Zeiss SFL comparisons with older models (1 Viewer)

[brocknroller]

Wow, that is a bargain! I would jump on that!

I am with James, as far as color rendition I never experienced the top end Zeiss being anything other than correct regardless of color of coatings.

With the SFL it seems they work the color correction partly with coatings and it seems to work very very well.

The reddish coatings have not worked well for me (wearing glasses) and that is probably mostly to do with eye box design and my facial features causing my particular eye placement at a point where reflections are pronounced to the point of being detrimental to the user experience.

In short: it sucks to be me.

Doesn't suck too much since you have an SFL that works for you! But I hear you with the eye box problem. My eyes are not deep set but I have a high-bridged nose unlike my Neanderthal cousin, which can make getting eyecups the right distance from my eyes problematic, as I demonstrated with the photos in my post on the Nikon subform of how I need to invert the Nikon 8x32 SE's eyecups to get the most comfortable and least restricted view.

I was going to sell my 8x42 EDG, but the deal that fell through at the last minute, in which case I would have been very tempted by the 8x40 SFL at that price, but I traded it for the 8x32 EDG, and I'm very happy with it. Not as good in the dismal days of winter, being smaller aperture, and the transmission graph isn't as flat as the 8x42s, so it lacks a bit of "sparkle," but overall it seems sharper to my eyes, and it has a noticeably better 3-D effect. Those fat, close barrels on the 8x42, while giving a boost to the image size ("roof illusion"), compress the image such that the apparent distance between foreground objects and background objects is diminished compared to the 8x32 model, where 3-D rendering of the landscape is better. In fact, of all the roofs I've tried, the 8x32 EDG comes closest to the 8x32 SE in sharpness, contrast, and even 3-D effect, which is remarkable for a roof.

If I were to buy an SFL at some point, I'd probably go for the 10x40 since I'm pretty well covered with 8x bins, and I wouldn't buy a 10x30 due to its small exit pupil. I live in central Pennsylvania, which once beat Seattle for the most cloudy days in the nation!

As to the color rendition, the reflections from the SFL's objectives vs. the SF's suggests there is a difference, and I'm hoping the SFL has a flatter light transmission curve like the EDG.

Here's what Arek from Allbinos had to say about the color rendition in the 8x42 SF in the summary of his review of that model, which is now its top rated 8x42:

"The final result is such that the Ziess Victory 8x42 is a pair of binoculars practically without any flaws. It can compete with the EL Swarovison 8.5x42 on equal terms but it doesn't mean there are no differences between them.
For one thing, their transmission graphs differ significantly. The Zeiss fares better in the centre of the visible spectrum but its graph is not as flat as that of the Swarovski. As a result the rival of the tested binoculars renders colours better and its images seem to be clearer and crisper..."

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 8x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Brock

 

[Troubador]

One reviewer called the SFL's focuser fast, very fast (which he liked)



Brock

I have my own method of assessing focus speed which utilises a building 2.5 miles (4km) from our house as a target and having focused on this I then estimate the rotation needed to refocus onto a target 2m from my work-station.

Using this method I found that SFL8x40 has a focus speed very similar to FL8x32 and Terra ED 8x32 but not as fast as Conquest HD 8x32.

Lee

 

[brocknroller]

I have my own method of assessing focus speed which utilises a building 2.5 miles (4km) from our house as a target and having focused on this I then estimate the rotation needed to refocus onto a target 2m from my work-station.

Using this method I found that SFL8x40 has a focus speed very similar to FL8x32 and Terra ED 8x32 but not as fast as Conquest HD 8x32.

Lee

Lee,

If I can only find a building exactly 2.5 miles from my my backyard, I could duplicate your test. I have a clear view of houses near Bald Eagle Mountain ridge, so I could do find a structure if I had a rangefinder. Or perhaps I can use Mapquest to find the distance to a church or other landmark.

