Zeiss SFL 8x40 versus Victory SF 8x42? (1 Viewer)

[hopster]

I use to think the HT was the best but after using the SF 8x42 for awhile now with its light weight and perfect balance I could not go back. I sold my NL pure because I love the SF so much and I loved the view in the NL. Not enough difference in optical quality to matter so it came down to ergonomics.

Yes I love the handling of the SF, maybe the best x42 out there, I'm just not knocked out by the image quality at that price and size compared to the HT, NL or Noctivid which I think are the best x42s from the big 3 (the last being my favourite). I have only looked through the 8x42 but have seen several examples now and perceive a slightly dulled contrast and mild green emphasis (missing reds in particular) giving a kind of 'mushiness' to foliage that loses something compared to the best. We only talking subtlety here because in absolute terms of course it's very nice. When I was shopping for 8x42s I had the opportunity to buy a brand new one in a clearout from a UK store for £1400 but declined it.

 

[Paultricounty]

Yes I love the handling of the SF, maybe the best x42 out there, I'm just not knocked out by the image quality at that price and size compared to the HT, NL or Noctivid which I think are the best x42s from the big 3 (the last being my favourite). I have only looked through the 8x42 but have seen several examples now and perceive a slightly dulled contrast and mild green emphasis (missing reds in particular) giving a kind of 'mushiness' to foliage that loses something compared to the best. We only talking subtlety here because in absolute terms of course it's very nice. When I was shopping for 8x42s I had the opportunity to buy a brand new one in a clearout from a UK store for £1400 but declined it.

I’m with you on this. So why are the Noctivids your favorite and what sets them apart from the others that you like. I know you were very smitten with the HT’s and the fact they had AK prisms. 🙏🏼

Paul

 

[hopster]

I’m with you on this. So why are the Noctivids your favorite and what sets them apart from the others that you like. I know you were very smitten with the HT’s and the fact they had AK prisms. 🙏🏼

Paul

Mainly the range of contrast from lightest to darkest objects and the colour saturation & accuracy which nothing else seems to quite match. I have not looked through any Nikons, but no Zeiss or Swaros I have looked through appear to represent enough red in the image when compared to the naked eye. They are also incredibly sharp in the centre. People here may say 'what do you mean by sharpness' and 'everything is sharper than the eye can resolve', so in reply I will say that on a tripod (or another stable mount) I can see more detail in small distant objects than in any other 8x binocular that I have looked through. Also, they seem to deal with glare very well which can be very important as we cannot always choose our viewing conditions.

They are not perfect; you can trigger CA fairly easily with incorrect eye position and it's always there to some extent on the periphery, and the FOV is not competitive with the top models from Zeiss and Swaro, but delicious colour, notable contrast and super sharpness (and ease of use with spectacles) trump FOV for me, and CA is becoming less of an issue as I get used to them, though they are fussy about eye position compared to HTs for example.

Although I remain open to being convinced otherwise, I think that top porro and AK prisms give a kind of natural 'transparency' to the image that no SP prisms can deliver (all other things being equal) and that includes the Noctivids, although they do come close and offer other qualities as described above that make them very appealing, and of course the SP prisms make them quite compact too.

 

[Paultricounty]

Mainly the range of contrast from lightest to darkest objects and the colour saturation & accuracy which nothing else seems to quite match. I have not looked through any Nikons, but no Zeiss or Swaros I have looked through appear to represent enough red in the image when compared to the naked eye. They are also incredibly sharp in the centre. People here may say 'what do you mean by sharpness' and 'everything is sharper than the eye can resolve', so in reply I will say that on a tripod (or another stable mount) I can see more detail in small distant objects than in any other 8x binocular that I have looked through. Also, they seem to deal with glare very well which can be very important as we cannot always choose our viewing conditions.

Very well said, can’t argue with anything there.

They are not perfect; you can trigger CA fairly easily with incorrect eye position and it's always there to some extent on the periphery, and the FOV is not competitive with the top models from Zeiss and Swaro, but delicious colour, notable contrast and super sharpness (and ease of use with spectacles) trump FOV for me, and CA is becoming less of an issue as I get used to them, though they are fussy about eye position compared to HTs for example.

