Sheepwatcher
Member
I realize I'm asking a somewhat unreasonable question. A revised version might be "Is the SF sufficiently better optically to justify the larger size over the FL and UVHD?"
-
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.
8x32 advice? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sheepwatcher
- Start date
WJC
Well-known member
Tell me about it. I have been angering people for half a century and will gladly continue to do so. There are several on this forum who know which end is up. However, they are comfortable allowing ME to be the target! The truth is not always popular. It is, however, always the truth.
"The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it's the ILLUSION of knowledge." — Dr. Stephen Hawking
It would be interesting to hear more about this, if you would.
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello Sheepwatcher,
I own both the 8x32 FL and SF. I think that the SF is sufficiently better optically to justify the larger size because the SF's ergonomics are good. Again, try before buying.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur
Sheepwatcher
Member
I had owned a pair of Zeiss Victory FL 10x42 since shortly after they were released in 2004 (purchased at a local retailer in Massachusetts, USA). A couple of years ago I started to notice a cloudy film forming on the inside of the right objective. I meant to return it for warranty service to Zeiss, but there never seemed a convenient moment to do so, since I use my binoculars for work and didn't have a decent backup pair at the time. They were compromised but still usable. Around the end of 2023, something happened to the alignment of the binoculars such that I saw a double image through them, rendering them useless. I sent them in to Zeiss who determined initially that they had suffered an impact and denied the warranty claim. They offered to perform an $1100 repair or sell me 10x40 SFL or 10x42 SF at a moderate discount. I was not aware of any significant trauma that the binoculars had undergone, so I felt that Zeiss's determination was unfair. The original retailer I purchased them from put me in touch with a very helpful fellow in the Zeiss corporate structure, and I made an appeal to him. A few days later, I received an email informing me that the FLs were unrepairable, but they would replace them with the 10x40 SFLs at no cost. At this point, I felt that it was probably the best deal I would get and accepted the offer.
tenex
reality-based
How much will a somewhat larger field of view, or greater sharpness near the edge, matter to you, versus the size? Again a matter of personal use and judgment.
Exactly.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
Is this true? I've owned UVHD and FL side-by-side. The UVHD (which I do believe has greaseless focus mechanism) was smooth but definitely 'different', with a little bit of initial stiction. Smooth but not like buttah... which the Zeiss are. The FL's I'm looking at as-we-speak, are silky smooth and lacking any slop or play, and much like the SFL's I own. TOTALLY different sensation than the UVHDs!
Maybe I'm missing something....
@MiddleRiver I've owned UV-UVHD in 8x20, 8x32 (HD and regular), 7x42, 10x50, and the FL in 8x32 (twice), 7x42 (three times), 10x42 and 8x56. That is to say that I'm familiar with each brand's take on focus wheels. Yes, both the UV and FL are smooth, and if the unit in question has no issue, they work flawlessly, no play as you say, as expected from their price points and status as top tier binoculars. However, if you ask me, I personally (personal opinion here) would never choose Leica as my favourite focus wheel experience (I love their colours, contrast and build quality), but that's just me. Again, the FL focus wheel gives a smooth "mechanic and precise" experience that is really good, which I usually prefer to the UV, but which is not my favourite either. If I had to choose, probably the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 would be close to my perfect "feel", really butter soft and fast (in 8x, probably for 10x it's just too much), a bit like the old Nikon HG. They work so well and so effortless, that it sort of reminds me of that movie of the 80s, where Clint Eastwood had to steal the latest fighter plane from the USSR arsenal, but in order to do so he had to think in Russian, because the airplane was so advanced that it was piloted with the brain... Well, maybe a bit far off, but my feeling when using such a soft focus mechanism is that I forget about focusing, like if I was focusing with my mind, so to speak.
