The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars (4 Viewers)

[MiddleRiver]

Which makes me wonder. Is there an advantage in a bigger ocular lens diameter? Maybe a more forgiving eyebox?

Based on my bino experience, definitely yes.

 

[lmans66]

Do you have data from somewhere to support that observation?

Nope… just ‘me opinion’

 

[[email protected]]

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

The fuzzy edges and glare were the main reason I returned the Nikon MHG 8x30. They are way fuzzier and have way more glare than the CL 8x30 or UVHD 8x32. From Allbinos on the Nikon MHG 8x30.

"Unfortunately, the FIELD FLATTENER inscription on the casing of the binoculars seems to be just a joke of the producer. On the edge of the field there is a really huge blurry area, practically as big as the one you see on the edge of the Monarch 7 8x30, a device three times cheaper, without any field flattener. It is an obvious slip-up.

Swarovski CL Companion 8x30 i Nikon Monarch HG 8x30.

Another slip-up: the blackening near the prisms. At this price point we expect perfection – everything should be dark, matt and excellently baffled – meanwhile here some parts shine, resembling interiors of models several times cheaper. As a result, the area close to exit pupils is too bright and the performance against bright light leaves a bit to be desired."

 

[b-lilja]

My 8x30 SFLs arrived today. I did not do a side by side as I have neither bin any longer, but in my mind these are much better than the Leica Uvids and BNs. Why?

1. Crisper view - for me the bottom line
2. Better eye relief - Leica's don't work with glasses (I go back and forth using and not).
3. Lighter
4. Better color rendering, ie, perfect

Don't get me wrong - I love the Leica's - gave my BNs to my fire fighter, non-glass-wearing brother, who uses them in the field constantly (can't think of a better home) - but these are flat out better.

 

[tenex]

Which makes me wonder. Is there an advantage in a bigger ocular lens diameter? Maybe a more forgiving eyebox?

Based on my bino experience, definitely yes.

The predictable advantage would be eye relief and/or FOV, as Henry Link explained in another recent thread. Not necessarily also a forgiving eyebox, as complaints about models like SF and NL attest. One can't optimize everything at once, and a quality that's not easily stated on a spec sheet may suffer. Perhaps an expert here knows what tends to aggravate SAEP?

 

[dorubird]

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.	4/10.0s clear that allbinos, when it comes to comparative studies between Monarch M 8x30 and MHG 8x30, draws more general conclusions, based on the numbers in the table and not as precise and direct as it would be much more correct and difficult to do. Even if it seems that it has a higher degree of subjectivity, direct comparisons like Canip's are much more valid than those that compare a pair of binoculars with one that he had in his hand 3 years ago, which are nothing more than some subjective numbers put in - a table from a few years ago. And thanks again to Canip for making such compartments!It trust Canip more than allbinos for the simple fact that Canip has them in the collection compared side by side. Allbinos only indexed with numbers in some tables, compared from memory not put next to each other. If I fallow and trust the allbinos tables numbers, Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 is as efficient optically and mecanicaly as Monarch HG 8X30. This is a joke!. I had them side by side and I am infinitely more objective than allbinos who make statements only from memory and their own tables

it is clear that allbinos, when it comes to comparative studies, draws more general conclusions, based on the numbers in the table and not as precise and direct as it would be much more correct and difficult to do. Even if it seems that it has a higher degree of subjectivity, direct comparisons, like Canip's ones, are much more valid than those that compare a pair of binoculars with one that he had in his hand 3 years ago, which are nothing more than some subjective numbers put in a table from a few years ago. And thanks again to Canip for making such comparisons! I trust more Canip type of comparisons than allbinos one. Allbinos it is OK, but not for side-by-side comparisons. For example:
If I follow allbinos Monarch 7 8x30 has the same optical performance as Monarch HG 8x30. This is a joke! I had them next to each other and it's not like that at all. The same is the case with the Nikon Premier 8x32, which is a very good pair of binoculars, but its light transmission is nowhere near greater than that of the MHG 8x30, as it wrongly appears from allbinos numbers. Even if we subtract 3% error, the numbers are still higher than other binoculars that are much brighter in reality.
I said it another time and I repeat myself:
When it comes to comparisons between binoculars, allbinos it is very subjective because in most cases they only compare numbers in the table, not the binoculars directly, which is extremely subjective. I always appreciate direct "face-to-face" comparisons, just like Canip's, more than numbers memories comparisons type.

