New Zeiss binos 8x40 SFL and 10x40 SFL (4 Viewers)

[eronald]

Thanks Lee, much better information there.

Unfortunately, the cutaway is done in Zeiss' current obfuscating style and leaves us guessing about things that should be clear. Still, it looks like the objective design has returned to the fixed triplet and moving focusing element from pre-SF Zeiss binoculars. The eyepiece looks like it could be a 4 element Konig with a one or perhaps two element field flattener in front, a bit more like the Swarovski EL/NL eyepiece than the SF eyepieces, especially the 32mm SF.

Things in the SF left out of the SFL include UFL (Ultra-FL lens design) and oddly HT (High Transmission) glass.

Here's a link to the brochure: https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/nature-observation/brochures/en/brochure-zeiss-sfl-and-victory-sf-binoculars-

Is very interesting to see in the brochure in the picture talking about
Ultra-HD Concept.....left part of the image showing green cast on the snow and pure white on the right part......
As they say.....
Maximum detail visibility and color fidelity thanks to optimizations in coating and optical design.

Maybe they really remove the slight green cast on this new model ?

the green is loved by the japanese.

Edmund

 

[eronald]

This yellow-green cast in some Zeiss binoculars has been discussed extensively before and I refer to the topic "Why are those Habichts so bright", posts 138 and 139, in which is very clearly is described in which Zeiss binoculars thas has occurred, not in the old ones and only during a limited amount of time in certain models as shown in a transmission spectrum measured by Albinoss, but it is not found in older Zeiss binoculars and certainly not in the new ones like the Victory FL, HT or Victory SF as we have proved in the transmission spectra we have measured.
Gijs van Ginkel

Gijs, I own 6 spectros and have good eyes. My first VP 8x25 had a green cast. The second doesn't.

Edmund

 

[Conndomat]

So you see there is a very genuine reason for marking the binos 'designed by Zeiss' and I for one am glad that they are proud enough of SFL that they want to say "We designed this"

Hi there,

maybe it would have made sense if Zeiss had also indicated the country of manufacture on the binoculars, just to avoid endless speculation.

It's definitely not "Made in Germany", but "Made in Japan" also has a good name and the buyer would not have to guess.

By the way, I'm also a SF "green sufferer" but still like the binocular.

Andreas

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Edmund, post 108,
All the Zeiss binoculars we have investigated between 1990 and now did not show a yellow-green color cast as the one shown by Albinos.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[Conndomat]

All the Zeiss binoculars we have investigated between 1990 and now did not show a yellow-green color cast as the one shown by Albinos.

Gijs it's bewitched, all Zeiss binoculars show some green emphasis for me, FL a bit less than SF, the Conquest least but still there?!

But it's not particularly annoying for me, just a little more dominant than with other manufacturers.

No green, no Zeiss...☘️

Andreas

 

[Paultricounty]

This is a nit, but it would definitely bug me - "Designed by Zeiss". Why emblazon that on the front? Of course they're designed by Zeiss, they ARE Zeiss. Whenever I see a "designed by..." it is just a tip of the hat to something lesser, as in - we designed these, but we didn't make 'em. Why put something like that on a $2k bin? Believe it or not, that could kill the deal for me.

I second that if made in China. I’m good with Japan, Germany, Austria and Portugal.

 

[b-lilja]

There are several different reasons for getting a product that you have designed manufactured by another company. One reason could be that you cannot reach the required price level by manufacturing in your own factory. Another reason could be that your own production facility does not have any unused capacity to take on another product. Whatever the reason, having something made for you by a partner factory is a sound strategy.

However it is well known that many brands that do not have design teams of their own, simply buy models that have been designed and manufactured by their partner and have new rubber armour and their own brand name put on these. This is called 're-branding' by many and it is an easy way to add products to your own line-up and many observers think that this is not due the same level of respect as when a company designs the product themselves.

It seems Zeiss recognises this attitude and by marking SFL 'designed by Zeiss' they are making the point that these are genuinely Zeiss-designed binoculars and not simply the result of (as some people think) a cynical re-branding exercise. This is a quite reasonable thing to do and it reassures the customer that when they are holding an SFL they are holding an instrument that was the result of a concept orginated by a Zeiss technician, that had its optics and its coatings designed to meet the concept objectives and then had its external appearance designed to fit into the Zeiss product range.

So you see there is a very genuine reason for marking the binos 'designed by Zeiss' and I for one am glad that they are proud enough of SFL that they want to say "We designed this"

Lee

I agree with all that Lee, it would be fine in marketing materials etc., it just is an odd thing to put right on your $2k alpha binoculars to be viewed every time they are raised to the eyes. Maybe on some Terras, not on these.

