Wexphoto has it for pre-order at 1300 euros.
-
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.
Zeiss SFL 8x30? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter PHog
- Start date
Me too!
I could see the SFL 8x30 coming down to about $1200 when it has been around for a while. It will be competitive with the Nikon MHG 8x30.
brocknroller
porromaniac
This reminds of similar comments on BF when the 8x32 SFL was released. I haven't tried the 8x32 FL, but from reading reviews and comments, it appears that Zeiss created a classic that would not be easily bested, which is probably why the 8x32 FL continues to hold its value in resale.
Zeiss 8x32 FL T* Owners VS Possible Up Grade To The Zeiss 8x32 Victory SF 8x32
I have been reading so many solicitous treads/post of so many wanting or have already pre-ordered the New Zeiss 8x32 SF. I get it, the Zeiss SF will be a WOW binocular to many who have the ability to purchase one. My question to the many here who have owned and now currently own the Zeiss 8x32...
www.birdforum.net
brocknroller
porromaniac
I can give you 2,400 reason$ why not.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Brock,This reminds of similar comments on BF when the 8x32 SFL was released. I haven't tried the 8x32 FL, but from reading reviews and comments, it appears that Zeiss created a classic that would not be easily bested, which is probably why the 8x32 FL continues to hold its value in resale.
Zeiss 8x32 FL T* Owners VS Possible Up Grade To The Zeiss 8x32 Victory SF 8x32
I have been reading so many solicitous treads/post of so many wanting or have already pre-ordered the New Zeiss 8x32 SF. I get it, the Zeiss SF will be a WOW binocular to many who have the ability to purchase one. My question to the many here who have owned and now currently own the Zeiss 8x32...
The Fl was certainly a "sweet" package, as was the later 7x42 Dialyts. Originally, the fiberglas reinforced body was highly criticised but mine is 17 now years-old and still functioning well. The 8x32 SF has a wider FOV, and maybe a brighter image, but it is a larger package. So I have not been in a hurry even to examine one. Troubadour certainly thought highly of the SF.
I see that the FL on that electronic auction site is still fetching a good price, just as you wrote.
Stay safe,
Arthur
Last edited:
If you want the huge flat field FOV of the SF and NL, you have to have a complex eyepiece with more lens elements, usually including a field flattener element. This makes the binocular longer and bigger. To get a monstrous corrected FOV with sharp edges takes a lot of glass. The Nikon WX at 5 pounds is a prime example. You just can't have everything in optics. Zeiss used really high-end fluorite glass when they built the FL. It still has some of the best CA control I have ever seen in any binocular. Even better than the SF and NL. I don't think the SF and NL are any brighter than the FL, either. The FL had very high transmission. The big deal with the SF and the NL is the huge, flat field with sharp edges. For that reason they are pretty awesome though.
Last edited:
I really look forward to trying the 8x30 SFL.
I wish they had released it ahead of the 8x40 SFL as the 8x30/32 is size wise the optimal format for my hands and daily use.
The 8x40 SFL is used almost daily and it does suit me much better with glasses than the 8x32 FL did.
Before I started wearing glasses the 8x32FL was the one and only. For many years that familiar (lack of) girth and optical performance never left me wanting for anything else.
The one thing that is engrained in my ”grip memory” and what I miss most about the 8x32 FL is the format, with or without gloves it was always great in hand.
Other than that the 8x40 SFL actually does a few things better for me. During the winter period the 8x40 feels a bit chunky with gloves on and that is the one disadvantage - other than the general size difference - and it is something I could live with. But, if the 8x30 SFL would ”fix that” without any significant optical penalty I am switching.
The SFL 8x30 is the first new Zeiss release since the 8x32FL that is right up my alley for size, weight and hopefully - performance. I think I will find out very fast if the SFL 8x30 is a keeper but it has to do everything just about right to replace the 8x40. The better low light performance of the 8x40 is something I can sacrifice. Keeping the 8x40 and having two very similar and fairly expensive binos in the same magnification seems unnecessary to me.
I think I can reach out to the owner of my previous 8x32 FL and make a little field comparison of the three: 8x30 SFL, 8x40 SFL and the 8x32 FL when the 8x30 SFL arrives.
In the 8x30/32 binocular category there are a few strong candidates for size and handling with the Meopta B1.1 and the 8x32 FL being the stand outs for me. The Ultravid is a very nice design but viewing comfort is disappointing for me with glasses. I had a slight reservation about the size of the SFL focuser but having used the SFL 8x40 a lot I simply never think about it and my focuser works great with or without gloves in every type of weather so other than the ”esthetic” aspect of it I think I will enjoy the SFL 8x30 focuser just as much. Wish they had made it a little slimmer but it is a small thing.
