The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars (1 Viewer)

[GrampaTom]

The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars

PART 1: General comments and comparison of data
PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons
Comparison 1: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica UV 8x32 HD+
Comparison 2: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Swarovski CL 8x30
Comparison 3: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Nikon MHG 8x30
Comparison 4: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and MeoStar 8x32 B1 Plus
Comparison 5: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD
Comparison 6: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Conquest 8x32 HD
Comparison "7 and 8": Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Mount Olympus

 

[Paultricounty]

What is the length of the NL 8x32 compared to the 8x42? Why do si want that large of a 8x32 bin if Such an expansive FOV isn’t important ?

I think a couple of factors go into this if you think it makes sense. I agree with you if the FOV is not important then there is no need for the longer (larger) and more expensive binocular. I could easily do without the large FOV, it just it does ad a nice demnetion to the overall image especially with the well corrected edges. What Dennis is saying makes a lot of sense and I shamelessly agree. The NL and SF are about the same weight as most 32’s and it has that large well corrected FOV. To me and many others I observe with feel weight is more important than the size, my wife where every half an oz matters even more so. Nobody feels the length around their neck, they feel the weight.

I’ll also say that 32’s won’t take the place overall of a 42 , but I will say imo in almost 90% of observing conditions the modern high quality 32’s easily does what the 42 dies without ever missing the larger objective. At least for most people this is true. I have absolutely no issues and feel no difference when carrying an NL or SF 32 to any other binoculars that weigh about the same over long hikes.

So it comes down more about price than length. If you don’t want or need the FOV then save the money but the length is a non issue , within reason of course, that’s why none of us would want a WX even if it was 25oz. My 2 cents.

 

[Paultricounty]

{{ cont'd }}

The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars

PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons

Comparison "7 and 8": Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Mount Olympus

The ancient Greeks believed that everybody who was anybody among their gods was living on Mount Olympus – at the time the top spot among divine living areas. And for sure up there, the gods were using the best of the best among 8x30 / 8x32 binoculars, i.e. SFs and NLs. Is the SFL on its way up there, or will it stop at base camp?

Two years ago, as mentioned in another post, I had a preference of the NL over the SF, but this has turned lately (no, this has nothing to do with glare), and the SF has grown on me considerably (Lee seems to consider it his best 8x32 as well). Overall, I believe it is right that these two currently somehow share the top spot of the 8x32s class.

I take the liberty of comparing them in one go with the SFL.

The SFL has a few characteristics which I think make it a strong competitor: excellent panning behaviour, small and lightweight build, an excellent buttersmooth focuser, great eye relief, superb color fidelity. As a package, good optics and mechanics, pleasant bright and largely color-free image, good ergonomics (for most hands). And not to forget: much lower price !!

On the other hand, trying the SFL side-by-side with the NL and the SF, the latter two “beat” the SFL in my eyes in almost every optical discipline, but, as mentioned, all this comes at a substantially higher price: much better edge sharpness, equal or slightly better central sharpness and contrast, wider FOV, even better CA correction, fainter or no spikes on bright lights, better ease of view from scratch.

After I have experimented a bit with eyecup extension and eye position, I find the SFL as well easy and comfortable to use - it just needed a bit of getting used to. After that, the effort was worth it and the SFL provides an overall very satisfactory observation experience with good sharpness and brightness, a decent FOV and little CA.

Still, the main arguments for the SFL are, I think:

• price
• eye relief
• weight
• panning
• color fidelity
• focuser.

Many will find these sufficiently convincing arguments and get very happy “staying at base camp”. Others, for whom the sky mountaintop is the limit, may go on and mingle among the gods with their NLs and SFs.

fwiw Canip

View attachment 1502066

Exactly my thoughts on the SF/NL 32 in comparison to the SFL 40 , you just put it into better words. The SFL is a phenomenal package , and as I said before almost fits into its own category, a ground breaker just like NL and SF with its attributes when they were introduced. Although it hasn’t been that long, to this day they still are in their own category. As an overall package and if you don’t need or barely can see that last bit of pop (in all optical disciplines) then the SFL makes a great choice.

