Roger Vine Zeiss 10x30 SFL review (1 Viewer)

[William Lewis]

UV 10x32 was a love of first sight. Indeed it is a good idea to go for a UV 10x42. I think they are as small as SFL 10x40. However, I couldn't find a better deal for one and really wanted to have a Zeiss 😉

SFL 10x40 fits into my hands very well and ergonomics works for me. I sent it back today hoping for a better replacement. SFL 10x30 is not that smaller than UV but is difficult to use due to the focus knob position. SFL 10x40 is also not much bigger than UV 10x32. I feel it is just right for me. Even though I still feel NL 8x42 is too big and heavy. There is always a sacrifice for one over the other. I would be much happy if NL optics in SFL 40mm body with better glare control 😀😀

Same here with the focuser position on the '30, too near the middle of a short tube so your moving your fingers closer to the objective lens your trying to hold still.

No room further down the tube so it's less contact if you do that and trying to keep your fingers out of the way. Big hands, not keen.

 

[Rg548]

The ultravid 32 is a very good binocular, I think that's the conclusion, it's mine too.
I tried one for the umpteenth time yesterday, if it wasn't a little too small for me to hold comfortably it would be near the top of my shopping list.

Late model BN 8x32 pushes it VERY close.... and the ergonomics are far better..
I personally think Leica should have just kept developing the BN.... everything works well, including the covers and the strap.... It just works, and is a classic for very good reason.

 

[tenex]

But, looking at the 32mm Ultravid specs reveals something interesting: two extra lens elements in the 10x compared to the 8x. My assumption is that they are likely to be a doublet Barlow in front of the eyepiece for increasing the magnification, but that arrangement should also act as a field flattener, possibly as strong or stronger than the one in the SFL 10x30.

The previous BN had this also, as I think FL 10x32 does. It works very well.

Viraj's impression of a wider FOV in the Ultravid could be true (even if the Ultravid's real field is narrower) from the high pincushion distortion for which the Ultavids are known expanding the size of the AFOV compared to the relatively low pincushion SFL.

Yes, thanks, that's actually what I meant to say, not "flat field". I still sometimes conflate the two because of their frequent coincidence.

These are all excellent binoculars; the choice will be a matter of personal taste.

 

[Viraj]

Today I received the replacement pair for SFL 10x40. As I mentioned, the previous one had a little play in the focus wheel. The focus wheel of the new unit is perfect and has no play or any other issues. However, I checked the optics with a flashlight which was not done for the previous units. Unfortunately, the flashlight test revealed something disappointing. The inner surfaces of both objective lenses seem to have a smear or disposition of small dust particles. Please check the photos attached. I am looking forward to reading about your experience with your SFL units.

 

[Patudo]

*** has said many times that you can stick a large black suction cup on the objectives and people won't notice. If that's what the C-in-C of Collimation says, just go ahead and use 'em.

 

[Paultricounty]

Today I received the replacement pair for SFL 10x40. As I mentioned, the previous one had a little play in the focus wheel. The focus wheel of the new unit is perfect and has no play or any other issues. However, I checked the optics with a flashlight which was not done for the previous units. Unfortunately, the flashlight test revealed something disappointing. The inner surfaces of both objective lenses seem to have a smear or disposition of small dust particles. Please check the photos attached. I am looking forward to reading about your experience with your SFL units.

Welcome to the recent world of Zeiss optics. Of the five SFL’s I’ve tried in the last year the focuser in 3 of them had an issue. Very disappointing.

Paul

 

[Patudo]

A few minutes inside and you send them back? It can take me weeks, in all situations, to evaluate a binocular.

I kinda agree with both comments. I agree that to really fully understand a binocular's performance in all conditions (or all conditions you would use it) is not a short term process and, taking into regard the changes of the seasons, could easily take months (as pbjosh notes). I would be surprised if some who have commented have logged one month of viewing time with some of their "glass". But at the same time, I've normally decided whether I liked a binocular or not, image-wise and also in terms of ergonomics, pretty quickly. Liking them enough to buy them is a different thing, I suppose. But looking back at the binoculars I've purchased over the years (or at least since I had enough experience to know what I needed from my binoculars), most of which I was able to try in person before buying, I have normally been able to make my mind up on whether or not I wanted to buy them in five to ten minutes.