 

[Troubador]

I agree with all that Lee, it would be fine in marketing materials etc., it just is an odd thing to put right on your $2k alpha binoculars to be viewed every time they are raised to the eyes. Maybe on some Terras, not on these.

We clearly perceive this quite differently as I just can't see anything negative at all in Zeiss being proud enough to assert ownership of the design of SFL.

Lee

 

[mfunnell]

I'm now (probably) going to reveal that I'm (a) very shallow; and (b) have more money than sense - because I'm quite likely to buy a set of 10x40 SFLs.

The 'shallow' part comes from a "want" that's not a "need" at all: I've just always thought of 10x40 as a rather 'classical' format (oh, and I find 4mm exit pupils "just big enough" to be comfortable) - and yet: I have no binoculars of that format.

10x42s don't do it for me (all practicalities aside) simply because it is not that format. Oh, and because any 10x40 I'd buy would have to be from either Leica or Zeiss because, well, just because 'classical' (whatever that means).

The 'more money than sense' part comes from having, really, no earthly need for a set of 10x40 bins. I have truly excellent Nikon 10x35 E II Porro-prism bins I use from my balcony in good light, and Zeiss FL 10x56s to use in worse light (oh, and just because they're so damned nice). So I'm pretty much covered for 10x bins at home and I don't really travel with 10x bins (in fact, when I travel I always bring my very, very, favourite 8x32 FLs - which just plain work for me, every time).

And it's not like I need more binoculars (believe me, I have a plentitude, including oft-used favourites like 6x30 Mavens; 7x42 FLs etc. etc.)

But, shallow or not, and in the absence of the old (yet somehow unavailable) 10x40 Conquests I've never quite tracked down, this incarnation of a 10x40 bin is calling to me...and I'll likely answer the call.

...Mike

 

[Troubador]

I'm now (probably) going to reveal that I'm (a) very shallow; and (b) have more money than sense - because I'm quite likely to buy a set of 10x40 SFLs.

The 'shallow' part comes from a "want" that's not a "need" at all: I've just always thought of 10x40 as a rather 'classical' format (oh, and I find 4mm exit pupils "just big enough" to be comfortable) - and yet: I have no binoculars of that format.

10x42s don't do it for me (all practicalities aside) simply because it is not that format. Oh, and because any 10x40 I'd buy would have to be from either Leica or Zeiss because, well, just because 'classical' (whatever that means).

The 'more money than sense' part comes from having, really, no earthly need for a set of 10x40 bins. I have truly excellent Nikon 10x35 E II Porro-prism bins I use from my balcony in good light, and Zeiss FL 10x56s to use in worse light (oh, and just because they're so damned nice). So I'm pretty much covered for 10x bins at home and I don't really travel with 10x bins (in fact, when I travel I always bring my very, very, favourite 8x32 FLs - which just plain work for me, every time).

And it's not like I need more binoculars (believe me, I have a plentitude, including oft-used favourites like 6x30 Mavens; 7x42 FLs etc. etc.)

But, shallow or not, and in the absence of the old (yet somehow unavailable) 10x40 Conquests I've never quite tracked down, this incarnation of a 10x40 bin is calling to me...and I'll likely answer the call.

...Mike

You know what Mike? Last year I sold or traded all my 42mm binos (except Meopta 7x42) as I have a lung disease and need to reduce the weight I carry in the field. But somehow this SFL has slipped into this little space between 32 and 42 but with the length and weight of a 32 and yes, its speaking to me too.

Lee

 

[mfunnell]

Lee,

I'm very sorry to hear of your medical problem, but I'm really glad you're continuing to be as active as you obviously are.

...Mike

 

[Troubador]

Lee,

I'm very sorry to hear of your medical problem, but I'm really glad you're continuing to be as active as you obviously are.

...Mike

Thank you Mike, I appreciate your support and that of other members here

Lee

 

[Paultricounty]

We clearly perceive this quite differently as I just can't see anything negative at all in Zeiss being proud enough to assert ownership of the design of SFL.

Lee

I agree Lee. Perception goes a long way in our daily lives making decisions. Many would have no problem spending $2000+ on binoculars or optics even if it says, made in China or North Korea 😉

Designed and made in China 😆

Paul

 

[NDhunter]

You know what Mike? Last year I sold or traded all my 42mm binos (except Meopta 7x42) as I have a lung disease and need to reduce the weight I carry in the field. But somehow this SFL has slipped into this little space between 32 and 42 but with the length and weight of a 32 and yes, its speaking to me too.

