Zeiss SFL 8x30? (1 Viewer)

[james holdsworth]

Chances are the SFL will be a fine binocular but for a 8x30, the Nikon MHG is pretty darn good and at a far less price point. Although I feel the birding world is more open to these small binoculars, there is a limit. I have to wonder, given the benefit and disadvantages of a these small bins, what the actual market is for that expensive of one that measurable will not be that much different from the MHG's or....many of the newer 8x32 bins coming up that also compete very well in this small binocular market.

All of what you said applies to larger bins too….a good MIJ 8x42 will give you 95% of an alpha, but that’s been discussed here a million times.

The SFL will appeal to the brand conscious, not value seekers.

 

[Vespobuteo]

And glare. They don't call the NLs GlareMonsters for nothing.

Unfortunately Allbinos doesn't seem to care much about glare or flare.

They rate something they call "internal reflections" but it doesn't
seem to reflect the glare and flare suppression in real world use.

EL SV 10x42 - 2.8
NL 10x42 - 3.8

The NL scores 36% better in "internal reflections" than the ELSV, seems a bit random to me.

 

[Vespobuteo]

Maybe the Noctivids are too expensive and they couldn't afford them! 😁

Not that the Nocitvids are cheap but you can get them for 400-600€ less than the NL:s in EU at the moment.

 

[Vespobuteo]

The NL is much better for veiling glare than the EL was in general. The NL can have some glare at the bottom of the FOV in certain situations, but the NL 8x32 is better than the NL 8x42 and if you get your click stops adjusted just perfect on the NL 8x32 you can pretty much eliminate it. Swarovski has done a pretty good job with glare on the NL for the huge FOV it has.

That depends on who you ask...

 

[Vespobuteo]

The Noctivids are so heavy and big, but the NL 10x42 I have is almost as heavy but not quite as big and long. I only paid $2K for mine and they were new.

It's actually 600€ now after a quick look around, so you can get the 42mm Noctivids for the same price as the 32mm NL:s.

32 mm bins are fine in daylight, but struggle in low light.

When I get a pair, for use when birding might not be the main activity, I don't want them to be as big as 42mm bins...

Nothing wrong with the 32mm NL:s though. But I wouldn't want a 32mm bin as my main bin.

 

[Brummie]

The NL 8x32 has a way bigger FOV that is sharp to the edge. The SFL 8x40 felt tunnel like after using the NL's. The NL's work so good you notice very little difference in exit pupil comfort. Of course a $2500 binoculars is going to be better than a $1500 binocular, but I never thought there would be that much difference. I sold the SFL 8x40 the next day.

I just bought an SFL 8x40 with the thinking it’d replace my NL 8x42. It’s not that it’s a better binocular, but I bought it for just under $1200 new, and I can probably sell my mint NL for twice that price. My main bins are 10x and it seems wasteful to have so much money tied up in a binocular that’s only for occasional use, and in some ways the SFL is a better fit for those times I want a 8x.

I’d mostly use a 8x40/2 if I’m in dense forest, and if I’m scrambling around in remote forests, the lower weight of the SFL makes a difference. The other reason is to use with a Zeiss tripler so I can have a lightweight high mag option. I find the image quality noticeably better in a 24x42 set up than 30x42. For that use, the easier tripod mount on the SFL is also a bonus, as long as the CA isn’t excessive when using the tripler (haven’t tried it yet).

The wider FOV is definitely a big plus in the NL, but I also have an E2 8x30 I can use if FOV is the biggest consideration. Cost and weight mean I’m likely to carry the E2 or SFL in a lot more places than I would the NL.

 

[Paultricounty]

The Noctivids are without a doubt the best Leica binocular because they have embraced the flat field sharp edge design more than any other Leica before them. The Noctivids do not have the tack sharp edges of an NL or even an SF, but they are miles ahead of a UVHD+ and it shows that Leica is going in that direction. I would bet when Leica comes out with a new UVHD 8x32 or possibly UVHD+ 8x30, they will be more of a flat field design. If Allbinos had tested the Noctivids they would be the highest ranking Leica and would probably be in top 10, but they still wouldn't beat the NL or SF.

They also don’t have globe effect which is probably why they didn’t go completely flat to the edge. Miles ahead in better panning than EL, SF and NL, I think miles ahead of the Ultravids is an extreme exaggeration, id say more like a 100 yard’s. 😉

 

[brocknroller]

Thumb position is not a criterion that has attracted my attention in the past so I picked up a couple of binos and checked out where my thumbs go. I focus with the first finger of my right hand, so this determines the location of my right hand and therefore the location of the right-hand thumb which goes underneath the bino, pointing at the hinge, and depending on the size of the binos can be touching the hinge.. My left hand plays no part in focusing so is located a little further along the left-hand optical tube with the thumb underneath, pointing at the hinge, and again, depending on the size of the binos, this thumb may be touching the hinge.

