SF 10x32 compared to NL 10x32 (2 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

I just had an NL 10x32, and I had considerable glare, especially in backlit situations. I would get veiling glare in the bottom of the FOV no matter how I adjusted the eye cups, so I sold it and bought a Zeiss SF 10x32.

The Zeiss has several advantages over the NL for me, including less glare, better CA control, it is sharper on-axis, it is lighter and feels way lighter with the weight rearward design, has armor that will probably last longer, a smoother focuser, less RB and all the accessories work better for me from the case to the rain guard and best of all no FP strap attachment system.

The only advantage the NL has is less pincushion and that leads to you guessed it, more rolling ball. Both binoculars have a huge 7.5 degree FOV, so the NL has no advantage in size of FOV.

The SF 10x32 by the way has the biggest FOV of any Zeiss binocular and differs from the SF 8x42 and 10x42 in its optical design.

The SF 42 has an eyepiece consisting of 3 doublets and a singlet, whereas the SF 32 has 5 doublets and 1 singlet. At the objective, the SF 42 has a fixed doublet and a moving singlet focusing lens, but the SF 32 has a fixed singlet objective and a doublet focuser. In other words, the SF 32 is significantly different from the SF 42. The SF 10x32 has a field of view 8.3% wider than the SF 10x42

In Allbinos tests of the NL 8x32 and SF 8x32, a fraction of a point separates the two, but Allbinos doesn't talk about the glare that the NL has for many people, which can make it a dealbreaker.

They do mention that the SF has the best CA control they have ever seen in any binocular they have tested, and I can verify this after testing the SF 10x32 with objects against white backgrounds. It has no CA in the center or on the edge like the NL does.

So if CA bothers you, and you don't like glare the SF is your binocular.

Also, you can generally buy the SF for less money than the NL because in general they tend to be more discounted on the open market.

Here are the Allbinos reviews on the NL 8x32 and SF 8x32, an excellent review by Lee on the SF 10x32 and a cutaway of an SF 42 and an SF 32.

Swarovski NL Pure 8x32 - 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

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 8x32 - 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

Review: Zeiss Victory SF 10x32

Introduction Well it’s a few months since I reviewed SF 8x32 so it is about time I had a look at the 10x32, and one has been obtained on loan for a few weeks. SF 32 has been around for a while now, but I sense that it is not widely understood how much of a development from SF 42 that it...

www.birdforum.net

 

[quincy88]

I briefly owned the SF 10x42s. Nice binoculars. SFs are sweet.

 

[kestrel1]

Yeah, SF10x32 require some play with eyecups and IPD to properly fit eye-box.
If adjusted, they are really great tool for discoveries.
I used them quite much in Danube inland floodplain forest, and appreciated they versatility.
They are feather-light and comfortable for long walks, they were capable to watch on the long distance, against backlight, huge FOV helps even in the forest, precise focus was capable to compensate lower DOF of 10x format, and at the same time near focus helps with insects like dragonflies and butterflies.
If future SF evolution get SFL color mode, this may even enhance the performance.

What is also one practical advantage of the SF, is that the triple bridge means sturdy collimation.

 

[Maljunulo]

I found the SF 8X32 to be significantly fussier than the EL SV 10X42.

(as one would expect)

 

[[email protected]]

I found the SF 8X32 to be significantly fussier than the EL SV 10X42.

(as one would expect)

That all depends on how that particular binocular fit's your eye sockets and facial shape. Everybody's eye sockets vary in depth and diameter, so a binocular that works well for one person may not work as well for somebody else.

You really have to try them yourself to see how fussy they are. Some binoculars do have a bigger eye box so they are more tolerant of eye positioning, The Swarovski CL 8x30 has a big eye box for example, and it is less fussy. For me, I find the SF's less fussy in general than the EL's. They fit my face better.

Of course, the bigger the exit pupil, the less fussy a binocular will in general be because it has a bigger cone of light hitting your retina and the probability that it hits it dead center is greater.

 

[[email protected]]

Yeah, SF10x32 require some play with eyecups and IPD to properly fit eye-box.
If adjusted, they are really great tool for discoveries.
I used them quite much in Danube inland floodplain forest, and appreciated they versatility.
They are feather-light and comfortable for long walks, they were capable to watch on the long distance, against backlight, huge FOV helps even in the forest, precise focus was capable to compensate lower DOF of 10x format, and at the same time near focus helps with insects like dragonflies and butterflies.
If future SF evolution get SFL color mode, this may even enhance the performance.

What is also one practical advantage of the SF, is that the triple bridge means sturdy collimation.

The SF 10x32 is a little fussier than say the SF 8x42 because of the smaller EP, but I find them to be remarkably bright, at least in the daytime, and to have quite easy eye placement for such a small EP.

 

[[email protected]]

I briefly owned the SF 10x42s. Nice binoculars. SFs are sweet.

Sweet describes them well. There is not much about them to criticize. They approach perfection for a birding binocular.

