Vespobuteo
Well-known member
SFL looks slightly worse IMO.
But CA seems asymmetric between bins (less CA on opposite image edges) so perhaps the "system" setup is not completely "on-axis".
Last edited:
-
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.
Zeiss SFL 8x40, A Field Review (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Troubador
- Start date
SFL looks slightly worse IMO.
But CA seems asymmetric between bins (less CA on opposite image edges) so perhaps the "system" setup is not completely "on-axis".
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
SFL looks clearly worse than the SF. But still pretty reasonable.
Great work, thanks!
I don't see any big differences between either. They look about the same to me.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Ratal
Well-known member
Having owned the SF, that was my exact thoughts when is aw those pics. That is not a cherry pair at all!Wow, I think id be sending back those SF's if mine were like that.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Ive never seen that much on my SF or my EL, and I try to find it... My Leicas are better than that on axis. Might have a lot to do with the picture, glass, light angle, all adding to something that might not be seen with the naked eye.
Paul
binomania
Well-known member
Dear Paul, as I anticipated, the perception of chromatic aberration with our eyesight is completely different from that recorded by the sensor of a mirrorless, moreover, the chromatic aberration of the lens (zuiko 17 mm non ED) used also intervenes. Visually I do not notice all that aberration, but since in my videos on YouTube and on binomania.it, I always publish photos, obtained in this way, it seemed to me an "equal" comparison...Basically I put the binoculars in the same situation. Kind Regards from Italy
henry link
Well-known member
Photos like this can be misleading. Presumably, if the binoculars' exit pupils are smaller than the camera's aperture, these images show the binoculars' longitudinal CA performance as it would be seen at full aperture, which is the worst case scenario and something we would never actually see under the daylight conditions of the photos when our eye's pupils stop down the aperture. We also can't tell how the images sizes on our computer screens compare to the magnification we would see through the binoculars, so we can't tell how severe the CA actually is.
The most interesting information I see in the photos is two apparent sample defects, astigmatism and coma, in the Swarovski image. They are inadvertently revealed by the out of focus glitter points in the background of its photo (in effect an accidental star-test). That should explain why its image quality is inferior to the other two.
Last edited:
Today I had a few hours out in mixed light, overcast, then sunny and very contrasty.
The SFL 8x40, the Pure NL 8x32 and the Meopta Meostar 12x50HD, and a Meopta S2 and Swarovski BTX. It was a good outing with a pair of Cranes and an Osprey circling the fields. Watching one of the Cranes in the thermals was very rewarding.
When we first spotted the pair of Cranes we were a bit unsure as to what they were. Especially being novice birders.
My friend (Pure NL) and I (SFL) swapped binos and he immediately commented that it felt lighter than the Pure NL and that he saw more details in the plumage with the SFL. We swapped back and I actually thought so too about the nuances in the plumage. This was at quite some distance and the 12x50 gave some more clues to help us ID the Cranes. Except for not finding a red spot on the males head.
Broke out the Swarovski BTX and at 30x the red spot stood out plain as day and the eye color popped out too…
Sometimes magnification is key.
Next stop my friend looked at a white painted and slightly decayed smokestack on the horizon as a CA torture test, together with some pylons. Again, he could make out cracks in the paint on the smokestack with the SFL he could not see with the Pure NL.
We both thought that the SFL outresolves the Pure NL in the center of the image, supported as well as unsupported. Marginally, but still.
The Pure NL shows its magic in midrange viewing with great contrast and a calm image. Sharpness fall off is more gradual on the Swaro.
As one would expect, the 12x of the Meopta coupled with virtually zero CA in the image center rendered fantastic detail at far. We were watching a work team on the pylons clanging away at height and could easily make out lettering and numbers we could barely read with the 8x binos.
The Meopta was immune to adverse light, as was the SFL, though the Meopta felt a little duller, great resolution but a little less contrast on the Meopta compared to the other two.
My friend was lucky enough to spot an Osprey with the BTX and 1.7 extender and tracked it in flight with great detail. When it was my turn I could not even find it with the extender on and by the time I got it off the Osprey was gone.
Crane was back, looking like a Concorde coming in, circling wide before landing and this time I tracked it with the Meopta 12x50, which gave me a crisp detailed image against the overcast sky.
Swapping between binos during the day was a pleasure. I came away suprised that the SFL - to both our eyes - slightly outperformed the Pure NL in terms of managing the small details.
We both consider ourselves picky with CA but during the day none of the binos were giving us trouble and the Swaro Pure NL surprised me with a virtually glare free performance today.
To me the SFL is definitely Alpha glass, it does pretty much everything on par with, or better than all the other alphas I have seen or had. I have fond memories of the Zeiss FL 8x32 but except for remarkable CA performance I would say I prefer everything about the SFL (except for size) over my former benchmark/favourite 8x.