I've only tried the the Conquest and Terra in 8x42s, and for me, the Terra was impossibly too fast to use for birding, and I tried two samples, so that ruled out sample variation. My first sample Nikon 8x32 LX and a very fast focuser, I just rested my finger on it and it moved, so I sold and bought a second sample, which had more tension but it was still f faster than any other Nikon bin I owned. So in that case, sample variation played a role.

The Conquest also focused faster than I 'd like. If the 8x32s have the same focus speed as the 8x42s, then it looks like even if my lottery ticket hits big tonight, the otherwise extra fine SFL will not be in my stable of binoculars.

There was one other person on this thread (or the 8x30 SFL) who also finds Zeiss focusers too fast, so I'm not alone but in a small minority. Here's where I would say, "To each his own." But there must be a reason why Zeiss prefers fast focusers just there must be a reason it prefers to boost its AR coatings in the yellow-green, hence the bright red reflections off the objectives.

The boost in the middle might be that Zeiss markets the same bins to hunters. I was reading a review of the 10x40 SFL vs. the 10x32 SF on Rockslide, by a review who works as a hunting guide. He noted that the best hunting takes place just after sunset, and the 10x40 SFL came out the winner, because it allowed him to see a target on a tree at x distance 10 minutes longer than the 10x32 SF (which he noted about the same size as the 10x42 SFL). Hunters carry a lot of equipment, so some opt for a smaller aperture 8x or 10x32 because they are lighter to carry than an 8x or 10x42, but in this case, the 10x32 SF had no advantage and the SFL allowed the hunter better twilight vision.

Zeiss SFL 10x40 vs. SF 10x32 Binocular Review - Rokslide

Zeiss has recently released two models of compact binoculars, the Zeiss SFL and SF. Both raise the performance to weight ratio, but which one is best for you?

www.rokslide.com

As to the fast focusers, there seems to be a relation to focuser speed and how close a bin can focus. The EDG's focuser is pokey by comparison. The 8x42 EDG close focuses at 9.8 ft, and the 8x32 EDG at 6.8 ft. Not butterfly bins.

Compare that to the close focus of the 8x40 SFL and 8x42 SF, which both close focus at 4.9 ft. (some users report they can focus even closer, probably due to their eyes' focus accommodation). Increasing the range of focus affects focuser travel. I remember Stephen Ingraham making a connection between fast focusing binoculars and bins that focus very close. I tried to look for that comment, thought it was in his B&L Elite review, but I didn't see it there (the Elites focused fast and close). Not sure if that's speculation on his part or if he tested various models and came to that conclusion, but hopefully one of our resident experts might chime in with some evidence if that's true.

I mentioned that Zeiss binoculars by virtue of their fast focusers give me the impression of shallow depth of field (even though it's actually the same as any other 8x or 10x). Ingraham agreed with this assessment.

Here's what he wrote in his B&L Elite review:

"Four out of five birders who have handled the new Elites (including myself) have come away with an initial impression that the depth of field of the glasses is unacceptably shallow. (Depth of field is the distance in front of and behind the point of true focus where objects in the image are still acceptably sharp. Shallow depth makes focus more difficult and demanding, and means that you will spend more time focusing as birds move. It can also be disconcerting, giving you a moving, high-telephoto-effect, slice of reality feeling rather than a continuous image.)"

Bausch & Lomb Elite 8x42 | Better View Desired

Well, it's Friday, so I've got to get online and buy my lottery tickets.

Brock

 

[Swissboy]

Updates to post #1:
I had another chance to evaluate the SFLs today under similar overcast conditions. And I also did some more comparing with other brands, including my own Leica UV10x25. Some statements made by me need to be corrected. I had probably been so much overwhelmed that my critical differentiation had suffered a bit. So today, the x40 models did provide a noticeably brighter view, but still not by much. But the difference between the 8x and 10x was quite noticeable, and my enthusiastic original statement ("mindblowing") was clearly meant for the 8x30. But I agree with Mike (post #4) that my wording was probably somewhat too extreme. Nevertheless, the overall joy about these models, particularly the x30 ones remains. So I have now ordered mine as well. Unlike my wife, I chose the 8x magnification as my shaking of the hands is more pronounced.

