Zeiss SFL 8x30? (2 Viewers)

[Paultricounty]

That must be the French unit of time....

Opinions are one thing when they are based on facts and real personal experience. For instance, I prefer the 8x40 SFL to the 8x32 SF and Troudabour does not. I respect that.
But when they are based on bias, "tests" done in less time than a meaningful sexual encounter, they have another name and should not be presented as significant.

Anyhow, I've ordered mine and if I'm lucky (not talking about sex this time), I should receive them next week. If so, I may report what my experience is but I would bet on "smaller 8x40" and "a good intermediate size between the Curio and my 8x40 or 8x42".

I guess It depends what your definition of time of a meaningful sexual encounter is. I think my opinion might or could be as significant as yours. I preferred the SF32 as did Lee, is his opinion bias as well. Or is his opinion not bias because he spent more time than a meaningful sexual encounter. 😜

 

[Bill Atwood]

Interesting how it differs in the UK (well on actual prices - not sure on RRP) - 8x30SFL £1300 with 8x32 Ultravid+ £1369 so pretty similar in price.

MSRP doesn't include any state and local sales tax, which can vary from 0 to a little over 10%. Don't UK prices include VAT?

 

[Paultricounty]

MSRP doesn't include any state and local sales tax, which can vary from 0 to a little over 10%. Don't UK prices include VAT?

That’s an interesting point here in the states. Some states don’t have sales tax. And the ones that do have sales tax , lots of times the retailer charges the tax and other retailers depending on some factors don’t charge the tax. For instance birdwatching.com in California doesn’t charge any sales tax. And B&H has a credit system called Payboo, where they discount the tax amount.

 

[Bill Atwood]

"It is because the SFL is $1500 and the NL and SF are $3000. It irritates me to think somebody thinks their SFL is as good as my NL when I paid twice as much for it!"

And there it is.

 

[Richard D]

MSRP doesn't include any state and local sales tax, which can vary from 0 to a little over 10%. Don't UK prices include VAT?

Yes UK prices include VAT, but it was more how in the UK the 8x30 SFL is near enough the same cost as the Ultravid HD+, whilst in the US it looks like the SFL is much cheaper than the Ultravid HD+., that I was noticing.

 

[Paultricounty]

"It is because the SFL is $1500 and the NL and SF are $3000. It irritates me to think somebody thinks their SFL is as good as my NL when I paid twice as much for it!"

And there it is.

Isn’t that more like $1800 & $2500?

 

[Bill Atwood]

Those are Denco's numbers. See post #697 for current MSRPs.

 

[Zedster]

Dennis praising the SFL again:
It is a mistake to assume that because the SFL is less expensive than the SF that Zeiss used cheaper glass in it, and it is going to have more CA. The SFL is an $1800 binocular, and I am sure Zeiss used very high quality glass in it. The only noticeable advantage I can see between the SFL and SF is the SF has a bigger FOV and that is because it has more complex, more expensive and heavier eyepieces. Just because the SF has fluorite in its glass does not necessarily mean it is going to have way better CA control. A lot of it has to do with the quality of glass used and the overall design of the binocular. Probably the majority of additional cost of the SF is due to the more expensive WA eyepieces, not the quality of the glass. I have compared a lot of binoculars for CA and the SFL ranks right at the top with the best alpha's and the only binocular I have seen that was slightly better was the Zeiss FL. As far as color purity, meaning whites are white and blacks are black, it is one of the best.

And what about the NL Pure you might ask? Well Dennis agreed with this post:
It sounds like they were very impressed with the SFL. They agree with me that the CA on the SFL is about the same as the alpha's. The NL Pure looks like it still has the glare problems I experienced with diffuse light when I had mine.

"The new Zeiss SFL 8 × 40 is a great product, it will cost around 1900 euros, has a weight of 32 mm binoculars, is very sharp, with a chromatic aberration similar to that of a 2500 euros TOP OF THE RANGE and also won hands down against the NL PURE in the morning backlit observation of some jays. For the record, the field of view was completely legible, but the same could not be said of the NL, especially in 8 × 42. The larger format binoculars, owned by one of the “Marco” present, also have fewer problems with diffused light during the backlit observations that we verified with the participants during the event. Pity. I always hope that Swarovski solves this flaw that stains a valid product."

My point is just that in the current discussion it is entirely appropriate to refer to the SFL as "Alpha Class" although they are not as expensive as either the NL or the SF. It's a matter of needs and taste. Trading weight for FOV. Image quality is clearly on the same page.

 

[Nethero]

"It is because the SFL is $1500 and the NL and SF are $3000. It irritates me to think somebody thinks their SFL is as good as my NL when I paid twice as much for it!"

And there it is.

I at least appreciate that he is willing to openly and shamelessly admit that he feels upset if someone even thinks their $1500 binocular (ONE THOUSAND & FIVE HUNDRED DOLLAR PAIR OF BINOCULARS!!) is as good as his. How dare those poor plebeians think that.

