SFL 50mm Second Look - does first impressions really last? (13 Viewers)

[Dennis Mau]

EDITED:

I have written some about it if you care to read through it again. Most perhaps in the previous thread.
Maybe I wrote a little too much about CA and you got hung up on it?
It has however been the one thing I can single out as the dealbreaker for me.

Summary for you Dennis:

Build quality and ergonomics: excellent. Best balance/weight distribution in class.

Eye box comfort is top notch for me. Best of the SFL line ups. I rank 50>40>30.

Focuser action coupled with the snap to focus is among the best I have seen.

Snap to focus indicates very high central sharpness with excellent contrast, together with clarity of color.

Color purity is same as the SFL8x40 which I consider as neutral as you can get.

Brightness is phenomenal.

"Clarity" which to me is the sum of the total of Sharpness, Contrast, Brightness and Color neutral-ness over the entire image is also excellent.

Glare control is similarly excellent to the previous SFL.

Things I could not judge:
Coma/astigmatism.
Sharpness fall off or edge sharpness.
Both probably not a nuisance as there was nothing at the time that poked me in the eyes so to speak.

Things I did not like (just to hammer it in)

Distortion is fairly high. Especially noticeable at close to midrange if looking at a uniform structure.
Not really noticeable in general viewing and it probably helps with panning.

But when I look through an Ultravid and the EL the differences start to show themselves without any of them being overbearing except for some freak circumstances: the SFL 10x50 looked the worst looking at a sun lit white grid pattern, with excess CA and the ugliest distortion pattern. EDIT: the only bino I have seen that looked worse on that particular grid pattern was some Nikon mid range unit that had flashing yellow CA and weird distortion profile.

The EL handled CA and distortion much better despite being 12X and the Ultravid somewhere in between the two. But the above example is an extreme scenario and not really representative of what you expect to see in the field.

CA - too much in some cases. But for the tenth time, the dealbreker for me. YMMV

As you can see I have mostly VERY high praise for the SFL50 line up.
I was probably as excited as you are about the 8x50 (in my case the 10x50) but at second glance I found out the new line up will not be a viable replacement for anything I currently have.

On the contrary it made me appreciate some other binoculars that I haven't looked through in a while.

I look forward to hearing your take on the SFL 8x50. You will probably like it a lot, but if it is a keeper? We'll see!

If CA is something that really bothers you, that is fine if you don't like the SFL because it is only average for controlling CA. Everybody has to prioritize what they like and don't like in a binocular, and then choose the binocular that checks the most boxes based on their preferences. I hate glare and green and yellow tint, so I like the SFL because it is superb at controlling glare and its colors are pure and untainted by off colors. I sold my FL 7x42 because of the strong green color cast, and I sold my Meostar because of the yellow color cast.

When I look at a bird, I want to know what they really look like in reality, not tainted by some green or yellow off color. I find the distortion levels and edge sharpness of the SFL quite acceptable, and they are for example better than the Zeiss Conquest CDX. If you don't like CA, try a Zeiss 8x32 SF or 10x32 SF, but then you will have a green tint and more glare than the SFL. I find the SFL 8x30 the best smaller binocular I have ever used, and I think it is probably the best 8x30 on the market.

Brief Review of Zeiss SFL 8x30 (in comparison with CHD and ELSV 8x32)

so... it's Zeiss product again, every time I wrote something about this particular renowned brand, I received so much attention both positive or not. It is much more then Other brands even compared to other renowned companies such as Leica and Swarovski... hope I managed to get through it...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Dennis Mau]

Don't let my findings hold you back.
It might be the ONE for you. Just be critical before you part with your funds.

You can always return them. Sometimes you don't know if a binocular is for you until you try it.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Excellent executive summary. Even the dumbest (CEO) must get it now. Sterling work - thank you once again for perseverance, effort and entertainment. I will check the 10s out, but quite possibly stick to my original plan of getting the 40s.