I was also doing some comparative evaluation with the corresponding Swarovski models. As I tend to notice the rollerball effects many Swaro models show, there was no serious comparison, more just about haptics and brightness. It mainly struck me that the Swaros feel more metallic when handled. That may convey more solidity, but the models feel cold when handled, whereas the Zeiss models (already with the FLs) provide a more comfortable feel to me. A major interest to me was how the NL waist shape felt like, as I had read some critical remarks. I must say that at least the x32 NL felt very comfortable in my relatively small hands. And on the side, the dealer who provided this fine opportunity for comparisons also showed me an obvious reaction by Swarovski to the many anti FP remarks one can find. The models now come with an easily mountable attachment for standard binocular straps!

I had also looked at several IS models that were on display (Canon and Kite). The effect is quite convincing, but the brightness is reduced compared to the non IS models of Zeiss and Swarovski. Plus, the available IS models are still rather cumbersome at least to me, both regarding the weight and the shape.

Regarding Beth's question (A2GG post #2), I now paid better attention which fingers I used to focus the SFL models. It was a variable combination from index finger to ring finger, often middle and ring finger combined. But as stated earlier, it is not critical and always feels very comfortable.

Additions to my post #13: I had not mentioned my observations comparing two other models with the SFLs. It was a more casual thing, but since nobody has made remarks along those lines, I think it's worthwhile adding them as well. The dealer display I had available also included a Zeiss Conquest and a Kite model (not sure which, but mid-priced). When comparing the SFLs with the Conquest and the Kite it was obvious that the SFL showed a uniform pattern of a white surface whereas both the Conquest and the Kite had an outer concentric ring that framed the uniform part of the picture. The ring encompassed an estimated 10 - 15 percent of the view with a less sharp picture. I don't need sharpness to the edge at all, but in these cases it was like a "frame" almost. Of course outside of buildings it might be less obvious, unless one has a clear blue sky or so.

 

[NDhunter]

I was in a retail store today and finally got my hands on an SFL, the 10x40. I cannot offer any opinion on optics as
I was only in the store. One thing I found in its handling, is that the focuser seems about midway. That led me to
wonder how to focus, as I usually use my first finger, but this made it seem I was holding the bin with the hands too
far forward. How do others get along with that ?
I have the 10x42 Victory SF and the Conquest HD, and handling these is a breeze.

I wonder if there is a photo of all 3 of the current top Zeiss models together. I would appreciate that.
Jerry

 

[Brummie]

One thing I found in its handling, is that the focuser seems about midway. That led me to
wonder how to focus, as I usually use my first finger, but this made it seem I was holding the bin with the hands too
far forward. How do others get along with that ?

I think that's the point - to hold them close to the objectives, which (if you have the occulars resting in you eye sockets) tends to make them more stable. I have no issue with it, but I can imagine that if you're used to holding bins in a certain way, it may be uncomfortable.

 

[Troubador]

I think that's the point - to hold them close to the objectives, which (if you have the occulars resting in you eye sockets) tends to make them more stable. I have no issue with it, but I can imagine that if you're used to holding bins in a certain way, it may be uncomfortable.

You are right Brummie but when first holding SFLs this way, I wouldn't describe it as 'uncomfortable', rather I would call it 'unfamiliar'.

 

[HenRun]

I have not thought much about how I operate the SFL8x40 so I paid more attention to it just now:
I do use the index finger (which is what I assume NDHunter means with first finger, but for me the first finger is the thumb).
The finger is at an angle and as Lee points out: not uncomfortable but for me slightly unfamiliar at first. But, I didn't really think about it until reading the thread so it comes naturally at least.

