One more SF 8X32 or SFL 8X40? (11 Viewers)

[Fab31]

Yes, I know, I read already many threads about it. But...

After several years with my nice Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, and as I have to spend a lot of time with birds now, I would like a big upgrade.

I tried 4 binoculars in a shop yesterday. Nikkon HG 10X42, CL COmpanion 8X30, COnquest HD 8X32 and SF 8X32. As I was inside the shop, to try quality optical was not the top but I saw the SF82 was better. But for this one, I said "wow" when I felt the balance, the perfect position for my eyes and the general confort to hold them, copared to 3 others.
CL was light but that's all. Nikon HG was classical sensation and COnquest HD, even if the optic was very good too, was like a brick and I hated that.

So I think for my use, often several hours to search birds ans especially birds of prey, ergonomic is very very important.

But I have frustration because I thought to hold a 8x40 SFL in my hands to compare with the SF 8X32. Not available in the shop...

So, I have a question, even if I know it's very personnal. What do you think about SF 8x32 vs 8x40 SFL for the ergonomy and particulary the weight distribution system? Iis it same confort for the 8X40 SFL?

Last information: I can get the 2 for same price. Hope just the very good price for SF 8X32 is not because of lemon (Is it like that you say for bad binocular?)

 

[Paultricounty]

Yes, I know, I read already many threads about it. But...

After several years with my nice Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, and as I have to spend a lot of time with birds now, I would like a big upgrade.

I tried 4 binoculars in a shop yesterday. Nikkon HG 10X42, CL COmpanion 8X30, COnquest HD 8X32 and SF 8X32. As I was inside the shop, to try quality optical was not the top but I saw the SF82 was better. But for this one, I said "wow" when I felt the balance, the perfect position for my eyes and the general confort to hold them, copared to 3 others.
CL was light but that's all. Nikon HG was classical sensation and COnquest HD, even if the optic was very good too, was like a brick and I hated that.

So I think for my use, often several hours to search birds ans especially birds of prey, ergonomic is very very important.

But I have frustration because I thought to hold a 8x40 SFL in my hands to compare with the SF 8X32. Not available in the shop...

So, I have a question, even if I know it's very personnal. What do you think about SF 8x32 vs 8x40 SFL for the ergonomy and particulary the weight distribution system? Iis it same confort for the 8X40 SFL?

Last information: I can get the 2 for same price. Hope just the very good price for SF 8X32 is not because of lemon (Is it like that you say for bad binocular?)

For a lot more detailed descriptions of both of these and comparisons of both, it's best to search the binoculars forums for those discussions. Much better than waiting for replies here that will go in circles for days or longer. I’ve had them all side by side in 10x40, 8x40, 10x32SF, and the 8x32 SF; there are pros and cons, but if you can find a nice condition 8x32SF for the same price as the SFL, it’s a no-brainer: jump on it. You’ll never look back and wonder if you should’ve got the SF.

 

[[email protected]]

Yes, I know, I read already many threads about it. But...

After several years with my nice Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, and as I have to spend a lot of time with birds now, I would like a big upgrade.

I tried 4 binoculars in a shop yesterday. Nikkon HG 10X42, CL COmpanion 8X30, COnquest HD 8X32 and SF 8X32. As I was inside the shop, to try quality optical was not the top but I saw the SF82 was better. But for this one, I said "wow" when I felt the balance, the perfect position for my eyes and the general confort to hold them, copared to 3 others.
CL was light but that's all. Nikon HG was classical sensation and COnquest HD, even if the optic was very good too, was like a brick and I hated that.

So I think for my use, often several hours to search birds ans especially birds of prey, ergonomic is very very important.

But I have frustration because I thought to hold a 8x40 SFL in my hands to compare with the SF 8X32. Not available in the shop...

So, I have a question, even if I know it's very personnal. What do you think about SF 8x32 vs 8x40 SFL for the ergonomy and particulary the weight distribution system? Iis it same confort for the 8X40 SFL?

Last information: I can get the 2 for same price. Hope just the very good price for SF 8X32 is not because of lemon (Is it like that you say for bad binocular?)

