Something new from Zeiss ? (1 Viewer)

[Sagittarius]

Sorry, adhoc, but as I said above, I can't remember where I read it but will let you know if I find the source again.
I usually bookmark information like that but didn't this time. 😐

 

[Paultricounty]

Where is Dennis?
I bet Dennis would ante up the $7,000.00+ for a pair.
What say you, Dennis? 😃

He definitely would if it weighed under a pound, have a zoom and photographic capabilities built in, be tack sharp to the edge with an adjustable FOV and color biases and probably be made of a lightweight polymer or carbon fiber. 😉

 

[pbjosh]

FWIW, I hope they don't make any changes to make SF more like the NL Pure. All the 8x42 SF needs is one more click-stop on the eyeguards to be near perfect IMO. Actually I would crop 5% off the field stop and outer FOV to make it perfect. Let Swaro chase more FOV and all the undesirable side-effects that come with it.

If I was Zeiss I would look to improve the Conquest and HT's before another iteration of the flagship. I might go after market share by cutting the price of the SF's as the tooling and R&D costs get paid off. Instead of doing something new.

I really agree with this. I have both SF and NL. Let's ignore the NL's awful fieldpro system and the fact that the eye cups fall apart and the armor falls off. I still prefer nearly every other aspect of the SF to the NL. I prefer the faster focuser, the feel of the focuser, the armor, the classic tube shape, and the eyecups. And more importantly, after a couple years with them both, I just prefer the view through the SF. It's a touch more relaxed and feels more natural to me. The NLs are really impressive and really great, but except for the focuser and the FOV, I actually like them less than the pre fieldpro ELs. This is all of course subjective, but...

 

[Paultricounty]

I really agree with this. I have both SF and NL. Let's ignore the NL's awful fieldpro system and the fact that the eye cups fall apart and the armor falls off. I still prefer nearly every other aspect of the SF to the NL. I prefer the faster focuser, the feel of the focuser, the armor, the classic tube shape, and the eyecups. And more importantly, after a couple years with them both, I just prefer the view through the SF. It's a touch more relaxed and feels more natural to me. The NLs are really impressive and really great, but except for the focuser and the FOV, I actually like them less than the pre fieldpro ELs. This is all of course subjective, but...

Lol, which part was subjective 🤣✌🏼.

 

[Maljunulo]

Let's ignore the NL's awful fieldpro system and the fact that the eye cups fall apart and the armor falls off.

Wow!

There’s a real testimonial for a US $3300 and up glass.

The voices in my head quieted right down. (The ones that were telling me that I should have waited and bought the 8X32 NL instead of the SF)

 

[Torview]

I haven`t tired of the view with my 8x42SF after 4 years, I keep trying everything new when I can of course but nothing else can disguise its size and weight up to the eyes the way the 42SF does IMHO, the ability to hold them comfortably up to the eyes for extended periods (way longer than anything else for me) is of greater importance to me than any small gain in "quality" of view.

 

[Maljunulo]

It appears that you now have both.

 

[Scott98]

I really agree with this. I have both SF and NL.

that sounds cool, I never thought of buying two premium binos in the same size just for fun. I got 56mm SLC to go along w/ the 8x42 SF's. The SLC is another bino I would not change, except for another ergonomics adjustment - get rid of the thumb cuts.

Will be interesting to see if "maturity" has been reached with these current models and if revisions slow down at this point. Zeiss just introduced the SFL's. Will Swaro do something with the EL line - maybe revise or replace it with something priced more like the SFL?

 

[tehri]

Let's ignore the NL's and the fact that the eye cups fall apart

WHAT ?.... 'eye cups fall apart' ??? Ahaha, never read something like that !
???...

 

[Trinovid]

I got 56mm SLC to go along w/ the 8x42 SF's. The SLC is another bino I would not change, except for another ergonomics adjustment - get rid of the thumb cuts.

I’ve been really curious about the SLC’s due to the forum postings and wondering if they might be a good alternative to the 12x50 Ultravid I’ve been wanting. Liked my friends EL 12x but couldn’t deal with the seasickness and hoped there might be less rolling ball with some other models.

 

[Hermann]

1. A stabilised 10x40. Or a 12x45.
2. A new line of scopes, including some small and light scope.

Hermann

 

[pbjosh]

WHAT ?.... 'eye cups fall apart' ??? Ahaha, never read something like that !
???...

Hasn’t happened to mine but then I always take my Zeiss’s to the tropics / on real trips. I have, however, seen 4 cases of friends with the rubber rings coming off the ends of the eye cups.

 

[adhoc]

Sagittarius, sorry, I somehow missed that sentence in your earlier post! Looks like I'll have to first improve my basic observation skills before aspiring to a better binocular.

 

[Scott98]

I’ve been really curious about the SLC’s due to the forum postings and wondering if they might be a good alternative to the 12x50 Ultravid I’ve been wanting. Liked my friends EL 12x but couldn’t deal with the seasickness and hoped there might be less rolling ball with some other models.

The 10x56 SLC has zero rolling ball. Just a traditional FOV that blurs near the edge a bit, barely noticeable during the day for me and not bothersome for astronomy either. There is only one downside to the 56mm SLC, the weight and size. But at 42 oz. they are lighter than most other 56mms like the Conquest and Mavens.

They don't come in 12x, so you'd have to choose 10x or 15x. I prefer the body design and focuser on my 10x56 SLC to the EL's as well - single bridge with lots of room to grab the barrels, and focuser knob more towards the middle than high-up like the EL. If you want 12x though the UVHD is probably best. I had both 10x50 UVHD and 10x56 SLC and I chose the SLC because the eye placement was so much easier and more comfortable, probably a result of the bigger aperture and thus wider exit pupil.

But the 56mm SLC is definitely a heavy beast compared to the 50mm Leica's. For birding I went down even further and got a vintage 12x40 porro to cover my 12x birding needs. There are some good modern choices in 12x42.

btw - what the are "side effects" that come with ultra-wide field? More weight, more rectilinear distortion, more difficult eye placement and resulting blackouts, and (depending on the ocular design) sometimes more lateral color.

 

[tenex]

The 10x56 SLC has zero rolling ball.

I agree, but Trinovid is probably considering the 15x which has a bit more AMD (less pincushion) near the edge, which causes me no trouble in panning but a very sensitive person conceivably could find it a problem. That said, I know of no one here who has and it's definitely worth trying.

 

[Trinovid]

btw - what the are "side effects"…

The only thing I didn’t care for was the rolling ball effect.

 

[dries1]

The 15X56 has an extra element in the system, and it does behave like a flat field when panning. It has a much more of a flat field than the 10X56, which can be noticed on the night sky - stars crisp to the edge. Your miles may vary but check them out prior to pulling the trigger.

 

[Sagittarius]

Sagittarius, sorry, I somehow missed that sentence in your earlier post! Looks like I'll have to first improve my basic observation skills before aspiring to a better binocular.

No big deal, I've done the same.