With my (small to medium) hands I use the index finger comfortably and can switch to middle finger just as easily. Good thing with this is that the SFL does work really well even with padded/thicker gloves on. (With some stiffer gloves holding the index finger at an angle can be a little awkward.)

Overall length of the bino is excellent for my size hands. The SFL 8x30 (at first glance) is almost too short for me, but workable, and the overall girth works well with my size hands. For winter use with thicker gloves I am not sure, will have to try.

The SFL 8x40 is not large per se, it is a fairly compact 40. Most of my binos have been 25-32mm optics so it does feel a little meaty to me and more like a full size bino than a compact.

 

[HenRun]

I had a look at the photos I took with the SFL 8x30 and 40 next to each other. It does look like the focuser is about 2 mm closer to the oculars on the 8x30. Focuser looks and is probably the very same in construction but the placement is a bit closer to the face.

I did not feel any difference going between the two in the store and at home the SFL40 feels about the same as my Pure NL in grip/finger position in relation to the focuser - they feel different in action but both work great.

 

[HenRun]

Oh, and I agree with the and image outer edge findings.
The SFL is very uniform when looking out over the wintry landscape. Same with the Pure NL.
I am quite sensitive to vignetting/fall off and have seen it on many mid tier to alpha binos.
The SFL has no intrusive border problems (nor has the Pure NL) in my view.

 

[Brummie]

I bought a SFL 10x40 last summer because I wanted to compare it to my SF 10x32 and see which I preferred as my main mid-size binocular (they are both a similar size and weight).

My initial impression was that the SFL wouldn't displace the SF, so I decided to sell it. But as I was moving to Ethiopia at the time, my opportunities to sell are limited (can't trust mail from here, so will have to wait until I'm back in the US next summer). As I want to keep it pristine, I haven't been using the SFL, but yesterday evening, I compared it again with the SF and was pleasantly surprised.

Overall, my impressions are that for low light conditions, the SFL is the better binocular. It is noticeably better at picking out faint stars in the night sky (not surprisingly given the extra objective diameter), and they are nicely crisp. But it seems to be generally a bit brighter with higher contrast in lower light settings before dark. I don't have much opportunity here to check it out in overcast conditions (at least until the rainy season starts), but this seems to tally with what others have said about that.

In good light, I still prefer the SF, as it has a noticeably wider FOV, and effectively no CA. Not that the CA in the SFL is problematic, but I can detect a hint of it when I go looking for it (i.e. on high contrast daytime targets). I am very sensitive to CA. Sadly, I've probably trained myself to notice it by spending too much time looking for it while comparing high-quality optics.

The SF 10x32 does have a significant downside - the fussy eye placement. It's a bit more demanding to use. So I can imagine there would be folks who would still prefer the SFL in the daytime, particularly if they're not too concerned about a super-wide FOV or a faint trace of CA.

For me, I'll still keep the SF and sell the SFL, it's primarily for daytime use (I have other things I can use in low light or for the night sky). But I'm impressed with the SFL, and will likely pick up a SFL 30 model in the near future.

 

[alan kennedy]

I was given 8x40SFL as a special birthday present. I had no idea it was coming so was pleasantly surprised, and certainly had no intention of buying this model beforehand. However, I now find myself using it most of the time. I put this down to a combination of optics, size and weight. I also have 10x42SF, 8x42HT, 7x42FL and 8x32FL.

Alan

 

[mfunnell]

I bought a SFL 10x40 last summer because I wanted to compare it to my SF 10x32 and see which I preferred as my main mid-size binocular (they are both a similar size and weight).

My initial impression was that the SFL wouldn't displace the SF, so I decided to sell it. But as I was moving to Ethiopia at the time, my opportunities to sell are limited (can't trust mail from here, so will have to wait until I'm back in the US next summer). As I want to keep it pristine, I haven't been using the SFL, but yesterday evening, I compared it again with the SF and was pleasantly surprised.

