Sorry, but I compared all those binoculars back to back because I had them all, and I agree almost 100% with Allbinos. Allbinos is one of the few review sites that is objective. Canip's reviews are all subjective, and he is incorrect if he says the the MHG has sharper edges than the CL. That makes me doubt the rest of his reviews because I know for a fact that the CL has sharper edges than the MHG. The Nikon Premier HGL is a much better binocular than the MHG 8x30, and I have compared them side by side. The HGL has much sharper edges and is much better at glare control than the MHG. The transmission of the HGL is higher than the MHG, so how could it be brighter. The trouble with the MHG is it is a "Glare Monster" similar to the M7. For me and many others, that is a deal killer.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Canip
- Start date
dorubird
The unskilled mechanic blames his tools!
I feel sorry for you that you are so influenced by the allbinos numbers.
Monarch HG 8x30 is a brighter binocular than HGL 8X32 and also a little brighter than the last version of E2 8x30 with new coating. I compared them very carefully side by side, because I had to stay with only one of them. The brightest (night and day) was MHG 8x30 followed by E2 8x30 and in last place in brightness (visible) was HGL 8x32. So between HGL and HG my tests it's totally the opposite of what allbinos light transmission is like. I'm not the only one who noticed this exaggeration of HGL light transmission results in allbinos test, but also with other binoculars
Monarch HG 8x30 is a brighter binocular than HGL 8X32 and also a little brighter than the last version of E2 8x30 with new coating. I compared them very carefully side by side, because I had to stay with only one of them. The brightest (night and day) was MHG 8x30 followed by E2 8x30 and in last place in brightness (visible) was HGL 8x32. So between HGL and HG my tests it's totally the opposite of what allbinos light transmission is like. I'm not the only one who noticed this exaggeration of HGL light transmission results in allbinos test, but also with other binoculars
Last edited:
Well if you don't believe Allbinos do you believe Dr. Holger Merlitz? I think he knows a little more than you or Canip about binoculars and in his review of the CL 8x30 and the NHG 8x30 he also says the CL has sharper edges and handles glare better than the MHG. Here is his full review and some excerpts from it.
"Image sharpness: Both binoculars offer a perfect sharpness near the central part of the image. Through the Nikon, the star test delivers almost point-like stars within the innermost 70% of the angle, and through the CL Companion, this sweet spot extends further out to 80-85% of the angle. Close to the edge, the CL Companion generates a sharper image than the Monarch HG. Although it is somewhat narrower, the CL's image is, far off the center, of superior quality. I have observed an asymmetry of sharpness in the right tube of the Monarch HG test sample: The area of maximum sharpness is shifted a bit toward the lower half of the image, the blur visibly worse near the upper edge of the field stop than close to the bottom. Since the distribution looks normal through the left tube, I suspect that the observed shift may be the result of a collimation procedure, during which the right light beam was slightly shifted off-center to match up the directions of both sides. That doesn't really affect observations in daylight, but under the stars, this asymmetry is obvious in the right tube."
"Stray light: The Monarch HG is suffering a side-pupil (Fig. 2, right panel, to the left just outside the exit pupil) which causes stray-light contamination in some situations, notably during twilight or on fairly dark, gloomy days, when the eye-pupils are expanded and easily getting in contact with the side-pupil. If under such conditions the binocular is panning, then flashes of whiteout are sometimes disturbing the view. I suspect that this side pupil is generated inside the prism (it appears to be identical with a problem found inside the 8x32 EL WB by Swarovski). The 8x30 CL Companion shows a superior stray light resistance and performs rather well in difficult light situations."
"Low light performance: Is very close. In some situations I got the impression of a minor advantage for the Nikon Monarch, but this was not consistently so. Both binoculars appear to have comparable total transmission values and are performing equally well in low light."
That term is what we normally also use in Switzerland's German speaking area as a dialect word.
dorubird
The unskilled mechanic blames his tools!
I like Dr. Holger Merlitz reviews very much!
CL has a smaller field of view 7.6 vs 8.3 so its edge it is sharper but the sweetspot it is about the same. Yes, Nikon has a decrease in sharpness towards the edges but that is very smooth and not intrusive in last 15% of from his larger FOV. But must be taken into account that Holger notice some problems of optical decentration with his MHG sample!!! I have seen much stronger glare in other much more expensive binoculars than this MHG. Some of them you own too! And with all these MHG centering problems, the performance between the two binoculars is similar if you follow the conclusions, maybe even a little better MHG in his tables! A pair of binoculars is a sum of features and must be judged as a whole package. MHG it is a great litlle bino, this is what I want to emphasize!
