SFL 8x40 or 10x40? (1 Viewer)

[BogBean]

Quite agree. When actually looking through the bins at birds etc, the edge sharpness for me does not really come into play. Sometimes I think certain users here are more obsessed with picking up on the smallest deficiency than with actually using the binocular for what they are intended for. I for one am very happy using the 2 SFL bins I have for birding.

I think you only have to look at "Star Tests" for scopes for more proof of that.
Imagine a deficiency so small you have to look at a tiny beam of light to detect it!

In this case a "deficiency" that's right out at the edge of the FoV.

If only we just use binoculars normally! like normal wildlife watchers! we'll be amazed!

 

[[email protected]]

I prefer the minimum focus distance of the SFLs. 10x and can literally focus down at my feet, which is amazing. Better for insects, reptiles and flowers etc.
I wouldn't get on with the NLs for that reason, or the price.

Get a Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32. Better close focus, faster focuser, less expensive and no 'Blue Ring of Death'.

 

[[email protected]]

I've never seen the so called blue ring on either the 10x40 SFL or the 8x40 SFL. I don't know of any other reports of it behalf from the above - there was some talk of it on other Zeiss bins (FL ?) I think.

It really doesn't matter to me because I saw an obvious blue ring around the FOV. I don't care if other people saw it or not.

 

[BogBean]

Get a Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32. Better close focus, faster focuser, less expensive and no 'Blue Ring of Death'.

Well, see post 10, but we can go round in complete circles if you wish.

 

[[email protected]]

Quite agree. When actually looking through the bins at birds etc, the edge sharpness for me does not really come into play. Sometimes I think certain users here are more obsessed with picking up on the smallest deficiency than with actually using the binocular for what they are intended for. I for one am very happy using the 2 SFL bins I have for birding.

Have you ever used an NL for any length of time and then used your SFL's? That is when you will notice the differences when you go down in optics, especially from an alpha to a sub-alpha or when you compare them back to back like I do.

Your eyes become accustomed to a huge FOV that is sharp to the edge as in the NL, then you suddenly look through an SFL, and it seems tunnel like with soft edges in comparison.

If you are used to an SFL and never compare them to an NL, you will be satisfied. It is kind of like driving a Mustang GT all the time and then test-driving a Ferrari or Lamborghini. You will never be satisfied again with the Mustang.

Once you go alpha, you can never go backa! 😁

 

[[email protected]]

Well, see post 10, but we can go round in complete circles if you wish.

10x is overhyped. With 8x you can see just as much detail because you are steadier just like an IS binocular. Most people shake 30% more with 10x.

The resolution you gain with 10x because of a larger image you lose because of shaking. You probably lose 30% resolution because you are shaking more with 10x.

Also, 8x has a bigger FOV, better DOF, and it is brighter most of the time. 8x is by in large the best birding magnification unless you do all open country birding.

This article from Tract Optics will open your eyes to the advantages of 8x versus 10x.

"Here’s a little test you can take to compare 8x versus 10x binoculars. Tack a dollar bill on the wall about 20 feet away and try to read the serial number. Start with a 10x binocular. Oftentimes, you’ll shake so much that the task is nearly impossible. Next, take up a 8x. And while you’ll still notice some shake, you’ll notice that the movement in the 10x is exponentially greater.

It’s important to understand that just because the image is bigger doesn’t mean you can verify detail. So the truth is, if you can’t hold a 10x binocular steady, you will actually get better results in the field with a 8x. The advantages of a larger image are sometimes not practical because your every movement is also magnified."

https://tractoptics.com/blog/8x-versus-10x-binoculars/

 

[BogBean]

I seem to be able to hold them steady, thank goodness. And for me, 10x has been a good improvement over a (slightly lower quality) 8x.

 

[tenex]

I think you only have to look at "Star Tests" for scopes for more proof of that.
Imagine a deficiency so small you have to look at a tiny beam of light to detect it!

Have you ever used a scope? At magnifications reaching 50-70x (or more) even small deficiencies matter more.

 

[BogBean]

Have you ever used a scope? At magnifications reaching 50-70x (or more) even small deficiencies matter more.

Yes, I couldn't see any deficiencies. I looked at wildlife through it

 

[gweller]

Have you ever used an NL for any length of time and then used your SFL's? That is when you will notice the differences when you go down in optics, especially from an alpha to a sub-alpha or when you compare them back to back like I do.

Your eyes become accustomed to a huge FOV that is sharp to the edge as in the NL, then you suddenly look through an SFL, and it seems tunnel like with soft edges in comparison.

If you are used to an SFL and never compare them to an NL, you will be satisfied. It is kind of like driving a Mustang GT all the time and then test-driving a Ferrari or Lamborghini. You will never be satisfied again with the Mustang.

Once you go alpha, you can never go backa! 😁

I've owned and used a lot of your so called alpha level bins, so I know full well that the (perceived) difference is not as great as you would like to think it is. The SFL are just a nice bin to use, no glare, no deteriorating rubber amour, light and a reasonable price.

