SFL 50mm Second Look - does first impressions really last? (11 Viewers)

[Dennis Mau]

Huh? But, Henry was testing the SFL 8x40?
Are you trying to put words in my mouth or a conclusion derived on what exactly?

I have just stated that my SFL 8x40 has so little CA that it is practically unnoticeable. In what sense does that disagree with Henry's findings?
Can you point me to a posting where I have ever said that the SFL8x40 has excessive CA?

Or are you just extrapolating that test of that SFL to be descriptive of the SFL50 binoculars too?
That would be a totally subjective assumption. And could easily be disregarded as non relevant to my reported, subjective, findings.

So your subjective assessment of my findings are that they are highly questionable due to a test on another binocular where:

A) I think the same as the author when it comes to his findings and
B) it cannot be extrapolated to be valid for a newly released binocular with different specs.

You can "highly question" whatever you like about what I write, I could honestly not care less.

Also, how do you explain that the Zeiss representative acknowledged my CA findings and explained them by saying that Fluoride lenses were omitted in the SFL since they are reserved for the SF binoculars?
Can you dismiss that too as being totally subjective?

I am sorry Dennis, I am very restrictive with the Ignore button, but I will hit it right now. I will not be able to read your posts from now on.
Over and out.

I realize opinions are different on CA, but you keep repeating it in every post, how lousy the SFL 8x50 is controlling CA. The SFL 8x50 is probably identical to the SFL 8x40 in optical design, so there is no valid reason why the SFL 8x50 would have more CA than the SFL 8x40 unless Zeiss changed the focal length for some reason. My problem is a lot of members will trust your opinion and won't even try this new binocular. They see you saying time and time again will I am not buying it so they won't either, and they might not even see any CA and miss out on a good binocular. Maybe Zeiss did change something in the SFL 8x50, but you are the first reviewer I have heard that said they will not buy the binocular, and it is not worth the money. Maybe time will prove that you are correct that the new SFL 8x50 is a lemon. I will let you know what I think of it on Thursday.

I am going to compare it to a Swarovski EL 8.5x42 and see which one has more CA. Furthermore, I just bought one, and now you are saying you wouldn't buy one, and they aren't worth the money, so I guess if you are correct I will get my return label ready. I was looking for a full size 42mm or 50mm binocular, so I thought I would try the SFL 8x50, but I read your review too late that said the SFL had a boat load of CA, so now I ordered a Swarovski EL 8.5x42, and I will compare them and keep the one I like the best. I will compare them when I get them both and report on the CA. Furthermore, I believe the difference in CA between the SFL 8x40 and SFL 8x50 that HenRun noticed is because the SFL 8x40 has a longer Focal Ratio of 3.6 versus a Focal Ratio of 3.2 for the SFL 8x50. This difference in Focal Ratio could make the SFL 8x40 handle CA better than the SFL 8x50 because longer Focal Ratios control CA better with similar glass types.

So Zeiss designed the SFL 8x50 and all the SFL 50mm with a shorter Focal Ratio than the SFL 8x40 to keep the length and weight down at the expense of CA control. The SFL 10x50 and 12x50 have the same Focal Ratio as the SFL 8x50 of 3.2 so they would show more CA. The SFL 8x30 has a Focal Ratio of 4.0 so it would be the best of the SFL's at controlling CA and the SFL 10x40 would have a focal Ratio of 3.6 or the same as the SFL 8x40. The new 50mm SFL's have a shorter Focal Ratio than the 40mm SFL's so they likely will have more CA. The Focal Ratio of the Zeiss SF 8x32 is 4.75 or much longer, which would aid CA control significantly. That is why all the SF binoculars are longer, and that and the fluorite glass is why they have such good CA control. Of course, the objective lenses and oculars might be slightly inset, but the Focal Ratios are still relative. Short fat binoculars are not good with CA and other aberrations because their Focal Ratios are too fast to control them. The Focal Ratio of the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 is 3.8 or pretty long.