The SFL 10x50 will always outperform the SFL 10x40. The question is if the weight and size difference are worth the performance difference.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I agree with that post, except the glare part. My SF10x42 is essentially free of any glare, also in hard conditions. My SF10x32 handles glare very well, only when looking almost directly into the sun right before sundown, I can see a little bit. But thats a safety feature 😎

So you don't get an orange crescent ring in the lower right of the FOV with the SF 10x42, which is caused by distinct reflections visible beyond the eyepiece's diaphragm, as described in Allbinos? I did, and it was a deal killer on both the SF 10x42 and SF 8x42. I simply couldn't tolerate it and returned them both.

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 - 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

 

[HenRun]

If CA is something that really bothers you, that is fine if you don't like the SFL because it is only average for controlling CA. Everybody has to prioritize what they like and don't like in a binocular, and then choose the binocular that checks the most boxes based on their preferences. I hate glare and green and yellow tint, so I like the SFL because it is superb at controlling glare and its colors are pure and untainted by off colors. I sold my FL 7x42 because of the strong green color cast, and I sold my Meostar because of the yellow color cast.

When I look at a bird, I want to know what they really look like in reality, not tainted by some green or yellow off color. I find the distortion levels and edge sharpness of the SFL quite acceptable, and they are for example better than the Zeiss Conquest CDX. If you don't like CA, try a Zeiss 8x32 SF or 10x32 SF, but then you will have a green tint and more glare than the SFL. I find the SFL 8x30 the best smaller binocular I have ever used, and I think it is probably the best 8x30 on the market.

Brief Review of Zeiss SFL 8x30 (in comparison with CHD and ELSV 8x32)

so... it's Zeiss product again, every time I wrote something about this particular renowned brand, I received so much attention both positive or not. It is much more then Other brands even compared to other renowned companies such as Leica and Swarovski... hope I managed to get through it...

www.birdforum.net

Dennis; I do own the SFL8x40 myself - and I chose it for the same reasons as you did.

You don't have to write on my nose about how I should choose a binocular, thank you.

I feel you are overly sensitive when it comes to my findings on the SFL50 line up.
Is it because you ordered one unseen and do not like having your projections muddled by someone elses findings?
People who have actually seen them in the flesh?

Your posting about CA measurements made by others _and not on any of the new binoculars I have been looking through _ really has no bearing.

You know what, I agree with those findings and do not question the measurements but they do not directly relate to the new binoculars - do they?

Also being dismissive about CA level findings and being a bit defensive of the SFL50's seem a bit strange to me.

Unless you provide relevant postings from actual measurements on the new models I will simply dismiss the links you provided as non-relevant.

Very few people here seems to have seen through the new binoculars, you included.
But I have. Two occasions. Different samples.

First occasion, with the Zeiss representative, who told me their target audience, design criteria and how they fit in their line up.
When I told him about CA in the new SFL50 line up he was the one who brought up that fluoride lenses were reserved for the SF in order to not have the SFL eat into the sales of the top of the line and that they omitted them in the SFL50 line up, when they clearly would have benefitted from them.

And again, I brought my own SFL8x40 as a good reference point and to which I find the SFL50 simply are not on the same level in regards to CA handling. Moreover I find that the new line up is about the same or inferior to a lot of the competition in or around the same price bracket.

Even if the new SFL50's hold their ground in other aspects, as mentioned, they are not the top performers I hoped they would be.

After Ignatius posting and some quick thinking it all makes sense: SFL50 binoculars are Zeiss Second tier, not Top tier.
This is also confirmed by the Zeiss representative as having them slotted between the Top Tier and the others, like Conquest HDX and HD.

So lets view them for what they are: Second Tier Zeiss binoculars that are very impressive in some aspects and less impressive in others.
At this price point I am personally underwhelmed.

After you have received your SFL8x50 I would happily let you disagree with me on how it performs.
EDIT: seeing is believing.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Dennis; I do own the SFL8x40 myself - and I chose it for the same reasons as you did.