So, my two thumbs don't interfere with each other or get in each other's way and that is why I have never given their position a moment's thought until now.

I have made a note that you would like to see a pic of my thumbs' positions when using SFL8x30 so will include this in the review. I have a Kowa 6,5x30 that is almost the same size as the SFL and the position of my thumbs when using it is as described above but the position of the focuser of SFL might cause me to modify my grip.

I look forward to seeing that photo. Andreas seems to be reaching slightly down to reach the focuser in his photo of the 8x30 SFL rather than straight across, but it's hard to tell since the photo was taken from the other side.

Michael Porter's photo shows this more clearly. Looks awkward to me, but he wrote on his birdwatching.com review: And notice how easily the index finger reaches the focus knob. Huh? Yeah, if you've got a crooked finger!

Zeiss's Smart Focus was intended to overcome that staggering of hands one is forced to do with roofs by allowing the user to keep his hands across from each other and not have to repositon one to reach for the focuser. However, as with any personal item, one size does not fit all, so the SF may or not work depending on the size of the user's hands and fingers and which model bin he buyers. But it was innovative.

For those who prefer thumb indents like me, Bausch and Lomb came up with the innovative idea of staggering the thumb indents to match the offset grip with roofs. I never tried one but Stephen Ingraham thought it worked well.

 

[dries1]

 

[Scott98]

I've enjoyed reading many reviews on Allbinos and Scopeviews and benefitted from learning all sorts of useful stuff. They've put in a huge volume of work testing and writing about optics. But they're not authoritative, just one person's point of view. My criteria are often different.

Allbino's doesn't award any value points for the weight of the binoculars. And they rate all the focusers at 5/5 points. I would make each of those 10 points and dock many of the top models most of their focuser points. They put a huge value on the AFOV. For me, it's not that important, and I see no added value in going above the low-60's degrees AFOV. Blackouts and eye placement don't show up at all in the point total either.

And still, allbinos is the best source of information, I respect their attempt to put a qualitative value on everything. Scope views is more arbitrary and suffers a little more from brand loyalty/favoritism IMO. I'm really happy these guys do what they do though...valuable sources of info for prospective buyers!!

These 8x30 SFL's are tiny, that is obviously the #1 attraction there. Of course they will lose out in some ways to heavier and larger models, that's not a surprise. The NL Pure 8x32 is 22.8 ounces, the 8x30 is 16? That's 40% heavier weight on your neck.

 

[brocknroller]

Unfortunately Allbinos doesn't seem to care much about glare or flare.

They rate something they call "internal reflections" but it doesn't
seem to reflect the glare and flare suppression in real world use.

EL SV 10x42 - 2.8
NL 10x42 - 3.8

The NL scores 36% better in "internal reflections" than the ELSV, seems a bit random to me.

They are astronomers so they pay more attention to "ghosting" at night from streetlamps. True, there seems to be more going on with flare than what you can see in the internal reflections photos. However, Allbinos' "internal reflections" photo of the light leak around the exit pupils of 8x32 EL does correlate with the high amount of veiling glare I and others see in that model. What's more puzzling is why not everybody sees it. It's so "glaringly" obvious. Same with the 8x30 M7.

Conversely, with the Nikon EDG, the dark area around the exit pupils show how the EDG is very good at controlling flare (top photo).

It goes to show how much one's perceptions weigh in evaulating binculars in various criteria even when you have the photographic evidence to show the cause behind your rating.

Broc

 

[dries1]

Ahhhh what a great view.

 

[lmans66]

Albinos to me is just a clearinghouse of numbers. Quantitative data and not representing the qualitative data many of us rave/speak to…

This includes ergonomics…. HUGE…. In my book. How binoculars feel to me, my hands, face… to the eyes etc… are of great value.

Otherwise… all of us have our rated categories, and Albinos only hits a few data ones. I don’t put value in their narrative.

 

[Vespobuteo]

They are astronomers so they pay more attention to "ghosting" at night from streetlamps.

Ghosting probably yes, coatings might be an issue there as well,
but glare/flare may have other causes as well.

I find it odd that the EDG 8x42 only get a 3 for example,
if it is supposed to reflect glare performance,
for ghosting at night, it might be accurate, from the description.

Nikon 8x42 EDG - 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

Similar with the FL:s and some HT:s that get low(er) points, but are pretty glare resistant, and better than Swarovski, that get higher points.

The category "Internal reflections" might say something about the binocular,
but probably not so much about glare resistance.

 

[stevenberk]

That is why I have the NL 8x32 and NL 10x42. The NL 10x42 do pretty well in low light, and the NL 8x32 are my daylight binoculars.