 

[Dennis Mau]

HenRun. I believe you are correct in your observation that the SFL 50mm has more CA than the SFL 40mm binoculars. I figured the F-Ratio of the SFL 50mm's at 3.2 and the SFL 40mm's at 3.6 which I think is enough to make a difference in CA. The SFL 30mm has the slowest F-Ratio at 4.0 so it will be the best of the SFL's at controlling CA. I got a little caustic in my posts because I was angry at myself for not reading your review before ordering the SFL 8x50. A short fat binocular like the SFL 8x50 is not good for controlling CA and other aberrations as well because of the fast F-Ratio. Zeiss shortened the SFL 50mm's to make them more compact and lighter, at the expense of CA control. I ordered a Swarovski EL 8.5x42 to compare with the SFL 8x50, and I will keep the one I like the best. I know the Swaro is definitely an alpha, so we will see how it compares. I will write my observations when I get them. Sorry, if I got a little abrasive, but I wasn't comprehending how the SFL 8x40 could have hardly any CA and the SFL 8x50 had considerably more until I realized the SFL 8x50 had a faster F-ratio. Your observations were good and very helpful.

 

[Ignatius]

Am I glad that changing one's name does not remove them from ignore lists. But sometimes I have to log in even if I have nothing to contribute, just to escape pages of @Dennis Mau's interminable drivel and read interesting threads replete with good information and observations like this one here.
Thanks once again to @HenRun. Please do not stop coming here and sharing views, observations, tests and humor.

 

[Canip]

I never ever put somebody in ignore before, that says something…

Welcome to the CIBU („Community of Ignore Button Users“)

2 warnings:

With the ignore button active, you won‘t see the posts of the individual that you are ignoring, but you will still be made aware that the individual has written a post. This may make you feel almost as annoyed as if you had read the post in question

Every once in a while, you will be tempted to press the „show ignored content“ button. This temptation will grow over time. DON‘T GET WEAK!

 

[NatureLover123]

So you don't get an orange crescent ring in the lower right of the FOV with the SF 10x42, which is caused by distinct reflections visible beyond the eyepiece's diaphragm, as described in Allbinos? I did, and it was a deal killer on both the SF 10x42 and SF 8x42. I simply couldn't tolerate it and returned them both.

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 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.

www.allbinos.com

No nothing. The SF 10x42 is one of the finest maybe the finest 10x still these days. I can hold it also stable with the balance to the eye pieces.

 

[kabsetz]

HenRun,

Thank you for your very well written, informative and also humorous postings! I would very much hope that you don't give up on BF, but rather just learn to ignore the one member whose posts richly deserve to be ignored. I really don't understand why the moderation policy of this forum does not take care of this.

I will second your findings on the SFL. I have also seen them in glass and metal, and saw the same obvious and, in my view excessive CA you did. I also did not like the narrow FOV of the 8x50 model. The 10x50 was my favourite of the three, but with the CA I felt the compactness and light weight don't get the image quality they deserve.

All the best, and do keep posting.

- Kimmo

 

[hopster]

...the UVHD+ 7x42 in store had a very fine focuser(best so far out of the six or seven I have handled) and I love the format.
It is one of the nicest binoculars to look at for me. I love the design. It was my dream binocular. But then I had to wake up.
The view reminded me of two things: why I like it so much and why it is not for me.

Eye ergonomics and a slightly too small AFOV. Everything else I can live with.

How much are they asking for the 7x42 with the excellent focuser?

 

[PeterPS]

How much are they asking for the 7x42 with the excellent focuser?

About 2844$ (ouch):
Leica 7x42 Ultravid HD-Plus - Fågel- & naturkikare - Gofoto.se

 

[Holger Merlitz]

HenRun,

Thank you for your very well written, informative and also humorous postings! I would very much hope that you don't give up on BF, but rather just learn to ignore the one member whose posts richly deserve to be ignored. I really don't understand why the moderation policy of this forum does not take care of this.

I will second your findings on the SFL. I have also seen them in glass and metal, and saw the same obvious and, in my view excessive CA you did. I also did not like the narrow FOV of the 8x50 model. The 10x50 was my favourite of the three, but with the CA I felt the compactness and light weight don't get the image quality they deserve.

All the best, and do keep posting.

