-
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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Troubador
- Start date
From my short time with the SFL 10x40, I'd say CA control is definitely not on a par with SFs and NLs. It would be strange if it were, as the SFLs don't contain fluoride glass. It's probably at least as good as Leica UVHD+s, from what I remember of the one pair I had.
Exactly on axis and sharply focused there's virtually no CA, but as soon as you get off axis or slightly out of focus, it's noticeable on challenging targets (at least for me, and I'm sensitive). So, CA control is very good, but it's a step down from the best.
Exactly on axis and sharply focused there's virtually no CA, but as soon as you get off axis or slightly out of focus, it's noticeable on challenging targets (at least for me, and I'm sensitive). So, CA control is very good, but it's a step down from the best.
The SFL is 1.4 oz. heavier, but the SFL is 1/2 shorter than the SF 8x32 and just slightly wider. Let me tell you, the 40 mm aperture is a HUGE advantage in low light and comfort with much easier eye placement. The biggest advantage of the SFL over the SF though is the truer colors. It is almost like you pulled a veil away from the view, revealing what nature is really supposed to look like. The truer colors also let you see more detail with the SFL.
Are you comparing the SFL 10x40 to the SF 8x32 or 8x42? Higher magnification always shows more CA than lower magnification. I found the CA to be at least equal on the SFL 8x40 to the SF 8x32, and so did Binomania in their review.
Binomania, reportage in Valtellina: amici, pizzoccheri, tanti binocoli e qualche novità - RECENSIONI DI BINOCOLI, OTTICHE SPORTIVE E TELESCOPI ASTRONOMICI ...dal 2006
Un week-end trascorso in Valtellina in compagnia di cari amici e di tante ottiche. Nell'articolo troverete anche delle mini-recensioni.
redirect.viglink.com
The only SF/NL I have to hand right now is the NL 8x42. However, I also own or have owned the SF 8x32, 10x32 & 10x42, and the NL 10x32 & 12x42, and the difference to me, from the SFL 10x40 I have, is quite obvious. But again, if you just compared the CA on axis on a well-focussed target, you wouldn't see much difference.
Robert Moore
Well-known member
I just can’t believe that a binocular at the price of the SFL is going to at the level of the NL especially on CA. I know I have said this before but no binocular I have seen is as good as the NL for CA. I am sensitive to it. I can’t wait to look through the SFL though.
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.
That matches my experience. I found more CA in the SFL10x40 than either the SF10x32 or NL10x32.
Looking at the pricing over here it looks as though SFL is aimed squarely at Swarovski's EL. Quoting from my review:
"The most obvious competitor for SFL at this price point is Swarovski’s superb EL 8.5x42, an icon for binocular enthusiasts, but with SFL 8x40 delivering an optical performance as good as that described above and having an area of view 11% bigger than EL’s and a close-focus of 1.5m compared with EL’s 3.3m, not to mention retailing in the UK at £50 less than the EL, and in the USA around $370 less, it looks like SFL will be giving Swarovski a hard time".
Lee
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Center CA is well corrected in any of the alphas these days, but it's the behavior off axis and oof that defines the level of CA-correction.
And similarly, any high quality binocular shouldn’t show CA except on very high contrast targets.
Last edited:
Backlit glare:
It is clear in the first text below, and seems in the second--both translations--that in a certain instance the Zeiss SFL 8x40 suppressed backlit glare better than the Swaro. NL 8x42 to at least 3 experienced viewers in the Binomania outing. From this I would think that it is very likely to be so in all instances.
"...in the backlit observation it was superior to the NL PURE, so much so that a couple of reader friends went home disconsolate."
"...won hands down against the NL PURE in the morning backlit observation of some jays."
I gather from this forum (but don't remember where within it I saw this) that glare control is improved in the newer productions of the Sw. NL 42 models.
