SFL30 comments and experiences (1 Viewer)

[hopster]

I'm curious to hear others experience with CA on these bins. I tried a pair at the CFO/WFO conference in Colorado going on presently and found the chromatic aberration to be quite poor. I was expecting much better. Maybe it was a bad sample? As reference the SF 8x32 had no problems but the Swarovski Companion CL 8x30 also had poor CA.
My comparison binocular which I use regularly is the Hawke Frontier ED X 8x42 and I found it had less CA than either of the compact binoculars from Zeiss or Swarovski

I agree with your comments about the CA on these, the SW CLs and also the Conquests - and not just on the edges either. I don't know how any of these get such good reviews but then perhaps I am rather sensitive to it.

 

[hopster]

All of them. The SFL range is totally off the table. Took the 8x30 and 8x40mm out on snow to test, and ridge line blew up , and frankly it was shocking. Never again. The VP 8x25 I love, wouldn't trade them. Same as my Opticron Aurora. Both handle snowy mountains with aplomb.

SFL is a hard pass.

I agree with VP 8x25 and Opticron Aurora 8x42 both being a cut above the SFL.

 

[Paultricounty]

I think it's Americans being emphatic. (Does it really matter?)

That’s a good quality, right .

 

[Ratal]

Well, I will say that I do not like them: I find the CA in the ones that I have tried to be intolerable - Both 8x30 and 8x40 and I certainly did not think that they were anywhere near good enough for their price tag. Far from it.

 

[MiddleRiver]

Funny how differently we react to binos... I've found the SFL's to be superb optics in a well-made package, and def worth their price-point. Not perfect of course, but overall top of my list. I'm not terribly sensitive to CA, but I have seen it in optics to objectionable levels. SFL's seem very minimal in that regard.
Go figure!

 

[Ted Y.]

I find the CA in the ones that I have tried to be intolerable

Again, it is about lateral CR or longitudinal CA?

I'm not terribly sensitive to CA

Can someone explain, please: "sensitivity to CA"
The meaning is "I can see it in some particular conditions and do not care", "I can see it all the time with same manifestation (same lines)", "I can see it all the time with aggravation (larger lines) in some conditions", or ....

Or maybe CA is in the eye of the beholder? Meaning this way of discussion it is futile?

 

[Scott98]

Again, it is about lateral CR or longitudinal CA?


Can someone explain, please: "sensitivity to CA"
The meaning is "I can see it in some particular conditions and do not care", "I can see it all the time with same manifestation (same lines)", "I can see it all the time with aggravation (larger lines) in some conditions", or ....

Or maybe CA is in the eye of the beholder? Meaning this way to discussion it is futile?

CA is definitely in the eye of the beholder. In astronomy we notice that some people perceive bluish false color less than others, much of it due to age and or differences in vision. Aging and cataracts tend to block blue light more, for that reason or others, some people don't perceive blue fringing as much as others.

 

[tzed]

CA is definitely in the eye of the beholder. In astronomy we notice that some people perceive bluish false color less than others, much of it due to age and or differences in vision. Aging and cataracts tend to block blue light more, for that reason or others, some people don't perceive blue fringing as much as others.

Fascinating. I found it hard to imagine how others would have such high regard for something that to me is intolerable. I also found it interesting reading back in reviews of older alpha bins and it seems that CA has been accepted from these manufacturers and often reviewers are very forgiving of it, even in very expensive models.

 

[gweller]

I am also quite sensitive to CA, but yet found very little in the SFL 8x40, which I think is a superb binocular for the price. Incidentally I also have a Swaro CL 8x30 and don't really see any bothersome CA in that either. As Scott88 says CA is in the eye of the beholder, but maybe we are also experiencing small variations in production quality that lead to some examples of both bins showing more or less CA??

