Zeiss SFL 8x30? (1 Viewer)

[hjvandijk]

Lately tried the SFL 8x30 in search for a lighter bin (coming from 21 years Leica 8x40 BN).

I was a little disappointed with te SFL.

Wasn't any better then what I had. Tried de SF 8x30 and that was the real deal! Yes is it euro 600 more but you make a choice for the next 20 years.

The SFL 10x40 was somehow very comfy, but that was not what I was looking for.

So I went for the SF in stead of the SFL. The difference was a no brainer, simply too big to ignore.

Major minus of the SF or maybe 30's in general is it's more difficult to use (eye-relief). Takes a couple of weeks, but I get used to it.

Luckely for me the SFL30's came out before the march 1 price hike, so no costs involved waiting to check the smaller SFL's out which I did.

So that's my take on the SFL'S: the are good but the difference with the top is real.

 

[stevenberk]

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.

In case this was confusing, I was citing another's thread. I still do not know why the admirable 8x32 is now chosen over the admirable10x32, which was chosen back then, except for the wider FOV.

 

[Swissboy]

So optically you were happy comparing to the FL and SF?

Definitely, can't say it's improved, but equal is good enough for my old eyes. It's the weight reduction that counts. And not having that irritating red coating of my late-generation FL.
And as an additional bonus I get that much improved close-focus that may not be needed for birding, but for looking at flowers and insects.

 

[james holdsworth]

All in, the SFLs are running near $3000 CAD….too much for a 2nd tier binocular, even though I find the concept intriguing.

 

[Ratal]

All in, the SFLs are running near $3000 CAD….too much for a 2nd tier binocular, even though I find the concept intriguing.

Agreed. The Victory Pocket 8x25 cost me 500 UK sterling.

 

[pm42]

Agreed. The Victory Pocket 8x25 cost me 500 UK sterling.

Apple & oranges comparison between 8x25 and 8x40...
BTW, the SFL are not "2nd tier binocular", I prefer them to the SF: less FOV but I like the image and ergonomics much more. Your mileage may vary.

 

[james holdsworth]

Apple & oranges comparison between 8x25 and 8x40...
BTW, the SFL are not "2nd tier binocular", I prefer them to the SF: less FOV but I like the image and ergonomics much more. Your mileage may vary.

They lack the exotic glass and huge FOV of the SF’s, so technically 2nd tier although I have no doubt some will prefer them….after months with a flat field offering, I’d likely be in that category.

 

[Bill Atwood]

8x40SFLs are $2,800 Canadian vs $4,100 for the 8x42SFs. The so called "2nd tier" bins rival and some ways even better the performance of the "alphas." At 2/3 the price.

 

[[email protected]]

8x40SFLs are $2,800 Canadian vs $4,100 for the 8x42SFs. The so called "2nd tier" bins rival and some ways even better the performance of the "alphas." At 2/3 the price.

How? I paid $1500 for the Zeiss SFL 8x40 and $2000 for the NL 8x32, both new in the US. I had them both and compared them to see which one I should keep. I didn't find one thing outside of slightly better low light performance in the SFL because of the bigger exit pupil that the SFL had over the NL, and that doesn't matter to me because I bird mostly in the daytime. The NL was superior in every way. The main differences were the much bigger FOV that was sharp to the edge in the NL and the much better transparency in the NL. Going back and forth between the two binoculars was very enlightening. It didn't take 10 minutes to decide which one to keep. I sold the SFL 8x40 the next day. It did sell fast. For a measly $500 I have probably the best birding binocular in the world with the NL 8x32, and it is designed and made in Austria instead of being designed by Zeiss and probably made by Kamakura in Japan.

 

[Bill Atwood]

Off the top of my head: faster focus, smoother focus than Swaro NLs, less glare than Swaro NLs, more contrast, equal resolution, no false color that dogs the SFs, good FOV (better than Noctovid.)

That's how. And for $1,000 less.

Oh, and 25% less weight.

2nd tier indeed.

 

[Ratal]

Apple & oranges comparison between 8x25 and 8x40...
BTW, the SFL are not "2nd tier binocular", I prefer them to the SF: less FOV but I like the image and ergonomics much more. Your mileage may vary.

My bad. 8x30 SFL thread had me confused.

 

[[email protected]]

Off the top of my head: faster focus, smoother focus than Swaro NLs, less glare than Swaro NLs, more contrast, equal resolution, no false color that dogs the SFs, good FOV (better than Noctovid.)

That's how. And for $1,000 less.

Oh, and 25% less weight.

2nd tier indeed.

No, we are comparing the NL 8x32 to the SFL 8x40. The weight is the same. The NL focuser is as smooth as the SFL because I compared both. The NL has better contrast than the SFL. There is no false color in either the NL or the SFL. Glare is about equal in the NL, at least the 8x32 NL. Also, the NL has much better build quality than the SFL. The SFL is a good binocular, but it is 2nd tier and it is not an alpha. The alphas are the SF, NL and Noctivid. Alphas are the best binoculars in a manufacturer's line and usually most expensive. Alpha means 1st or number one. The SFL is about equal to the SLC, with the same softer edges. The BIG difference between the SFL and the NL is the FOV and transparency. The NL has a much, much bigger FOV that is sharp to the edge, and it is much, much more transparent. The SFL was intended to be a nice lightweight alternative to a lot of the 8x42 binoculars out there and by reducing the aperture by 2 mm Zeiss was able to make it a lot lighter and smaller. It was never intended to compete with the alphas, like the SF or NL. The SF and NL have much more complex eyepieces to get the huge FOV that they have, hence they are longer, bigger and heavier, but they deliver the ultimate image at a higher price point. If you value a smaller size and weight and an 8 degree FOV is big enough, and you don't mind not having very best optics the SFL is a good choice, and it is considerably less expensive. No doubt it is a nice binocular for $1500, and I am sure the SFL 8x30 will be very competitive as well. It will be interesting to see how it stacks up against Nikon HG 8x30. The Nikon HG is a pretty good binocular and it is $500 less expensive.

