Zeiss SFL8x30 vs Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 (1 Viewer)

[Gijs van Ginkel]

gweller, post 51,
If I can avoid it I never buy anything via internet, because I like to support the shopkeepers in our country even if I have to pay a little more. It supplies these shopkeepers with a good income and it is often nice to talk with them about different aspects of the stuff I am buying.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[gweller]

gweller, post 51,
If I can avoid it I never buy anything via internet, because I like to support the shopkeepers in our country even if I have to pay a little more. It supplies these shopkeepers with a good income and it is often nice to talk with them about different aspects of the stuff I am buying.
Gijs van Ginkel

Hi Gijs, my thoughts exactly. In the town where I live we used to have a couple of camera shops that also sold bins, but they have disappeared having lost all their trade to internet only retailers.

 

[Swissboy]

Do you know what lenses Zeiss accepts for swapping? Can I buy one for €5 and send it in?

I think you can. At least that is my understanding from the text.

 

[Swissboy]

Wow...why are you answering if you don't care? And how stupid do you have to be to not understand why? Don't get what the trade-in action is? If you have nothing to offer but personal attacks, stay away from me. What's up with the strange guys in the forum??? Out of 10 replies, 9 are silly gossip or malicious abuse. Don't you have anything better to do? How old are you ?

I'm not really involved, but I don't like the tone you are bringing into this thread. I you don't like something, why not just ignore it if possible? I know that's theory, of course.

 

[FlowChi]

I'm not really involved, but I don't like the tone you are bringing into this thread. I you don't like something, know that's theory, of course.

If you are not involved, why not just ignore it if possible?

suggest we all stop feeding the troll, add him/her to our ignore lists and get back to doing something more useful....

You've said that before. And the abuse didn't come from me, it came from you.

 

[FlowChi]

, but I don't like the tone you are bringing into this thread

You started the aggressive tone: "But I wouldn't care to guess whether you would want to, or why. "

 

[pm42]

You started the aggressive tone: "But I wouldn't care to guess whether you would want to, or why. "

Ok, he joined Dennis in the "ignored" list. The answer is kindergarten level: "but he started it and now I will make a scene and will continue screaming till my mommy comes".

 

[tenex]

Wow...why are you answering if you don't care? And how stupid do you have to be to not understand why? Don't get what the trade-in action is? If you have nothing to offer but personal attacks, stay away from me. What's up with the strange guys in the forum??? Out of 10 replies, 9 are silly gossip or malicious abuse. Don't you have anything better to do? How old are you ?

OK, I thought I had made an obviously ridiculous joke to take the edge off things especially with the little face, but one can't even inject a bit of levity into this mess you're creating. Have you no sense of humor or perspective? Why do you so easily imagine that people are idiots or abusers, and how is that working out for you?

[Edit] P.S. In English "I wouldn't care to guess" isn't about not caring, it means about the same as "I wouldn't try/dare/want to guess".

You originally asked a good question. Canip has just done a comparison of these two models in another thread; have you anything to contribute to that?

The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars

I think I agree with you. For me, the SFL 40 attracs me more than the SFL 30, because 600-700 gr is light enough and give you a certain grip/stability especially for a 10 power. However, if bird watching isn't your main activity, heaving just 500 gr on your neck is not bad either. I think it is...

www.birdforum.net

 

[HenRun]

If we move beyond the respective positioning of the two binoculars, all reviewers of the CL-B have praised the ”optical box” design of their oculars and the ease of view, when HenRun returned his SFL 30 in part due to lack of ease of view.

I myself had briefly compared the CL-B against the VP 8x25 and found the optical gains if any were not impressive enough to justify the 2x weight and price. I’m interested in the SFL 30 because it looks almost as compact as the VP, but HenRun’s observations gave me pause.

Some rehashing on my part:

CL ”neu” worked very well with glasses for me and ease of view was very good.
I have long time experience with the VP 8x25 and find it works very well for a 25mm bino - better with glasses than without. Though I have no clear memories of other optical traits when I was trying the CL 8x30 I distinctly remember that it was very good concering the eye box.

I did own a CL 8x25 alongside the VP 8x25 and FL 10x32 for a year and was considering the CL 8x30 (baby steps…) but except for the eye box the CL was not what I was after. At the time I was heavily into the Zeiss fluorite ”pop”.

I was kind of hoping the SFL 30 would have been a hybrid of all the nice traits of the smaller binos but as it turns out it was the worst of the lot for me in terms of eye placement, which is a pity.

 

[tenex]

Obviously SFL 30 has already got far more attention and praise here in (and before!) its brief existence than CL 30. Why?

Earlier I suggested the poorer impression made by the original CL, and the clumsy diopter of the new one. I mentioned that the view was still a bit narrow, but in fact nothing about CL really stands out because it's a distinctly second-tier model for Swarovski, not calculated to impress enthusiasts on optics forums. Instead it seems to say "well if you don't need or can't afford our top model, this should be good enough, and you can even choose a fuzzy woolen case if you think that's cool". Zeiss already had Conquest, so they're trying to do something different with SFL; the question then is how well that worked. The focuser is oddly placed but FOV is good, and claims are made for its optical quality that generate lots of interest and debate, which may be very clever of Zeiss but strike me as rather overhyped.