 

[pm42]

Fascinating. I found it hard to imagine how others would have such high regard for something that to me is intolerable. I also found it interesting reading back in reviews of older alpha bins and it seems that CA has been accepted from these manufacturers and often reviewers are very forgiving of it, even in very expensive models.

Can you prove that the SFL has high level of CA? Because here, we read that this was the case by people who found the Victory 8x25 better.
I have both, this has not been my experience and the pictures I posted above are a proof of that.

So, unless someone can show us why all the people here are wrong and do not see such CA, Occam's razor applies.

 

[Ted Y.]

Another lesson learned: CA level is indeed very subjective when the conditions of evaluation are not specified. Or the results are not described. The information in such situations cand be dismissed, from my perspective.

 

[Paultricounty]

Can you prove that the SFL has high level of CA? Because here, we read that this was the case by people who found the Victory 8x25 better.
I have both, this has not been my experience and the pictures I posted above are a proof of that.

So, unless someone can show us why all the people here are wrong and do not see such CA, Occam's razor applies.

I tried out the SFL’s in different configurations. I didn’t spend much time with the 30 mm because I didn’t like the ergos. The SFL 40’s the 10x had more than the 8x, sometimes to be expected. In the 10x it bothered me, in the 8x not much at all & most all the CA was not on axis. CA can be induced and almost any binoculars. If you are more used to using a binocular that has almost no CA, like Zeiss FL or Kowa Genesis to name a few then you may not like when some CA under curtain contains creep in.

The top Leica’s have a slight more than the other top bins but it’s not Apparent in 90% of viewing conditions. It’s all a trade off. You get one that is better in CA then you don’t like the edge, or if you like the edge you don’t like the color hue so on and so on.

 

[tzed]

I am also quite sensitive to CA, but yet found very little in the SFL 8x40, which I think is a superb binocular for the price. Incidentally I also have a Swaro CL 8x30 and don't really see any bothersome CA in that either. As Scott88 says CA is in the eye of the beholder, but maybe we are also experiencing small variations in production quality that lead to some examples of both bins showing more or less CA??

I am curious about variability between samples as well. I have not looked through multiple samples of either the companion or the SFL, so I don't have more than a sample size of one of each. I would hope that it was just the case of bad quality control. Especially given that the SF 8x32 had a great view though it and they have been compared favorably to each other.

 

[tzed]

Can you prove that the SFL has high level of CA? Because here, we read that this was the case by people who found the Victory 8x25 better.
I have both, this has not been my experience and the pictures I posted above are a proof of that.

So, unless someone can show us why all the people here are wrong and do not see such CA, Occam's razor applies.

I no longer have any of the binoculars in front of me, so no way to prove anything, nor do I care to. I'm just relaying my experience of spending 20 minutes with the SFL going into it wanting to be convinced that this was the binocular for me.

I can clearly see the difference between the two in the picture you sent, but of course I do not know which is the VP or the SFL.

Care to explain what you see as "the simplest explanation" here as nothing stands out to me as obvious except that there may be significant variability between different binoculars of the same model?

 

[pm42]

I no longer have any of the binoculars in front of me, so no way to prove anything, nor do I care to.

Indeed. What would you care proving what you say? This is clearly below you.

I'm just relaying my experience of spending 20 minutes with the SFL

20 minutes on your side vs months of frequent use by others.
Of course, you cannot be wrong.

I can clearly see the difference between the two in the picture you sent, but of course I do not know which is the VP or the SFL.

It is obvious from the context.

Care to explain what you see as "the simplest explanation" here as nothing stands out to me as obvious except that there may be significant variability between different binoculars of the same model?

The simplest explanation is that as usual, some people convince themselves quickly of something wrong and then consider that their limited experience is worth much more than the general consensus, the reviews, etc.
Because they do not care for proofs or other intellectual tools one use to avoid being biased, they do not understand why so many people have a different opinion because they never imagine for one minute that they may be wrong.

 

[hopster]

Again, it is about lateral CR or longitudinal CA?