If you bird mostly in the daytime, get the new Nikon M7 8x30 for $300 ( Not Monarch 7) or if you do a lot of low light birding get the Nikon HG 8x42 for around $800. They both have a bigger 8.3 degree FOV than the SFL 8x30 or SFL 8x40 and the optics are nearly as good with sharper edges, plus you save a lot of money. If you really want to move up in FOV and want sharper edges than the SFL or HG get the Zeiss 8x32 SF, but it only has a 467 foot FOV versus the 435 foot FOV of the Nikon M7 8x30, so not a huge difference, but it is about 7x the price.

 

[Fab31]

Yes you're right Paul.

Dennis, I know Monarch HG 8X42 is a nice binocular but if I have possibility to buy SF 8x32 for a good price, I will do it. For SFL 8X40, I would like to use it to be sure but not possible here.

About Monarch 7 vs M7, I did the mistake when I bought them. A good price but I did not know the difference. I thought they were same. What are the optical changes for M7 please?

 

[[email protected]]

Yes you're right Paul.

Dennis, I know Monarch HG 8X42 is a nice binocular but if I have possibility to buy SF 8x32 for a good price, I will do it. For SFL 8X40, I would like to use it to be sure but not possible here.

About Monarch 7 vs M7, I did the mistake when I bought them. A good price but I did not know the difference. I thought they were same. What are the optical changes for M7 please?

The SF 8x32 has a bigger FOV and sharper edges than the HG 8x42, but the HG 8x42 will be considerably brighter in low light and have easier eye placement because of the bigger 42mm aperture that takes in almost twice the light of the smaller 32mm Zeiss, and it is just about as light in weight. So if you do any low light birding, that is a plus. I also found the HG 8x42 handles glare better than the SF 8x32, probably due to its bigger aperture. Compare the SFL 8x40 closely to the HG 8x42 before you buy one. You just might like the HG better for it's larger 8.3 degree FOV versus the rather average 8.0 degree FOV of the SFL. I did. The Monarch 7 is a totally different binocular than the M7. Below is another members opinion on the two. I closely compared my HG 8x42 to my M7 8x30 and even in low light I can hardly tell the difference with both having equally sharp edges and HG 8x42 supposedly has a field flattener! I think if I just birded in the daytime, I would just keep the Nikon M7 8x30 and my Habicht 7x42 GA would be reserved for low light because it is the best in low light. Zeiss are nice but like any of the big three you are a paying a lot for the name.

"Argent said:
I had a Monarch 7 8x30 and currently have a Monarch M7 8x30. Both technically and visually, the M7 is a clear improvement on its predecessor, the Monarch 7. With the M7, the image is clearer and the colors are more natural. The old Monarch 7, on the other hand, was yellowish in direct comparison. The sweet spot of the M7 8x30 is so large that it is difficult to get your eyes into the blurred peripheral area when using it freehand without a tripod. Is the M7 8x30 better than an HG 8x30? I have no idea. Is there a better 8x30 binocular for the money an M7 8x30 costs on the Internet? Certainly not. Apart from the protective caps for the objective and eyepiece lenses, the M7 is more of a new development than a further development of the old model. The M7 8x30 focusser is a different and better one than that of its predecessor. of its predecessor and the first glance through the M7 makes it clear that the glass lenses have also been significantly revised. With the Monarch 7 8x30 the image appears somewhat yellowish, with the M7 it is more natural without a color cast. The resolution and clarity is really impressive and even in twilight it offers a significantly higher contrast. contrast. The ED glass currently used by Nikon in the mid-price segment is damn good. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon, in order to restore the gap to the mid-range, would soon a new Monarch HG onto the market. The current design speaks for it, see the bronze-colored lettering on the M5, the silver silver-colored lettering on the M7, which means that the gold lettering will probably belong to a future HG."

 

[Paultricounty]

Yes you're right Paul.

Dennis, I know Monarch HG 8X42 is a nice binocular but if I have possibility to buy SF 8x32 for a good price, I will do it. For SFL 8X40, I would like to use it to be sure but not possible here.

About Monarch 7 vs M7, I did the mistake when I bought them. A good price but I did not know the difference. I thought they were same. What are the optical changes for M7 please?