 

[Paultricounty]

Off the top of my head: faster focus, smoother focus than Swaro NLs, less glare than Swaro NLs, more contrast, equal resolution, no false color that dogs the SFs, good FOV (better than Noctovid.)

That's how. And for $1,000 less.

Oh, and 25% less weight.

2nd tier indeed.

I also tested the 8 x 40 SFL with my 8 x 32SF, and within five minutes I could tell which one was optically better, sharper with more resolution on objects and just more overall pop in the image. A fast focuser has nothing to do with better, that’s just a preference. The focuser on the SFL I had , was not as good as any of the SF‘s I tried, similar, but not smoother. I didn’t really notice any glare in either one of them on a beautiful sunny day at noon in Manhattan. SFL and Noctivid shouldn’t be in the same sentence.

They are nice , no doubt about it, and they are kind of in their own league optically but these are 2nd tier and not on the level as NL, SF , EL or Noctivids. Gotta call a spade a spade.

 

[pm42]

They are nice , no doubt about it, and they are kind of in their own league optically but these are 2nd tier and not on the level as NL, SF , EL or Noctivids. Gotta call a spade a spade.

My opinion is different maybe because I own most of them instead of testing for 5 minutes.

 

[Paultricounty]

My opinion is different maybe because I own most of them instead of testing for 5 minutes.

I own almost everyone that I mentioned and I didn’t need more than five minutes to tell me what tier they are In. There might be other reasons why your opinion is different.

 

[Bill Atwood]

No, we are comparing the NL 8x32 to the SFL 8x40. The weight is the same. The NL focuser is as smooth as the SFL because I compared both. The NL has better contrast than the SFL. There is no false color in either the NL or the SFL. Glare is about equal in the NL, at least the 8x32 and SFL. Also, the NL has much better build quality than the SFL. The SFL is a good binocular, but it is 2nd tier and it is not an alpha. The alphas are the SF, NL and Noctivid. Alphas are the best binoculars in a manufacturer's line and usually most expensive. The SFL is about equal to the SLC, with the same soft edges. The BIG difference between the SFL and the NL is the FOV and transparency. The NL has a much, much bigger FOV that is sharp to the edge, and it is much, much more transparent.

Lol, NO. YOU may be comparing 40s and 32s, I was discussing the SFLs so-called 2nd tier status vs the alphas.

And other than FOV the rest of this post is laughable.

 

[[email protected]]

Lol, NO. YOU may be comparing 40s and 32s, I was discussing the SFLs so-called 2nd tier status vs the alphas.

And other than FOV the rest of this post is laughable.

Lol, NO. YOU may be comparing 40s and 32s, I was discussing the SFLs so-called 2nd tier status vs the alphas.

And other than FOV the rest of this post is laughable.

But true. The SFL was never intended to compete with the SF or NL. That is why it 1/2 the price. It doesn't have the glass, build quality or complex eyepieces of the alphas. It is a nice lightweight, compact 2nd tier binocular. Zeiss wouldn't cannibalize sales of their SF by making the SFL optically equal to the SF for 1/2 the price. I don't think they are that dumb.

 

[Paultricounty]

Lol, NO. YOU may be comparing 40s and 32s, I was discussing the SFLs so-called 2nd tier status vs the alphas.

And other than FOV the rest of this post is laughable.

What did he say that was laughable? My conclusions concur with most everything that he said.

 

[Bill Atwood]

I also tested the 8 x 40 SFL with my 8 x 32SF, and within five minutes I could tell which one was optically better, sharper with more resolution on objects and just more overall pop in the image. A fast focuser has nothing to do with better, that’s just a preference. The focuser on the SFL I had , was not as good as any of the SF‘s I tried, similar, but not smoother. I didn’t really notice any glare in either one of them on a beautiful sunny day at noon in Manhattan. SFL and Noctivid shouldn’t be in the same sentence.

They are nice , no doubt about it, and they are kind of in their own league optically but these are 2nd tier and not on the level as NL, SF , EL or Noctivids. Gotta call a spade a spade.

Nothing in this post puts the SFLs in a 2nd tier.

 

[Bill Atwood]

But true. The SFL was never intended to compete with the SF or NL. That is why it 1/2 the price. It doesn't have the glass, build quality or complex eyepieces of the alphas. It is a nice lightweight, compact 2nd tier binocular. Zeiss wouldn't cannibalize sales of their SF by making the SFL optically equal to the SF for 1/2 the price. I don't think they are that dumb.

Regardless of what was intended (of which you know absolutely zero) it performs in the same league, some attributes are better, some are worse, than those of individual alphas.