 

[quincy88]

Sweet describes them well. There is not much about them to criticize. They approach perfection for a birding binocular.

Sure. I owned them for about a month, but the NLs came out right after I bought them, so I traded them in for 10x42 NLs instead. I had to try the latest and greatest. I ended up selling my NLs in favor of a pair of used pair of 10x42 Ultravid HDs and pocketing a huge sum of money. I am partial to the ergonomics of the Ultravids. Now I hardly use my UV 10s. All great binoculars though.
The SFs were very nice. Beautiful and sharp image. The focuser is class leading. The weight distribution is clever as well.
I think more than anything I learned that 10x42 is not a configuration that I get along with all that well. There are some really excellent options out there, just none that I fell in love with.

 

[tenex]

I think that cutaway of the SFs was just assembled by John in another thread?

The interesting question though is why SF 32s are so completely different from the 42s, even focusing by a moving objective like the old Dialyts, except with a window in front. And after bringing in a new designer for those 42s, and making such a big deal of it all.

 

[Maljunulo]

Remember, there were two iterations of the “big” SF the gray one and the black one.

That was due to the focuser, but maybe there are other snakes in the woodpile, and they designed them out of the “baby” SF.

Obviously this is pure speculation and guesswork.

 

[Paultricounty]

I’ve tried just about everything out there, and still own many of them. Imo (and many folks I observe with) the Swarovski EL’s and the Nikon EDG’s have the most comfortable and easy eye box of just about anything on the market, and that goes for most all the configurations. Once you have your IPD set and your eyecups positioned, your done, put up to the eyes and your in. No blackouts, no kidney beans, no having to find or learn the perfect eye position. This is the way all binoculars should be. Imo SF and NL’s were a step backwards in this area.

 

[[email protected]]

I’ve tried just about everything out there, and still own many of them. Imo (and many folks I observe with) the Swarovski EL’s and the Nikon EDG’s have the most comfortable and easy eye box of just about anything on the market, and that goes for most all the configurations. Once you have your IPD set and your eyecups positioned, your done, put up to the eyes and your in. No blackouts, no kidney beans, no having to find or learn the perfect eye position. This is the way all binoculars should be. Imo SF and NL’s were a step backwards in this area.

That is because they have a much bigger FOV. When a binocular has a bigger FOV, the eyepiece becomes much more complex and the eye box is not as forgiving. It has been said before, optics are all about tradeoffs. You improve one thing at the expense of something else.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/750841-afov-and-eye-comfort/

 

[Paultricounty]

That is because they have a much bigger FOV. When a binocular has a bigger FOV, the eyepiece becomes much more complex and the eye box is not as forgiving. It has been said before, optics are all about tradeoffs. You improve one thing at the expense of something else.

Bigger FOV doesn’t necessarily have to mean a finicky or uncomfortable eye box. In the case of NL and SF it probably didn’t have to be that way. Early EL SV’s were advertised as wide field, yet they have a more forgiving eye box than many other bins that had a smaller FOV.

 

[[email protected]]

Bigger FOV doesn’t necessarily have to mean a finicky or uncomfortable eye box. In the case of NL and SF it probably didn’t have to be that way. Early EL SV’s were advertised as wide field, yet they have a more forgiving eye box than many other bins that had a smaller FOV.

Yes, but the early EL SV's don't have near the FOV that the SF and NL do. Swarovski and Zeiss are really pushing the limits of FOV with the SF and NL. The huge FOV of the NL is one reason it is so finicky for eyepiece position, and it is the reason Swarovski put 6 click stops on the eyepiece so you can find a position to avoid glare.

 

[CharleyBird]

Swarovski put 6 click stops on the eyepiece so you can find a position to avoid glare.

Swarovski have told you this, or are you guessing?

 

[Bentley03]

I’ve tried just about everything out there, and still own many of them. Imo (and many folks I observe with) the Swarovski EL’s and the Nikon EDG’s have the most comfortable and easy eye box of just about anything on the market, and that goes for most all the configurations. Once you have your IPD set and your eyecups positioned, your done, put up to the eyes and your in. No blackouts, no kidney beans, no having to find or learn the perfect eye position. This is the way all binoculars should be. Imo SF and NL’s were a step backwards in this area.

Interesting. I think it's no coincidence that I've chosen the 10x32 EL as my main binocular (10x32 SF was never in contention, too finicky), but I find eye placement and ease of view in the 10x32 NL to be the equal of the EL (and actually more comfortable, for me, than the 8x32 NL). My preference for the EL is based purely on the way it handles, and the fact that I appear to put less tremor through to the instrument in use. I can definitely hold the 10x32 EL steadier than the 10x32 NL, the EL offering me the calmer image. Even in 8x32 form, the SF falls behind Ultravid, EL and NL, in this regard, even if it feels as if it's the easiest and most intuitive to handle, which I think it is by design, but not in practice.