CA:
This is subjective. For example, among "star" reviewers, Arek Olech (AllBinos) and Canip (Binoculars Today) are more sensitive to CA than are Piergiovanni Salimbeni (Binomania) and Roger Vine (Scopeviews). That is going by many evaluations by them that I have read, and my own experience with very few of the models they have tested. None of the 4 has yet published a review of the Z. SFL.
It is clear in the first text below, and seems in the second--both translations--that in a certain instance the Zeiss SFL 8x40 suppressed backlit glare better than the Swaro. NL 8x42 to at least 3 experienced viewers in the Binomania outing. From this I would think that it is very likely to be so in all instances.
"...in the backlit observation it was superior to the NL PURE, so much so that a couple of reader friends went home disconsolate."
"...won hands down against the NL PURE in the morning backlit observation of some jays."
I gather from this forum (but don't remember where within it I saw this) that glare control is improved in the newer productions of the Sw. NL 42 models.
CA:
This is subjective. For example, among "star" reviewers, Arek Olech (AllBinos) and Canip (Binoculars Today) are more sensitive to CA than are Piergiovanni Salimbeni (Binomania) and Roger Vine (Scopeviews). That is going by many evaluations by them that I have read, and my own experience with very few of the models they have tested. None of the 4 has yet published a review of the Z. SFL.
My point is being careful of the self fulfilling prophecy. Just because the SFL is less expensive than the SF, doesn't automatically mean the CA is not going to be as good. It is like assuming a Ferrari is going to be faster than Tesla Plaid because it cost more. It is not always the case.
henry link
Well-known member
With eyecups fully extended I observed and photographed exactly the same sort of veiling glare in the 8x40 SFL as in the 8x42 NL. The glare behavior of both binoculars improves at shorter eyecup settings, but I found the glare was essentially eliminated for me by setting the SFL one step shorter while the NL glare could not be quite totally eliminated with shorter eyecup settings before kidney beaning set in.
See the photo of SFL glare causing internal reflections here:
Zeiss 8x40 SFL: A Few Tests
I recently had the opportunity to do a few quick tests of a local dealer's newly arrived Zeiss 8x40 SFL. Here are the results. Distortion: I brought along my usual target of small circles to test for angular magnification distortion as well as a grid pattern I view backwards through the...
www.birdforum.net
Last edited:
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
Worse CA performance can be deduced from the fact that there is no UFL (fluoride) glass in the SFL.
Shorter tube length is also a factor to consider (to some extent compensated by he smaller f-stop).
Zeiss have done well segmenting the SFL, probably good enough to compete with UVHD and EL SV.
With the lighter weight as a unique USP.
Actually Zeiss show the difference in CA on their web site in a very realistic manner (just like with the color casts)...
Zeiss SF on the left, and any other bin on the right...
Attachments
Last edited:
Torview
Well-known member
Not really a similar comparison.
Lets say the SF is the SF90 Stradale and the SFL is the 296 GTB.......................
the 296 gtb is a better car than the SF90 I'm not sure this is the best comparison too.
Rather lets say the SF is Aston Martin DB11 and the SFL is Aston Martin Vantage.................
Lee
Hermann
Well-known member
No, it can't. Nobody here knows exactly what glass types Zeiss uses in the SFL. And even if someone did, he/she wouldn't know how they work together in the SFL. Unless he/she were part of the design team at Zeiss.
Hermann
tenex
reality-based
The persistent desire for better binoculars (even given the level of current alphas), the effect of mere announcement of a new model, and the raptures each provokes when released (at least for a short time) are simply astonishing.
While manufacturers are fairly effective at diverting attention from what's actually inside, they don't seem to be taking full advantage of this. They should just bring out a new model every year, like cars.
I always thought the point of buying an alpha bin was not to keep playing this game.
While manufacturers are fairly effective at diverting attention from what's actually inside, they don't seem to be taking full advantage of this. They should just bring out a new model every year, like cars.
I always thought the point of buying an alpha bin was not to keep playing this game.