 

[Thomas_M]

{{ 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

Canip,

many thanks for your informative comparison. I have a question to your methodology,Ddo you have both binoculars side by side on a tripod? Do you see differences in center sharpnes, contrast when using them handheld?

Thomas

 

[Canip]

Ddo you have both binoculars side by side on a tripod? Do you see differences in center sharpnes, contrast when using them handheld?

Yes to first question, with tripod AND without.
Second question: I don‘t (the difference in contrast between SFL and UV HD+ revealed itself on tripod), which does not exclude that someone with superb eye vision might see it also handheld.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

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

 

[Canip]

{{ cont'd }}


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


PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons


Comparison 4: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and MeoStar 8x32 B1 Plus

The MeoStar with its particular shape looks very different from the SFL, but is almost the same size; it weighs over 5 ounces more. The MeoStar has been in the market for a while now and has established itself as a strong competitor to good same size binoculars in its price category such as the Leica Trinovid HD and the Zeiss Conquest HD.

The MeoStar is well built and heavily armoured. Mechanically, everything works fine, focusing and central diopter adjustment operate precisely, but the focuser on the SFL works a bit smoother still.

FOV is only marginally narrower in the MeoStar, but interestingly, out in the woods the difference appears larger, I got the impression that the FOV in the SFL is wider by a margin.
For my eyes, both binos exhibit a large sweet spot, good central sharpness and contrast and very similar edge sharpness.

The image in the SFL is clearly brighter and more brilliant, though, and color fidelity is higher in the SFL than in the MeoStar which for my eyes shows a very slight yellowish hue (this may not be that bad in terms of contrast, after all). Panning is comfortable in both.

CA correction is at a similar level, for me the MeoStar exhibits a tad more color that the SFL, but it’s never a major issue. Field curvature is slightly more visible in the MeoStar.

Stray-light control is at a comparable (good) level. Spikes on bright light sources are visible in both, but are not intrusive in either.

Eye relief is much more generous in the SFL, the MeoStar may have sufficient for some spectacle wearers but not for others (?)

I have been using the MeoStar for many years now and like it for its sturdy build and pleasant ease of view. The SFL appears almost “fragile” in comparison, but I am well aware that such appearances are deceiving.

Considering its price – roughly in the middle between the Nikon MHG and the SFL – the MeoStar is still a strong contender in the small 8x30s / 8x32s upper market. The SFL is lighter, has a more brilliant image and a much more modern touch.

Personal verdict in a nutshell:

• Size is comparable, the MeoStar is clearly heavier
• Ease of view is a touch better on the MeoStar
• FOV is slightly wider in the SFL, but appears clearly wider in practice
• Central sharpness, contrast and edge sharpness are at a similar level
• Image brightness and brilliance is better in the SFL; the MeoStar shows a slight warm hue
• Panning is comfortable in both
• CA correction and stray-light control are comparable
• Usable eye relief may be sufficient in the MeoStar, but the SFL has clearly more

fwiw Canip

 

[Canip]

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

.... and if I think of allbinos' measurement of 100% (!!) transmission for the Docter 8x56 .....

 

[Swissboy]

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

Binocular simply means just that, an optic tool with two oculars. thus, most modern microscopes are binoculars as well. Same for binocular magnifying glasses. We use the Swiss german term Binok (i pronounced as a short e) for them. Bi for two and ok for oculars. the n in-between is more a binding tool though it could come from bin. But bi in itself means two. For the reasons explained, in German the "Far-glass" (Fernglas) is definitely the way to avoid confusion.

 

[ReinierB]

I think the Dutch worth "verrekijker" is even better chosen: far-watcher

 

[Wasabrot]

Binocular simply means just that, an optic tool with two oculars. thus, most modern microscopes are binoculars as well. Same for binocular magnifying glasses. We use the Swiss german term Binok (i pronounced as a short e) for them. Bi for two and ok for oculars. the n in-between is more a binding tool though it could come from bin. But bi in itself means two. For the reasons explained, in German the "Far-glass" (Fernglas) is definitely the way to avoid confusion.