The SFL 8x40, the Pure NL 8x32 and the Meopta Meostar 12x50HD, and a Meopta S2 and Swarovski BTX. It was a good outing with a pair of Cranes and an Osprey circling the fields. Watching one of the Cranes in the thermals was very rewarding.
When we first spotted the pair of Cranes we were a bit unsure as to what they were. Especially being novice birders.
My friend (Pure NL) and I (SFL) swapped binos and he immediately commented that it felt lighter than the Pure NL and that he saw more details in the plumage with the SFL. We swapped back and I actually thought so too about the nuances in the plumage. This was at quite some distance and the 12x50 gave some more clues to help us ID the Cranes. Except for not finding a red spot on the males head.
Broke out the Swarovski BTX and at 30x the red spot stood out plain as day and the eye color popped out too…
Sometimes magnification is key.
Next stop my friend looked at a white painted and slightly decayed smokestack on the horizon as a CA torture test, together with some pylons. Again, he could make out cracks in the paint on the smokestack with the SFL he could not see with the Pure NL.
We both thought that the SFL outresolves the Pure NL in the center of the image, supported as well as unsupported. Marginally, but still.
The Pure NL shows its magic in midrange viewing with great contrast and a calm image. Sharpness fall off is more gradual on the Swaro.
As one would expect, the 12x of the Meopta coupled with virtually zero CA in the image center rendered fantastic detail at far. We were watching a work team on the pylons clanging away at height and could easily make out lettering and numbers we could barely read with the 8x binos.
The Meopta was immune to adverse light, as was the SFL, though the Meopta felt a little duller, great resolution but a little less contrast on the Meopta compared to the other two.
My friend was lucky enough to spot an Osprey with the BTX and 1.7 extender and tracked it in flight with great detail. When it was my turn I could not even find it with the extender on and by the time I got it off the Osprey was gone.
Crane was back, looking like a Concorde coming in, circling wide before landing and this time I tracked it with the Meopta 12x50, which gave me a crisp detailed image against the overcast sky.
Swapping between binos during the day was a pleasure. I came away suprised that the SFL - to both our eyes - slightly outperformed the Pure NL in terms of managing the small details.
We both consider ourselves picky with CA but during the day none of the binos were giving us trouble and the Swaro Pure NL surprised me with a virtually glare free performance today.
To me the SFL is definitely Alpha glass, it does pretty much everything on par with, or better than all the other alphas I have seen or had. I have fond memories of the Zeiss FL 8x32 but except for remarkable CA performance I would say I prefer everything about the SFL (except for size) over my former benchmark/favourite 8x.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Hi Henry,
could you circle where your seeing that in the Swaro 8.5 in comparison to the SFL?
Thank you
Paul
That’s great! Sounds almost to good to be true.
Zeiss engineers will probably have to calm down their board who is furious about faltering SF sales, Swaro will push sales of their jewellery crystals and Leica will shut down sports optics and focus on cameras … 😉😉
Thanks for the new user report HenRun. Interesting to hear they out resolve the 8x32NLs. The 8x32NLs I've just obtained are kicking the butts of older alphas and so far are only outperformed by 8x42 NLs. The positive remarks on the SFLs (up to now anyway) have enticed me to order a pair. For those in the US, SportOptics currently has 6 pairs available with free shipping and they pay sales tax.Today I had a few hours out in mixed light, overcast, then sunny and very contrasty.
The SFL 8x40, the Pure NL 8x32 and the Meopta Meostar 12x50HD, and a Meopta S2 and Swarovski BTX. It was a good outing with a pair of Cranes and an Osprey circling the fields. Watching one of the Cranes in the thermals was very rewarding.
When we first spotted the pair of Cranes we were a bit unsure as to what they were. Especially being novice birders.
My friend (Pure NL) and I (SFL) swapped binos and he immediately commented that it felt lighter than the Pure NL and that he saw more details in the plumage with the SFL. We swapped back and I actually thought so too about the nuances in the plumage. This was at quite some distance and the 12x50 gave some more clues to help us ID the Cranes. Except for not finding a red spot on the males head.
Broke out the Swarovski BTX and at 30x the red spot stood out plain as day and the eye color popped out too…
Sometimes magnification is key.
Next stop my friend looked at a white painted and slightly decayed smokestack on the horizon as a CA torture test, together with some pylons. Again, he could make out cracks in the paint on the smokestack with the SFL he could not see with the Pure NL.
We both thought that the SFL outresolves the Pure NL in the center of the image, supported as well as unsupported. Marginally, but still.
The Pure NL shows its magic in midrange viewing with great contrast and a calm image. Sharpness fall off is more gradual on the Swaro.
As one would expect, the 12x of the Meopta coupled with virtually zero CA in the image center rendered fantastic detail at far. We were watching a work team on the pylons clanging away at height and could easily make out lettering and numbers we could barely read with the 8x binos.
