That’s precisely why I asked.
-
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.
SFL 8x30 worth it? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Upland
- Start date
The relationship between eyelens diameter, eye relief and apparent field of view has been discussed here a few times. The geometry is simple.
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
Size and weight ; the retro more equal to a 8x30. According to B&H: SFL 8x30: 459g Leica 7x35: 590g SFL 8x40: 641g So the 7x35 are much closer to the 8x40. Length is: SFL 8x30: 11.9cm Leica 7x35: 13.2cm SFL 8x40: 14.5cm So the 7x35 are exactly in the middle.www.birdforum.net
Interesting. Never read this before. But it confirms my experience. I find it sad that a picture of the eyepiece and the lens still misses in many advertising pictures. Often an image of the front with objective lenses(completely uninteresting to see the objective lenses) and from the side but not the eyepiece from the side or above.
In many cases I can know based on the AFOV, a picture of the eye lens and how it is positioned to the eyecup edge whether it works good for me with eyeglasses or not.
A picture of the eyepiece slightly from the side with eyecup in bottom position is the most valuable picture in my opinion.
Ignatius
Pigasus J. Pig IX for President
I'm certain that is because the average punter has no interest in such details. Only the freaks like thee and me want to know, just like we're the ones asking for 7 or 6x binos. Joe Bloggs buys going by big numbers and by what the marketing bumpf tells him he wants/needs. And that is who the companies cater for. Plus, they do not want to give away too many of their secrets. Or at least make it easy - until a real nutter comes along and takes an eyepiece apart or does a cut. All this is of course only MHO.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
Yes. Imago Qualis.
I'm simply pointing out to Declan Joseph Deasy, that top dollar does not necessarily equate with top anything. In places like BF, there will be folks that will argue that the Conquests are better or that the SF's suck for reason a, b, or c. Nuff said '-)
I'm simply pointing out to Declan Joseph Deasy, that top dollar does not necessarily equate with top anything. In places like BF, there will be folks that will argue that the Conquests are better or that the SF's suck for reason a, b, or c. Nuff said '-)
Ignatius
Pigasus J. Pig IX for President
In economics and business studies perceived value is actually a thing. To my simple mind it is as ephemeral as perceived status or authority. None of these things are inherent and they only exist in a relationship. It always requires someone who accords or recognises. There can be a general agreement, for example that a dollar is actually worth a dollar (no gold standard anymore, just fiat money based on trust in governments), but that piece of paper has no value per se. Same goes for authority. Cops/military enforce their 'authority' with weapons and coercion, just like criminals do, but in the end it all comes down whether people accord them that status or not.
And whether SFs are really the dog's danglies and worth 2.5k in most people's currency is not an inherent value but only one accorded them by some people. And the Zeiss marketing team. For me personally the law of diminishing returns kicks in before I reach that level. Hence my two (soon to be three) SFLs and zero SFs.
(Sorry about digressing somewhat, but sometimes adult conversations wander a little into distant but related areas. Won't happen again.)
And whether SFs are really the dog's danglies and worth 2.5k in most people's currency is not an inherent value but only one accorded them by some people. And the Zeiss marketing team. For me personally the law of diminishing returns kicks in before I reach that level. Hence my two (soon to be three) SFLs and zero SFs.
(Sorry about digressing somewhat, but sometimes adult conversations wander a little into distant but related areas. Won't happen again.)
Last edited:
Declan Joseph Deasy
Member
More precisely I’m interested in winter waders, ducks and geese on salt marshes at dusk in dull conditions. Have any members compared the twilight factor in practice of SFL and SF under these conditions. Would I really get ‘more bang for my buck’ with an SF 8x42?
For me the SF 8x42 seem to have a slight optical edge on everything else. It shows itself during astronomy...extreme sharpness and vivid colors. And they also have an ergonomic edge over all other roof binos for me. They're the only bino as comfortable as porros in the hands. They're not perfect, but I feel like I got what I paid for...I was able to get them at a tax-free 10% off sale.
I think there is some confusion - it's the Zeiss HT 54mm that are judged to be inferior to 56mm Conquest by some. Nobody says that about the SF's.
I think there is some confusion - it's the Zeiss HT 54mm that are judged to be inferior to 56mm Conquest by some. Nobody says that about the SF's.
Even if the numbers are different, the real question is ,"Will I see a difference?"
I'm not sure anyone else can answer that for you, so I hope there might be some way for you to mooch a look.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Declan,
By calculation the twilight factor of the SFL 8x40 is 17.89; the twilight factor of the 8x42 is 18.33. N.B. this on a logarithmic scale. However, the comparison does not take into account any differences in transmission if the coatings are different.
