personally think the Ultravids are better performers.
Subjectively of course. Z always came before L in my previous playbook.

Also on a very forgiving background I can see a CA halo around the object in focus, this was not all as degrading of the image as I have seen it in many of the other top range binos. And the SNAP TO focus is supreme in the SFL binoculars.

It is just that the binoculars that are virtually free of this phenomenon are ones that I appreciate more. I find it much more relaxing for the eyes.

If you are insensitive to - and can't see - the "excessive" CA in the new SFL50 mm line up I congratulate you.
But I also wonder why you would look at such an expensive line up since there are so many also great binoculars up to and below this price range that behave about the same - and since you can't see the difference, why not save a few hundred bucks?

It does of course not imply that these are mediocre binoculars, on the contrary they have a lot going for them and out of the three the 8x50 that Pinac seems to like a lot - is also the one I thought behaved best.

The SFL8x50 did very handily beat the Ultravid 8x50 for me for eye comfort, size, weight and general handling - but the actual optical performance of the UVHD+ 8x50 I thought was better. EDIT: in terms of things that matter to me.
I wish I could have the UVHD+ performance in the SFL body.
These are the only two 8x50 binos I have looked through side by side and I thought the SFL a better "observational instrument".

But hey, that's me. Don't let my disappointment hold you back at all - it was never the intent.

I just think Zeiss could have done better. In telling this I expected some push-back and auto-denial from some but I have no problem in standing by my findings.

I was really hoping the SFL 12x50 would have been "it" for me, but I would personally rank it "only" #5 in my personal list of the best 12x42 to 12x50 binoculars. So it actually sits at the bottom of that list.

But I think you should actually look through a pair before you decide what side of the fence you are.
If you eventually decide on actually getting one - and keeping it for more than a weekend - all power to you!

When it comes to subjective findings I think we are better off refraining from pseudo-objective counterarguments and remember that things are most often both relative and subjective. Subjectively I think the SFL50's are not for me, relative to what I already have and relative to what I would like to have in a binocular further down the line.

A forum where everyone agrees all the time quickly becomes a stale forum. Please keep disagreeing.

Ending this on a positive note: over here in Sweden there is a Zeiss cashback on bino purchases so anyone over here wanting a slice of that Zeiss pie can save some pretty pennies on the more expensive binoculars.

 

[HenRun]

Interesting. For someone who hasn't seen any of the SFL 50mm binoculars yourself you seem to have rather strong opinions. Are you really sure these are justified?

I personally don't trust anyone's impressions (with very, very few exeptions) when it comes to CA. I need to use a binocular (or scope) myself to form my own opinion. How much CA you "see" and whether it disturbs you or not is very much a personal matter.

But you do know that there's quite often a large difference between what you see and what the camera "sees"? Even if the photos were taken with impeccable technique?

You don't really have a lot of experience with digital cameras, and especially not with digiscoped images, do you? And I'm not even talking about the camera settings and the settings you use when processing the images. Or the problems of getting the focusing just right, especially if you handhold the camera.

And this is what's wrong with such threads. You formed a firm opinion about CA, one of the more difficult topics when it comes to the quality of binoculars and scopes, based on what other people saw (or think they saw ...). This in return means you'll expect to see CA whenever you finally get to try the binoculars yourself. And expectancy is a funny thing. It can shape your own perception of reality far more than most people realize. So you'll "see" (or think you see) CA no matter if it's large or small or even non-existent. You'll see it because you expect to see it. That's basic perception psychology. BTW, it's also the way self-hypnosis works.

Hermann

Hermann; I think your reasoning is a bit flawed, and assumptious if you argue that if you "expect to see CA - you will see it".
How about the opposite: if you expect to NOT see CA and you see it - how would you argue for or against that?

Your reasoning does not make practical sense.

People who have assessed a bunch of optics over time and have a memory bank or an actual comparison sample will of course be able to see if there is CA in a binocular or if there is not. Regardless of it they "expect it or not".

