Zeiss SFL 8x40, A Field Review (13 Viewers)

[HenRun]

And where do you come in between these two - closer to the more insane or closer to the more practical (I am totally open for answers) ?

I am threading a fine line between clinically insane and purely practical. Some weeks are better than others. Over time I have become more rational but I usually have to reach a point of either diminishing returns or come to my senses and find a solution based on my findings and not my wishes.

My findings is that the SFL is a fantastic bino, same with the Pure NL 8x32. Out of the two I find the SFL works better for me.
After quite a few hours with it the best proof is that I don't miss any of the other binos I have had, ergonomics and optics are just the way I want it and instead of circling between several binoculars that I like for different reasons I reach for the SFL, not because it is the latest or greatest, I just find it feels the most natural for me.

Regardless of what Henry Link assumes; that the Pure NL is "faulty" I don't think it is. The SFL is just that little bit easier to handhold - at least for the two of us - and easier to squeak out that extra handheld center resolution. Both binos being supported show about the same level of detail.
The Pure NL 8x32 has other traits such as a fantastic close up / mid distance imaging with a very immersive view and certainly no lack of finer detail and is by all means a stellar binocular. Had it not been for the SFL appearing out of the blue I would have been very satisfied with the Pure NL, except for the Orange color (of the bino, not the image).

 

[HenRun]

Exactly my point!

EDIT: sorry for the partial quote - it is out of context, don't know what happened to the rest of the quote. Here it is:

Let's try to …… leave individual personality out of the debate.

Canip replied: "Exactly my point!"

Canip: I obviously should have inserted a smiley, my comments on sanity among forum members was meant as tongue in cheek and also as a self reflecting comment. I am sorry that I apparently struck a nerve with you since you have harped on it more than once. I know you can sometimes be sarcastic as well (as you stated yourself) so I did not think you would take it personally or to heart.

EDIT: you can always put me on your "Ignore Button List".

What I meant is that I feel "right at home" with forum members who have a wide mental range.

 

[HenRun]

Bill Atwood:

"Had a little time this evening to play to compare the SFL to 8x32/42NLs with a little birding out at the dam of our local water supply lake. Was able to confirm my previous impression that the SFL definitely has a touch better resolution than the 32NL. Also, the difference in glare while aiming towards the general direction of the sun was much more apparent. While adjusting the NL position could adequately mitigate the glare in most situations, with the SFL it was nice not to have to deal with it to begin with (most of the time). The extra 30ft of FOV of the NL wasn't really noticeable in general use."

So either we both happen have defect 8x32 Pure NL's or the SFL is actually a bit better, in the resolution department.
Glad to get at least one more confirmation on the matter, just to know it isn't just me and my friend.

I also agree to the glare characteristics and field of view.

I have not looked through the Pure NL 8x42's.

 

[HenRun]

Hej Hen Run

Two members have both protested that you have taken their words and stretched them until they went beyond their intentions.
One complaint looks like a simple misunderstanding, two complaints about the same thing needs thinking about.
You make some interesting observations about binos but kindly take care to avoid the above-mentioned issue.

Hej Da
Lee
MODERATOR

Hey Lee, and everyone else.

My interpretation of those remarks may have been off from what they intended - I will also ask the same courtesy from others on the forum.
It is not always easy to express yourself in writing and some are more easily offended than others when it comes to interpretations of their postings.
I will take that to heart for sure.

 

[HenRun]

I seriously doubt that the SFL unsupported showed the same level of detail as the NL supported.

Well, you are not interpreting it correctly then.
Unsupported the SFL showed us finer detail at range - vs the Pure NL unsupported. Nothing else.
The Pure NL needs support to extract the difference and "level" with the SFL.

The SFL supported vs the Pure NL supported shows no difference as far as we could tell.

 

[Canip]

Well, you are not interpreting it correctly then.
Unsupported the SFL showed us finer detail at range - vs the Pure NL unsupported. Nothing else.
The Pure NL needs support to extract the difference and "level" with the SFL.

The SFL supported vs the Pure NL supported shows no difference as far as we could tell.

Sorry, I thought I was not interpreting anything, just quoting.
This is what you wrote in post # 379.

In this case we could pick up the same details with the Pure NL supported, but not unsupported. With the SFL we could pick up the details both unsupported and supported. Clearly it was easier supported with both.

Maybe you did not mean that?

 

[HenRun]

A "great" 8x binocular would not show less detail than another 8x binocular in a handheld test like this. A defective "great" binocular might.

The phrasing "great binocular" reflects back on your posting above. If it was your posting - how is it not your term?