There’s not really that much of a different, slight at best with M7 or Monarch 7. This is what I meant about circles for days or longer. SFL, SF you can’t go wrong. Both are top of the line and light years ahead of mid level Nikons.

 

[Isthatascratch?]

The SF 8x32 has a bigger FOV and sharper edges than the HG 8x42, but the HG 8x42 will be considerably brighter in low light and have easier eye placement because of the bigger 42mm aperture that takes in almost twice the light of the smaller 32mm Zeiss, and it is just about as light in weight. So if you do any low light birding, that is a plus. I also found the HG 8x42 handles glare better than the SF 8x32, probably due to its bigger aperture. Compare the SFL 8x40 closely to the HG 8x42 before you buy one. You just might like the HG better for it's larger 8.3 degree FOV versus the rather average 8.0 degree FOV of the SFL. I did. The Monarch 7 is a totally different binocular than the M7. Below is another members opinion on the two. I closely compared my HG 8x42 to my M7 8x30 and even in low light I can hardly tell the difference with both having equally sharp edges and HG 8x42 supposedly has a field flattener! I think if I just birded in the daytime, I would just keep the Nikon M7 8x30 and my Habicht 7x42 GA would be reserved for low light because it is the best. Zeiss are nice but like any of the big three you are a paying a lot for the name.

"Argent said:
I had a Monarch 7 8x30 and currently have a Monarch M7 8x30. Both technically and visually, the M7 is a clear improvement on its predecessor, the Monarch 7. With the M7, the image is clearer and the colors are more natural. The old Monarch 7, on the other hand, was yellowish in direct comparison. The sweet spot of the M7 8x30 is so large that it is difficult to get your eyes into the blurred peripheral area when using it freehand without a tripod. Is the M7 8x30 better than an HG 8x30? I have no idea. Is there a better 8x30 binocular for the money an M7 8x30 costs on the Internet? Certainly not."

It must be an individual issue as I find the SF 8x32 has no problem with glare at all and suppresses it extremely well. If you are happy with it then great…they are very good !

 

[Fab31]

Yes Paul, I'm not a specialist and I know business can be sometimes surprising. But I don't understand how a $1000 binocular could have same performances than à $2500 one. And I saw that immediately when I took SF in my hands and compared with the MHG feeling. No comparison possible.

Probably I'm particulary sensitive to that. For example, the Conquest feeling was absolutely horrible in my hands and almost eliminatory, even if I saw well the optical quality. However, the weight with SF is similar.
I suppose it's my personnal feeling because I read many threads on Conquest and almost nobody talked about this "brick feeling".

But it's probably too the consequence of several years with a 450g binocular... Bad habit!

 

[Paultricounty]

Yes Paul, I'm not a specialist and I know business can be sometimes surprising. But I don't understand how a $1000 binocular could have same performances than à $2500 one. And I saw that immediately when I took SF in my hands and compared with the MHG feeling. No comparison possible.

Exactly.

Probably I'm particulary sensitive to that. For example, the Conquest feeling was absolutely horrible in my hands and almost eliminatory, even if I saw well the optical quality. However, the weight with SF is similar.
I suppose it's my personnal feeling because I read many threads on Conquest and almost nobody talked about this "brick feeling".

Ergonomics play a very big role in comfort and enjoying using your binoculars, and the SF is in the top three best in that area, maybe the best.

But it's probably too the consequence of several years with a 450g binocular... Bad habit!

You can absolutely get use to very light binoculars, that’s why many times I’ll use my Leica Ultravids in 8x32. The SF has it all and it might be a bigger than other 32’s but irs still very light and pleasure to use. And it’s a true Alpha 😉.

 

[Fab31]

Exactly.

Ergonomics play a very big role in comfort and enjoying using your binoculars, and the SF is in the top three best in that area, maybe the best.

You can absolutely get use to very light binoculars, that’s why many times I’ll use my Leica Ultravids in 8x32. The SF has it all and it might be a bigger than other 32’s but irs still very light and pleasure to use. And it’s a true Alpha 😉.

