The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars (2 Viewers)

[lmans66]

The end? I've purchased two brand-new pairs of EDG in the last 6 months. And they didn't cost as much as Swaro and Zeiss, they were about $1,000 less. I guess it can be "the end" if you don't want to use them anymore, but some of us do!

I have seen a few on Ebay etc.... Was tempted. Just never pulled. I have heard these are good and yes, they are a bit larger in length and weight than what I prefer, but I would do this 'larger' pair of 8x32's over the NL for sure..

But cost wise...I think this guy is a bit over priced at close to $2900!!!!!!! :

Nikon Binoculars EDG 8X32 Roof Prism type EDG8X32 Made in Japan 4571137584016 | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Nikon Binoculars EDG 8X32 Roof Prism type EDG8X32 Made in Japan at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis...to copy a post I placed in another discussion:

A trend toward smaller bins… YES… THiS is where Swaro missed with the 8x32 NL. Their R&D concentrated on developing a bin with a ‘ more than needed ‘ FOV and while they did that, the consumer demand on 7-8x 30-32 shifted from FOV to Smaller size/dimensions. Swaro missed and were thinking of old needs according to market research. I am not saying the NL isn’t quality, isn’t selling… but surely they blew it by putting out a product and then seeing consumer demand going for smaller size such as the MHG, SFL, Retro bins.

I bet they sell many more NL's and SF's than they do MHG's, SFL's and Retro's. Swarovski and Zeiss know what sells, and a big FOV sells binoculars. I see no trend towards a smaller FOV in the top alpha binoculars. People consider the FOV the number one specification when they are paying $3000 for a binocular. I know every time I have sold an NL or SF, it was gone in minutes. Hunter's love a big FOV also. The MHG, SFL, and Retros are just for people looking for a binocular at a lower price point that are lighter and smaller and are a step-down in optics from the alphas. They aren't looking for the best optics available.

 

[Scott98]

I have seen a few on Ebay etc.... Was tempted. Just never pulled. I have heard these are good and yes, they are a bit larger in length and weight than what I prefer, but I would do this 'larger' pair of 8x32's over the NL for sure..

The 32mm EDG's are no longer with us, unfortunately, but the three 42's are still here.

I actually like the longer form-factor of the SF's, I'd probably like the NL32. I never thought about it, but that's another option the SFL's give you, a more compact Zeiss bino vs. the SF's. The longer SF tubes have more room to move your hands around for comfort, but sometimes you want something smaller, especially hanging off your neck while doing active stuff.

 

[Richard D]

Dennis...to copy a post I placed in another discussion:

A trend toward smaller bins… YES… THiS is where Swaro missed with the 8x32 NL. Their R&D concentrated on developing a bin with a ‘ more than needed ‘ FOV and while they did that, the consumer demand on 7-8x 30-32 shifted from FOV to Smaller size/dimensions. Swaro missed and were thinking of old needs according to market research. I am not saying the NL isn’t quality, isn’t selling… but surely they blew it by putting out a product and then seeing consumer demand going for smaller size such as the MHG, SFL, Retro bins.

I don't think Swarovski have missed - the 'new' CL 30's have been out for over five years and are pretty much the same size as the SFL for people who like the small form factor. They met that consumer demand year's ago. The NL 8x32s are for a different market segment who want a flat-field and large FoV and don't mind a slightly larger binocular (not that they're particularly bulky or heavy).

 

[[email protected]]

I don't think Swarovski have missed - the 'new' CL 30's have been out for over five years and are pretty much the same size as the SFL for people who like the small form factor. They met that consumer demand year's ago. The NL 8x32s are for a different market segment who want a flat-field and large FoV and don't mind a slightly larger binocular (not that they're particularly bulky or heavy).

Exactly! The Cl's compete very well with the MHG and SFL at the same price point. I think the CL's are better than the MHG and as Canip says above there isn't much difference between them and the SFL, and they are less expensive. I don't think the 23 oz. weight of the NL 8x32 is too heavy. The NL's are for people that want the very best optics available in a binocular and as you say they don't mind carrying a few extra ounces.

 

[lmans66]

People consider the FOV the number one specification when they are paying $3000 for a binocular. I know every time I have sold an NL or SF, it was gone in minutes. Hunter's love a big FOV also.