 

[Thotmosis]

{{ cont'd }}

The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars

PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons

Comparison 1: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica UV 8x32 HD+

Since Zeiss withdrew the FL 8x32 from the market, and with the NL Pure 8x32 and Victory SF 8x32 clearly larger and heavier, the UV HD+ holds the “top spot” among small, lightweight 8x30 / 8x32 roof binoculars, both in terms of price and “premium prestige”.

It is even smaller than the SFL and not much heavier, has often been named a “design icon” and defends its position with very good mechanical and optical performance. There isn’t much to criticize about it in my view, except the modest usable eye relief which makes its use uncomfortable for spectacle wearers.
The SFL is much better in this respect, its usable eye relief may be perceived as almost “too generous” if you don’t wear glasses; this is a point that has been raised in some early reviews when it was mentioned that you may have to experiment a bit with the right eyecup position. Because of this, in my experience the 8x40 model of the SFL series allows for a better and more natural “ease of view” (Einblickverhalten) than the 8x30. But this is a personal impression which may not be shared by others. The ease of view of the UV should be unproblematic for people not wearing glasses

Both SFL and UV exhibit a pleasant image and comfortable panning behaviour (see post # 1 the “Merlitz Distortion ), both are non-flatfield binos.

The FOV in the SFL is, and appears, a bit wider than in the UV; the image in the SFL is very slightly cooler than in the UV for my eyes.
Central sharpness and image brightness appear quite similar. On the other hand, contrast – as seen when observing rough structured surfaces such as certain building walls or tree bark – is a bit better in the UV; when you have it side-by side with the SFL, the difference is not huge, but clearly recognizable.

Edge sharpness: better in the SFL than in the UV, even when the wider FOV of the SFL is taken into account. Field curvature is low in the UV and even lower in the SFL.

CA: both the UV and the SFL are not totally color-free (would be surprising in this compact format), but with proper eye placement behind the eyepieces, CA in both is low at the center of the image and moderate further out towards the edge (the SFL 8x40 appeared a tiny bit ahead of the 8x30 model in my experience).

The UV has the typical “dry” Leica focuser with the tiny “click” upon changing focus direction. It is not as smooth as the one of the SFL, but it has been working reliably and precisely for years. The SFL focuser is a bit faster than the one of the UV; in both binos, it is very easy to quickly find sharp focus. The position of the focus wheel is “traditional” on the UV (close to the eyepieces), further towards the front of the bino on the SFL. In my view, preferences in this regard are personal.

A note regarding the excess travel of the focus wheel beyond infinity: both binos have sufficient extra travel, with one caveat for the UV (and valid for most UV HD models): the full range of diopter adjustment and the full extra travel are mutually exclusive, so if you need much of the diopter adjustment because of different vision in your eyes, you may not have much extra travel beyond infinity left on the focus wheel. This is due to the way the diopter and focus mechanism are linked; In the SFL, the mechanisms are completely independent and the mentioned limitation does not apply.

Is the UV worth around 500-600 $ more than the SFL? Your own decision!

My personal verdict of the two binos in a nutshell:

• UV is smaller, but slightly heavier
• Ease of view is better in the UV
• Contrast is better in the UV
• Usable eye relief much better in the SFL, insufficient for spectacle wearers in the UV
• FOV is wider in the SFL
• Central sharpness and image brightness are comparable, as is CA
• Edge sharpness is better in the SFL

fwiw Canip

{{ to follow next: Nikon MHG, Swarovski CL, etc. }}

View attachment 1501453

Epic tread, very useful. Thanks a lot 🙏

 

[GrampaTom]

Canip,
Not being said in these lovely reviews, but to my mind as I read, a question is at least inferred. In the excitement over many weeks of postings about these first coming, and now here 30s what about the SFL 40s? The SFL 40 is so nearly equal the size and weight of the SF and NL 32s, and/but come with a 40MM objective what about these? While outside the parameter of your overall title, these sorta beg admission.