A small shop in the other side of France sold SF 8X32 for 1400euros shipped. The seller told me it was absolutely new, not demonstration item. I checked all informations about shop and all looks ok (I supposed some money problems because it's difficult for this kind of shop currently here; so good discount to get a bit money maybe?).
I just ordered right now after reading again your first message! I could not let it to another.

Hope it will be not a "failing" (is it "lemon" you tell in UK?) but I had to try. I have 15 days to return if problem.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I own both.

• Weight about same (close enough). SF's a little lighter (and I do count grams).
• SF more slender barrels but unusually long (for a 32), so they take up approx same vol in my pack.
• SFL chubbier - different feeling in-hand.
• Similar - superb - focusers.
• I prefer the SFL objective cap design.
• SF are wider FOV, and a bit more saturated (?). More color cast anyway.
• SFL are very neutral color, and brighter. In bright conditions (snow on ground right now) that can make the SFL seem less saturated.
• SF flatter field and I can't detect CA. SFL I have to work to see the CA.
• SFL slightly better eyebox with specs.

I tend to use the SF's because I got them for a good price and the field width seems useful. But whenever I compare them side-by-side, I can't help but wonder if the brighter SFL's are the better choice. I've started to sell the SFL's a couple of times, and always hesitate - will I regret it? The view is VERY easy (big eyepieces and relaxed eye-box).

The SF say 'made in germany' and for some reason - nostalgia - that seems attractive (tho I know it's meaningless these days). But is there a chance they are better made or will hold up over time better than SFL's? No idea!

So... I'm not of much help! I guess the biggest trade-off I can think of is that if you need the near-dark performance, get the SFL. If you need wider FOV, get the SF. Otherwise, flip a coin.

I actually listed the SFL's on BF hoping to trade for 7x42FL. The 32SF and 40SFL are redundant for me. But I'm kind of glad I've kept them both LOL...

Yes, I know, I read already many threads about it. But...

After several years with my nice Nikon Monarch 7 8x30, and as I have to spend a lot of time with birds now, I would like a big upgrade.

I tried 4 binoculars in a shop yesterday. Nikkon HG 10X42, CL COmpanion 8X30, COnquest HD 8X32 and SF 8X32. As I was inside the shop, to try quality optical was not the top but I saw the SF82 was better. But for this one, I said "wow" when I felt the balance, the perfect position for my eyes and the general confort to hold them, copared to 3 others.
CL was light but that's all. Nikon HG was classical sensation and COnquest HD, even if the optic was very good too, was like a brick and I hated that.

So I think for my use, often several hours to search birds ans especially birds of prey, ergonomic is very very important.

But I have frustration because I thought to hold a 8x40 SFL in my hands to compare with the SF 8X32. Not available in the shop...

So, I have a question, even if I know it's very personnal. What do you think about SF 8x32 vs 8x40 SFL for the ergonomy and particulary the weight distribution system? Iis it same confort for the 8X40 SFL?

Last information: I can get the 2 for same price. Hope just the very good price for SF 8X32 is not because of lemon (Is it like that you say for bad binocular?)

 

[Fab31]

Thank you, it's interesting.

I just ordered the SF 8X32 because I had to choose quickly and it's done.
I'm sure SFL and SF would have to gave me similar satisfaction about quality optical. But about ergonomy, it was just the perfect world when I tried the SF. And as I could not try the SFL, it was a risk to miss this SF opportunity and to be dissapointed about ergonomy SFL.

I will tell you more if all is ok with my order and when I will receive it.
Thanks.

 

[Maljunulo]

I will be very surprised if you aren’t delighted with the SF 8X32.

Addendum: I think you made a wise decision.

 

[[email protected]]

It must be an individual issue as I find the SF 8x32 has no problem with glare at all and suppresses it extremely well. If you are happy with it then great…they are very good !