I'm not sure if the Conquest HD is greased opposed to FL being "dry", but I find the Conquest HD softer and more pleasant to use for birding. Although I've tried the SF and SFL, it has only been in store, so I don't have an opinion on those. Oddly enough, I remember the feel of the focus wheel resistance of the 7x35 "Retrovid" to be stunning: soft and precise, but the throw was just too long and the wheel itself was too narrow, and being metallic was not the most comfortable to me. For example, the Nikon E2 and SE have similarly "old-style" narrow focus wheels, but being rubber and a little thicker they feel better in my hands (or fingers, to be precise).
So, nothing wrong with the focus wheel on FL, not at all, just a personal preference when talking about our dream focus wheel. If we talk about brands, I've always had great experiences with the whole Nikon range, from the HG to M7, M5, E2, SE, even the cheapest Porro models. I don't know how they do it, but they get it right over an over again regardless of the price point. Somehow it feels like Nikon engineers are thinking of me when designing focus mechanisms!
I'm not sure if the Conquest HD is greased opposed to FL being "dry", but I find the Conquest HD softer and more pleasant to use for birding. Although I've tried the SF and SFL, it has only been in store, so I don't have an opinion on those. Oddly enough, I remember the feel of the focus wheel resistance of the 7x35 "Retrovid" to be stunning: soft and precise, but the throw was just too long and the wheel itself was too narrow, and being metallic was not the most comfortable to me. For example, the Nikon E2 and SE have similarly "old-style" narrow focus wheels, but being rubber and a little thicker they feel better in my hands (or fingers, to be precise).
So, nothing wrong with the focus wheel on FL, not at all, just a personal preference when talking about our dream focus wheel. If we talk about brands, I've always had great experiences with the whole Nikon range, from the HG to M7, M5, E2, SE, even the cheapest Porro models. I don't know how they do it, but they get it right over an over again regardless of the price point. Somehow it feels like Nikon engineers are thinking of me when designing focus mechanisms!
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I won't bore you with my list of Leica/Zeiss but yes, I've owned a few <quietly sobbing> My point was simply to clarify that the UV and FL do not have same type of 'mechanical' focus mechanism. The UV series, is very unique in the 'dry' grease-less design AFAIK. So this: "...maybe due to the mechanical nature of both focus wheels, which makes for a "dry" feeling, not as soft as greased wheel.." could be misleading ;-) If someone who has better knowledge of Zeiss focusers steps in to correct, me, I humbly apologize in advance! None of this is to say you don't have your favorites and as we all know it's very personal. Somewhere someone commented that the super fast FL focusing was 'hard to use' and led to overshooting of sweet spot... what!!?? Even though I'm possibly going to be selling my 8x32FL's, they are - for me - the best focuser of anything I've used!@MiddleRiver I've owned UV-UVHD in 8x20, 8x32 (HD and regular), 7x42, 10x50, and the FL in 8x32 (twice), 7x42 (three times), 10x42 and 8x56. That is to say that I'm familiar with each brand's take on focus wheels. Yes, both the UV and FL are smooth, and if the unit in question has no issue, they work flawlessly, no play as you say, as expected from their price points and status as top tier binoculars. However, if you ask me, I personally (personal opinion here) would never choose Leica as my favourite focus wheel experience (I love their colours, contrast and build quality), but that's just me. Again, the FL focus wheel gives a smooth "mechanic and precise" experience that is really good, which I usually prefer to the UV, but which is not my favourite either. If I had to choose, probably the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 would be close to my perfect "feel", really butter soft and fast (in 8x, probably for 10x it's just too much), a bit like the old Nikon HG. They work so well and so effortless, that it sort of reminds me of that movie of the 80s, where Clint Eastwood had to steal the latest fighter plane from the USSR arsenal, but in order to do so he had to think in Russian, because the airplane was so advanced that it was piloted with the brain... Well, maybe a bit far off, but my feeling when using such a soft focus mechanism is that I forget about focusing, like if I was focusing with my mind, so to speak.