How do the two really compare? Canip too questions the "stepchild" image of CL and concludes that it's essentially competitive, with SFL a bit better in a few respects. Yet the overall impression on this forum is that SFL qualifies as practically alpha, while CL does not. If Swarovski just had a budget line like Conquest (or Terra) to spare CL the shame of being their least expensive full-sized model, would this make the difference?

 

[John M Robinson]

Obviously SFL 30 has already got far more attention and praise here in (and before!) its brief existence than CL 30. Why?

Earlier I suggested the poorer impression made by the original CL, and the clumsy diopter of the new one. I mentioned that the view was still a bit narrow, but in fact nothing about CL really stands out because it's a distinctly second-tier model for Swarovski, not calculated to impress enthusiasts on optics forums. Instead it seems to say "well if you don't need or can't afford our top model, this should be good enough, and you can even choose a fuzzy woolen case if you think that's cool". Zeiss already had Conquest, so they're trying to do something different with SFL; the question then is how well that worked. The focuser is oddly placed but FOV is good, and claims are made for its optical quality that generate lots of interest and debate, which may be very clever of Zeiss but strike me as rather overhyped.

How do the two really compare? Canip too questions the "stepchild" image of CL and concludes that it's essentially competitive, with SFL a bit better in a few respects. Yet the overall impression on this forum is that SFL qualifies as practically alpha, while CL does not. If Swarovski just had a budget line like Conquest (or Terra) to spare CL the shame of being their least expensive full-sized model, would this make the difference?

I know people, myself included, that are hard pressed to afford the very top end bins, so appreciate the various companies offering products that are still high quality, but at relatively affordable prices. On top of that the CLs just fit me better. When I bought my 7x35 Retrovids for considerably less than 8x32 Ultravids, it was based on good reviews and my love affair with my old Leitz Trinovid. I assumed they would be good optically, but not as good as Ultravids or Swarovski EL-NLs. They actually surprised me by competing well with those higher priced models.

Regarding the new CLs, I’m a big fan. My buddy has the old model and, to me, they are far behind the new model. I tried them both against my Retrovid. My Retrovid was way better than the old model, while the new ones hold their own against my Retrovids.

 

[HenRun]

Tenex: I agree with most of your assessment.

I think that if Swarovski would introduce a ”middle ground” sub/near-alpha bino at around the same price level and size/portability as the SFL they ”risk” making a binocular that - despite the trade offs - would be so good that it will steal sales from their ”true” top alpha line.

SFL might be ”overhyped” but essentially they are great performers in the sub alpha category stealing attention and sales from the top alpha category. I don’t know the intention of Zeiss HQ but this is how it seems to play out.

I don’t have much experience with the recent CL line, they are a bit too ”boutique” for me in style. If they have improved that is good to hear. If they are about the level of the Retrovid as John suggests in the previous posting they are certainly great performers.

Also, the newer CL would be a more fair comparison to the SFL than the old version. Even though the price gap is substantial.

The 8x25 CL I had was ”nice” and optically quite good but quite far from the top range offerings.

 

[DrewskiMT]

Hello. This is my first post here and I don't know if it's ok for you to start a new thread. If not, can someone move it?

I've read a lot about the SFL 8x30 in this forum. I don't understand something about it:

The SFL 8x30 is constantly compared to all sorts of other binos (The UV, which is significantly more expensive. The MHG, which is significantly cheaper. EL, NL, SF are a lot more expensive), but very rarely to the CL 8x30. For me the CL is THE "natural" competitor to the SFL. Same in price: CL: 1200€, SFL: 1350€ (with the current trade-in promotion the SFL is only 1150€). They were similar in weight and size.

Why is the CL ignored by so many here? Or do I miss something?
Any thought?

(Well, yes, I live 15km away from Swarovski in Absam, but I have no particular bias towards Swarovski. I also own Zeiss, Leica and others)

I also wonder the same. I need to purchase the Zeiss VP 25, SFL 30, and Swarovski CL so that I can compare with my friends MGH8x30…

 

[Upland]

I found the optics really nice. But I did not really like the package. The narrows eyecups, the not so good FOV, the hold. The strap was a bit too short as well, for my taste.
The biggest problem for me were the uncomfortable eyecups. I definitely would consider the SFL now. But I opted for the NL pure 32 instead.

Yes the eyecups bothered me as well. It’s amazing how many binos I’ve eliminated because of eyecups being too small or not extending out enough. Eyecups that don’t work well for me really ruin the viewing experience.

 

[Ignatius]

I have no intention of having sex with binoculars

How about using binoculars to watch others having sex?

 

[yarrellii]

Yes the eyecups bothered me as well. It’s amazing how many binos I’ve eliminated because of eyecups being too small or not extending out enough. Eyecups that don’t work well for me really ruin the viewing experience.