Glare largely depends on what latitude you are using it at. Using an SF 8x32 in the UK where the altitude is about 160 meters above sea level, and you only get 1400 hours of sun per year is different from using an SF 8x32 in the Rocky Mountains or Yellowstone National Park, at high altitude of over 3,000 meters where you get 3100 hours of sun which is more intense UV and there is more glare off the bodies of water and often times you are looking up at extreme angles trying to find an animal on the side of a mountain or cliff which compounds the glare problems. I thought the SF 8x32 would be very glare resistant, but it wasn't. For the price it was disappointing, my HG 8x42 handles glare better because of the bigger aperture. I compared my NL 8x32 to my HG 8x42 and the HG was much better for glare than the NL, which had annoying glare in the bottom of the FOV 70% of the time. I sold the NL and kept the HG because of the glare.

 

[[email protected]]

There’s not really that much of a different, slight at best with M7 or Monarch 7. This is what I meant about circles for days or longer. SFL, SF you can’t go wrong. Both are top of the line and light years ahead of mid level Nikons.

Sorry, there is a big difference between the M7 and Monarch 7. My Monarch 7 was not even close to my HG 8x42, but my M7 actually almost performs exactly the same.

"Argent said:
I had a Monarch 7 8x30 and currently have a Monarch M7 8x30. Both technically and visually, the M7 is a clear improvement on its predecessor, the Monarch 7. With the M7, the image is clearer and the colors are more natural. The old Monarch 7, on the other hand, was yellowish in direct comparison. The sweet spot of the M7 8x30 is so large that it is difficult to get your eyes into the blurred peripheral area when using it freehand without a tripod. Is the M7 8x30 better than an HG 8x30? I have no idea. Is there a better 8x30 binocular for the money an M7 8x30 costs on the Internet? Certainly not."

 

[Paultricounty]

Sorry, there is a big difference between the M7 and Monarch 7. My Monarch 7 was not even close to my HG 8x42, but my M7 actually almost performs exactly the same.

"Argent said:
I had a Monarch 7 8x30 and currently have a Monarch M7 8x30. Both technically and visually, the M7 is a clear improvement on its predecessor, the Monarch 7. With the M7, the image is clearer and the colors are more natural. The old Monarch 7, on the other hand, was yellowish in direct comparison. The sweet spot of the M7 8x30 is so large that it is difficult to get your eyes into the blurred peripheral area when using it freehand without a tripod. Is the M7 8x30 better than an HG 8x30? I have no idea. Is there a better 8x30 binocular for the money an M7 8x30 costs on the Internet? Certainly not."

I'm sorry, Dennis, but I really can't tell with you anymore. Your certainly knowledgeable about brands and models; your optical knowledge is not so much, you having to be corrected constantly by the true optical gurus here. That being said, I can never tell what your agenda is because you forget the things that you post, or you're getting ready to sell something. Post to post, you seem to contradict yourself; on one hand, you can see a huge difference between an M7 and a Monarch 7, two binoculars in the exact same midrange level; yet you see no difference in a 20-year-old Leica BN to a recently updated modern UVHD+. Something just not right there. I think people looking for advice should be very wary of some of your misleading opinions or advice. I'm just sayin.

 

[[email protected]]

Allbinos doesn't either, and you know what, I trust them more than you because they know what they are talking about! The optical train on the UVHD+, UVHD, BR and BN are almost identical. Look at the cutaway. The only difference is a slight change in coatings. How can the view be different? Leica never changed a thing! Jackjack doesn't even consider a Leica an alpha! You're deluding yourself and rationalizing that the UVHD+ must be better because it is more expensive, but in reality it is not.

People that have the UVHD+ figure that it has to be much better than the UVHD or BR because they paid more for it, but in reality it is not! You rationalize the cost difference by assuming that the UVHD + must be much better than the other older Leicas, but it is not. The UVHD on Allbinos actually scored 1.0 point higher than the UVHD+ and the BR was only 1.3 points lower than the UVHD+. The lowly BN was only 5.6 points behind the UVHD+. hardly enough difference to even be noticeable! A true alpha binocular like the NL 10x42 is 16 points higher than the UVHD+. Now that will be a noticeable difference! When I received a new pair of Leica UVHD+ 7x42's I expected to be wowed by the view, but when I looked through them, I was underwhelmed. I thought these are just like the Leica Trinovid BN 7x42's I had, outside of a more modern case. If you want a Leica you can save a lot of money by getting the UVHD, BR or even Trinovid BN instead of the more expensive UVHD+ because optically they are all about the same.