I know what you mean on the CA , but I can literally say I feel the same with many other top alphas, it’s always there somewhere. Same for me, color, contrast Trump FOV, I have super wides if I’m looking for that experience.

Although I remain open to being convinced otherwise, I think that top porro and AK prisms give a kind of natural 'transparency' to the image that no SP prisms can deliver (all other things being equal) and that includes the Noctivids, although they do come close and offer other qualities as described above that make them very appealing, and of course the SP prisms make them quite compact too.

I havnt really followed what you mean about the transparency with AK’s, mostly because I don’t really feel any much differences with AK do SP, but fully understand the different image feel comparing the Porro with the roofs. The 3D effect is very compelling and quite enjoyable, especially with lower magnifications.

Paul

 

[mgp13]

Yes I love the handling of the SF, maybe the best x42 out there, I'm just not knocked out by the image quality at that price and size compared to the HT, NL or Noctivid which I think are the best x42s from the big 3 (the last being my favourite). I have only looked through the 8x42 but have seen several examples now and perceive a slightly dulled contrast and mild green emphasis (missing reds in particular) giving a kind of 'mushiness' to foliage that loses something compared to the best. We only talking subtlety here because in absolute terms of course it's very nice. When I was shopping for 8x42s I had the opportunity to buy a brand new one in a clearout from a UK store for £1400 but declined it.

I have to admit, Leica are on to something special when it comes to colour rendition, especially of reds. I appreciated that greatly with my Leica Trinovid HD 10x42. I haven't seen through Noctivids but I'm not sure I'd ever buy them given their FOV deficit. The SF 8x42 is gloriously wide and the sweet spot is huge - these two things make the view so much more attractive than what I see through the trinovids or the SFL. I certainly am not bothered by the green cast so many speak of, and can't imagine how someone could perceive "mushiness" to foliage through this incredibly sharp binocular. I guess I'll believe it when I see it through the Noctivids, but I'm not in any hurry to jump ship just yet either.

 

[Paultricounty]

I have to admit, Leica are on to something special when it comes to colour rendition, especially of reds. I appreciated that greatly with my Leica Trinovid HD 10x42. I haven't seen through Noctivids but I'm not sure I'd ever buy them given their FOV deficit. The SF 8x42 is gloriously wide and the sweet spot is huge - these two things make the view so much more attractive than what I see through the trinovids or the SFL. I certainly am not bothered by the green cast so many speak of, and can't imagine how someone could perceive "mushiness" to foliage through this incredibly sharp binocular. I guess I'll believe it when I see it through the Noctivids, but I'm not in any hurry to jump ship just yet either.

The Nocs are about even in FOV to the Trinovid. I don’t see the Noc FOV as a deficit , it’s pretty close in line to many binoculars in its configuration on the market, it’s just the two from Z and S that are larger than most. If you compare a Trinovid to SF or NL’s thats a huge gap in more than FOV. I find that when Im using my NL or SF , I miss the the Nocs, but when I have the Nocs , I never seem to miss the Z or S 😉✌🏼.

 

[MiddleRiver]

The Nocs are about even in FOV to the Trinovid. I don’t see the Noc FOV as a deficit , it’s pretty close in line to many binoculars in its configuration on the market, it’s just the two from Z and S that are larger than most. If you compare a Trinovid to SF or NL’s thats a huge gap in more than FOV. I find that when Im using my NL or SF , I miss the the Nocs, but when I have the Nocs , I never seem to miss the Z or S 😉✌🏼.

Unless the numbers are misquoted by B&H the 8x42 FOV:
Trinovid 372’
Noctivid 407’ (+35’)
Zeiss SF 444 (+37’)
So actually the Noctivid is as much an improvement over the Trinnie, as the SF is over the Noc. I certainly found the Noc wider in use than the Trinovid and even noticeably better than the UV.
Of course the SF is tops amongst these three.

The SFL is a nice compromise and at 420’ nipping at heels of SF. I do not own SF, but these numbers are consistent with my first-hand experience of the others.