Especially after this, "Today, 8x30 / 8x32 is no longer a preferred format, and whenever I have to make a choice between 8x30 and 8x40, I will choose the 8x40."

Not aware of too many other 840s to choose from.... Where do these fit for you?

 

[[email protected]]

I think a couple of factors go into this if you think it makes sense. I agree with you if the FOV is not important then there is no need for the longer (larger) and more expensive binocular. I could easily do without the large FOV, it just it does ad a nice demnetion to the overall image especially with the well corrected edges. What Dennis is saying makes a lot of sense and I shamelessly agree. The NL and SF are about the same weight as most 32’s and it has that large well corrected FOV. To me and many others I observe with feel weight is more important than the size, my wife where every half an oz matters even more so. Nobody feels the length around their neck, they feel the weight.

I’ll also say that 32’s won’t take the place overall of a 42 , but I will say imo in almost 90% of observing conditions the modern high quality 32’s easily does what the 42 dies without ever missing the larger objective. At least for most people this is true. I have absolutely no issues and feel no difference when carrying an NL or SF 32 to any other binoculars that weigh about the same over long hikes.

So it comes down more about price than length. If you don’t want or need the FOV then save the money but the length is a non issue , within reason of course, that’s why none of us would want a WX even if it was 25oz. My 2 cents.

The choice between a 32 mm and a 42 mm depends on how you bird. If you bird mostly in the daytime in open areas and hike a lot, get the 32 mm. If you bird a lot at dawn or in twilight or in more forested area or under canopy like in Costa Rica, get the 42 mm.

 

[GrampaTom]

I think a couple of factors go into this if you think it makes sense. I agree with you if the FOV is not important then there is no need for the longer (larger) and more expensive binocular. I could easily do without the large FOV, it just it does ad a nice demnetion to the overall image especially with the well corrected edges. What Dennis is saying makes a lot of sense and I shamelessly agree. The NL and SF are about the same weight as most 32’s and it has that large well corrected FOV. To me and many others I observe with feel weight is more important than the size, my wife where every half an oz matters even more so. Nobody feels the length around their neck, they feel the weight.

I’ll also say that 32’s won’t take the place overall of a 42 , but I will say imo in almost 90% of observing conditions the modern high quality 32’s easily does what the 42 dies without ever missing the larger objective. At least for most people this is true. I have absolutely no issues and feel no difference when carrying an NL or SF 32 to any other binoculars that weigh about the same over long hikes.

So it comes down more about price than length. If you don’t want or need the FOV then save the money but the length is a non issue , within reason of course, that’s why none of us would want a WX even if it was 25oz. My 2 cents.

To my mind its more than FOV Paul. As the guy who's consistently challenged all the love over "super wide" FOV and ended up buying the NL, there's more to the package than that. I get in these discussions we struggle to make a point but too often in so doing we lose sight of the more complex, non intellectualizable (Ha cant believe I wrote that), stuff that is the whole thing. I believe Canip in both this morning's 157/160 and Charleybirds 158 make this point.

 

[GrampaTom]

The choice between a 32 mm and a 42 mm depends on how you bird. If you bird mostly in the daytime in open areas and hike a lot, get the 32 mm. If you bird a lot at dawn or in twilight or in more forested area or under canopy like in Costa Rica, get the 42 mm.

But then theres the 40....

 

[Canip]

{{ cont'd }}

The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars

PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons

Comparison 9: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Blaser Globetrotter 8x30

Never heard of Blaser ? Don’t feel bad. Many outside of Germany who are not hunting have never heard of it. For many years, hunters have been liking Blaser rifles and riflescopes, which are positioned in the upper part of their respective markets. A few years ago, Blaser decided to also offer binoculars, supposedly “made in Germany” and at prices comparable to the premium competition.