The World According to Garp… or is that Dennis

 

[[email protected]]

The World According to Garp… or is that Dennis

A large FOV is just personal preference, but I bet if you polled 100 birders, it would be in their top three qualities desired in their binoculars. If it wasn't Zeiss and Swarovski would not have developed the SF and NL with their huge FOV. it is also a big reason Swarovski outsells most other binocular that and their reputation for being the best binocular in the world. What I don't understand is if there are no side effects like RB or poor panning from a huge FOV why wouldn't you want one? You can see more birds and the FOV doesn't feel as tunnel like. What advantages are there to a smaller FOV other than the size, weight and price of the binocular. I think some people rationalize it by saying they don't need a huge FOV when what they are really saying is I don't want to spend $3000 to get a huge FOV. Now if I had 4 binoculars laid out on a table and I said you pick anyone for free, and they were a MHG, SFL, Retro and an NL which one would you go home with? 😁

 

[Scott98]

All I can say is, yes some of us do prefer narrower field and not for cost savings. I have a set of orthoscopic 42-degree AFOV eyepieces for astronomy costing $425 each when I could get 70-degree wide fields for half that. Zeiss orthoscopics are legendary and sell for even more money.

And there's always some kind of distortion added to get the wide field sharp to the edge - always. Maybe it doesn't appear as rolling ball, but it's there. The positioning of things is shifted from reality. We may be a small, eccentric sect of Luddite-type people yes but some of us are happy with the smaller FOV's.

In your test you need a Noctivid and EDG laid out next to the NL's on the table. They are the ones with comparable optical quality except for smaller FOV

 

[John M Robinson]

A large FOV is just personal preference, but I bet if you polled 100 birders, it would be in their top three qualities desired in their binoculars. If it wasn't Zeiss and Swarovski would not have developed the SF and NL with their huge FOV. it is also a big reason Swarovski outsells most other binocular that and their reputation for being the best binocular in the world. What I don't understand is if there are no side effects like RB or poor panning from a huge FOV why wouldn't you want one? You can see more birds and the FOV doesn't feel as tunnel like. What advantages are there to a smaller FOV other than the size, weight and price of the binocular. I think some people rationalize it by saying they don't need a huge FOV when what they are really saying is I don't want to spend $3000 to get a huge FOV. Now if I had 4 binoculars laid out on a table and I said you pick anyone for free, and they were a MHG, SFL, Retro and an NL which one would you go home with? 😁

For free? It’d be a tough call, but I’d pick the one that fit me best. I really like the NL, but the CL fit my face better when I tried them side by side. Actually my 7x35 Retrovids did too.

 

[John M Robinson]

In your test you need a Noctivid and EDG laid out next to the NL's on the table. They are the ones with comparable optical quality except for smaller FOV

I would love to read that review and or test them myself. Actually I will be testing the Zeiss, NV and NL side by side here pretty soon.

 

[[email protected]]

All I can say is, yes some of us do prefer narrower field and not for cost savings. I have a set of orthoscopic 42-degree AFOV eyepieces for astronomy costing $425 each when I could get 70-degree wide fields for half that. Zeiss orthoscopics are legendary and sell for even more money.

And there's always some kind of distortion added to get the wide field sharp to the edge - always. Maybe it doesn't appear as rolling ball, but it's there. The positioning of things is shifted from reality. We may be a small, eccentric sect of Luddite-type people yes but some of us are happy with the smaller FOV's.

In your test you need a Noctivid and EDG laid out next to the NL's on the table. They are the ones with comparable optical quality except for smaller FOV

Yes, but Zeiss orthoscopics will actually increase resolution on planetary objects like the moon versus a Nagler because with a telescope you are using a much higher magnification than a binocular and you don't need a huge FOV to look at a planet. All the binoculars like the NL with huge FOV's are just as sharp on-axis as any other binocular, and they are sharper as you move off-axis because they have less distortion. Where did you here, the NL's had more distortion than a binocular with a narrower FOV? That is an old wives tale! If anything, they have less distortion. Look at the Allbinos results on distortion and compare the NL to a Leica. Neither a Noctivid nor the long in the tooth EDG have the transparency or the huge FOV of the NL.

Binoculars rankings - 10x42 - 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

 

[[email protected]]

For free? It’d be a tough call, but I’d pick the one that fit me best. I really like the NL, but the CL fit my face better when I tried them side by side. Actually my 7x35 Retrovids did too.

I like ergonomics also, but optics are first. The NL has superb ergonomics with its wasp waist shape that contours to your hands and excellent eye cups, and it blows a CL and Retrovid out of the water when it comes to optics.