The term "great binocular" was not mine. I see now that when I quoted from HenRun's post #358 I inadvertently left out the very sentence I was responding to, which this time is included in the quote below.



There are several other references to the NL Pure failing to resolve fine details in the center of the field in that post and in post #350. Clearly something is wrong with that binocular.

I would be happy to read your elaboration of what could be wrong with the Pure NL 8x32. An optical design flaw?

HenRun,

I'm willing to believe that the two of you are reliable observers and saw what you reported. The question is why did you see that? Any competent 8x32 binocular should be capable of generating finer detail (of every sort) than ANY human eye can see, even with tripod mounting, so why did you find your friend's NL Pure so much worse than that?

It is possible to find an explanation for why that particular binocular performs so poorly, but then you would need to do the kind of basic optical testing you don't even want to read about, much less learn how to do yourself.

I think it is you who are reading "between the lines" in that posting for something that I never stated.
We did not compare anything to what the naked eye sees. Please point me to where I stated that if I did.

My friends saw some details - handheld - with the SFL that he could not pick up with the Pure NL 8x32 - handheld - at far.
He and I came to the same conclusion. After that we tripod mounted the Pure NL and could pick up that detail.
If I was not clear on that part - that they are both resolving as well on a tripod then I do apologize.

The Pure NL was not "much worse" - that is your interpretation of what I wrote. You are putting words in my mouth.

As far as for moderating the thread on equal terms I do think the last sentence that I quote qualifies as an insult and is way out of line.

What do I not want to read about? What do I much less want to learn? YOUR assumptions. If your simple SFL test was anything to go by, so yes, it was a waste of my time and poorly conducted.

 

[HenRun]

Sorry, I thought I was not interpreting anything, just quoting.
This is what you wrote in post # 379.



Maybe you did not mean that?

EDIT: I now see it was a poor choice of words.

I am sorry, I sometimes write very fast on the phone and I did not mean that the way you interpreted it. I hope I clarified it in the follow up post - the SFL is not a magic binocular - but it is great!

EDIT AGAIN:

I wrote:

"In this case we could pick up the same details with the Pure NL supported, but not unsupported. With the SFL we could pick up the details both unsupported and supported. Clearly it was easier supported with both."

That is correct, and I did write what I meant:
With the SFL unsupported we could (at first) pick up details we could not make out with the Pure NL, unsupported.
The Pure NL could give the same level of detail supported as the SFL supported - though initially the detail was also visible with the SFL unsupported.

I can find no contradiction to that original statement in the posting. But please help me phrase it better as I do not mean to confuse.

 

[Grando]

Can you (or anyone) be more specific about where the 10x lags the 8?

I thought the 10x40 lacked sharpness and clarity against the 8x. And I really wanted to like it.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Well, you are not interpreting it correctly then.
Unsupported the SFL showed us finer detail at range - vs the Pure NL unsupported. Nothing else.
The Pure NL needs support to extract the difference and "level" with the SFL.

The SFL supported vs the Pure NL supported shows no difference as far as we could tell.

I think the key here is support vs no support and the exit pupil size.

A smaller exit pupil projects the image on a smaller area which will be more difficult to align to the eye in a stable way. (pocket binos is the obvious example here, they tend to be more jittery)

Edit: In my previous comment I don't think I picked up that there was no difference on tripod, that's why I was a bit confused.

 

[HenRun]

Sorry, I thought I was not interpreting anything, just quoting.
This is what you wrote in post # 379.



Maybe you did not mean that?

I think the key here is support vs no support and the exit pupil size.

A smaller exit pupil projects the image on a smaller area which will be more difficult to align to the eye in a stable way. (pocket binos is the obvious example here, they tend to be more jittery)

Edit: In my previous comment I don't think I picked up that there was no difference on tripod, that's why I was a bit confused.

I agree. I gave up on pocket binos because of the jittery nature of them.

Maybe the simple explanation is that the SFL was on the right side of the threshold for that subject matter and the Pure NL 32 not.

On a tripod there was no difference to us both. By the way, my friend is an optical engineer (in medtec) and maybe he can dumb it down for me though he had no issues taking the results for what they were/are at the time of observation.

I feel I have nothing more to contribute so I am off the thread.

 

[Paultricounty]

Well, you are not interpreting it correctly then.
Unsupported the SFL showed us finer detail at range - vs the Pure NL unsupported. Nothing else.
The Pure NL needs support to extract the difference and "level" with the SFL.

The SFL supported vs the Pure NL supported shows no difference as far as we could tell.