The Meopta was immune to adverse light, as was the SFL, though the Meopta felt a little duller, great resolution but a little less contrast on the Meopta compared to the other two.
My friend was lucky enough to spot an Osprey with the BTX and 1.7 extender and tracked it in flight with great detail. When it was my turn I could not even find it with the extender on and by the time I got it off the Osprey was gone.
Crane was back, looking like a Concorde coming in, circling wide before landing and this time I tracked it with the Meopta 12x50, which gave me a crisp detailed image against the overcast sky.
Swapping between binos during the day was a pleasure. I came away suprised that the SFL - to both our eyes - slightly outperformed the Pure NL in terms of managing the small details.
We both consider ourselves picky with CA but during the day none of the binos were giving us trouble and the Swaro Pure NL surprised me with a virtually glare free performance today.
To me the SFL is definitely Alpha glass, it does pretty much everything on par with, or better than all the other alphas I have seen or had. I have fond memories of the Zeiss FL 8x32 but except for remarkable CA performance I would say I prefer everything about the SFL (except for size) over my former benchmark/favourite 8x.
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Interesting,
I'm not sure what you mean with "managing small details."? But to me it seems a bit unusual if you could see resolution differences without a magnifier, in daylight when the eye pupil stopped down is assumed to be the smallest (and limiting) aperture in the system. Ie. you won't hit the max resolution of the bin. Did you do have the bins mounted on tripod btw?
Maybe there is a difference in magnification? Pushing the SFL to 8.5x would be a smart move by Zeiss...no problems with 140m FOV guess. Or the Swaro perhaps need some star testing....
But I'm certainly no expert...
Hope to get my hands on an SFL soon...
Last edited:
Why would they?
They released a great binocular at a slightly lower price point.
Fanboys, sticklers and doubters across the board will care or nor care but nobody needs to get their panties in a bunch.
I have one Swarovski, one Zeiss, one Leica and one Meopta bino. They all cater to my needs and are chosen based on merit, and in the case where merit was on equal terms I went for looks (Leica). 😉
I can only report our findings in actual use.
There was no sour grapes from the Pure NL owner who bought his 8x32 from me.
He thought the SFL revealed more center detail and I agree. The difference was noticeable in the center of the image viewing two Cranes where the color nuances on the plumage was clearer on the SFL. This translates to more color detail.
This does not detract from the overall performance of Pure NL which I consider a great binocular.
Apart from color rendition - which I think is excellent on the Pure NL - we also both found that the SFL was more resolving on finer details _handheld_as we both could see detail with the SFL which we could not see on the Pure NL.
If this is because of better balance or ergonomics, I don’t know. That level of detail is easily missed and he noticed because he went from the Pure NL to the SFL and saw more detail, tried again with the Pure NL and could not see it.
Supported on tripod I think they would perhaps be more equal, I don’t know.
I don’t use 8x on a tripod but we later used both on a tripod to see how close to the 12x we could get in resolving pylon details.
For birds in flight both were equally great.
For panning? I don’t recall, which means I did not get seasick from the Swaro nor the SFL.
So by managing small details I think we both did slightly better with the SFL handheld and that is worth something for some and means nothing for some.
I might not have noticed much if he had not pointed it out, I was happy with the SFL performance already and thought the Pure NL was at least as good and slightly better in other aspects.
I think my Leica 7x35 would have done great too, but the shortcomings of the Leica (magnification, ca level) would have been more significant than the small, but noticeable, difference between the SFL and the Pure NL.
Some might not see it.
henry link
Well-known member
Here you go. I cropped down to one glitter point from each binocular image to illustrate the difference.
The right image is the SFL. Its out of focus glitter point is the circular diffraction disc it's supposed to be, with a bright green outer ring and a bright violet spot at the center. There isn't enough clarity in the image to see more than that.
In contrast the EL has an oval diffraction disc (possibly from astigmatism) with the bright spot off-set toward the top (possibly from coma). I say possibly because we only have half a star-test here. In a real star-test the focus would be racked to the other side of best focus where the oval shape would shift by 90º if what we see is astigmatism. If the axis doesn't shift, then the most likely cause of what we see would be considerable misalignment between the camera lens and the binocular.
Attachments
Last edited:
On CA levels the SFL performance is very good to great. Focusing on back lit pylons give very little CA.
Slightly out of focus areas produces more visible CA than the Swaro.
Birds in flight is no problem at all with either one though I think the SFL snaps into focus slightly better.
The real winner for BIF was the Meopta 12X which has virtually no center CA and snaps into focus as well as the SFL. Thats why I have it and love it.
Slightly out of focus areas produces more visible CA than the Swaro.
Birds in flight is no problem at all with either one though I think the SFL snaps into focus slightly better.
The real winner for BIF was the Meopta 12X which has virtually no center CA and snaps into focus as well as the SFL. Thats why I have it and love it.