The ”Globetrotter” is the smallest of the Blaser bino line (first called “Primus” when it came out). Well built and finished, it’s a solid bino with excellent mechanics and good optics. Its FOV is even slightly wider than that of the SFL, close focus 1.7m vs 1.5m in the SFL, in size a bit smaller than the SFL (comparable to the UV HD) but heavier, it has the same technical eye relief; usable eye relief, though, is with 13.5 mm quite a bit shorter than in the SFL, so may or may not work for alle spectacle wearers.

Focus speed is almost identical in both, and both have extremely smooth focus action; CA correction appears even a bit superior in the Blaser than in the SFL, central and edge sharpness at least on the same level (slight advantage in edge sharpness of the Blaser), but there is a bit of glare at the lower part of the image of the Blaser that I have a hard time eliminating with changes in eye position and eyecup extension, and looking into the tubes form the front side reveals certain “culprits” in the form of unblackened spots.

And: the great contrast and strong color saturation of the Blaser, which make mainly the green and brown colors pop (target market: hunters!) comes at the price of a slight yellowish hue in the image, the SFL is clearly on top in terms of color fidelity.

At last: the Blaser comes at a price in the same range as the UV HD+!! If you have a Blaser rifle, Blaser riflescope, Blaser accessories and a Blaser outfit, you may of course want to add a Blaser binocular. For others, the price of the Globetrotter, despite it's excellent mechanics and pleasant optics, may be a step too far.

Personal verdict in a nutshell:

The Blaser and SFL are comparable in

• size
• technical eye relief
• FOV
• focus speed and focusser smoothness/precision
• central sharpness
• image brightness

The Blaser is just slightly ahead in

• contrast and color saturation
• edge sharpness
• CA correction

The SFL is ahead in

• weight
• usable eye relief
• close focus
• straylight control
• color fidelity
• price !!

fwiw Canip

 

[Canip]

Canip,
Not being said in these lovely reviews, but to my mind as I read, a question is at least inferred. In the excitement over many weeks of postings about these first coming, and now here 30s what about the SFL 40s? The SFL 40 is so nearly equal the size and weight of the SF and NL 32s, and/but come with a 40MM objective what about these? While outside the parameter of your overall title, these sorta beg admission.

Especially after this, "Today, 8x30 / 8x32 is no longer a preferred format, and whenever I have to make a choice between 8x30 and 8x40, I will choose the 8x40."

Not aware of too many other 840s to choose from.... Where do these fit for you?

Tks Tom.

I know ... I will have to figure this out at some point.

The immediate short answer (I am still working on this) for the moment: the SFL 8x40 figures very high in my universe (and among my 8x40 / 8x42 binos), higher than the 8x30.

Canip

 

[[email protected]]

But then theres the 40....

The 40 mm is a good compromise if you do a lot of different types of birding. It has enough light for low light and it is light.

 

[Thotmosis]

nevertheless, I would be very interested in hearing your findings comparing the FL and the SFL
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 🙃

Be happy with your UVHD 8x32, if you are not wearing glasses like me and like a very compact, well build reliable 8x32 you have it already. Enjoy it in good health

 

[Thotmosis]

{{ cont'd }}


The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars


PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons

Comparison 6: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Conquest 8x32 HD

My first Conquest HD model was the 8x42, which I immediately liked for its excellent all-round properties and superb central sharpness, although this particular model has good eye relief but too short eyecups which for many pose a problem with kidney beaning. But this slight nuisance apart, the Conquest HD, also in other configurations (10x42, 8x32), has over the years gained a place as sort of a benchmark in mechanical and optical performance for me, something like “overall best in class subprime binocular line” against which to measure other models. In addition, I find the Conquest HD competitively priced and therefore overall a very attractive proposition.