You don't have to write on my nose about how I should choose a binocular, thank you.

I feel you are overly sensitive when it comes to my findings on the SFL50 line up.
Is it because you ordered one unseen and do not like having your projections muddled by someone elses findings?
People who have actually seen them in the flesh?

Your posting about CA measurements made by others _and not on any of the new binoculars I have been looking through _ really has no bearing.

You know what, I agree with those findings and do not question the measurements but they do not directly relate to the new binoculars - do they?

Also being dismissive about CA level findings and being a bit defensive of the SFL50's seem a bit strange to me.

Unless you provide relevant postings from actual measurements on the new models I will simply dismiss the links you provided as non-relevant.

Very few people here seems to have seen through the new binoculars, you included.
But I have. Two occasions. Different samples.

First occasion, with the Zeiss representative, who told me their target audience, design criteria and how they fit in their line up.
When I told him about CA in the new SFL50 line up he was the one who brought up that fluoride lenses were reserved for the SF in order to not have the SFL eat into the sales of the top of the line and that they omitted them in the SFL50 line up, when they clearly would have benefitted from them.

And again, I brought my own SFL8x40 as a good reference point and to which I find the SFL50 simply are not on the same level in regards to CA handling. Moreover I find that the new line up is about the same or inferior to a lot of the competition in or around the same price bracket.

Even if the new SFL50's hold their ground in other aspects, as mentioned, they are not the top performers I hoped they would be.

After Ignatius posting and some quick thinking it all makes sense: SFL50 binoculars are Zeiss Second tier, not Top tier.
This is also confirmed by the Zeiss representative as having them slotted between the Top Tier and the others, like Conquest HDX and HD.

So lets view them for what they are: Second Tier Zeiss binoculars that are very impressive in some aspects and less impressive in others.
At this price point I am personally underwhelmed.

After you have received your SFL8x50 I would happily let you disagree with me on how it performs.
EDIT: seeing is believing.

It will be interesting to see if my SFL 8x30 has more or less CA than the SFL 8x50. I think Zeiss could possibly have omitted fluorite lenses on the SFL to keep the weight down also because fluorite lenses are generally heavier, but I am sure cannibalization of SF sales also was part of the reason Zeiss didn't use fluorite lenses in the SFL. Other people's opinions do have a bearing on the SFL 8x50 you have been looking through because everybody sees CA differently. I am not saying I don't trust your appraisal of CA in the SFL, but I do know that judging CA levels in a binocular can vary from user to user because it is so subjective.

That is why I presented Henry's objective test of LCA in the SFL, which disagreed with your totally subjective opinion. So I highly question your result until I can see for myself how the SFL performs. Sometimes it takes more experience with a lot of binoculars to properly judge CA, so I never totally trust one person's opinion. CA is very hard to test subjectively. Have you tried any star testing on the SFL because usually it is a much more accurate than a simple subjective test with your own eyesight? Here is a rundown of how to star test a binocular. Compare the SFL with your other binoculars. I will do this when I get the SFL 8x50.

"To star test a binocular for Chromatic Aberration (CA), point the binoculars at a bright, well-defined star, and focus sharply. Look for colored fringing or halos around the star's image. If you see purple or green fringes, it indicates CA. A good test is to look at a bright planet like Jupiter, as a well-defined disk and minimal smearing or flare are desirable.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

1. 1. Choose a Star:
   Select a bright, easily visible star, preferably one that is not too dim and not too bright. Polaris in the Northern Hemisphere is a good choice.
2. 2. Focus Sharply:
   Focus the binoculars on the star, ensuring the image is as sharp and clear as possible.
3. 3. Observe for Fringing:
   Look closely at the star's image. If you see purple or green fringes or halos around the star, this indicates CA.
4. 4. Planet Test:
   As a more definitive test, focus on a bright planet like Jupiter. A well-defined, tiny disk with minimal smearing or flare suggests good quality.
5. 5. Consider the Magnitude of CA:
   Most binoculars exhibit some degree of CA, but it should not be severe to be a problem for astronomy. Very bright false colors around the star are a negative sign.
6. 6. Compare with Other Binoculars:
   If possible, compare the binoculars with other models side-by-side to get a sense of how much CA is typical for binoculars at that price point.