 

[Paultricounty]

Unless the numbers are misquoted by B&H the 8x42 FOV:
Trinovid 372’
Noctivid 407’ (+35’)
Zeiss SF 444 (+37’)

Agreed on the 8x. Unless I’m mistaken , which is often we were referring to the 10x42, which is almost the same. B&H is pretty reliable on stats.

So actually the Noctivid is as much an improvement over the Trinnie, as the SF is over the Noc. I certainly found the Noc wider in use than the Trinovid and even noticeably better than the UV.
Of course the SF is tops amongst these three.

SF is an improvement in FOV.

The SFL is a nice compromise and at 420’ nipping at heels of SF. I do not own SF, but these numbers are consistent with my first-hand experience of the others.

 

[mgp13]

Unless the numbers are misquoted by B&H the 8x42 FOV:
Trinovid 372’
Noctivid 407’ (+35’)
Zeiss SF 444 (+37’)
So actually the Noctivid is as much an improvement over the Trinnie, as the SF is over the Noc. I certainly found the Noc wider in use than the Trinovid and even noticeably better than the UV.
Of course the SF is tops amongst these three.

The SFL is a nice compromise and at 420’ nipping at heels of SF. I do not own SF, but these numbers are consistent with my first-hand experience of the others.

Although on paper the SFL is nipping at the heels of the SF, in practice I find it's quite a large difference. FOV is possibly something which is more important to me than it is to most birders however.

 

[mgp13]

. I find that when Im using my NL or SF , I miss the the Nocs, but when I have the Nocs , I never seem to miss the Z or S 😉✌🏼.

I don't miss any binocular when I'm looking through my SFs. The view is so wide it's like they aren't there.

 

[GrampaTom]

Unless the numbers are misquoted by B&H the 8x42 FOV:
Trinovid 372’
Noctivid 407’ (+35’)
Zeiss SF 444 (+37’)
So actually the Noctivid is as much an improvement over the Trinnie, as the SF is over the Noc. I certainly found the Noc wider in use than the Trinovid and even noticeably better than the UV.
Of course the SF is tops amongst these three.

The SFL is a nice compromise and at 420’ nipping at heels of SF. I do not own SF, but these numbers are consistent with my first-hand experience of the others.

@ 100yds...
Trinovid 37.2'
Noctivid 40.7' (+3.5')
Zeiss SF 44.4' (+3.7')

 

[Paultricounty]

@ 100yds...
Trinovid 37.2'
Noctivid 40.7' (+3.5')
Zeiss SF 44.4' (+3.7')

Wow. That’s the way the stat should be advertised, Imo. Funny how some people might not be swayed to spend tons more money just for a few feet. It’s interesting because wide FOV is nothing new, and these current offerings the last few years from Z and S are truly not very wide field binoculars when compared to true wide field bins from the vintage 1950’s-60’s. Imo going from 6.5 to 7.5 a 1° difference isn’t huge , it’s noticeable depending on distances, but it nothing like true wide field bins where you barely can see the field stop. Don’t get me wrong I understand the edge improvements on the latest and greatest , but when looking through an NL or SF , then looking through a 10 on 11° Bushnell or Swift from yesteryear puts the former to shame. Imo.

Paul

 

[MiddleRiver]

Wow. That’s the way the stat should be advertised, Imo. Funny how some people might not be swayed to spend tons more money just for a few feet. It’s interesting because wide FOV is nothing new, and these current offerings the last few years from Z and S are truly not very wide field binoculars when compared to true wide field bins from the vintage 1950’s-60’s. Imo going from 6.5 to 7.5 a 1° difference isn’t huge , it’s noticeable depending on distances, but it nothing like true wide field bins where you barely can see the field stop. Don’t get me wrong I understand the edge improvements on the latest and greatest , but when looking through an NL or SF , then looking through a 10 on 11° Bushnell or Swift from yesteryear puts the former to shame. Imo.

Paul

Agree. When comparing binos I also find that ER, eyecup ‘fit’ etc affect the perception of FOV. So idealized raw numbers don’t tell the whole story…

 

[Maljunulo]

This is why buying binoculars by comparing spec sheets is madness.

Look through them.

 

[Troubador]

This is why buying binoculars by comparing spec sheets is madness.

Look through them.