Now comes the SFL, positioned somewhere between the Conquest HD and the Zeiss SF models. The Conquest is, like the Trinovid, a bit larger and heavier than the SFL, but not as much as the Trinovid. Mechanically solid, with a focuser even faster and similarly smooth (I found the focuser on my sample of the SFL a tiny bit more responsive), the Conquest matches the good close focus of the SFL. It has less eye relief than the SFL, but probably sufficient for most.
The 8x32 model of the Conquest HD does not suffer from the above mentioned kidney beaning issue and has a good and problem-free ease of view for me; as mentioned several times before, the SFL requires a bit more attention here.

Field of view is almost identical, CA correction is good and very similar, central sharpness and contrast again very comparable at a high level.

To my surprise, edge sharpness is at least as good in the Conquest as in the SFL and perhaps even a bit better. When not comparing side-by-side, I find no noticeable difference; putting the Conquest side-by-side with the SFL, however, I have the impression that the Conquest is one step ahead.
Brightness and brilliance: hard to name the winner; color may be a tad more natural in the SFL, but not by much. Panning is slightly more comfortable in the SFL.

Stray-light appears well controlled in both; while the SFL exhibits very moderate spikes on bright light sources, the Conquest does not show them.

Personal verdict in a nutshell:

• the Conquest is a bit larger and heavier
• Ease of view is better on the Conquest
• FOV is almost identical
• Central sharpness and contrast are at a similar level
• Edge sharpness may be a little bit better in the Conquest
• Image brightness and brilliance are comparable
• Panning is a tiny bit more comfortable in the SFL
• Stray-light control is comparable
• CA correction is at a similarly good level
• Usable eye relief appears sufficient in the Trinovid, the SFL has plenty
• Close focus is comparable

(Or in other words: don’t write off the Conquest HD yet!)
(if only the Conquest rubber parts would not constantly get covered in whitish powder - not a severe problem, but a nuisance)

fwiw Canip

View attachment 1501872

• Usable eye relief appears sufficient in the Trinovid, the SFL has plenty

typo?

 

[Canip]

• Usable eye relief appears sufficient in the Trinovid, the SFL has plenty

typo?

Thank you for being such a caerful reader, Thotmosis!

Yes, clearly typo (can't change it anymore, unfortunately), should read "Conquest HD" instead of "Trinovid"

Canip

 

[Thotmosis]

Thanks a lot for the quick reply!
I have to say that I love my UV 8x32 HD regarding its design, size, mechanics, ergonomics etc. Viewing comfort for me and glare handling are great too. They have very good sharpness and impressive contrast. Two little cons compared to the FL: they do have a bit more CA than my FL 8x32 as some have reported, and the wider eyecups of the FL are just a little bit more comfy for me.
Sometimes it seems as if the UV HD are a little bit darker than my FL 8x32 (maybe more recent HD or HD+ are brighter, or maybe it's an impression due to their higher contrast).
More strangely, the UV sometimes give a view that seems "too busy" when looking into dense mix of branches/trees. I don't know how that comes or how to phrase it well. For example I had both with me today and was looking upwards for a bird on a branch in the middle of a tree without leaves. The FL was more 'relaxing' than the UV and it was easier to subjectively/mentally "keep focus" on that branch/bird, as if the layers of branches were less flattened together into a dense drawing of lines in the FL than in the UV (the single branch that was focussed on seemed to 'stand out'/differ more from the others in the FL). It probably sounds weird how I describe it and I don't know what's the reason. (Maybe because of the high contrast from the UV in such a dense and contrasty scene, making contrast more important in defining the view than the difference in sharpness from the depth of field across branches at different distance?).
I have no idea if anyone who has used both of these binoculars in the field can relate to this(?).
Is too much contrast even possible in pure optics with a relatively(!) flat curve as the UV?
On the other hand, the FL sometimes miss a bit of 'sparkle' or colourfulness (not sure how to say it correctly) and their lower contrast make them 'seem' less sharp sometimes (though I don't think they are showing less details)... :-/

Yes, i think i know what you mean, i had the same when using my 8x32 UVHD in a forest, too “busy”, needed to focus too much. Also i see more contrast in my Leica’s 7 UVHD and BN than in my 7 FL. All three very great bin’s though. Sorry to be off topic here.