I'm not sure if the Conquest HD is greased opposed to FL being "dry", but I find the Conquest HD softer and more pleasant to use for birding. Although I've tried the SF and SFL, it has only been in store, so I don't have an opinion on those. Oddly enough, I remember the feel of the focus wheel resistance of the 7x35 "Retrovid" to be stunning: soft and precise, but the throw was just too long and the wheel itself was too narrow, and being metallic was not the most comfortable to me. For example, the Nikon E2 and SE have similarly "old-style" narrow focus wheels, but being rubber and a little thicker they feel better in my hands (or fingers, to be precise).
So, nothing wrong with the focus wheel on FL, not at all, just a personal preference when talking about our dream focus wheel. If we talk about brands, I've always had great experiences with the whole Nikon range, from the HG to M7, M5, E2, SE, even the cheapest Porro models. I don't know how they do it, but they get it right over an over again regardless of the price point. Somehow it feels like Nikon engineers are thinking of me when designing focus mechanisms!
I have read several people commenting that they sent their FL's back to Zeiss to resolve too-stiff focusers and in fact that's what PO did with mine - and I can report that it's silky smooth and nearly identical to the four SFL's I've owned (still own 3).
Yes the Retros feel like quality old-school greased helical focusers. I've made peace with the long throw and I do LOVE the diopter near my pinky. One thing I like about 'lesser bins' (like SFL's) is the diopter on eyepiece. I always feel like pulling the knob out (FL's, UVHD/NV's) throws focus off in the reference eye.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I was wrong: The focuser question was bugging me so I googled it :-] Roger vine does say in his review "it's typical of modern greaseless focusers..." Assuming this is true, they managed quite a feat imho! It feels nothing like UVHD's to me. Maybe it's just a question of adjustment...?
Reading things like this makes me think you gents must have the touch of safe-crackers, or grand pianists ...
Sorry if sounded like showing off, no intention whatsoever, only a bit of background to illustrate that my opinion/preference was not based on a single experience with a single unit in god-knows-what shape. I've found a common trait which makes me say that focus wheel on the UV is not my favourite
I'm sure you can relate to this, for example with cars. Of all the cars you've driven, I'm sure you prefer the shifting of brand X, the upholstery of brand Y and the suspension of brand Z, well, it's about the same.Of course we are talking about amazing devices in any case, so this is obviously a splitting-hair exercise of Olympic category
I would also favor the 8x32 SF for the ultra-smooth focuser over the UVHD and older FL's. I chose the 8x42 SF's for that reason. The body is longer, but not heavier. Sometimes I like to use my 42mm EDG instead, for the compact form during long sessions on a neck strap. However the SF's also have this very cool ergonomic balance that makes holding them extra-comfortable. And the 8x32's are smaller than the 42's.
I loved testing the 8x32 SF and I would probably take them if I wanted a 32. They have less false color & distortion at the edge of field versus the 8x42 SF. I don't like the position or stiff action of the focus knob on the 8x32 EL's either. I do experience trouble because the 8x42 SF eyecups are too short in the full extended position, not sure if that's an issue with the 32's. The focuser and the extra-sharp optics of the SF would put them ahead of the FL's or UVHD for me.
I might also consider the 8x40 SFL, it looks like you already have the 10x so you know how those work. I would definitely get your SE's serviced by Suddarth, he can probably restore the optics to new or near-new condition.
I loved testing the 8x32 SF and I would probably take them if I wanted a 32. They have less false color & distortion at the edge of field versus the 8x42 SF. I don't like the position or stiff action of the focus knob on the 8x32 EL's either. I do experience trouble because the 8x42 SF eyecups are too short in the full extended position, not sure if that's an issue with the 32's. The focuser and the extra-sharp optics of the SF would put them ahead of the FL's or UVHD for me.
I might also consider the 8x40 SFL, it looks like you already have the 10x so you know how those work. I would definitely get your SE's serviced by Suddarth, he can probably restore the optics to new or near-new condition.
coolhand68
Well-known member
If you like everything about the view through your Nikon SE, I'd recommend going with Leica. I've owned the Zeiss, Leica and Nikon and the Leica shares that color saturation and easy viewing experience of the Nikon.
