Yes, the ones with those red coatings. My older FLs (x42) are more neutral.
-
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.
Zeiss SFL 8x40 versus Victory SF 8x42? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mgp13
- Start date
I can only fully agree with this opinion. Got the small version (8x30) purely for weight reasons. And one does not lose that much of the "icing".
Good example: Troubadoris sees the curtains in our bedroom as blue but to my eyes they are unmistakably green.
Last edited:
You would need two, each eye perceives color differently.
MiddleRiver
Well-known member
I think it's called an Ishahara Test?
colormax.org
It might be interesting to take one of these tests while looking through binos
Color Blind Test | Test Your Color Vision | Ishihara Test for Color Blindness
See if you are colorblind by taking our online Ishihara Color Test. Learn about Color Blind treatments and how to pass a color vision test.
colormax.org
It might be interesting to take one of these tests while looking through binos
After Cataract surgery this winter, (lens used with UV/blue light filter) and then replacing several eyeglass lenses, primarily to re-acquire close focus ability, CR39 in one, Trivex another (can see the dang tint!), and polarized brown for sun, this color thing seems kinda tricky. Its amazing how quickly I adapt to whichever is on my face and that becomes the new (of the moment ) normal.
That is evidently a “difficult” part of the spectrum for many.
We have the same disagreements, with frequent use of the word “aqua”.
Sounds very familiar! In our case (my wife's name is also Doris) the color of discussion is usually what runs commonly as turquoise.
I am owning a SF 8x42 for quite a while now. Following all the buzz about the SFLs I had the chance to test one at a dealers place. From my point of view, the SFL did not in any way compare to the SF which is very obviously superior in every aspect apart weight. My decision: keep the SF and never regretted the decision.
Best
Andreas
Best
Andreas
mgp13
Well-known member
I've now had a few days to compare them rigorously, and the Vic SF is evidently the superior binocular. I can see how some might prefer the outstanding contrast and colour rendition of the SFLs - blacks are rendered so deliciously inky and colours so unbelievably neutral. On a bright day they are just superb and it must be said their resolution is every bit as good as the SF. In all, they are an outstanding binocular and they absolutely blow away other binoculars of similar price.
However, the otherwise giant-slaying 8x40 SFL nevertheless loses out to the sublime 8x42 SF's incredibly relaxed and effortless view, a view that is not only noticeably wider but considerably sharper to the edges, producing that extra-large and positively gorgeous sweet spot that so many talk about. Yes the SFL is wide at 140m, but the 148m I get with the SF combined with that massive sweet spot gives the impression of a view that is very much - rather than marginally - wider and more immersive. Roger Vine speaks of a very wide field as something that serves to make the binoculars "go away" when viewing through them and only the SF achieves that out of these two. Don't get me wrong, I find the view through the SFL far from difficult and certainly not tunnel-like, but after getting used to the supreme ease of the view through the SF I now find the SFL's view a tad constrained and a bit tight.
As for the much maligned green cast, I have only noticed it under some rather unusual and infrequently encountered lighting conditions, usually close to dusk and when there is much dust suspended in the air. I must say the pure blue of the sky through the SFL is very attractive, but I'm absolutely fine with the blue-green tint I get through the SF - is actually much easier on the eyes. Which is another area where the SF beats the SFL - it is much better at controlling very bright reflections in the background of the image, and just coping with high brightness generally. It also excels beyond any other binocular I've used in controlling stray light - here it is much better than the SFL rather than slightly better. I can point in the direction of the setting sun and enjoy a view utterly free from rays of stray light, something I thought I'd never get in a binocular. As for the red half-moons some complain about, I've tried my best to find them but they're just not there.
The ergonomics of the SF are also superior not just to the SFL but probably all other binoculars. A couple of days ago I watched patiently hoping for a crake to emerge from reeds and found myself amazed at how long I was able to watch just one spot without either my eyes or arms tiring. One-handed use is also just as good as it is with the lighter SFL. The handling of the Vic SF is just mind-bogglingly good.
I loved the SFLs but I positively adore the Victory SF. Those coated eyepiece lenses are like deep magenta pools and every time I gaze into them I am reminded that I have the very best Zeiss binoculars available. I will enjoy them for a very long time indeed.
However, the otherwise giant-slaying 8x40 SFL nevertheless loses out to the sublime 8x42 SF's incredibly relaxed and effortless view, a view that is not only noticeably wider but considerably sharper to the edges, producing that extra-large and positively gorgeous sweet spot that so many talk about. Yes the SFL is wide at 140m, but the 148m I get with the SF combined with that massive sweet spot gives the impression of a view that is very much - rather than marginally - wider and more immersive. Roger Vine speaks of a very wide field as something that serves to make the binoculars "go away" when viewing through them and only the SF achieves that out of these two. Don't get me wrong, I find the view through the SFL far from difficult and certainly not tunnel-like, but after getting used to the supreme ease of the view through the SF I now find the SFL's view a tad constrained and a bit tight.
As for the much maligned green cast, I have only noticed it under some rather unusual and infrequently encountered lighting conditions, usually close to dusk and when there is much dust suspended in the air. I must say the pure blue of the sky through the SFL is very attractive, but I'm absolutely fine with the blue-green tint I get through the SF - is actually much easier on the eyes. Which is another area where the SF beats the SFL - it is much better at controlling very bright reflections in the background of the image, and just coping with high brightness generally. It also excels beyond any other binocular I've used in controlling stray light - here it is much better than the SFL rather than slightly better. I can point in the direction of the setting sun and enjoy a view utterly free from rays of stray light, something I thought I'd never get in a binocular. As for the red half-moons some complain about, I've tried my best to find them but they're just not there.
The ergonomics of the SF are also superior not just to the SFL but probably all other binoculars. A couple of days ago I watched patiently hoping for a crake to emerge from reeds and found myself amazed at how long I was able to watch just one spot without either my eyes or arms tiring. One-handed use is also just as good as it is with the lighter SFL. The handling of the Vic SF is just mind-bogglingly good.
I loved the SFLs but I positively adore the Victory SF. Those coated eyepiece lenses are like deep magenta pools and every time I gaze into them I am reminded that I have the very best Zeiss binoculars available. I will enjoy them for a very long time indeed.
Last edited:
Elpha8888
Well-known member
Yes, noticed that on shades of green one day, it was quite pronounced actually.
The best binoculars is the one you have with you when you need them. This is actually a saying about cameras but it works here too.
So maybe any comparison should take into account their size and weight.
I find my NL Pure better 8x42 than the SFL 8x40 on almost every respect. But are they are slightly too big & heavy, I used to prefer the NL Pure 8x32 or Zeiss Victory 8x32 (I own both too).
But the SFL is the same size and weight so now, they are the one I use most often because I have the advantages of a 40mm diameter, especially ease of eye placement instead of 32mm. And they are even cheaper.
I know I can have better and for serious use, I will take an alpha but if I had to keep one pair of binoculars, it would be the SFL. Well, it would be the Curio but ideally, I would keep both of them be very happy.
NBE?
New Bino Effect.
Thanks, Tommy
hopster
Well-known member
I prefer the HT. Better colour, brighter, more contrast.
Robert Moore
Well-known member
I use to think the HT was the best but after using the SF 8x42 for awhile now with its light weight and perfect balance I could not go back. I sold my NL pure because I love the SF so much and I loved the view in the NL. Not enough difference in optical quality to matter so it came down to ergonomics.
mgp13
Well-known member
The SFL were also new for me, I'd only had them a month. And truth be told I have experienced the same thing with the SF as I did with the SFL, liking them more and more with each use.