Agree at 200 %. It's surprising how even on +1000 $/€ there seems to be little attention (or not enough attention) to such an important part of the binos (one of the few areas where you are in contact with them, and probably the one where contact is more sensitive/subtle). It's OK if a pair of Terra, Diamondback or Monarch 5 have a compromise in eyecups... but something like a Retrovid or CL-B, which are quite pricey should (IMHO) be suitable for many styles of users, and reading this thread it seems that the eyecups of the CL-B were a deal breaker for many. I despised the look of the CL-B, but I actually thought that (except for CA) the view was quite impressive, and rightly in the second tier category. Yes, I think the Conquest HD 8x32 were a more rounded-superior package, but they're also heavier and bulkier, which kind of puts them in another category different to CL-B or SFL.

 

[eitanaltman]

I'll say it again: it's mind boggling that binocular manufacturers don't offer various eyecup options, especially when the eyecups are removable/replaceable by design! Just like how in-ear headphones have multiple rubber tips to accommodate different ear anatomy, it would be trivial to offer an "extra long" or "extra wide" option for consumers who don't like the size/shape of the stock eyecups.

In the case of the CL-B, it's not just a "too small" problem like with the Meostar 32mm; rather, in addition to being needlessly narrow (they eyecups are narrower than the barrel!) the material and shape of the eyecup itself is not comfortable against the skin. The rubber has this oddly hard, "tacky" feel that I found unpleasant. Overall, I found the CL-B to be an ergonomic nightmare, from the "too close to the eyes" focus knob position, to the insane diopter mechanism, to the excessively (for me) slender barrels with the awkward FP bulges. The awkward hold negated the light weight and I found them more fatiguing to use than slightly heavier 32mm binoculars as a consequence. I definitely prefer the "short and chunky" body style.... I know some find the CL-B to be ergonomically lovely, so YMMV.

And, while they are very light, they are not small -- you can see in the photo below they are nearly as long as the "chunky mid sized" 32mm class like Conquest HD or Kowa Genesis, and quite a big longer than the Ultravid 32mm. So they aren't particularly compact, pity they didn't preserve the dimensions of the 1st gen CL. For my tastes, a used Ultravid 32mm is a better option at similar (or cheaper) cost. Or if you really want a "mini alpha" that is take-anywhere small, get the Zeiss VP 8x25 which at least folds for stowage.



It's too bad, as the view of the CL-B is phenomenal, other than the pedestrian (but still plenty adequate) FOV; nearly perfectly corrected to the edge, superb color fidelity and brightness... the view was so good that I really tried to find a way to like them.

 

[[email protected]]

I'll say it again: it's mind boggling that binocular manufacturers don't offer various eyecup options, especially when the eyecups are removable/replaceable by design! Just like how in-ear headphones have multiple rubber tips to accommodate different ear anatomy, it would be trivial to offer an "extra long" or "extra wide" option for consumers who don't like the size/shape of the stock eyecups.

In the case of the CL-B, it's not just a "too small" problem like with the Meostar 32mm; rather, in addition to being needlessly narrow (they eyecups are narrower than the barrel!) the material and shape of the eyecup itself is not comfortable against the skin. The rubber has this oddly hard, "tacky" feel that I found unpleasant. Overall, I found the CL-B to be an ergonomic nightmare, from the "too close to the eyes" focus knob position, to the insane diopter mechanism, to the excessively (for me) slender barrels with the awkward FP bulges. The awkward hold negated the light weight and I found them more fatiguing to use than slightly heavier 32mm binoculars as a consequence. I definitely prefer the "short and chunky" body style.... I know some find the CL-B to be ergonomically lovely, so YMMV.

And, while they are very light, they are not small -- you can see in the photo below they are nearly as long as the "chunky mid sized" 32mm class like Conquest HD or Kowa Genesis, and quite a big longer than the Ultravid 32mm. So they aren't particularly compact, pity they didn't preserve the dimensions of the 1st gen CL. For my tastes, a used Ultravid 32mm is a better option at similar (or cheaper) cost. Or if you really want a "mini alpha" that is take-anywhere small, get the Zeiss VP 8x25 which at least folds for stowage.

View attachment 1515478

It's too bad, as the view of the CL-B is phenomenal, other than the pedestrian (but still plenty adequate) FOV; nearly perfectly corrected to the edge, superb color fidelity and brightness... the view was so good that I really tried to find a way to like them.

Nice post and I agree with you, especially on the CL-B. I never liked the ergonomics either, but the optics were superb. You have a good point about offering at least a couple eyepiece options with binoculars because everybody's facial anatomy is different and so many binoculars don't work because they simply don't fit your face and give you the correct eye relief. Somebody should make aftermarket eye cups for binoculars.

 

[Zedster]

For me it is the close focus. 2.6m for the CL is terrible. It’s an absolute deal killer as a forest bird watcher.

 

[fazalmajid]

Independently from price the CL-B is clearly designed to be a compact binocular, not full-sized one. The SFL 30 is halfway between compact and full-size, and thus attractive to people who would carry full-sized 8x32 or 10x32 binoculars but for the weight.