 

[[email protected]]

Swarovski have told you this, or are you guessing?

It is an educated guess. Haven't you ever noticed that the NL's need very precise positioning of the eye cups to avoid glare? Almost within a mm. and sometimes you have to go in between the 6 click stops to hit your perfect position.

 

[Paultricounty]

Interesting. I think it's no coincidence that I've chosen the 10x32 EL as my main binocular (10x32 SF was never in contention, too finicky), but I find eye placement and ease of view in the 10x32 NL to be the equal of the EL (and actually more comfortable, for me, than the 8x32 NL). My preference for the EL is based purely on the way it handles, and the fact that I appear to put less tremor through to the instrument in use. I can definitely hold the 10x32 EL steadier than the 10x32 NL, the EL offering me the calmer image. Even in 8x32 form, the SF falls behind Ultravid, EL and NL, in this regard, even if it feels as if it's the easiest and most intuitive to handle, which I think it is by design, but not in practice.

It is an educated guess. Haven't you ever noticed that the NL's need very precise positioning of the eye cups to avoid glare? Almost within a mm. and sometimes you have to go in between the 6 click stops to hit your perfect position.

I can’t really say that making micro adjustments with NL eyecups ever aided in one way or another when it comes glare. Regardless of the eyecup positions , reducing or preventing some glare for me has always meant placement of the eyecups firmly into eye sockets. Kind of similar to what I need to do occasionally to prevent the BROD in the SF’s.

You mentioned one of two complaints I have with NL’s. One being the 6-7 adjustable eyecup positions that are very mushy, they don’t click into each position firmly. There are times it feels like it can be in between two positions if we don’t get it exact, then it’s more prone to edge blackout.

The other is not a big deal because it doesn’t relate to the binoculars themselves, but I don’t like the carry bag. I don’t like the sideway design, the opening and interior space offset which requires putting the bins in one way. Also the material is slippery, and is a real dirt absorber.

 

[[email protected]]

I can’t really say that making micro adjustments with NL eyecups ever aided in one way or another when it comes glare. Regardless of the eyecup positions , reducing or preventing some glare for me has always meant placement of the eyecups firmly into eye sockets. Kind of similar to what I need to do occasionally to prevent the BROD in the SF’s.

You mentioned one of two complaints I have with NL’s. One being the 6-7 adjustable eyecup positions that are very mushy, they don’t click into each position firmly. There are times it feels like it can be in between two positions if we don’t get it exact, then it’s more prone to edge blackout.

The other is not a big deal because it doesn’t relate to the binoculars themselves, but I don’t like the carry bag. I don’t like the sideway design, the opening and interior space offset which requires putting the bins in one way. Also the material is slippery, and is a real dirt absorber.

Yes, getting the eye cups parallel with your eye sockets makes a difference and so does eye cup positioning. Henry talked about how to adjust the eye cup length to avoid glare, and it involved moving them in very fine increments of a mm or so until you find the sweet spot where you get no glare and often times it might be between the click stops so you have to find a way to hold them in position without moving. The NL's had too much glare for my facial structure, so I moved on. I never did like the case and accessories either. The Austrians seem to overdo things, maybe to validate their inflated prices. I think since I am mostly German, I agree with more with their engineering concepts because they are simple and functional without being overdone. Do you have the HDX on order?

"Henry Link
It's a design issue that affects all pairs, but it can be minimized by the user by very carefully adjusting the eye cup height and the IPD. The least glare is achieved when the eye cup is shortened to a point just before the onset of "kidney beaning". For my face and eye depth, that requires a setting between click-stops. I found my sweet spot early on, and after that the glare has been pretty minor and occasional."

Swarovski glare/flare is deliberate by design? A comparison with Leica

are Swaro replacing all the original pairs that owners have purchased Why should they? I have early version NLs 8x42, 10x42 and 8x32, and like Gijs above, I have no glare issues with them. I don‘t believe Swarovski „fixed“ anything in more recent samples.

www.birdforum.net

Like

 

[Dr. K]

I recently had a chance to try the NL 10x32 for an outing. I usually shy away from 10x because I prefer to dwell in the image and any shake at all spoils that for me. I am also easily frustrated by a narrow fov. I tried the NL because I could try it with the forehead rest, and because it has an unusually wide fov for a 10x.

I was very nearly sold on it. The fov is perfectly usable. I found the view steady enough for brief views without the headrest and perfectly comfortable for longer dwelling with the headrest in place. I didn’t have any issues with blackouts. Seemed like a huge win.

However, the shallower depth of field (greater compression) from the 10x in combination of the horribly slow focus speed of the NL was a little annoying at greater distances and infuriating when walking into denser forest where the birds were closer. It’s such a shame, as I was really thinking maybe this would be the 10x for me. I am now inspired to try other 10x models, at least those with unusually wide fov (e.g. SF and Nikon HG, which I assume have faster focus?), but really wish there were more forehead rests on the market.