I wish they had released it ahead of the 8x40 SFL as the 8x30/32 is size wise the optimal format for my hands and daily use.
The 8x40 SFL is used almost daily and it does suit me much better with glasses than the 8x32 FL did.
Before I started wearing glasses the 8x32FL was the one and only. For many years that familiar (lack of) girth and optical performance never left me wanting for anything else.
The one thing that is engrained in my ”grip memory” and what I miss most about the 8x32 FL is the format, with or without gloves it was always great in hand.
Other than that the 8x40 SFL actually does a few things better for me. During the winter period the 8x40 feels a bit chunky with gloves on and that is the one disadvantage - other than the general size difference - and it is something I could live with. But, if the 8x30 SFL would ”fix that” without any significant optical penalty I am switching.
The SFL 8x30 is the first new Zeiss release since the 8x32FL that is right up my alley for size, weight and hopefully - performance. I think I will find out very fast if the SFL 8x30 is a keeper but it has to do everything just about right to replace the 8x40. The better low light performance of the 8x40 is something I can sacrifice. Keeping the 8x40 and having two very similar and fairly expensive binos in the same magnification seems unnecessary to me.
I think I can reach out to the owner of my previous 8x32 FL and make a little field comparison of the three: 8x30 SFL, 8x40 SFL and the 8x32 FL when the 8x30 SFL arrives.
In the 8x30/32 binocular category there are a few strong candidates for size and handling with the Meopta B1.1 and the 8x32 FL being the stand outs for me. The Ultravid is a very nice design but viewing comfort is disappointing for me with glasses. I had a slight reservation about the size of the SFL focuser but having used the SFL 8x40 a lot I simply never think about it and my focuser works great with or without gloves in every type of weather so other than the ”esthetic” aspect of it I think I will enjoy the SFL 8x30 focuser just as much. Wish they had made it a little slimmer but it is a small thing.
Last edited:
Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
Nikon told me that with SP prisms they won't get the outstanding resolution they intended to achieve when designing the WX. I believe that this could be due to the 'Seil-effect' (see the attached pages, taken from Konrad Seil, Progress in binocular design, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 1533 (1991)). Swarovski designer Konrad Seil took several SP prisms, one of them uncoated, a single-layer coated, a double-layer coated and a multi-coated (8 layers) prism, and measured their MTF-curves. MTF values improved from uncoated to single-coated, but then they dropped with increasing number of layers. A multi-coated SP-prism showed rather poor resolution values!
The reason is that surfaces at which total internal reflection (TIF) takes place should best remain uncoated. Unfortunately, the SP-prism contains two surfaces which serve as TIF surfaces and at the same time are entrance or exit surfaces. This is the dilemma with SP-prisms: Multi-coating reduces their resolution, single-coating reduces their transmission. With the AK prism, this dilemma does not occur.
Cheers,
Holger
Those with small hands will enjoy the 30mm SFLs thoroughly. They are good bins for birding.
Someone mentioned the HT. The 8x54 HT is bright allright. I was watching a Koel yesterday. In good light, the red eyes were bright enough to hurt.
The HT 54mm with it's large objectives and transmission is actually brighter than the 8x32 NLP and that I saying something.
Someone mentioned the HT. The 8x54 HT is bright allright. I was watching a Koel yesterday. In good light, the red eyes were bright enough to hurt.
The HT 54mm with it's large objectives and transmission is actually brighter than the 8x32 NLP and that I saying something.
henry link
Well-known member
Hi Holger,
I've wondered about the "Seil-effect" in current optics, both in binoculars using S-P prisms and in angled spotting scopes with Schmidt prisms, where you might think the effect would be even more damaging at higher magnifications. Any chance your industry contacts could enlighten us about current practices for coating Schmidt prisms?
Glad to see that your work on distortion is being noticed! The 8x40 SFL I tested last year might have been influenced by your ideas. It certainly had much lower angular magnification distortion in the outer field than an early 8x42 SF I saw.
Henry
I've wondered about the "Seil-effect" in current optics, both in binoculars using S-P prisms and in angled spotting scopes with Schmidt prisms, where you might think the effect would be even more damaging at higher magnifications. Any chance your industry contacts could enlighten us about current practices for coating Schmidt prisms?
Glad to see that your work on distortion is being noticed! The 8x40 SFL I tested last year might have been influenced by your ideas. It certainly had much lower angular magnification distortion in the outer field than an early 8x42 SF I saw.