Zeiss 8x40 SFL: A Few Tests

I recently had the opportunity to do a few quick tests of a local dealer's newly arrived Zeiss 8x40 SFL. Here are the results. Distortion: I brought along my usual target of small circles to test for angular magnification distortion as well as a grid pattern I view backwards through the...

www.birdforum.net

 

[ArchStanton]

First of all, thank you taking the time and effort to post your thoughts on the Zeiss SFL 50mm binoculars. From what I've gleaned from your observations regarding the SFL lineup that you regard the 8x40's as the best for your purposes. Did you by chance compare the SFL 8x40's to the Conquest HDX 8x32's? I was able to briefly compare in person the SFL 8x40's to the CHDX 8x42's, and the view through the SFL's were noticeably better but not by much. However, the local birding shop didn't have the CHDX 8x32's in stock. I own a couple of the Meopta riflescopes and was interested in the Meopro Air, but after reading your previous thread on the Meopta Meopro Air binoculars I passed. I'm glad I did because they've closed up shop in the US. If you have an opinion on the CHDX 8x32's, I'd be interested to read it. Cheers!

 

[Dennis Mau]

Just to show how subjective testing of CA can vary from person to person, here are the Scopeviews review of the SFL 10x30 and SFL 10x40 with remarks on CA. My point is, don't totally rule out the SFL because of one person's subjective opinion because opinion can vary wildly on CA. The moon is an excellent target to test for CA, and it is very difficult to not get false color. There was no false color in either the SFL 10x30 or SFL 10x40 on the moon.

Zeiss 10x30 SFL Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

Chromatic Aberration

In keeping with the UHD tag, center field false color is well controlled and the trace that remains probably comes from the eyepieces (there’s very little focusing through). Typically for Zeiss binoculars, though, false color fringing does worsen towards the edge of the field and is noticeable when panning through silhouetted branches.

The Moon

The SFLs gave a great view of a first quarter Moon – sharp and with no false color and good contrast against a dusk sky, with the classic grouping of Theophilus, Cyrillus and Catherina on the terminator.

Zeiss 10x40 SFL Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

Chromatic Aberration

In keeping with the UHD tag, center field false color is well controlled and the trace that remains probably comes from the eyepieces (there’s none focusing through), but it worsens towards the edge of the field. Again, this is most noticeable when panning through silhouetted branches.

The Moon

A waning dawn crescent isn’t the most interesting Moon, but the SFLs gave a fabulous view of it – sharp and hard with no false color and good contrast against a brightening sky.

 

[HenRun]

I tried both the Noctivid 8x42 and the Noctivid and for me, they had considerable CA especially on the edge and the Noctivid 10x42 was worse for CA than the 8x42. The Noctivids were underwhelming for me, especially at their price point.

CA On The Noctivid

Do I need to worry about CA on the Noctivid? I think I am sensitive to this phenomenon--I've noticed it on multiple binoculars, although nothing so high-end as the Noctivids. I like the philosophy of these binoculars a lot. Classic, photographic image without distortion, high contrast, good low...

www.birdforum.net

I vaguely remember thinking at the time that the Noctivid performed slightly worse than the correspondent Ultravid in some aspects, such as CA. It was quite a few years back and I just wanted to look through them briefly for some sort of reference. It was very briefly as they did not gel with me. But I thought I had them mixed up so I had to double check which one was which.

I would argue that the same difference in CA handling as the NV/UV is what is going on in the SFL40 vs 50.
Perhaps even a bit stronger in the Zeiss when it comes to difference.