 

[Scott98]

Yes, but Zeiss orthoscopics will actually increase resolution on planetary objects like the moon versus a Nagler and you don't need a huge FOV to look at a planet. All the binoculars like the NL with huge FOV's are just as sharp on-axis as any other binocular, and they are sharper as you move off-axis because they have less distortion. Where did you here, the NL's had more distortion than a binocular with a narrower FOV? That is an old wives tale! If anything, they have less distortion. Look at the Allbinos results on distortion and compare the NL to a Leica. Neither a Noctivid nor the long in the tooth EDG have the transparency or the huge FOV of the NL.

Binoculars rankings - 10x42 - 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

I think an ortho increases the contrast, not the resolution. And I use my 42-degree eyepieces for that superior contrast on everything, not just planets. The reason for the improved contrast is fewer lens elements to scatter light & degrade the image, something that applies to bino oculars as well as astro. But we're digressing and on the wrong website for this

btw, it's the Allbinos review that's long in the tooth, not the new EDG I purchased 6 months ago. I believe their 10x42 EDG review was done in 2011? We don't know if Nikon updated the coatings since then.

PS, Allbinos found 89% transmission in both the 2011 EDG and current NL, so that punctures the superior transparency idea a little....conversely they reported 93% transmission on the 10x42 Zeiss SF's....

PPS....it just occurred to me the word "binoculars" is a fusion of "bino" and "ocular"....cool! I think I like the German "Far-glass" better though

 

[[email protected]]

I think an ortho increases the contrast, not the resolution. And I use my 42-degree eyepieces for that superior contrast on everything, not just planets. The reason for the improved contrast is fewer lens elements to scatter & degrade the image, something that applies to bino oculars as well as astro. But we're digressing and on the wrong website for this

Nah, it doesn't work that way with binoculars. Binoculars are used at a much lower magnification than telescopes, and you have much more light coming through the objective using a binocular in the daytime versus using a telescope at night looking at a faint object. Because of the lower magnifications binoculars are used at you don't see the aberrations and distortion that you can see in a telescope that are used at much higher magnifications. Orthoscopics are known for lack of distortions and aberrations and because of fewer lens elements they have good light transmission which is important for astronomy. But the WA eyepieces like the Naglers have very little distortion and the advantage of a much wider FOV. Their only big disadvantage really is their high costs. The WA binoculars like the NL actually have less distortion than a lot of the narrower FOV binoculars like the Leica's because of their highly corrected FOV. A flat field binocular like the NL can have RB distortion when panning, but Swarovski has largely eliminated it in the NL by introducing a little bit of field curvature.

 

[dorubird]

{{ cont'd }}


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

PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons

Comparison 3: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and Nikon MHG 8x30

How small is too small ? Early reviews of the SFL have occasionally mentioned that the users with large hands might find the SFL almost too small to find comfortable holding positions. The Nikon MHG, as the Leica UV HD+, is even a bit smaller than the SFL; it is hard for me, with relatively small hands, to say whether either of them is too small for large hands. I find good holding positions for both.

Nikon sure knows how to make good binoculars (just think of the WX). The limited success of the EDG line has less to do with performance limitations and more with a less than ideal marketing strategy (and perhaps a bit with the “VW Phaeton Experience” – if the price is the same as for a Mercedes, your car can be better than the rest of the market, people will buy the Mercedes and not the VW).

Leaving the WX aside, the MHG line is now Nikon’s top line after the end of the EDGs, and my personal opinion is that the MHG are a clear “step down” form the EDG level, both mechanically and optically (just compare a Monarch HG 8x30 with the EDG 8x32). This does not mean that the MHG is not a fine binocular in its own right. It is! But it’s performance is in line with its price (and this was also true for the EDG).

Mechanically, I have not found a significant flaw with the SFL. I find the diopter adjustment of the MHG (below the right eyepiece) a bit fiddly; locking and unlocking is not a very precise operation, and if you want to unlock, you first have to twist the eyecup out by one clickstop. Then, the diopter adjustment itself works fine.

Otherwise, mechanics are good on the MHG. Focusing is precise and almost as smooth as on the SFL; close focus is almost as good as on the SFL, focusing speed almost identical.

There is not as much eye relief as on the SFL, but still plenty for most situations. The FOV is a bit wider in the MHG, but not by much, and you only recognize it side-by-side. Ease of view is quite similar in my eyes.

The image in the MHG is clearly warmer for my eyes than in the SFL, but not to a degree that color fidelity would be compromised; many people will probably only see it when comparing side-by.-side.

CA is low and comparable in both binos; stray-light control is equally good, the MHG may exhibit the occasional slight reflection in certain situations. On the other hand, spikes on bright light sources, recognizable but not bothersome in the SFL, are absent in the MHG.