Overall, my impressions are that for low light conditions, the SFL is the better binocular. It is noticeably better at picking out faint stars in the night sky (not surprisingly given the extra objective diameter), and they are nicely crisp. But also seems to be generally a bit brighter with higher contrast in lower light settings before dark. I don't have much opportunity here to check it out in overcast conditions (at least until the rainy season starts), but this seems to tally with what others have said about that.

In good light, I still prefer the SF, as it has a noticeably wider FOV, and effectively no CA. Not that the CA in the SFL is problematic, but I can detect a hint of it when I go looking for it (i.e. on high contrast daytime targets). I am very sensitive to CA. Sadly, I've probably trained myself to notice it by spending too much time looking for it while comparing high-quality optics.

The SF 10x32 does have a significant downside - the fussy eye placement. It's a bit more demanding to use. So I can imagine there would be folks who would still prefer the SFL in the daytime, particularly if they're not too concerned about a super-wide FOV or a faint trace of CA.

For me, I'll still keep the SF and sell the SFL, as these are primarily for daytime use (I have other things I can use in low light or for the night sky). But I'm impressed with the SFL, and will likely still pick up a SLF 30 model.

That roughly accords with my experience of my 10x40 SFLs with the (rather major) proviso that I’m keeping mine.

I can’t see a place for the SFL 30s in my line-up, nor for the 8x40s - but the SFL 10x40s are binoculars I will use.

At home, from my balcony (where I’ve mostly used them) I’ll likely revert to my 10x35 EIIs, which I love. But I occasionally have use for high-enough-quality 10x bins further afield - and these SFLs seem like they’ll fill that role nicely. They’re certainly a lot more packable and portable than the 10x56 FLs which have been my only other high-quality weather-proof 10x options ‘til now. I mean: optically, my 10x56s are great (rather better than the SFLs), but those beasts are most often left behind - then I’ve run across a circumstance when I’ve missed having a 10x option with me..

Sure: that use-case is both an indulgence (I will use them that way, but not often) and an excuse. But so what?

…Mike

 

[Ground Control]

I was given 8x40SFL as a special birthday present. I had no idea it was coming so was pleasantly surprised, and certainly had no intention of buying this model beforehand. However, I now find myself using it most of the time. I put this down to a combination of optics, size and weight. I also have 10x42SF, 8x42HT, 7x42FL and 8x32FL.

Alan

Hey. Do you find the 8x42 ht superior in terms of image quality? I realize its a much bigger binocular though

 

[alan kennedy]

Hey. Do you find the 8x42 ht superior in terms of image quality? I realize its a much bigger binocular though

In short, yes, but there's not much in it.

 

[Andy Gan]

When I tried SFL 8x30, at first I simply did not believe what I saw. My FL 8x32 looked like very old glass, I was simply shocked.

What about the center/edge sharpness/resolution in both - sfl 8x30 vs tfl 8x32? Which one is better?
And same about brightness in low light?

 

[Paultricounty]

I use this attachment system but it still contains the „great advantage“ of twisting whatever your chosen strap system is every time you stow or set down your bins… Count me as an anti field pro folk here

If you could put NL optical quality in the SF you‘d have the best of both worlds. Until then, I seem to prefer the SF for field utility. I would say the SF is optically 95% of what the NL is, but ergonomically / as a tool, the NL is only about 60-70% of what the SF is. However you come down on this, they‘re both stellar optically and both excellent bins, the NL just (in my view at least) hampered by some overengineering and (for several of my friends) hampered by fogging issues.

Getting back to the SFL, I am wondering if I‘ll be happy to trade some field of view for weight savings, the SFL‘s really do seem to be impressing a large number of people and the views I‘ve had so far have impressed. At some point I will take a more serious look at them. I already quite love the MHG and have long wished for a „more alpha version“ of it, which the SFLs increasingly seem to be, based upon opinions here at least.

Nikon already makes an alpha version of the MHG, it was made before the MHG, it’s called an EDG 🤪. It’s also better in almost every category except FOV.

Paul