To me the SFL40 is "essentially CA free" to the point where I don't notice it in field use and it has proven itself over time to be a rugged and dependable binocular with almost no flaws. If I look through all the SFL50's and I pick up a difference to the SFL40 almost immediately and it is persisten throughout the viewing session I don't think I am imagining it. It is there.







The SFL makes for a good spotter for the spotting scope.

Caught a Raven on a fly by (heard the wings flap before I saw it) with a mouse in its mouth. It was about forty fifty meters out and was presented in pitch black against the sky with no CA and was a nice view for about five seconds before trees obscured the rest. Focusers on SFL are very good for birds in flight.

It was followed closely by a Buzzard that looked like it was hoping for the Raven to drop the prey.

I went out with the Meopta 12x50 and a monopod first, spotted a large bird landing in a row of trees half a km out and I saw a nest I had not seen before. Went back for the APO Televid and racked it out to 50X and waited for something to help me ID the bird.

I saw it rummaging around the nest but it was well embedded in the treeline and the light was at the wrong angle so basically deep in the shade. At one time it stuck the head out right at me but even at 50X I could not make out that much. Will try again tomorrow morning when the morning sun should be hitting it early.


I spent a good hour glassing with the SFL40 this late afternoon mostly looking in the direction of the evening sun and the SFL40 exhibits exemplary performance.

I did a little CA torture test on a telephone pole with metal outriggers and a few black wires going in and out. Just the slightest hint of CA near the edges and so little is was hard to spot and would be silly to complain about. It is that good.

I did the same just before that, heading back with the Meopta 12x50 and remarkably the same utility pole looked just as clean with even cleaner edges than the SFL. By the tiniest margin, but also, essentially CA free. Not even the black wires going in and out of the field stops on both sides exhibited any CA.

I feel it almost goes without saying but the APO-Televid has phenomenal CA control and exemplary performance throughout the zoom range. The view is reminiscent of Ultravid in color/contrast and while I had the UVHD12x50 they had the same "look" through the both of them, making for a very nice pairing.

 

[HenRun]

Just to show how subjective testing of CA can vary from person to person, here are the Scopeviews review of the SFL 10x30 and SFL 10x40 with remarks on CA. My point is, don't totally rule out the SFL because of one person's subjective opinion because opinion can vary wildly on CA. The moon is an excellent target to test for CA, and it is very difficult to not get false color. There was no false color in either the SFL 10x30 or SFL 10x40 on the moon.

Zeiss 10x30 SFL Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

And here we go again, how many times can you keep beating a dead horse?

We all know opinions on CA can vary.

All I know is that YOU have no clue in this instance, because you have not even looked through it. But you jump to conclusions all the same - over and over and over.

I already made my disclaimer repeatedly and I find it tiresome that you have to jump in like a Fanboi and disregard my findings and put other peoples findings here instead. They are subjective too. So, what's the point?

 

[HenRun]

First of all, thank you taking the time and effort to post your thoughts on the Zeiss SFL 50mm binoculars. From what I've gleaned from your observations regarding the SFL lineup that you regard the 8x40's as the best for your purposes. Did you by chance compare the SFL 8x40's to the Conquest HDX 8x32's? I was able to briefly compare in person the SFL 8x40's to the CHDX 8x42's, and the view through the SFL's were noticeably better but not by much. However, the local birding shop didn't have the CHDX 8x32's in stock. I own a couple of the Meopta riflescopes and was interested in the Meopro Air, but after reading your previous thread on the Meopta Meopro Air binoculars I passed. I'm glad I did because they've closed up shop in the US. If you have an opinion on the CHDX 8x32's, I'd be interested to read it. Cheers!

You are welcome, and yes I have looked through the C HDX actually, at the very same shop as I did the comparison in.
I will have to make a disclaimer and say I had a brief look at the HD, the HDX and the SFL and I don't quite remember if it was the CHDX 8x32 or 42.