A year ago: I tried the NL 8x42 and personally had quite a bit of glare in the bottom of the FOV, so I gave up on it. I tried all the new 32 mm alpha's including the SF 8x32, SF 10x32, NL 8x32 and the NL 10x32, and they are all superb. They are all overall some of the best binoculars for birding I have ever used. Of the four, though, I preferred the NL 10x32. I like it slightly better than the SF 8x32 or 10x32 because it is a little brighter, is more transparent and has better contrast and had the least glare of the four for me. I prefer it over the NL 8x32 over because it has a larger AFOV and a little less glare. I find the NL 10x32 one of the most perfect binoculars I have ever used, but as always try the four alpha 32 mm's to see which one works best for you and your eyes and eye sockets, but that was my feelings on them. I understand liking 10x42 over 10x32. But 8x32 vs 10x32 is still unresolved.

 

[brocknroller]

Ghosting probably yes, coatings might be an issue there as well,
but glare/flare may have other causes as well.

I find it odd that the EDG 8x42 only get a 3 for example,
if it is supposed to reflect glare performance,
for ghosting at night, it might be accurate, from the description.

Nikon 8x42 EDG - 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

Similar with the FL:s and some HT:s that get low(er) points, but are pretty glare resistant, and better than Swarovski, that get higher points.

The category "Internal reflections" might say something about the binocular,
but probably not so much about glare resistance.

Yes, they down rated the EDG for ghosting, which you are not going to see unless you use them at night, but didn't praise them for their excellent flare control. But again, being stargazers, they have different prioritiees than birders.

Brock

 

[james holdsworth]

Ghosting probably yes, coatings might be an issue there as well,
but glare/flare may have other causes as well.

I find it odd that the EDG 8x42 only get a 3 for example,
if it is supposed to reflect glare performance,
for ghosting at night, it might be accurate, from the description.

Nikon 8x42 EDG - 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

Similar with the FL:s and some HT:s that get low(er) points, but are pretty glare resistant, and better than Swarovski, that get higher points.

The category "Internal reflections" might say something about the binocular,
but probably not so much about glare resistance.

They deduct points from FL and HT for visible false pupils… Which in no way affect the view, but they’ve always done that.

 

[lmans66]

The HT was rated ‘down’ for the most stupid reasons… why one strong point about the HT , such as viewing birds in trees against harsh light was subjective and never included. Albinos is worthless. If I want facts only but rarely do I need what they deem important

 

[mbb]

From scarce to intermittent - such is the findings on used FL 8x32. I have been tempted as well. I have such good memories from it that it is hard to accept it no longer works for me.

I will contact the guy who bought my FL8x32 and see if he is interested in looking through the SFL 30/40 when the 30 arrives. Good opportunity to compare for me. He also bought my Meostar B1.1 so it would be a nice reunion. 😁

Hi Henrun,

Thanks a lot for the review you have shared!

If you have (had) the opportunity to do such a direct comparison of the SFL 8x30 with some of those other compact 8x32 binoculars, especially the FL and the Ultravid, I would be very interested in reading your findings!
(Or maybe I’ve missed them in further pages? This thread is getting very long with a lot of recent posts not about these binoculars anymore :-/ )

I have the UV and the FL 8x32, the format I use most (compact 8x32), except for occasions when I prefer my FL 7x42 (low light, woods, more dedicated walks), I do like those 8x32 and have no issue at all with their limited eye relief (I don’t wear glasses). Great optics, design, format, and built. But I am wondering if the SFL couldn’t be “the one” to replace them both.
While I just love my FL 7x42, I have the impression that, purely optically, the FL 8x32 and the UV 8x32 are on the two sides of what I would consider “ideal” and I always remain puzzled:
The built of the SFL might not be as amazing as the FL or UV (?), but if they combine better brightness and neutral/white image, with a FOV similar to the FL, but with more “snap” than the FL (which the UV has tons of) and a contrast in between FL and UV… Am I hoping for too much?

 

[lmans66]

Hi Henrun,

Thanks a lot for the review you have shared!

If you have (had) the opportunity to do such a direct comparison of the SFL 8x30 with some of those other compact 8x32 binoculars, especially the FL and the Ultravid, I would be very interested in reading your findings!
(Or maybe I’ve missed them in further pages? This thread is getting very long with a lot of recent posts not about these binoculars anymore :-/ )

I have the UV and the FL 8x32, the format I use most (compact 8x32), except for occasions when I prefer my FL 7x42 (low light, woods, more dedicated walks), I do like those 8x32 and have no issue at all with their limited eye relief (I don’t wear glasses). Great optics, design, format, and built. But I am wondering if the SFL couldn’t be “the one” to replace them both.
While I just love my FL 7x42, I have the impression that, purely optically, the FL 8x32 and the UV 8x32 are on the two sides of what I would consider “ideal” and I always remain puzzled:
The built of the SFL might not be as amazing as the FL or UV (?), but if they combine better brightness and neutral/white image, with a FOV similar to the FL, but with more “snap” than the FL (which the UV has tons of) and a contrast in between FL and UV… Am I hoping for too much?

I mite agree… but until I try them out ergonomically… than it is still a question mark in my mind…jim