Last edited:
henry link
Well-known member
Allbino's problems with the credibility of their light transmission measurements seem to date mainly from the first few years after they began using a spectrophotometer. The Nikon 8x32 HGL transmission graph below on the left is an example of an improbable measurement from 2011. Notice that the HGL's light transmission is strangely high for a Schmidt-Pechan binocular with silver mirror coating and 18 glass to air surfaces. In fact, it's substantially higher than Allbino's 2015 measurement of its successor, the Nikon 8x32 EDG with dielectric mirror coating.
And then, from 2010, there is the infamous Docter 8x56 Nobilem graph with transmission reaching 100%.
Attachments
Last edited:
I am glad you finally agree with me about the edge sharpness. I believe, as Albinos said, Nikon would have been better off designing the MHG with a slightly smaller FOV which would allow for sharper edges. I find the softer edges on the MHG distracting, but that is personal preference because it doesn't seem to bother you. My point is the CL has sharper edges and better glare control than the MHG, and it depends on if these two things are important to you or not which binocular you choose. These two things are what makes the CL rank so much higher than the MHG on Allbinos. But that doesn't mean it is the best binocular for everybody.
Last edited:
dorubird
The unskilled mechanic blames his tools!
Yes, another example:
Nikon E2 8x30 has edge blur in allbinos tests 73% similar to Nikon MHG 8x30 which has 74%. Anyone who looked through these two tools, at the same time, immediately noticed that the MHG is much more detailed on the edges. Allbinos doesn't talk about a very important thing when it comes to edge blur: For them, the intensity of difference in clarity between the center and the edges does not matter, they focus in tests only on this difference as surface and not as intensity of sharpness. But in reality, two binoculars with a same 74% clarity surface can have extremely different intensity of clarity on the edges. For example: one bino (like 8x30 Nikon E2 or 8x30 Nikon Monarch 7) has the last 26% very blurred, practically unusable, at the limit of supportability, whitout any details. And another binos (like the Nikon 8x30 MHG) has the same 26% of FOV perfectly usable with planty of details, because the difference in resolution between the edges and the center is discreet and small, and not very obvious. In reality, this translates into an infinitely better performance on the edges in the MHG, even if it is about the same last 26% FOV. This can be more quickly observed in side by side comparisons, which I understand that is impossible with every binocular for allbinos. That is precisely why I understand and appreciate a lot and find allbinos reviews very useful as they are, but we have to understand and extract selectively just like in any review
Last edited:
Good news. Those neighbours (who were renting) have been evicted by the property owners and have now gone.
I hope it's not a 1 april joke.
Pinac: your post #32 is spot on. Though I only had a very short side by side comparison of the two and drawing other conclusions ”from memory” I think you nailed it.
One thing I can add that for me the eye placement is easier with the Leica. With the SFL 30 I did not get the same generous margin as with the SFL 40.
As a side note the little Meopta B1 is back home for a while. Eye placement is one of the very best for me and the ergonomics are top notch. Optically trailing behind the other two but image is almost always pleasing.
One thing I can add that for me the eye placement is easier with the Leica. With the SFL 30 I did not get the same generous margin as with the SFL 40.
As a side note the little Meopta B1 is back home for a while. Eye placement is one of the very best for me and the ergonomics are top notch. Optically trailing behind the other two but image is almost always pleasing.
No the renting agent told a neighbour they have gone and left the house in an awrful mess that will cost more than the deposit to clean up and that is no joke at all.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
This family is missing a 32 member, Swaro EL. ✌🏼
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Wow think about what you said , a shorter , lighter NL with a slightly smaller FOV. Lets ad sharp to the edge. That could be the NLL 😂. Sharpness, transparency , resolution and brightness , kind of an NL in a SFL size and weight, in 40mm and 30mm. I’d be all over that. Or maybe an ELL.
This - and the fabulous Zeiss FL - have unfortunately left this earth* and are much missed
* not in production any more
{{ cont'd }}
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons
Comparison 5: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD
Leica started making a 8x32 Trinovid in 2000 with the Trinovid BN, in production until 2007. From then and until 2016, there was no Trinovid in that size. In 2016, the Trinovid HD series was launched and with it a new 8x32 Trinovid.
Comparing it to the Zeiss SFL, three things become apparent immediately: The Trinovid, in size moderately larger than the SFL, is about 40% heavier; its field of view is one degree narrower, which may not seem much, but feels like a substantial difference (almost 20m/1000m less in the Trinovid); and CA correction is much better in the SFL, where there is almost none in the center of the FOV, whereas I always see color fringes also in the center of the image of the Trinovid, despite its “HD” label.