I am almost sure it would have been the 32 since it would be the one I would be interested in. If I remember correctly I was looking at the SFL8x30 at the time.

I quickly found out that the SFL8x30 did not work as well for me as the SFL40 in terms of eye placement so it was a swift minute before I handed it back and said, nah, not for me.

The staff member then asked me to look at the C HDX since he knows I am picky and asked what I thought about it. I thought it was very good!

My recollection is about the same as yours, there is a difference, but it isn't huge. It was certainly good enough for me to recommend it for that price range, as a contender. I am pretty sure that it was the 8x32. Size wise it felt right inbetween the SFL8x30 and the SFL8x40. This also ruled it out since it was too similar in size and weight to the SFL8x40 and I felt the SFL was better.

Build was similar and the only complaint with the handling was that the focuser was a bit molasses like on the C HDX, on that sample.

Image quality is a very small step behind the SFL. Don't ask me about the CA though, Dennis will chew me up if I do.

 

[tenex]

...he stated that they purposely omitted that option from the criteria in order to keep a distinction between the SF and SFL line.

This was exactly my complaint. They deliberately omitted something from the design not because it would have added too much to the cost, but just to keep SFL from seeming too competitive with SF. So the result seems disappointing, the cost unjustified, and frankly, I lose interest in Zeiss products.
Thanks for sharing all your observations.

In the Ultravid range my favourites are by ranking, though I have not looked through them all: 12x50 8x32 7x42

The 10x32 is also very special, as the BN before it was (as Thotmosis said). My personal favorite.

 

[HenRun]

That is why I presented Henry's objective test of LCA in the SFL, which disagreed with your totally subjective opinion. So I highly question your result until I can see for myself how the SFL performs.

Huh? But, Henry was testing the SFL 8x40?
Are you trying to put words in my mouth or a conclusion derived on what exactly?

I have just stated that my SFL 8x40 has so little CA that it is practically unnoticeable. In what sense does that disagree with Henry's findings?
Can you point me to a posting where I have ever said that the SFL8x40 has excessive CA?

Or are you just extrapolating that test of that SFL to be descriptive of the SFL50 binoculars too?
That would be a totally subjective assumption. And could easily be disregarded as non relevant to my reported, subjective, findings.

So your subjective assessment of my findings are that they are highly questionable due to a test on another binocular where:

A) I think the same as the author when it comes to his findings and
B) it cannot be extrapolated to be valid for a newly released binocular with different specs.

You can "highly question" whatever you like about what I write, I could honestly not care less.

Also, how do you explain that the Zeiss representative acknowledged my CA findings and explained them by saying that Fluoride lenses were omitted in the SFL since they are reserved for the SF binoculars?
Can you dismiss that too as being totally subjective?

I am sorry Dennis, I am very restrictive with the Ignore button, but I will hit it right now. I will not be able to read your posts from now on.
Over and out.

 

[HenRun]

This was exactly my complaint. They deliberately omitted something from the design not because it would have added too much to the cost, but just to keep SFL from seeming too competitive with SF. So the result seems disappointing, the cost unjustified, and frankly, I lose interest in Zeiss products.
Thanks for sharing all your observations.


The 10x32 is also very special, as the BN before it was (as Thotmosis said). My personal favorite.

Funny you should mention this. (the UV10x32) I am curious about this model.
The UV10x32 and the Meopta B1 10x32 are compact 10X that I hope to be able to have a look through eventually.

How is the eye relief on the UV 10x32? Have you ever looked through the UV 8x32? The latter is acceptable for me but I had hopes the UV10x32 would be a bit more forgiving. Would be good to know if I ever came across one by chance.

 

[tenex]

Eye relief is virtually identical on the 10x and 8x32 Leicas. (I don't wear glasses with bins.) I have tried the 8x and thought it excellent, but it's not my usual magnification, and AFOV (while arguably decent) is as usual less than on the 10x. We still use and like a 10x32 BN, also an FL which is a jewel too (and has more ER).