Makes you feel bad for people who have to flaunt their “wealth” in material things. Be it these optics, watches, cars, etc. But then again, this poor plebe knows you have to always remember, we never know what somebody else deals with on a daily basis. Whatever spectrum they may operate on or narrative only they know. Maybe this is the only “wealth” they feel, by showing randos on a forum how much flex they have.

 

[Zedster]

Here is an interesting review over at Cloudy Night's on the SFL, and he brings up the fact that he thinks it is overpriced for what it is, and it really isn't worth twice the price of the Zeiss Conquest HD. In fact, he thought the Conquest HD was sharper on-axis. I kind of agree, and I feel the SFL should be priced no more than $1200. Here is the review and the thread. If you are reconsidering the SFL after reading this review, there is a Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 for sale on Astromart for $695.(Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 | Astromart.)

I like how first they are 800 more then they are 1000 more. I like how the focus is praised then damned.

But I especially LOVE how you are contradicting yourself here. Back in Lee's post you PRAISED the price and said they were EASILY worth the extra money because they were SO much better than the Conquest. In fact you said they were better than the SF. You literally said you could replace the 8x32 Conquest and the 8x42 SF with one pair of 8x40 SFL. YOU thought they were THAT good. The ONLY drawback you found was the reduced FOV compared to the SF. So which is it? Your impression last year when you had them in your hands or the thoughts of 7 months later?

 

[Bill Atwood]

Here is an interesting review over at Cloudy Night's on the SFL, and he brings up the fact that he thinks it is overpriced for what it is, and it really isn't worth twice the price of the Zeiss Conquest HD. In fact, he thought the Conquest HD was sharper on-axis. I kind of agree, and I feel the SFL is a little overpriced for what it is. You don't have to agree with his review, but it is interesting to read different points of view. Here is the review and the thread.

GLOL. In one post it ranks with the alphas, in another it's not the equal of Conquests.

Also, another poster from the same CN thread: "I haven’t looked the the 10x but the 8x40 is way ahead of the conquest HD. Not even close."

Nailed it.

 

[eitanaltman]

Oh look another thread that has become a tedious Dennis-fest. It was fun while it lasted….

 

[Dennis Mau]

I like how first they are 800 more then they are 1000 more. I like how the focus is praised then damned.

But I especially LOVE how you are contradicting yourself here. Back in Lee's post you PRAISED the price and said they were EASILY worth the extra money because they were SO much better than the Conquest. In fact you said they were better than the SF. You literally said you could replace the 8x32 Conquest and the 8x42 SF with one pair of 8x40 SFL. YOU thought they were THAT good. The ONLY drawback you found was the reduced FOV compared to the SF. So which is it? Your impression last year when you had them in your hands or the thoughts of 7 months later?

That wasn't my review. I just thought some members would be interested in it. I don't agree with all his thoughts on the SFL, especially the ergonomics because that is such a personal thing. Some of his comments are interesting, especially concerning the brightness and on-axis sharpness of the two binoculars, but then those two things are really hard to test without doing an objective tests on them. Most reviews are just the reviewer's subjective opinion, so they can't be taken too seriously.

 

[Troubador]

Lol me too, I don’t want to hurt anybody sensibilities. Sometimes it is hard to put it in words because it is a unique pair of binoculars. I think what gets me the most is the price point. My mediocrity comment was that Henry had said that that $2500 alpha Binocular was mediocrity for the price point. Maybe that’s where I’m trying to go with this. May be if we weren’t looking at price my verbiage would be different. Does that make it a little bit clearer?

If not I’m just gonna go back to antagonizing Dennis , just kidding 🫢🙏🏼✌🏼. Isn’t it enough that I agreed with Dennis three times this week. 🤣

OK. I think what you are saying is that SFL is a great binocular but its price is too high. A value-judgement like this is something very personal to each user and I happen to think SFL is priced about right.

 

[Thomas_M]

Yesterday I had the opportunity to get a first impression of the SFL 8x30. For comparison I had a SF 8x32 and a Trinovid/Retrovid 7x35.

• Sharpness, contrast in the center of the image very good, similar to the SF.
• unsurpsringly the field of view is a bit smaller than the SF 8x32, the difference to the Trinovid obvious, with the SFL I could see the image to the edge, with the SF I manage to do that if you then straight (I observe without glasses)
• sharpness at the edge very good, clearly less CA at the edge than with the Trinovid
• I had sometimes difficulties with blackouts (this may also be due to the fact that I did not got the eyecups in the right position) slightly more blackouts than with the SF, the Trinovid is much more better there
• the image flow when panning is very good, much better than with the SF

In short, a very nice small, lightweight binocular, I especially liked the very smooth image flow when panning.

 

[Swissboy]

Oh look another thread that has become a tedious Dennis-fest. It was fun while it lasted….

Still happy I have him on my ignore list. The answers that I do get anyway are by far enough for me.

 

[pm42]

Still happy I have him on my ignore list. The answers that I do get anyway are by far enough for me.

Same here.

 

[henry link]

Me too.

 

[dries1]

CN has gone down hill as of late IMO, none of the knowledgeable are there anymore.

 

[dries1]

"Trading weight for FOV. Image quality is clearly on the same page". How much weight is required.