Leica Ultravid HD-Plus 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com​

"Why am I writing about it? On our website, you can find tests of all 10x42 models, from the Trinovid BN to the Ultravid HD-Plus. It is easy to check what the customers gained throughout all these years. Firstly, the results show unanimously that, within the margin of measurement error, the HD-Plus model is practically the same as the HD model. Maybe the transmission level varies a bit but even if you compare the measurements taken with a spectrophotometer the differences remain very slight; it is really difficult to say whether they are an effect of measurement errors, natural differences between two specimens or the actual influence of Schott HT glass. If the spectrophotometer doesn’t show any distinct difference, it won’t be visible to the naked eye either.

So we have a situation where the Ultravid HD doesn’t differ markedly from the Ultravid BR and the Ultravid BR is an almost identical copy of the Trinovid but closed in a lighter casing. It seems that for almost 25 years, Leica haven’t introduced any innovative optical solutions to its key series of binoculars. Of course, the weight reduction and hydrophobic coatings are appreciated, along with a slight transmission increase or a tad wider field of view. Still, such a reputable company should have done better, especially if you take into account the length of the period of time we are talking about. As a result of such stagnation, Leica devices started to compete with each other: you can still buy a second-hand specimen of Trinovids in mint condition for half the price of the new Ultravids HD-Plus.

That tactics of Leica are especially strange because generally you can’t deny the company an innovative approach in optics, particularly when it comes to binoculars. After all, they pioneered in the rangefinder optics, making such revolutionary moves as launching Perger-Porro prisms instruments on the market. Why the line-up of ordinary binoculars has seen so few ground-breaking changes we don’t know. It would be good to finish our test on a more positive note so it should be emphasized that in the premium class of binoculars, apart from very good optics, the Leica also competes successfully with others when it comes to physical dimensions as it can be seen in the photo below, where it is positioned next to the Zeiss Victory HT 10x42.

To sum up, the Leica Ultravid 10x42 HD-Plus is a very good set of binoculars - almost exactly as good as its direct predecessors and the predecessors of its predecessors too. We hope the next model of this series will be truly different, not a merely refreshed version of the same device with just a few cosmetic changes."

From John A. Roberts post, 10x50- Leica Ultravid vs. Swaro SLC vs. Maven B6
For ease of comparison, Ultravid HD 8x42 left and BA 8x42 right:

Leica Ultravid HD-Plus 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.

redirect.viglink.com

Binoculars rankings - 10x42 - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

redirect.viglink.com

 

[Isthatascratch?]

Everything is a compromise because we all have different eyes.

 

[[email protected]]

Everything is a compromise because we all have different eyes.

I am not saying some people might prefer a Leica over a Zeiss or Swarovski. Leica's are good binoculars. I am saying simply that Leica has not made any significant changes to their binoculars in twenty years. So if you want to save some money, buy the UVHD, BR or BN instead of the UVHD+ because you are not gaining that much in optical performance.

"Does anyone know the exact difference between the ULTRAVID 10x42 BR, HD and HD-Plus. As I understand, the HD had an HD element in the objective and Hydrophobic lens coatings. Then the HD-Plus had improved Schott glass prisms to improve light transmission. I ask because I recently had my original 2002 10x42 BR fully serviced including replacement of objectives costing over £300. I recently tested my binoculars against the HD-Plus and was surprised to find they are exactly the same. Even the guy in the shop couldn't tell any visual optical difference or build difference for that matter. They were identical in optical performance and only different in build by the different HD-Plus badge. How is that possible ?"

ULTRAVID 10x42 BR, HD and HD-Plus differences

Does anyone know the exact difference between the ULTRAVID 10x42 BR, HD and HD-Plus. As I understand the HD had a HD element in the objective and Hydrophobic lense coatings . Then the HD-Plus had improved Schott glass prisms to improve light transmission. I ask because I recently had my...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Canip]

Something just not right there. I think people looking for advice should be very wary of some of your misleading opinions or advice.

We all know. But it‘s hardly going to change.