I found central sharpness and contrast again very similar. Edge sharpness: with the “unfair” advantage of flattening lenses, the MHG is better, although I have to say that I found the sweet spot in the SFL quite wide, and together with its excellent panning behaviour, I actually prefer the image in the non-flatfield SFL.

To also consider when choosing between the two: the SFL costs roughly 40% more than the MHG.

Personal verdict in a nutshell:

• Size and weight are comparable, the MHG is slightly smaller
• Ease of view is comparable
• FOV is slightly wider in the MHG, but not by much
• Central sharpness and contrast are comparable, edge sharpness is better in the MHG
• Panning is more comfortable in the SFL
• Image brightness is comparable, the image tone a bit warmer in the MHG
• CA correction and stray-light control are comparable
• Usable eye relief is sufficient in the MHG, the SFL has even more
• Diopter adjustment is a bit fiddly on the MHG

fwiw Canip

View attachment 1501554

So, from your comparisons all are very similar in performance, but the MHG it is still the best from this group of 30's (MHG, SFL, UV, CL) when came to compactness, wider FOV and edge sharpness
Size MHG=UV>SFL=CL
FOV MHG>SFL>CL>UV
Edge sharpness MHG> SFL >CL>UV

Thank you for this brief side by side comparisons! 👍

 

[Canip]

The end? I've purchased two brand-new pairs of EDG in the last 6 months. And they didn't cost as much as Swaro and Zeiss, they were about $1,000 less. I guess it can be "the end" if you don't want to use them anymore, but some of us do!

Yes, I think I saw you report your purchases here, well done and congratulations (I‘m sure you know what I meant by „the end“ 😉)

 

[GrampaTom]

A trend toward smaller bins… YES… THiS is where Swaro missed with the 8x32 NL. Their R&D concentrated on developing a bin with a ‘ more than needed ‘ FOV and while they did that, the consumer demand on 7-8x 30-32 shifted from FOV to Smaller size/dimensions. Swaro missed and were thinking of old needs according to market research. I am not saying the NL isn’t quality, isn’t selling… but surely they blew it by putting out a product and then seeing consumer demand going for smaller size such as the MHG, SFL, Retro bins.

Do you have data from somewhere to support that observation?

 

[A2GG]

Mechanically, I have not found a significant flaw with the SFL. I find the diopter adjustment of the MHG (below the right eyepiece) a bit fiddly; locking and unlocking is not a very precise operation, and if you want to unlock, you first have to twist the eyecup out by one clickstop. Then, the diopter adjustment itself works fine.

Thanks for reviewing all of these nice binoculars.

I've had 3 Nikon MHG 8x30 (long story) and now I have only one. The one I have now is the replacement Nikon sent me after I sent in my original for repair. Out of the 3 I've had I feel this replacement HG is the best of them. The first two had diopters which seemed like they didn't click firmly enough when unlocking or locking. I always had to make sure it was locked by doing it again.
My current one has a better diopter it seems. It clicks more firmly when unlocking or locking. It operates better than the others. The ring is stiff to turn however. I assume it may loosen over time.

 

[[email protected]]

So, from your comparisons all are very similar in performance, but the MHG it is still the best from this group of 30's (MHG, SFL, UV, CL) when came to compactness, wider FOV and edge sharpness
Size MHG=UV>SFL=CL
FOV MHG>SFL>CL>UV
Edge sharpness MHG> SFL >CL>UV

Thank you for this brief side by side comparisons! 👍

I found the CL 8x30 to have better edge sharpness than the MHG 8x30 and UVHD 8x32 when I had them, and Allbinos did too. Swarovski's usually have sharp edges. It runs in the family.

Swarovski CL 8x30

Blurring at the edge of the FOV	Blur occurs at a distance of 92.5% ± 3% from the field of view center.	8.5/10.0

Leica UVHD 8x32

Blurring at the edge of the FOV	The blur occurs in the distance of 81% ± 5% from the field of vision center.	6/10.0

Nikon MHG 8x30

Blurring at the edge of the FOV	Blur occurs at a distance of 74% ± 4% from the field of view center.	4/10.0

 

[tenex]

Edge sharpness: with the “unfair” advantage of flattening lenses, the MHG is better, although I have to say that I found the sweet spot in the SFL quite wide, and together with its excellent panning behaviour, I actually prefer the image in the non-flatfield SFL.

SFLs are advertised as having field flatteners too. And it's very curious to have different opinions on edge sharpness between these two.