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

[tenex]

However... 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.

At least 80% of traffic here must result from the peculiar fact that no binocular quite seems to get everything right at once.

 

[NDhunter]

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.

As far as I know, the only change in the SF was in armor color.
Jerry

 

[Dr. K]

As far as I know, the only change in the SF was in armor color.
Jerry

I don’t know whether that’s the case or not, but this review suggests there was more to it.

Zeiss Victory 10x42 SF Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

 

[Paultricounty]

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.

I agree with a lot of what you said here, It’s why I like 8x and 7x as my favorites. The image calmness, less image compression, DOF, and easier to find perfect focus, the 10x focus is usually very thin. That being said I find the 10x NL’s with the headrest and FOV to the best for me. The SF’s are my second favorite in that magnification, you make like those as well because of the faster focuser. The MHG although a faster focuser than the NL, is not in the same league in the area of FOV as the NL and SF’s.

 

[OneH]

I had originaly planned on buying the Zeiss SF 8x32 and 10x32 but chose the NL Pures instead since they went on sale recently.

I had recently bought the Vortex Razor UHD 8x32 and 10x32 that I don't even want to use since their glass looks to be definitely not as good as my other much larger Razor UHDs. I just wanted better glass that's all. These are also much larger than I had expected for 32s plus more than three revolutions focus really threw me off.

 

[Jason Bugay Reyes]

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.

I birded a lot in the rainforest with the 10x32 EL and NL and did not find the focusing knob to be slower for my taste while trying to get a look for the fast warblers, wren-babbler etc

 

[GrampaTom]

I agree with a lot of what you said here, It’s why I like 8x and 7x as my favorites. The image calmness, less image compression, DOF, and easier to find perfect focus, the 10x focus is usually very thin. That being said I find the 10x NL’s with the headrest and FOV to the best for me. The SF’s are my second favorite in that magnification, you make like those as well because of the faster focuser. The MHG although a faster focuser than the NL, is not in the same league in the area of FOV as the NL and SF’s.

I birded a lot in the rainforest with the 10x32 EL and NL and did not find the focusing knob to be slower for my taste while trying to get a look for the fast warblers, wren-babbler etc

I go between 3 Zeiss, with notably faster focus and 2 Swaros with admittedly slower focus, almost seamlessly. The focus speed is a difference, for sure. I notice it in the first moments of switching between. I thought when I first got the EL 1042s 4 years ago, the slower focus speed would be an issue. In my living room, seemed so. Birding? Never. With the newest Conquest 8x32, my reaction is the opposite of what many post here. I am surprised and pleased with the optics of it, but have to slow down and fiddle back/forth to get optimum focus a bit, at first. I tend to blow past the best. Not so much with Swaros. With those seems easier to just creep up on best. Im thinking this is more about what one is used to, rather than a good or bad thing. In the store? Be careful judging. In the field? It disappears, as Jason describes.

Paul I wonder... I seem oblivious to depth of field issues, differences. Have gone and looked for it between 8 and 10. Puzzled, I just dont see it. But for those that do, what if slowing down the focus using say a 10, might that be a good thing? Slower focus plus shallower DOF seems a possible advantage, easier not to blow past point of optimum focus, maybe?

I re-read Roger Vine's review of the SFL 1040 last night, Zeiss 10x40 SFL Review. I am puzzled by this comment, "The focus snap is such a fine point it’s almost a minor problem, with just the slightest nudge required to get it perfect. I’ve seen this before with Kowa’s XDs and it usually means superb optical quality." Can anyone explain why focus snap indicates superb optical quality?

 

[Paultricounty]

I go between 3 Zeiss, with notably faster focus and 2 Swaros with admittedly slower focus, almost seamlessly. The focus speed is a difference, for sure. I notice it in the first moments of switching between. I thought when I first got the EL 1042s 4 years ago, the slower focus speed would be an issue. In my living room, seemed so. Birding? Never. With the newest Conquest 8x32, my reaction is the opposite of what many post here. I am surprised and pleased with the optics of it, but have to slow down and fiddle back/forth to get optimum focus a bit, at first. I tend to blow past the best. Not so much with Swaros. With those seems easier to just creep up on best. Im thinking this is more about what one is used to, rather than a good or bad thing. In the store? Be careful judging. In the field? It disappears, as Jason describes.

Paul I wonder... I seem oblivious to depth of field issues, differences. Have gone and looked for it between 8 and 10. Puzzled, I just dont see it. But for those that do, what if slowing down the focus using say a 10, might that be a good thing? Slower focus plus shallower DOF seems a possible advantage, easier not to blow past point of optimum focus, maybe?