 

[HenRun]

Thanks for the swift reply.
Exactly the kind of information I was after.

Eye relief is virtually identical on the 10x and 8x32 Leicas. (I don't wear glasses with bins.) I have tried the 8x and thought it excellent, but it's not my usual magnification, and AFOV (while arguably decent) is as usual less than on the 10x.

 

[HenRun]

To all of you guys.

I am done with this thread and will not revisit.
Hope you got something out of it and I hope I made sure to express my opinions while making certain that my subjective assessment of the SFL50mm line up was written, and should be taken at, face value.

My conclusion will not change, the SFL50 line up has dropped off my radar and was just an interesting blip on my screen.

Life is short. I like binoculars and I don't mind rotating a bino or two and "live a little" but I am looking for keepers.

I was going into the store with a bag of cash, ready to throw it at the Zeiss rep and tell him to shut up and take my money!
I ended up not doing that and I think it was a good decision.

I think Zeiss presented a new second tier line up that does not hold the same value as the smaller siblings and they should have invested the time and effort into revamping the Top tier line up.

That might come too, so lets not dwell on what could have been and look forward to the next, possibly, new best thing!

The outcome for me was that I got to look through a whole bunch of binoculars in the process and form a new opinion or two on some that I had not seen before. Horizons are broadened and the search area is narrowed.

 

[ArchStanton]

You are welcome, and yes I have looked through the C HDX actually, at the very same shop as I did the comparison in.
I will have to make a disclaimer and say I had a brief look at the HD, the HDX and the SFL and I don't quite remember if it was the CHDX 8x32 or 42.

I am almost sure it would have been the 32 since it would be the one I would be interested in. If I remember correctly I was looking at the SFL8x30 at the time.

I quickly found out that the SFL8x30 did not work as well for me as the SFL40 in terms of eye placement so it was a swift minute before I handed it back and said, nah, not for me.

The staff member then asked me to look at the C HDX since he knows I am picky and asked what I thought about it. I thought it was very good!

My recollection is about the same as yours, there is a difference, but it isn't huge. It was certainly good enough for me to recommend it for that price range, as a contender. I am pretty sure that it was the 8x32. Size wise it felt right inbetween the SFL8x30 and the SFL8x40. This also ruled it out since it was too similar in size and weight to the SFL8x40 and I felt the SFL was better.

Build was similar and the only complaint with the handling was that the focuser was a bit molasses like on the C HDX, on that sample.

Image quality is a very small step behind the SFL. Don't ask me about the CA though, Dennis will chew me up if I do.

I appreciate the reply. Using without eyeglasses, I've found that the binoculars with less eye relief tend to suit me better like the Kowa Genesis 8x33. I only had to turn the eyecups one click with the SFL 8x40's. I'll have to check back with the local nature shop to see if CHDX 8x32's. Thank you and have a good evening!

 

[Thotmosis]

I am sorry Dennis, I am very restrictive with the Ignore button, but I will hit it right now. I will not be able to read your posts from now on.
Over and out.

Well, for the very first time since i joined Birdforum i will also put this individual on ignore, too many nice treads get molested by him. Should have done it before.

EDIT: I never ever put somebody in ignore before, that says something…

 

[PatR]

Well, for the very first time since i joined Birdforum i will also put this individual on ignore, too many nice treads get molested by him. Should have done it before.

EDIT: I never ever put somebody in ignore before, that says something…

Sorry who are you?

He was put on my ignore list a while back and his recent remarks and disrespect to @HenRun, one of the most generous givers of time and expertise on the Forum, was both spiteful and completely out of order.

I am lead to believe that he has been spoken to in the past by the Moderators but it would appear that, despite changing his name, he remains the same obnoxious individual immune to any advice to change the tone of his tedious posts and cut and paste ramblings.

Another excellent thread ruined and a good man's word doubted by a non-entity.