 

[Scott98]

Today I received the replacement pair for SFL 10x40. As I mentioned, the previous one had a little play in the focus wheel. The focus wheel of the new unit is perfect and has no play or any other issues. However, I checked the optics with a flashlight which was not done for the previous units. Unfortunately, the flashlight test revealed something disappointing. The inner surfaces of both objective lenses seem to have a smear or disposition of small dust particles. Please check the photos attached. I am looking forward to reading about your experience with your SFL units.

the dust specs are disappointing, considering the price of these.....but I'm too afraid to go shine a light into any of my binos! ignorance is bliss

 

[Viraj]

the dust specs are disappointing, considering the price of these.....but I'm too afraid to go shine a light into any of my binos! ignorance is bliss

That's true. I don't normally do that. I found some dust inside my UV 10x32 HD which was bought used. I didn't care much about that. I have never done it for my NL 8x42 or any other binoculars. However, I checked NL together with SFL and didn't notice any dust inside. The amount of dust or smudge marks I saw inside SFL was not ignorable. It would definitely affect at least light transmission. The Zeiss though has a reputation for leaving some dust inside barrels 😉 Optica Exotica mentioned it a few times in his binoculars reviews.

 

[Paultricounty]

That's true. I don't normally do that. I found some dust inside my UV 10x32 HD which was bought used. I didn't care much about that. I have never done it for my NL 8x42 or any other binoculars. However, I checked NL together with SFL and didn't notice any dust inside. The amount of dust or smudge marks I saw inside SFL was not ignorable. It would definitely affect at least light transmission. The Zeiss though has a reputation for leaving some dust inside barrels 😉 Optica Exotica mentioned it a few times in his binoculars reviews.

Optica Exotica 🤣🤣🤣🤣.

I thoroughly check every pair of binoculars I get with a flashlight, also looking through the objectives at an indoor light and outdoors at a blue sky and at white clouds. I look to make sure all the internals are consistent with one another, that the blackening is even, I look for scratches, specks/dirt and differences in coatings and coating color on all the glass. I look for oils on any internals ,the last thing I look for is dust and fingerprints. I have found all of these defects in many binoculars from $300-$3000. And that’s not even discussing the exterior materials and functionality, which is a whole other discussion.

Paul

 

[Swissboy]

Late model BN 8x32 pushes it VERY close.... and the ergonomics are far better..
I personally think Leica should have just kept developing the BN.... everything works well, including the covers and the strap.... It just works, and is a classic for very good reason.

If only they could have found a way to increase the tight (for spectacles wearers) eye-relief.

 

[Rg548]

If only they could have found a way to increase the tight (for spectacles wearers) eye-relief.

It didn't get any better with the Ultravids either.

 

[Viraj]

This is a quick update to my SFL 10x40 purchase. After having trouble with 2 SFL 10x40 units I sent both of them to the seller and ordered another pair from another seller. The third unit is better than previous two units. The focus wheel of it has not play however it is much stiff compared to the first unit which has a play. It reminds me the focus know of Habicht 10x40 I had. It might get loosen up with the time. The new units also has some dust inside which is more than my desired amount. However, I was fed up with returning binoculars so decided to stick with the third pair. Except for dust, I really like it.

It is not as bright as NL 8x42 which is expected due to the higher magnification and the less objective diameter (I felt the Habicht 10x40 had almost similar daytime brightness to the NL 8x42). However, it is brighter than UV 10x32 in challenging light conditions. Overall, I am happy about my SFL 10x40 purchase.

The incident happened to me might reflect the poor QC of SFL. Perhaps I was unfortunate to receive defective pairs for a few time. But it is better to examine them carefully when you make a new purchase.

 

[Paultricounty]

This is a quick update to my SFL 10x40 purchase. After having trouble with 2 SFL 10x40 units I sent both of them to the seller and ordered another pair from another seller. The third unit is better than previous two units. The focus wheel of it has not play however it is much stiff compared to the first unit which has a play. It reminds me the focus know of Habicht 10x40 I had. It might get loosen up with the time. The new units also has some dust inside which is more than my desired amount. However, I was fed up with returning binoculars so decided to stick with the third pair. Except for dust, I really like it.