In my case there is no singular metric that applies to what I actually see or what has been reported, it is on a case by case basis and sometimes there has been a binocular that has been reported to have excessive CA and when I have seen it I have either thought "oh, it's not so bad, or I have thought, hmm, yes it is that bad".

Who are you to put forth a de facto "opinion" on how things "work" for other than yourself in this matter?

Among my former photographer friends (I am an experienced photographer) as well as among a few of the new found friends here on Birdforum there are people who have the same "ability" to see things like I see them and for that reason we can relate and understand a subjective description of a binocular and compare it to previous engagements in discussion as well as relate to binoculars we have owned or seen in the past.

I find that this works really well with some people whose mindset are similarly pragmatic.

Involving basic perception psychology and "self-hypnosis" is a bit lofty, don't you think? Would you not fall victim of that very same thing if that were the case?

I could as easily argue that the self-hypnosis among some in this forum is very evident.

 

[HenRun]

According to my knowledge and experience photos often show CA I don't see visually through binoculars.

Yes, that is my experience as well.
There are many variables that will affect the outcome when you add a camera/phone to a spotting scope of binocular.

That is why I think "seeing is believing".
With some reviewers you can get a hint of it but there is nothing better than "eyes on".

I don't get the controversy though.
Some people might be "better" at detecting CA than others - but what's the big deal?
I seem to be one of them and for us we have some common ground when we are evaluating binoculars. It is neither a blessing nor a curse.
It is of course not the ONLY metric but since I am somewhat sensitive to it I want it to be nicely handled by the binocular.

My "CA monster" could be your personal all time favourite! Enjoy it! But, don't expect me to be as thrilled about it.

 

[HenRun]

Hermann #24;

I also don't agree that CA is a "difficult" topic.
What exactly is it about it that would make it "difficult" in your opinion?

 

[HenRun]

After looking at the Youtube clip by PerGiovanni:

Looking at the bird on the shoreline the CA seen on the outline of the bird in that contrasty light is what I saw in real life with the 10x50 SFL. On several subjects.

In those situations the CA is not slight to my eyes, it is excessive.

 

[Hermann]

Henrun #33-35:

First of all, my post was not directed at you. You actually looked at the Zeiss 50mm binoculars and drew your own conclusions. No problem at all. You saw CA that you found excessive. That's fine, so the SFL 50mm bins are obviously not for you.

What I argued was that people who haven't seen them came to firm conclusions before looking through the SFL 50mm bins themselves. That's IMO not a good idea. Because it's like you wrote yourself: "... there is nothing better than 'eyes on' ". I certainly will keep an open mind and see what I think about the SFL 50mm bins once I have a chance to try them out, preferably in the field. And then (and only then) I will decide what I think of them.

Because even if you make light of my reference to perception psychology there can be no doubt that expectancies influence perceptions heavily. Everyone's perceptions. If you look at what's happening on this forum whenever there's a new hype around a new product introduction this should be clear. But this is going a bit far here, I'm not going to do a seminar on perception psychology on this forum.

As to CA as a "difficult subject" - just look at the many discussions about CA on the forum. The problem is some people are more susceptible to CA than others, some don't seem to "see" it at all. And contrary to many other aberrations CA isn't obvious in all light conditions. It's also difficult to measure unless you have access to rather complex sophisticated equipment.

Hermann

 

[tenex]

This time I tested the brand new Zeiss SFL 10x50 in all conditions:

Thank you for a nice review, and for making it possible again to have English subtitles with Italian soundtrack. That AI voice was very irritating.

Remember that Ultravids have often been criticized for having "too much CA" compared to other "Alpha" glass. If the same crowd that thinks the Ultravids are below par for CA can't see CA in the SFL50 line up I would be amazed and puzzled.