- Kimmo

This would be disappointing indeed. I fully understand that the SFL was not supposed to become an "SF-eater" and that the last notch of performance was intended to be reserved for the higher priced model. But if this now turns out to be killing the SFL due to excessive CA, then the entire strategy was a terrible failure. Zeiss, have mercy with us and throw a half way effective ED glass into the equation!

Cheers,
Holger

 

[hopster]

About 2844$ (ouch):
Leica 7x42 Ultravid HD-Plus - Fågel- & naturkikare - Gofoto.se

"Ouch" indeed!

 

[temmie]

Is that CA in the 10x50 SFL something you see when you're not specifically looking for it?

 

[greekgeek]

I really like the SFL in both 8x40 and now 8x30. The (excellent) 8x40 has enough CA in challenging conditions already to be an annoyance, so it's disappointing to hear that the 50mm version will be even worse

 

[Vespobuteo]

"Ouch" indeed!

About 2844$ (ouch):
Leica 7x42 Ultravid HD-Plus - Fågel- & naturkikare - Gofoto.se

Note that the price includes 25% tax (and free health care), without the tax, the price is very similar to what you pay at B&H.

 

[Dennis Mau]

No nothing. The SF 10x42 is one of the finest maybe the finest 10x still these days. I can hold it also stable with the balance to the eye pieces.

I agree that the SF's are superb, but for some reason I got an orange crescent at the bottom of the FOV. I guess everybody is different when it comes to seeing different kinds of glare and CA. It depends upon the way the binoculars fit your face. Do you wear glasses?

 

[Vespobuteo]

I really like the SFL in both 8x40 and now 8x30. The (excellent) 8x40 has enough CA in challenging conditions already to be an annoyance, so it's disappointing to hear that the 50mm version will be even worse

Unfortunately inflation has eroded product value and compactness comes to a price (no free lunches in binocular design).

 

[Dennis Mau]

HenRun,

Thank you for your very well written, informative and also humorous postings! I would very much hope that you don't give up on BF, but rather just learn to ignore the one member whose posts richly deserve to be ignored. I really don't understand why the moderation policy of this forum does not take care of this.

I will second your findings on the SFL. I have also seen them in glass and metal, and saw the same obvious and, in my view excessive CA you did. I also did not like the narrow FOV of the 8x50 model. The 10x50 was my favourite of the three, but with the CA I felt the compactness and light weight don't get the image quality they deserve.

All the best, and do keep posting.

- Kimmo

Kimmo. Thanks for the verification of the excessive CA in the SFL 8x50. I get a pair on Thursday, but I wish I would have seen this feedback before I ordered them! Do you think it is the fast F-Ratio in the 50mm SFL causing the CA problem?

 

[Dennis Mau]

Unfortunately inflation has eroded product value and compactness comes to a price (no free lunches in binocular design).

I agree. I think the SFL 8x30 may have the least CA because it has the longest F-Ratio of 4.0. Furthermore, I will compare my SFL 8x30 to the SFL 8x50 I ordered on Thursday, and also to a Swarovski EL 8.5x42.

 

[Dennis Mau]

This would be disappointing indeed. I fully understand that the SFL was not supposed to become an "SF-eater" and that the last notch of performance was intended to be reserved for the higher priced model. But if this now turns out to be killing the SFL due to excessive CA, then the entire strategy was a terrible failure. Zeiss, have mercy with us and throw a half way effective ED glass into the equation!

Cheers,
Holger

Or maybe some Fluorite like the SF!

 

[Dennis Mau]

Is that CA in the 10x50 SFL something you see when you're not specifically looking for it?

That is a good question, and I think it depends if the CA is in the center or on the edge. If it is in the center you see it all the time, but if it is on the edge you have to look for it IME. The CA in my SFL 8x30 is mostly on the edge, so you have to look for it, but it is not intolerable. The SFL 8x30 is a good binocular.

 

[Swedpat]

I am looking forward for further reports on SFL 8x50. Regarding the narrow FOV, this is probably an unevitable result of the optical laws and requires larger prism than this size of body can allow.
It's stated at 58deg AFOV which I think still is decent.