Hmmm, could it have something to do with ergonomics or the way your holding each of the binoculars. Was that observation repeated in different lighting conditions on different objects ? And if so , was there a few observers that were in consensus ?

thx
Paul

 

[Troubador]

Hey Lee, and everyone else.

My interpretation of those remarks may have been off from what they intended - I will also ask the same courtesy from others on the forum.
It is not always easy to express yourself in writing and some are more easily offended than others when it comes to interpretations of their postings.
I will take that to heart for sure.

Of course. And it also happens that when replying to a post that is not in your own language using a language that is not your own, misunderstandings can occur. It certainly happens to me.

Lee

 

[henry link]

My friends saw some details - handheld - with the SFL that he could not pick up with the Pure NL 8x32 - handheld - at far.
He and I came to the same conclusion. After that we tripod mounted the Pure NL and could pick up that detail.
If I was not clear on that part - that they are both resolving as well on a tripod then I do apologize.

Perhaps this dispute can be easily resolved if I now understand correctly that your complaint about the "resolution" of the NL was not about its optical resolution at all, but rather its ergonomics, which did not allow you to hand hold it as steadily as the SFL. If that's the case then I apologize for misinterpreting your meaning. Nothing I said about optics was relevant and our conversation can end now.

 

[tenex]

I tried SFL 8x40 and 10x40 today (briefly).

A very nice straightforward design, handles very well, with lovely smooth focus (and diopter, although a separate one seems unexpected esp. compared to MeoStars that cost significantly less). Didn't get a chance to try it in low light but I know what the aperture should do, while still being quite lightweight (yet solid). SFL is instantly likeable in many ways, so I'll just mention a few caveats:

• there's a fair amount of CA in the outer third of the field, quite comparable to my Leica which is often criticized for that.
• contrast is indeed a bit overdone, to the point of starting to lose detail in dark areas (this could be a problem in low light).
• it has what photographers call "ugly bokeh": when things go out of focus (especially as they do at 10x) they get busy-looking instead of smoothly blurry, which can be distracting.

Perhaps the bokeh is what has put some off the 10x (since I didn't immediately notice another difference), and I wonder whether one would get used to it and mind it less. (Someone actually said "too much detail" which seemed puzzling at the time.) I could certainly borrow these and have a nice day birding, or whatever... but wouldn't choose them myself. Frankly I preferred the view through the EII I had brought along for comparison, which just felt more comfortable.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I tried SFL 8x40 and 10x40 today (briefly).

A very nice straightforward design, handles very well, with lovely smooth focus (and diopter, although a separate one seems unexpected esp. compared to MeoStars that cost significantly less). Didn't get a chance to try it in low light but I know what the aperture should do, while still being quite lightweight (yet solid). SFL is instantly likeable in many ways, so I'll just mention a few caveats:

• there's a fair amount of CA in the outer third of the field, quite comparable to my Leica which is often criticized for that.
• contrast is a bit overdone, to the point of starting to lose detail in dark areas (this could be a problem in low light).
• it has what photographers call "ugly bokeh": when things go out of focus (especially as they do at 10x) they get busy-looking instead of smoothly blurry, which can be distracting.

Perhaps the bokeh is what has put some off the 10x (since I didn't immediately notice another difference), and I wonder whether one would get used to it and mind it less. I could certainly borrow these and have a nice day birding, or whatever... but wouldn't choose them myself. Frankly I preferred the view through the EII I had brought along for comparison, which just felt more comfortable.

Bokeh Explained - phillipreeve.net

What is bokeh? And what lenses give the best bokeh? Or is this more of a subjective topic and it mostly boils down to what you...

phillipreeve.net

interesting comments regarding bokeh.

 

[henry link]

In a telescope/binocular nice soft bokeh behind a focused object is a clue that the optics may be over corrected for spherical aberration, not a good thing.

 

[tenex]

I recall from my Leica M days that classic double-Gauss lenses like the 35mm Summicron had famous bokeh, while their modern ASPH replacements were less pretty (but sharper especially wide open).

I don't think I've been particularly struck by bokeh in binoculars before, so I'd say SFL 10x40 is an unusual case. Between that and the high contrast it's not exactly a relaxing view. But that may not be what the target market/demographic are looking for.

 

[Richard D]

Yes older Leica lenses were technically not that sharp with a lot of aberrations but those 'flaws' led to aesthetically pleasing images.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Yes older Leica lenses were technically not that sharp with a lot of aberrations but those 'flaws' led to aesthetically pleasing images.

There are sharp lenses with nice bokeh these days, so I don't see any contradiction there.