Henry
Last edited:
Hermann
Well-known member
Holger,
thank you very much for this interesting comment. What is the physical mechanism, why is the contrast loss dependent on the line frequency? Is it just a matter of precision, is the thickness of the layer or the quality of the optical surfaces not sufficient? I didn't find any explanation in the paper, it seems to be just an experimental result.
Thomas
thank you very much for this interesting comment. What is the physical mechanism, why is the contrast loss dependent on the line frequency? Is it just a matter of precision, is the thickness of the layer or the quality of the optical surfaces not sufficient? I didn't find any explanation in the paper, it seems to be just an experimental result.
Thomas
brocknroller
porromaniac
The 8x32 FL's light transmission (94.6%) is greater than the SF's, which is 90.6%, and that's more than enough difference that the human eye can tell which is brighter. For binoculars with a short focal lengths, you can't beat fluorite glass.
However, like you, the folks at Allbinos love sharp edges on binoculars, being astronomers, that's no surprise. I think is the reason they ranked the 8x32 SF #1.
They criticized its light graph, which is high in the yellow-green, but falls off steeply on both sides spectrum. So, you get artificially produced bright images but weaker color rendition. For birders looking to discern field markings, color rendition is more important than edge sharpness.
Brock
John A Roberts
Well-known member
Picking up on Holger's post (#310) . . .
While other roof prism designs may have 1 or 2 combined transmission/ reflection surfaces (see post #62 at: Wish List... ),
Schmidt-Pechan prisms are the most optically compromised in having 3 such surfaces.
And following on from Seil's 1991 paper, there is a diagram from Swarovski dating back to at least 2008
that shows the coatings on the SLC 7x42 lenses and prisms.
As can be seen the combined transmission/ reflection surfaces (6, 7 and 9) each have 3 layers of anti-reflective coating.
However, in terms of the transmission/ resolution balance noted by Seil, it’s possible that each of the the three coatings
may only cover a portion of the visible light spectrum - so with minimal overlap?
John
While other roof prism designs may have 1 or 2 combined transmission/ reflection surfaces (see post #62 at: Wish List... ),
Schmidt-Pechan prisms are the most optically compromised in having 3 such surfaces.
And following on from Seil's 1991 paper, there is a diagram from Swarovski dating back to at least 2008
that shows the coatings on the SLC 7x42 lenses and prisms.
As can be seen the combined transmission/ reflection surfaces (6, 7 and 9) each have 3 layers of anti-reflective coating.
However, in terms of the transmission/ resolution balance noted by Seil, it’s possible that each of the the three coatings
may only cover a portion of the visible light spectrum - so with minimal overlap?
John
Last edited:
Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
Hi Henry,
Thanks a lot, I am happy to know that Zeiss cares about the distortion work. We will have to see whether or not all of the new SFL models will show a nice panning behavior.
When asking about the 'Seil-effect' I only get a shrug of shoulders - nobody seems to know about that work of Seil. They usually tell me that it can't be that bad, after all, we have got many great binoculars with SP prisms. On the other hand, Nikon claims that with SP they won't have achieved the highest performance for the WX. I don't think it is about the dielectric mirror coating. With a bit of effort this coating would be sufficiently efficient that nobody would ever notice the transmittance difference to the AK prism (which, at these large dimensions, probably loses almost as much light from absorption as it gains over the SP due to TIR). But I have no contact to anybody of Nikon's team of technicians, and the marketing guys know nothing about these issues.
Cheers,
Holger
Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
Hi Thomas, I am not quite sure either. I guess that for TIR you want a sharp interface between the two media of different refractive index. The coating, however, kind of softens that transition - it is made of layers of gradually decreasing refractive index. If now TIR is applied to that surface, then the light will probably penetrate some of these coating layers, surely also depending upon the angle of incidence. Some path-length differences may result. Actually, Seil mentions in his work an earlier reference [7], and this is G. Joos, Die Bildverschlechterung durch Dachprismen und ihre Behebung, Zeiss Nachrichten, 4. Folge, Heft 9, p. 221-227 (1943). So far I couldn't find that publication of 1943, but it seems to be the same one in which Joos for the first time derives the phase-shift in a roof prism.
Note that the phase-shift problems have been known since 1943, but they were never mentioned. Only in 1988, when Zeiss introduced the solution (the P-coating), the phase shift suddenly turned into an issue. In the previous decades the binocular makers happily sold their top models ('best performance ever') without P-coating
Cheers,
Holger
Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
Hi John,
Thanks for reminding us on the 2021 discussion about this issue. Perhaps - yes, there may exist coatings that are less harmful to TIR than the one applied by Seil. It would be great to learn more about that, but no manufacturer likes to address possible issues with their products, unless that issue has been fully resolved, which would be the moment when the solution of that problem hits the marketing divisions ...
Cheers,
Holger