Otherwise, the Trinovid is for me a pleasant all purpose binocular. Central sharpness and contrast are good, but I find it a level below the SFL; this goes together with a much warmer image tone in the Trinovid, so the Trinovid would not get top marks in color fidelity from me. Overall, I find the image in the SFL brighter and more brilliant. Also, edge sharpness is clearly better in the SFL than in the Trinovid.
Stray-light control is good in both binos; there are faint spikes on bright light sources in both, comparable in size and intensity.
Everything mechanical works fine in both, the focusers are equally smooth, the one of the SFL perhaps a bit less “gummy” than the one of the Trinovid. On the other hand, with 0.95m, the Trinovid “beats” the SFL single handedly in terms of close focus.
Sufficient eye relief in the Trinovid, ample in the SFL. Ease of view is better for me in the Trinovid, I put it in front of my eyes and don’t have to fiddle with eye position or eyecup extension. For me, the SFL 8x30 (in contrast to the larger 8x40 model) requires a bit more attention to proper positioning.
Personal verdict in a nutshell:
fwiw Canip
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons
Comparison 5: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD
Leica started making a 8x32 Trinovid in 2000 with the Trinovid BN, in production until 2007. From then and until 2016, there was no Trinovid in that size. In 2016, the Trinovid HD series was launched and with it a new 8x32 Trinovid.
Comparing it to the Zeiss SFL, three things become apparent immediately: The Trinovid, in size moderately larger than the SFL, is about 40% heavier; its field of view is one degree narrower, which may not seem much, but feels like a substantial difference (almost 20m/1000m less in the Trinovid); and CA correction is much better in the SFL, where there is almost none in the center of the FOV, whereas I always see color fringes also in the center of the image of the Trinovid, despite its “HD” label.
Otherwise, the Trinovid is for me a pleasant all purpose binocular. Central sharpness and contrast are good, but I find it a level below the SFL; this goes together with a much warmer image tone in the Trinovid, so the Trinovid would not get top marks in color fidelity from me. Overall, I find the image in the SFL brighter and more brilliant. Also, edge sharpness is clearly better in the SFL than in the Trinovid.
Stray-light control is good in both binos; there are faint spikes on bright light sources in both, comparable in size and intensity.
Everything mechanical works fine in both, the focusers are equally smooth, the one of the SFL perhaps a bit less “gummy” than the one of the Trinovid. On the other hand, with 0.95m, the Trinovid “beats” the SFL single handedly in terms of close focus.
Sufficient eye relief in the Trinovid, ample in the SFL. Ease of view is better for me in the Trinovid, I put it in front of my eyes and don’t have to fiddle with eye position or eyecup extension. For me, the SFL 8x30 (in contrast to the larger 8x40 model) requires a bit more attention to proper positioning.
Personal verdict in a nutshell:
- the Trinovid is a bit larger and much heavier
- Ease of view is better on the Trinovid
- FOV is much wider in the SFL
- Central sharpness and contrast are at a similar level, edge sharpness is better in the SFL
- Image brightness and brilliance is better in the SFL; the Trinovid shows a distinct warm hue
- Panning is comfortable in both
- Stray-light control is comparable
- CA correction is clearly better in the SFL
- Usable eye relief appears sufficient in the Trinovid, the SFL has ample
- The Trinovid has best-in-class close focus, even better than the (already good) SFL
fwiw Canip
Did you get all the remnants cleaned up?
Swarovision EL 8x32 is the NLL. If you want a 30 mm, try the CL 8x30. It is an excellent binocular. Pretty close to the SFL 8x30 for fewer dineros.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
No, been there, got that. it would need to be lighter and shorter.Swarovision EL 8x32. Look on eBay.
Attachments
nevertheless, I would be very interested in hearing your findings comparing the FL and the SFLThis - and the fabulous Zeiss FL - have unfortunately left this earth* and are much missed
* not in production any more
The SFL seems like the ‘obvious’ successor to the FL and the FL can still be found quite regularly in second hand.
Very interesting, thanks!
I had expected/hoped to hear about increased brightness and/or whiteness/sparkle(?) in the Zeiss SFL compared to the UV HD(+) (I have the HD, but heard that there was no noticeable difference with the HD+ in the 8x32 version.).
Reading this, apart from the slightly larger FOV, there might be less for me to find in the SFL than I thought (I have no issue with the small eye relief of the UV).
In my search for the ‘ideal’ compact 8x30-32mm, I was hoping for the SFL to bring together the best of the FL and of the UV, even if I would probably still keep 1 of the 2 😊
I would really love to try out the SFL and find out 🙃