Lee

Lee: I also want to wish you well with your health problems. I think another popular midrange was first in introducing
great optics in the 42mm size, while slimming and with the weight approaching the 32's. That is the Nikon Monarch HG
models.
I wonder if the MHG and the new Zeiss share anything like chassis, etc. I suppose a dissection will be forthcoming,
especially if they are both made in the same plant in Japan.
It seems like many like lighter weights in their optics. I should lose a few lbs. myself.

Jerry

 

[Troubador]

Lee: I also want to wish you well with your health problems. I think another popular midrange was first in introducing
great optics in the 42mm size, while slimming and with the weight approaching the 32's. That is the Nikon Monarch HG
models.
I wonder if the MHG and the new Zeiss share anything like chassis, etc. I suppose a dissection will be forthcoming,
especially if they are both made in the same plant in Japan.
It seems like many like lighter weights in their optics. I should lose a few lbs. myself.

Jerry

Thank you Jerry, much appreciated.

The brilliant MHG is 42mm of course rather than SFL's 40mm and given the attention that Zeiss has gvien to the optics to save weight (thinner lenses) I am sure they will have pared weight out of the optical tubes too so I don't really think SFL will have shared a chassis with any other model, Zeiss or otherwise, its just too different. Not to mention the totally different bridge arrangement and the focus wheel of SFL placed in the middle of the bino rather than on top of the hinge.

Lee

 

[b-lilja]

I think if it shared a chassis it wouldn't be "designed by Zeiss" .

Just pulling the mickey here, enjoying the conversation.

And indeed Lee, wishing you the best with your health. Appreciate your many contributions here.

I'm maybe restating the same thing again, I just find the "designed by" thing to indicate something is missing rather than something is gained. When I read that I just think, why do they have to say that? I realize lesser brands may use badge engineering for binoculars, but not the top end ones. Leica and Swarovski own their designs AND fabrication soup to nuts, while Nikon and Zeiss do their design and contract fabrication. In the case of things made in the Kamakura factory, I'm totally fine with that as the quality is outstanding (I only need to look through my beloved Conquest HDs to believe that). I just don't need to be reminded they do that, because my preference is that they would also fabricate, wherever they can deliver their desired quality, as that is more truly what it is. I greatly admire Leica for finding a cost effective way to fabricate things at the very high end, doing it in a facility that is fully integrated into their business. Even more so with Swarovski, where they've maintained local fabrication and reinforced the business. But I'm comfortable with the other approach if it results in bottom line quality, which it does (I'm not getting into lower end stuff here, just higher end). I don't think Zeiss needs to be apologetic about that. When I read "designed by" I read, "well, at least we designed these, but everything else is a question". I don't believe that's true but it's where it leads to at least for some people.

Setting all that aside I'm very excited by these new bins, esp if they are approaching coatings differently. And it does seem like Zeiss listens to feedback, and as someone who got a bit of disagreement here when firm about my perceptions of apparent color tone, I will probably stick to my opinions on this too. Who knows, perhaps this conversation might influence this element of design as well - surely all these sorts of decisions have an internal conversation and back and forth as well (as they typically do) . There could even be pro- and anti-"designed by" camps at Zeiss for all we know....

As someone in the design and delivery world, I am generally Miesian in this regard: less is more.

OK enough from me.

 

[Declan Joseph Deasy]

Thank you Jerry, much appreciated.

The brilliant MHG is 42mm of course rather than SFL's 40mm and given the attention that Zeiss has gvien to the optics to save weight (thinner lenses) I am sure they will have pared weight out of the optical tubes too so I don't really think SFL will have shared a chassis with any other model, Zeiss or otherwise, its just too different.

Lee

Take care Lee. Your threads mark you out as one of few who share the insights and stories that enthrall us all

 

[Troubador]

Thank you b-lilja and Declan!

Lee

 

[Declan Joseph Deasy]

Take care Lee. Your threads mark you out as one of few who share the insights and stories that enthrall us all

Bought a 8x32 SF largely on your advice. Now it’s my go-to bin. Is it Zeiss’s flagship? If not what is?

 

[b-lilja]

I'll even go a step further with my comments above, semi-ironic since we are talking about design. I think Zeiss has terrific industrial design, as I discussed in my review of the 8x32 SFs. So I also hold them to a high bar. I view Zeiss and Leica as the summit of bin industrial design, each with quite particular vernaculars. We are lucky to have them both.