In Austria we use also the word Feldstecher (field stabber or field piercer?). 😀

 

[dorubird]

Binocular simply means just that, an optic tool with two oculars. thus, most modern microscopes are binoculars as well. Same for binocular magnifying glasses. We use the Swiss german term Binok (i pronounced as a short e) for them. Bi for two and ok for oculars. the n in-between is more a binding tool though it could come from bin. But bi in itself means two. For the reasons explained, in German the "Far-glass" (Fernglas) is definitely the way to avoid confusion.

Yes, and the terms presented by you come from the Latin language bi=two and oculus=eye

 

[[email protected]]

My 8x30 SFLs arrived today. I did not do a side by side as I have neither bin any longer, but in my mind these are much better than the Leica Uvids and BNs. Why?

1. Crisper view - for me the bottom line
2. Better eye relief - Leica's don't work with glasses (I go back and forth using and not).
3. Lighter
4. Better color rendering, ie, perfect

Don't get me wrong - I love the Leica's - gave my BNs to my fire fighter, non-glass-wearing brother, who uses them in the field constantly (can't think of a better home) - but these are flat out better.

How about glare? The Leica UVHD+ are superb when it comes to glare control, being very well baffled.

 

[b-lilja]

How about glare? The Leica UVHD+ are superb when it comes to glare control, being very well baffled.

I would say they are on par with glare - I should have mentioned that, thanks. I really don't like glare.

 

[[email protected]]

it is clear that allbinos, when it comes to comparative studies, draws more general conclusions, based on the numbers in the table and not as precise and direct as it would be much more correct and difficult to do. Even if it seems that it has a higher degree of subjectivity, direct comparisons, like Canip's ones, are much more valid than those that compare a pair of binoculars with one that he had in his hand 3 years ago, which are nothing more than some subjective numbers put in a table from a few years ago. And thanks again to Canip for making such comparisons! I trust more Canip type of comparisons than allbinos one. Allbinos it is OK, but not for side-by-side comparisons. For example:
If I follow allbinos Monarch 7 8x30 has the same optical performance as Monarch HG 8x30. This is a joke! I had them next to each other and it's not like that at all. The same is the case with the Nikon Premier 8x32, which is a very good pair of binoculars, but its light transmission is nowhere near greater than that of the MHG 8x30, as it wrongly appears from allbinos numbers. Even if we subtract 3% error, the numbers are still higher than other binoculars that are much brighter in reality.
I said it another time and I repeat myself:
When it comes to comparisons between binoculars, allbinos it is very subjective because in most cases they only compare numbers in the table, not the binoculars directly, which is extremely subjective. I always appreciate direct "face-to-face" comparisons, just like Canip's, more than numbers memories comparisons type.

I compared the MHG 8x30, CL 8x30 and the UVHD+ 8x32 side by side and without a doubt the MHG has the fuzziest edges of the 3. The CL had the sharpest edges and the UVHD+ was in the middle. The MHG is also by far the worst of the three for glare. Allbinos is correct in their findings. They were not very impressed with the MHG 8x30 for the price, and neither was I. What is strange is the MHG 8x42 and MHG 10x42 are very good binoculars and have very sharp edges. For some reason, Nikon failed when they made the smaller MHG 8x30 in a lot of ways. From Allbinos.

"As a result, the new Swarovski CL Companion 8×30 B might be considered a shining example of how to construct a good pair of 8×30 binoculars. It has to be small, handy, and lightweight but solid. The optics inside should be of good quality. Of course such constructions cannot be cheap, but no sensible person would expect that. Swarovski managed to achieve that much; taking it into account, the failure of the Nikon Monarch HG 8×30, a pair of binoculars which was launched after the Swarovski and was tested by us not so long ago, is especially surprising. When you are planning to launch a new model on the market, you have to know how your direct rivals fare. If your merchandise is weaker, and you try to sell it at a similar price, you are facing a possible market suicide."