Hi Tom, If I understand you, we’re kind of talking about two different things. One being the speed of focus, slow, fast and somewhere in between. All have benefits and detractors, also depends on what you like. Fast in like Zeiss conquest, GPO and the fastest I’ve ever tried, the Nikon gold ring 10x50, it doesn’t even make one rotation turn. If the optics are high quality (another conversation) they snap into focus easily and you get used to the fast focuser, the higher the magnification (less DOF) the more the precision is needed to land at focus without hunting. Lower magnification with more DOF allows the user to kind of dial it into focus, less precision seems to be needed, at least with me and a few others I’ve played around with this. Another thing that many users overlook, is the focuser ratios, some bins have an overall slow focuser , for example taking two+ revolutions from close focus to Infinity, but with some bins it takes 1.25 rotation from close focus to 30 feet, then .75 rotation to go from 30 feet to infinity, thereby making it a fast focuser for those who are observing objects from 30 feet and on. Doesn’t apply if your observing bugs and butterflies then a bird at 30 yards. A perfect example of this is the Vortex UHD’s with a focuser that takes almost 2.7 rotations, but again from a birders perspective it’s relatively fast going from 30 feet to infinity in less than a full rotation.

DOF as you know is another thing, I think this is much more noticeable when comparing a 7x to 10x, the thing that pops out is the lack of need to refocus every few seconds looking at objects that are yards in front or in back of the scene or object. More of the scene is in focus without using the focuser. It makes for very calm observing. Of course sometimes we want to get on top of an object, and that’s when the higher magnification requires a little more skill or concentration, especially when the target is on the move. If someone doesn’t notice DOF even when knowing what to look for , I would imagine it could be something to do with an individuals eyesight, just like how some don’t see CA or other optical anomalies

Just my 2 cents.

I re-read Roger Vine's review of the SFL 1040 last night, Zeiss 10x40 SFL Review. I am puzzled by this comment, "The focus snap is such a fine point it’s almost a minor problem, with just the slightest nudge required to get it perfect. I’ve seen this before with Kowa’s XDs and it usually means superb optical quality." Can anyone explain why focus snap indicates superb optical quality?

 

[OneH]

I go between 3 Zeiss, with notably faster focus and 2 Swaros with admittedly slower focus, almost seamlessly. The focus speed is a difference, for sure. I notice it in the first moments of switching between. I thought when I first got the EL 1042s 4 years ago, the slower focus speed would be an issue. In my living room, seemed so. Birding? Never. With the newest Conquest 8x32, my reaction is the opposite of what many post here. I am surprised and pleased with the optics of it, but have to slow down and fiddle back/forth to get optimum focus a bit, at first. I tend to blow past the best. Not so much with Swaros. With those seems easier to just creep up on best. Im thinking this is more about what one is used to, rather than a good or bad thing. In the store? Be careful judging. In the field? It disappears, as Jason describes.

Paul I wonder... I seem oblivious to depth of field issues, differences. Have gone and looked for it between 8 and 10. Puzzled, I just dont see it. But for those that do, what if slowing down the focus using say a 10, might that be a good thing? Slower focus plus shallower DOF seems a possible advantage, easier not to blow past point of optimum focus, maybe?

I re-read Roger Vine's review of the SFL 1040 last night, Zeiss 10x40 SFL Review. I am puzzled by this comment, "The focus snap is such a fine point it’s almost a minor problem, with just the slightest nudge required to get it perfect. I’ve seen this before with Kowa’s XDs and it usually means superb optical quality." Can anyone explain why focus snap indicates superb optical quality?

I too noticed the better quality usually more expensive bins snap right into focus a lot easier and quicker than the cheaper ones. When it's on, there's no question it's on. No rocking back and fourth needed having to get the focus right there. The only cheap bins I so far bought that snapped right into focus are the Skyrover Banner Cloud APOs followed by several Nikon Prostaff P7 cheapies then SIG Zulu 7, 8, 9 and 10s then Maven B1 and B2s. Recently got a Leupold BX5 Santiam 10x42 snaps right into focus I like it a lot and I don't usually like Leupolds some are fantastic while most others not so much.

The cheapest decent bins I previously bought that snapped right into focus were older Vanguard Endeavor EDs which were made in China only 2/3 to 3/4 total revolutions I really miss that one since they replaced it with an interior Mynmar version after it needed to be sent in for warranty and the current Myanmar made one takes more than one revolution with not as snappy focusing. I like the Vanguards due to better glass than their price depicts and they actually honor their lifetime warranty (with a $10.00 fee co payment). I ended up buying all of their Endeavor ED IV flagship models, ED II and regular ED mid and every level models. QC not that great with plenty of artifacts and dust and debris inside their lenses and obvious scuff and tooling marks on their outsides which doesn't seem to affect the image quality. Sample variance abound and if lucky you get one with really slick buttery smooth focus. The older discontinued Chinese made versions were a lot better quality than the current Myanmar made ones. I collect binoculars and keep the ones I felt were actually worth keeping for the prices paid otherwise I'd have already returned them for a refund. The ED II one revolution and ED IV edited to correct they're in fact one and 7/8 revolutions just checked my ED IVs again to confirm now both Myanmar made. I bought two identicals of each and kept the better of each model and returned the other for refund. The current EDII snaps right into focus really easily compared to their other models. Only just a hair over 1/8ths of a revolution to go from roughly 50 yards to infinity for the current Myanmar made 10x42 Endeaver ED II.

i think the better quality bins have a wider sweet spot in regards to perfectly right there sharp bandwidth focusing.