But I also wonder why you would look at such an expensive line up since there are so many also great binoculars up to and below this price range that behave about the same - and since you can't see the difference, why not save a few hundred bucks?

Yes, that's the obvious comparison, and my own question too.

Looking at the bird on the shoreline the CA seen on the outline of the bird in that contrasty light is what I saw in real life with the 10x50 SFL.

Thanks, that saves a lot of debate about potential artifacts due to the phone camera etc. How serious a problem it is, each individual can decide.

 

[HenRun]

Henrun #33-35:

First of all, my post was not directed at you. You actually looked at the Zeiss 50mm binoculars and drew your own conclusions. No problem at all. You saw CA that you found excessive. That's fine, so the SFL 50mm bins are obviously not for you.

What I argued was that people who haven't seen them came to firm conclusions before looking through the SFL 50mm bins themselves. That's IMO not a good idea. Because it like you wrote yourself: "... there is nothing better than 'eyes on' ". I certainly will keep an open mind and see what I think about the SFL 50mm bins once I have a chance to try them out, preferably in the field. And then (and only then) I will decide what I think of them.

Because even if you make light of my reference to perception psychology there can be no doubt that expectancies influence perceptions heavily. Everyone's perceptions. If you look at what's happening on this forum whenever there's a new hype around a new product introduction this should be clear. But this is going a bit far here, I'm not going to do a seminar on perception psychology on this forum.

As to CA as a "difficult subject" - just look at the many discussions about CA on the forum. The problem is some people are more susceptible to CA than others, some don't seem to "see" it at all. And contrary to many other aberrations CA isn't obvious in all light conditions. It's also difficult to measure unless you have access to rather complex sophisticated equipment.

Hermann

Thank you Hermann for your reply,
I have a better understanding of your position now.

I agree with what you write in your reply in regards to "firm conclusions" before actually seeing it in person.

I am somewhat aware of perception psychology and I do sometimes make light of psychology in general, that is my bad, but I find that the extrapolational metadiscussions that often follow in these discussions are often very fuzzy and not necessarily an "exact science".

As for CA discussions I do not see them as difficult myself.
EDIT: though I do not mean on the very clinical technical side of things. That I find interesting to learn about.

I find it interesting to see you mention that CA is not obvious in all light conditions as this is my experience as well and one of the reasons I do not always rely on other peoples reports. It is my own experience that a binocular that is prone to CA does not display that under each and and all light conditions.

EDIT: a recent example was my chance purchase of a Ultravid HD+ 12x50 and the initial look through it together with a friend "revealed" a higher than expected amount of CA, my friend actuallty thought it was really bad in comparison to my Meopta 12x50. I thought it a bit disappointing as well but over time I grew to like other aspects of the UVHD+ 12x50 and it turned out to me a magnificient binocular and in some ways I preferred it to my Meopta - despite CA levels popping up every now and then. In many outings I noticed no CA, and for the most part I have not enjoyed many binoculars as much as the Leica 12x50 - but it turned out my glasses scratched the oculars so I did end up sticking with my Meopta and selling the Leica after a short love affair, with fond memories.

This was also a reason for me to revisit the SFL50 after the initial session, as I wanted to see how they would perform under slightly different light conditions. And yes, it was slightly different, I seem to have picked the worst conditions the first of those two days but on the better day it was still "obvious" to me that there was CA.

Also, the Zeiss representative did not shy away from the CA and told me that fluorite glass was omitted from the design criteria when I commented on the CA levels, as diplomatically as I could.

If you ever find the time to look through the SFL50 line up I would be interested in hearing what you think of them.

 

[ads]

Maybe the term CA tolerance is better.

Given identical conditions (subject, lighting, position in the field of view, visual acuity, eye placement), CA should be the same, and the ability to detect CA should be the same. But some individuals are more tolerant of CA than others.

To me, the term "CA sensitivity" is ambiguous as to whether it is referring to the lack of physical ability to detect CA or to psychological indifference to the presence of CA.