Can someone explain, please: "sensitivity to CA"
The meaning is "I can see it in some particular conditions and do not care", "I can see it all the time with same manifestation (same lines)", "I can see it all the time with aggravation (larger lines) in some conditions", or ....

Or maybe CA is in the eye of the beholder? Meaning this way of discussion it is futile?

Indeed. What would you care proving what you say? This is clearly below you.


20 minutes on your side vs months of frequent use by others.
Of course, you cannot be wrong.


It is obvious from the context.


The simplest explanation is that as usual, some people convince themselves quickly of something wrong and then consider that their limited experience is worth much more than the general consensus, the reviews, etc.
Because they do not care for proofs or other intellectual tools one use to avoid being biased, they do not understand why so many people have a different opinion because they never imagine for one minute that they may be wrong.

I also wanted to like the SFL 8x40 because of the size, the 'heritage' and the cost, and was expecting to because of the good reviews, but despite this I saw a view with less contrast/saturation and more CA than an Opticron Aurora side-by-side which costs approximately half of the SFL in the UK. Not as bad as the Conquest though which also gets some good reviews but looked pretty average to me. I speak as the owner of an excellent Zeiss optic (my current favourite) so this is not a brand dislike issue. If it's relevant, I have also looked through several examples of the Zeiss SF 8x42 (MK1 and 2) and been underwhelmed by the image quality whilst appreciating the excellent FOV, balance, handling and focusing. My favourite view through a Zeiss is one I am hoping to buy if a focusing issue can be sorted out - an HT 8x42. Bright, sharp (in the main part of the view, edges not so much), excellent colours & contrast, sparkle and transparency like a good Porro. So from my own experience and careful comparison it seems like the design and optical quality of Zeiss differs greatly even amongst their most expensive offerings. Or is it sample variability?

 

[pm42]

I also wanted to like the SFL 8x40 because of the size, the 'heritage' and the cost, and was expecting to because of the good reviews, but despite this I saw a view with less contrast/saturation and more CA than an Opticron Aurora side-by-side which costs approximately half of the SFL in the UK.

In another thread you said:

I looked through a set myself and compared with Zeiss VP 8x25 and Swaro CL 8x30; swapping between them carefully over a 20 minute period. The lack of CA over most of the image was comparable to the Zeiss (perhaps not quite as good)

So you found the Opticron to have more CA than the VP 8x25 but less than the SFL 8x40.
But I checked and the SFL 8x40 has less CA than the VP 8x25 (see picture in a previous post. This is the SFL 8x30 but I shot the same comparison with the 8x40 and got the same results).

So maybe your evaluations are biased because so far, they are not coherent.

 

[hopster]

In another thread you said:

So you found the Opticron to have more CA than the VP 8x25 but less than the SFL 8x40.

Yes.

But I checked and the SFL 8x40 has less CA than the VP 8x25 (see picture in a previous post. This is the SFL 8x30 but I shot the same comparison with the 8x40 and got the same results).

Not in the ones I compared, and the difference was quite clear. I was surprised.

So maybe your evaluations are biased because so far, they are not coherent.

Before you start judging the opinions and evaluations of others as 'incoherent', perhaps it would be wise to consider alternative explanations? One could be sample variability, for instance. It also seems that others here have had a similar evaluation. That probably also needs to be taken into account don't you think?

 

[gweller]

Yes.



Not in the ones I compared, and the difference was quite clear. I was surprised.



Before you start judging the opinions and evaluations of others as 'incoherent', perhaps it would be wise to consider alternative explanations? One could be sample variability, for instance. It also seems that others here have had a similar evaluation. That probably also needs to be taken into account don't you think?

Just out of curiosity, do you wear glasses while using bins??

 

[hopster]

Just out of curiosity, do you wear glasses while using bins??

Usually not, and never when comparing optics. I might do occasionally with the VP 8x25 if I'm walking around a new city or wearing sunglasses and casually observing.