It should not be as tight as the Swaro Habicht. I tried four of these SFL's and one had exactly what you describing. The owner had it for four months and said is didn't loosen up. He sent it back as well after I told him its not right. Of the the four I tried , three were defective. They should be similar to the SF. As far as dust, it depends how much were talking about. Two of the ones I tried had unacceptable amounts of dust, the other two were fine. My advice and opinion, at these prices iys totally unacceptable, send them back for another pair or send to Zeiss.

It is not as bright as NL 8x42 which is expected due to the higher magnification and the less objective diameter (I felt the Habicht 10x40 had almost similar daytime brightness to the NL 8x42).

As it should be.

However, it is brighter than UV 10x32 in challenging light conditions. Overall, I am happy about my SFL 10x40 purchase.

The SFL40 should be brighter, the UV's are known not to be the brightest of the premiums (alphas).

The incident happened to me might reflect the poor QC of SFL. Perhaps I was unfortunate to receive defective pairs for a few time. But it is better to examine them carefully when you make a new purchase.

Totally agree, QC on this model in my experience is unacceptable.

 

[Viraj]

It should not be as tight as the Swaro Habicht. I tried four of these SFL's and one had exactly what you describing. The owner had it for four months and said is didn't loosen up. He sent it back as well after I told him its not right.

Thank you @Paultricounty for the advice. Then I should think about returning it.

Totally agree, QC on this model in my experience is unacceptable.

I thought that I am the only person having these issues with SFL. Because every SFL user in BF was facilitated with it and no one mentioned any issues with it.

Talking about the dust the current SFL unit I have has more dust than any of my other binoculars. The second pair had so much dust or smudge and it was noticeably less sharp and less bright than the current unit. I would have gone for an EL 10x42, which has undoubtedly better optics. However, I am bit afraid that I would not use it as much because of the higher weight of it. Same thing happened to my NL.

 

[tenex]

Totally agree, QC on this model in my experience is unacceptable.

QC was also poor initially on the MIJ Victory Pocket. Both samples I tried had defects that would have been easily seen if inspected by a human at all: little metal spirals from milling waiting to fall off the inner walls of the barrels, odd spots in eyepiece coatings. I would have hoped Zeiss was doing better by now.

 

[Bentley03]

Totally agree, QC on this model in my experience is ununacceptable.

Likewise. My 10x40's were the 4th copy I was offered (probably should have purchased the shop demo copy, which appeared to be perfect, mechanically and optically spot on). I did hit the jackpot first time with my 8x40's, however.

 

[pppppvvvv]

I've just had a pair of SFL 10x40s on a free loan from zeiss, with their try before you buy offer.
Optically, I didn't really notice any major difference between them, and my Conquest 8x32s, apart from those magnification related. It was a useful trial in proving as my eyesight isn't as sharp these days, a 10x is the way to go for me in the future.
They are certainly higher quality binoculars compared with the Conquests, the eyepiece opening and closing in particular.

Something I did notice, and it cost me a bird, which I don't think has ever happened to me before with a pair of binoculars..
I tried to use with one hand, while carrying my scope and tripod, and picked them up with my thumb and forefinger both resting on the focusing wheel, resulting in me unable to focus as the thumb was effectively a brake underneath!
I'm sure with more use, I'd learn to overcome this, or juggle them around a bit to adjust the grip, but it definitely caught me out on this occasion.
(Not sure if it would have been possible to lift my forefinger and focus with my thumb)

So they will go back to Zeiss, I won't buy an SFL on this occasion, but would consider them in the future.
A smaller upgrade from Conquest 8x32 to Conquest 10x32 seems a better option for me this time.

 

[ReinierB]

The NL Pure 32'are great for using with one hand, even the 10x32 which I have. However, I wouldn't mention it a smaller upgrade.

I never tried the SFL 10x40 (I prefer 10 power too) and went somehow straight to NL 10x32. I can see the advantage of 4mm exit pupil instead of 3.2mm, bit somehow the NL 10x32 was more attractive to me.
I also tried the Conquest 10x32 and I liked it, but I wanted the best because 10x32 (or maybe lightweight 10x40) is the most used birding bin for me.

The Conquest 10x32 I had briefly had a focusing issue. I couldn't focus from close to further away, only from far away to closer.

 

[lflip]

I use an o-ring on my 8x40s. Sounds like it doesn't happen without the o-ring.