You really try them both to see if it makes a difference to you.
Stay safe,
Arthur Pinewood
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
If I read Gijs' graphs correctly, the SFL's transmission spectrograms are equal or better than the SF's. Of course we're talking very small percentages and impact on perceived brightness etc. is not that easy to deduce.
You have to try bins to see if they work for you. In this tier, they are uniformly excellent and well made. A forum is only a place to hear the outlier negatives and splitting of hairs.
You have to try bins to see if they work for you. In this tier, they are uniformly excellent and well made. A forum is only a place to hear the outlier negatives and splitting of hairs.
Last edited:
Vinnie45acp
Member
That is a 100% accurate statement, comparison's is all about finding net worth, if there is no comparisons, then something must be worth it,the very definition of worth is a comparitive evaluation IAW $$$ represented. this is exactly what I think Paul was eluding to when Zeiss was figuring on what to charge, as to not ruin the SF and Conquest line. If they priced them too close to the Conquest line, why would anyone ever Buy a conquest ever again? Thus vice versa, if they were to price them closer to the SF, who would anyone buy these at that price, and not just get an SF, thus comes in is it worth it in comparison. I understand the OP not wanting his post being highjacked, but I feel some small comparisons here and there have to be considered, just by the nature of the beast.
I guess the thing which has always struck me as absurd, is the idea that a piece of paper with a bigger number printed on it is “worth more” than one with a smaller number.
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 retails for about $1499.99. I would take the Swarovski EL 8x32 over it any day of the week for less money. The SFL 8x30 has eye cups that are too short for the ER for me and creates a lot of blackouts and the edges are soft compared to the EL. The EL has better build quality also, and it is a true alpha, the SFL 8x30 is not. The SFL 8x30 is overpriced for what it is. You might as well pay another $500 and get the SF 8x32, which is much better optically.
RARE [MINT w/Case Straps] Swarovski EL SV 8X32 Binoculars Green From JAPAN | eBay
â Appearance. Appearance is beautiful. â Serial number. â Functional. There is no scratches. I send a product by DHL / EMS. There is no fog.
www.ebay.com
Last edited:
You can get a Swarovski EL 8x32 for less than the SFL 8x30, and it is only 5 oz. heavier and much better optically with much easier eye placement. Is that 5 oz. really worth an inferior, more finicky view? You have to decide for yourself. IMO, it is not. You can't feel either one around your neck.
Swarovski EL 8x32 Binoculars - Great for birding & hunting | eBay
The Swarovski EL Range 8x32 Binoculars are lightweight, weighing only 22.8 oz. They are perfect for general purpose use as well as for hunting and birding. These binoculars are designed for the outdoors, with durability and longevity in mind.
www.ebay.com
Last edited:
Exactly. What SF and NL do you have? It is funny how much more critical eye placement is on a 30mm compared to a 32mm. You wouldn't think it would be that different with such a small difference in EP, but it is. I think the SF and NL and even the EL have bigger eye boxes. I liked the SFL's at first, then I began seeing the blue ring of death in both sizes, which must be a type of CA that some people see and some don't. That was the dealbreaker for me.
I had the SFL 8x40 and I compared them back to back to a Swarovski SLC 8x42 that I just bought and the SLC just killed it. The SLC had much sharper edges, better contrast and was brighter. I sold the SFL the next day. Then I tried the EL 8x32, and it beat the SLC 8x42 because it had better contrast and sharper edges, so I sold the SLC 8x42.
Then I then bought an NL 8x32, and it beat the EL 8x32 in a side by side because it had a bigger FOV and most importantly it was more transparent. So it was kind of survival of the fittest, with the NL 8x32 coming out on top. I think it is the best 8x32 you can buy by process of elimination, with the Zeiss SF coming in very close. I have the SF in a 10x32 and the handling and focuser on it are exceptional.
Furthermore, I don't think the SFL is worth the price. It is pretty far down the food chain optically from the SF, NL, EL and SLC, and it costs almost as much. Unless weight and size are your number one priority, I don't see the point. If you want a smaller binocular, save yourself some money and get the CL 8x30. It really is almost as good.
Last edited:
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
I find the weight and size trade off quite worthwhile and don’t find the SFL overpriced relative to the competition but of course to each their own 😎
I venture to guess the eye positioning on 30 vs 32 is going to vary from person to person and has little to do with exit pupil and a lot more to do with much smaller eye cups making it harder to reliably / repeatedly place the bins when picking them up.
I venture to guess the eye positioning on 30 vs 32 is going to vary from person to person and has little to do with exit pupil and a lot more to do with much smaller eye cups making it harder to reliably / repeatedly place the bins when picking them up.