 

[GrampaTom]

The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars

PART 1: General comments and comparison of data
PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons
Comparison 1: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica UV 8x32 HD+
Comparison 2: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Swarovski CL 8x30
Comparison 3: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Nikon MHG 8x30
Comparison 4: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and MeoStar 8x32 B1 Plus
Comparison 5: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Leica Trinovid 8x32 HD
Comparison 6: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Conquest 8x32 HD
Comparison "7 and 8": Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Mount Olympus
Comparison 9: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Blaser Globetrotter 8x30

 

[tenex]

More strangely, the UV sometimes give a view that seems "too busy" when looking into dense mix of branches/trees. I don't know how that comes or how to phrase it well. For example I had both with me today and was looking upwards for a bird on a branch in the middle of a tree without leaves. The FL was more 'relaxing' than the UV and it was easier to subjectively/mentally "keep focus" on that branch/bird, as if the layers of branches were less flattened together into a dense drawing of lines in the FL than in the UV (the single branch that was focussed on seemed to 'stand out'/differ more from the others in the FL). It probably sounds weird how I describe it and I don't know what's the reason. (Maybe because of the high contrast from the UV in such a dense and contrasty scene, making contrast more important in defining the view than the difference in sharpness from the depth of field across branches at different distance?).

Interesting, I think you would find SFL even worse in this sense as it has the busiest contrasty edges I've seen, too much for me (though perhaps appreciated by some in grey Europe) which is to say that Leicas never struck me as having excessive contrast. And sharpness may be involved in your example too, not via DOF but because FL's somewhat smaller and better sweet spot may actually seem an advantage in such a situation.

I often don't have to rotate the focuser when beginning to observe, I just leave it where it was after the last use and everything is sharp and clear. I have that same experience with other Leicas, and that's why they are slowly taking over the top spots of my preferred list. I am sure this has to do with my aging eyes, among other things...

I'm not sure I understand this. In general accommodation would be expected to deteriorate with age, leading to more fiddling with focus?

 

[Canip]

In general accommodation would be expected to deteriorate with age, leading to more fiddling with focus?

Correct, that's exactly my experience - except with most Leica binos, for whatever reason.

 

[Troubador]

Canip,
Not being said in these lovely reviews, but to my mind as I read, a question is at least inferred. In the excitement over many weeks of postings about these first coming, and now here 30s what about the SFL 40s? The SFL 40 is so nearly equal the size and weight of the SF and NL 32s, and/but come with a 40MM objective what about these? While outside the parameter of your overall title, these sorta beg admission.

Especially after this, "Today, 8x30 / 8x32 is no longer a preferred format, and whenever I have to make a choice between 8x30 and 8x40, I will choose the 8x40."

Not aware of too many other 840s to choose from.... Where do these fit for you?

Good point Tommy and this is why I think SFL40 is clever. Whether SFL30 is as clever or a step too far (for me) I hope to find out very soon.

 

[Scott98]

Scott98, post 68,
In your post you report transmission values of 89% for the NL and 93% for the SF as being measured by Albinoss. Our data do not confirm these values. The NL's we have investigated show values of 92-93% for the NL's and 87-90% for the SF. You can find our reports on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor.
Gijs van Ginkel

Well I guess Dennis was quoting Allbinos so I wanted to respond in-kind!

Honestly I haven't spent much time on the House of Outdoor website because Allbinos is so much easier for me to navigate.

FWIW, I thought the Monarch 8x30 HG was one of the few Allbinos reviews that seemed odd to me, the edge-of-field problems were overstated. It's not that bad, and I"m sensitive to it. When I compared the MHG with Swaro 8x30 CL I found the Swaro had better edge sharpness, but the MHG had better color correction. And to me, it doesn't seem fair to compare these and the SFL's to binoculars weighing 25% more. One would expect the heavier binos to perform better.