 

[lmans66]

{{ cont'd }}


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


PART 2: Brief side-by-side comparisons


Comparison 4: Zeiss SFL 8x30 and MeoStar 8x32 B1 Plus

The MeoStar with its particular shape looks very different from the SFL, but is almost the same size; it weighs over 5 ounces more. The MeoStar has been in the market for a while now and has established itself as a strong competitor to good same size binoculars in its price category such as the Leica Trinovid HD and the Zeiss Conquest HD.

The MeoStar is well built and heavily armoured. Mechanically, everything works fine, focusing and central diopter adjustment operate precisely, but the focuser on the SFL works a bit smoother still.

FOV is only marginally narrower in the MeoStar, but interestingly, out in the woods the difference appears larger, I got the impression that the FOV in the SFL is wider by a margin.
For my eyes, both binos exhibit a large sweet spot, good central sharpness and contrast and very similar edge sharpness.

The image in the SFL is clearly brighter and more brilliant, though, and color fidelity is higher in the SFL than in the MeoStar which for my eyes shows a very slight yellowish hue (this may not be that bad in terms of contrast, after all). Panning is comfortable in both.

CA correction is at a similar level, for me the MeoStar exhibits a tad more color that the SFL, but it’s never a major issue. Field curvature is slightly more visible in the MeoStar.

Stray-light control is at a comparable (good) level. Spikes on bright light sources are visible in both, but are not intrusive in either.

Eye relief is much more generous in the SFL, the MeoStar may have sufficient for some spectacle wearers but not for others (?)

I have been using the MeoStar for many years now and like it for its sturdy build and pleasant ease of view. The SFL appears almost “fragile” in comparison, but I am well aware that such appearances are deceiving.

Considering its price – roughly in the middle between the Nikon MHG and the SFL – the MeoStar is still a strong contender in the small 8x30s / 8x32s upper market. The SFL is lighter, has a more brilliant image and a much more modern touch.

Personal verdict in a nutshell:

• Size is comparable, the MeoStar is clearly heavier
• Ease of view is a touch better on the MeoStar
• FOV is slightly wider in the SFL, but appears clearly wider in practice
• Central sharpness, contrast and edge sharpness are at a similar level
• Image brightness and brilliance is better in the SFL; the MeoStar shows a slight warm hue
• Panning is comfortable in both
• CA correction and stray-light control are comparable
• Usable eye relief may be sufficient in the MeoStar, but the SFL has clearly more

fwiw Canip

View attachment 1501643

Nice… the type of practical review I was looking for

 

[dorubird]

[email protected]​

Allbinos ranking means nothing to me and to many others. That MHG 8x30 is still underestimated by many influenced by this allbinos very subjective review. I sold my Nikon Premier 8x32, Nikon E2 8x30 and Zeiss 8x25 Victory after I bought this tiny Nikon HG 8x30. If I was going for allbinos, now I would still have to have the Nikon Premier HGL 8x32, which is #5 raking in the top of the allbinos tables, because MHG 8x30 is #16 only. But, based on my own observations, I can say that the MHG 8x30 is an optically by far more better-performing binocular overall than the Premier: greater center clarity, much much larger FOV, it is visibly more brighter, even 2mm smaller in diameter and lighter...allbinos raking here is "a joke".
Another example of inadvertence in allbinos comparisons: compared between Monarch 7 8X30 and Monarch MHG 8x30 allbinos claims that "Blurring at the edge of the FOV" to be identical 74%. I can say that this is not true. I had them next to each other and the difference is enormous in favor of MHG. Maybe Allbinos had a lemon MHG

Canip confirmed to me once more time and showed that the MHG is a great binocular that it is competitive with the best binoculars in its class, even little bit beter than very new SFL 8x30 for some optical aspects! I showed why Allbinos comparative studies it is very subjective because it does not have binoculars face to face like Canip has. I agree that each of us has his own subjectivity, but at least Canip is among the few who compare his binoculars in front of him, side-by-side, and does not speak from his memories notes. If we speak from memory, visual memory is very volatile when it comes to small and discrete differences such as between these binoculars comparisons!