 

[[email protected]]

I've owned and used a lot of your so called alpha level bins, so I know full well that the (perceived) difference is not as great as you would like to think it is. The SFL are just a nice bin to use, no glare, no deteriorating rubber amour, light and a reasonable price.

IMO, the SFL's are overpriced for what they are. You're paying a lot for the Zeiss name, and they are still MIJ. They have a mediocre FOV with soft edges, average build quality and in my case the 'Blue Ring of Death'.

I would take a Nikon MHG over them any day for less money. No glare, no deteriorating rubber armour, light and a more reasonable price.

I think if you compared a Swarovski SLC 8x42 which you can buy for less than the price of a SFL 8x40 back to back like I did, you would much prefer the SLC. The SLC is brighter, the FOV seems larger and the FOV is sharper to the edge and no 'Blue Ring of Death'.

 

[MiddleRiver]

IMO, the SFL's are overpriced for what they are. You're paying a lot for the Zeiss name, and they are still MIJ. They have a mediocre FOV with soft edges, average build quality and in my case the 'Blue Ring of Death'. I would take a Nikon MHG over them any day for less money. No glare, no deteriorating rubber armour, light and a more reasonable price.

Funny, I sold our MHGs and bought 3rd pair of SFL's.

To each their own. This horse has been beaten within an inch of its life!

 

[[email protected]]

Yes, I couldn't see any deficiencies. I looked at wildlife through it

What Tenex is saying is as magnification increases, optical perfection becomes more and more important. That is why even a higher magnification binocular is harder to make perfect than a lower magnification binocular.

That is why the astro nuts spend so much on APO Refractors because when you are dealing with magnifications in the 200 to 300x range any optical aberration in the optical train can easily be seen in the star image.

So having a high quality spotter is very important when you start pushing the magnification into the 70x and 80x range.

 

[Paultricounty]

Quite agree. When actually looking through the bins at birds etc, the edge sharpness for me does not really come into play. Sometimes I think certain users here are more obsessed with picking up on the smallest deficiency than with actually using the binocular for what they are intended for. I for one am very happy using the 2 SFL bins I have for birding.

Not only that but some people see things others don’t. This must have a lot to do with physiology. I’ve tried both the 8 & 10x40 and the 8x30 with a few observers , nobody seen the blue ring. I can say that many more people report the blue ring with the SF’s. I’ve seen it in a few of that line up. I currently own the 8x32 and I can see the ring under certain lighting conditions, but I can adjust by pressing a little more against my ere socket and it disappears. So the motto of the story is to always try them out, imho.

 

[Paultricounty]

What Tenex is saying is as magnification increases, optical perfection becomes more and more important. That is why even a higher magnification binocular is harder to make perfect than a lower magnification binocular.

That is why the astro nuts spend so much on APO Refractors because when you are dealing with magnifications in the 200 to 300x range any optical aberration in the optical train can easily be seen in the star image.

So having a high quality spotter is very important when you start pushing the magnification into the 70x and 80x range.

Astro nuts , funny 😄.

 

[Maljunulo]

Sometimes I think certain users here are more obsessed with picking up on the smallest deficiency than with actually using the binocular for what they are intended for.

Bingo!

 

[[email protected]]

Not only that but some people see things others don’t. This must have a lot to do with physiology. I’ve tried both the 8 & 10x40 and the 8x30 with a few observers , nobody seen the blue ring. I can say that many more people report the blue ring with the SF’s. I’ve seen it in a few of that line up. I currently own the 8x32 and I can see the ring under certain lighting conditions, but I can adjust by pressing a little more against my ere socket and it disappears. So the motto of the story is to always try them out, imho.

That shows how we are all different, especially when it comes to CA and glare. I didn't see the 'Blue Ring of Death' in the SF 8x32, but I did see the 'Orange Crescent of Doom' in the SF 8x42.

 

[[email protected]]

Bingo!

That is what this forum is about, not birding but binoculars and their deficiencies.

 

[tenex]

Yes, I couldn't see any deficiencies. I looked at wildlife through it

I suppose any scope can show "wildlife". But if you don't even know whether it would have identified birds at that distance, or how it would have performed on the night sky, why are you calling star tests foolish?

 

[BogBean]

I suppose any scope can show "wildlife". But if you don't even know whether it would have identified birds at that distance, or how it would have performed on the night sky, why are you calling star tests foolish?

Because again, it is falling into the category of looking for minute deficiencies beyond what I'm using the scope for.
I watch wildlife with a spotting scope. If there is a problem with that, including birds as wildlife, then the scope would go back.
If you need to do some test involving a pin of light to find a fault that's not apparent when watching wildlife, then I'm not interested.

I am very interested in rubber armour cracking and falling off binoculars, binoculars with a history of dodgy eyecups, and weak spots where the dioptre button has a habit of falling off. And poorly designed Objective covers that keep breaking off. So keep up the good work there.