Zeiss SFL 8x40 vs. Swarovski EL 8.5x42 (3 Viewers)

[Viraj]

Congratulations @HenChamp for your new addition. They truly are wonderful binoculars. Unfortunately, for me, it took more than a year to realize how wonderful they are because I have seen unavoidable blackouts. Finally, I found it was the forehead rest that gave me that problem. Now I use it with FHR folded down.

Good decision, the NLs are a dream. Now just don't go looking through a Noctivid or the 12xNL. 😏

@Elpha8888 Is NL 12x42 that good? Sometimes I miss extra magnification when I use NL 8x42 and am thinking to get an NL 10x42 or 12x42. Is it possible to use them handheld? Because I usually don't like to use binoculars tripod mounted. Other option I was thinking is getting a Noctivid 10x42. However, reluctant to get one because it might not be very stable in hand as well as quite a bit of CA mentioned by others. If it is that good compared to the NL 8x42, I might want to buy one later addition to the NL 8x42. Because I don’t want to miss the FOV of NL.

 

[HenChamp]

If I wanted a 10x or greater I’d almost have to go NL to avoid a narrow claustrophobic view. I’m thinking about a 10x one day, too.

 

[Elpha8888]

Congratulations @HenChamp for your new addition. They truly are wonderful binoculars. Unfortunately, for me, it took more than a year to realize how wonderful they are because I have seen unavoidable blackouts. Finally, I found it was the forehead rest that gave me that problem. Now I use it with FHR folded down.


@Elpha8888 Is NL 12x42 that good? Sometimes I miss extra magnification when I use NL 8x42 and am thinking to get an NL 10x42 or 12x42. Is it possible to use them handheld? Because I usually don't like to use binoculars tripod mounted. Other option I was thinking is getting a Noctivid 10x42. However, reluctant to get one because it might not be very stable in hand as well as quite a bit of CA mentioned by others. If it is that good compared to the NL 8x42, I might want to buy one later addition to the NL 8x42. Because I don’t want to miss the FOV of NL.

Yes it's that good, I had the 8x NL and 12xNL the fov was plenty and combined with the afov made me go wow first look. I would choose the 12x over 10 if you already have the 8x. Its AFOV is very special, wonderful for astronomy or during the day for long range viewing, puts you right in the picture.
It does have shake but is one of the better 12x binoculars, you have the forehead rest option and it's ergonomics also help in stability. I used the baseball cap method a lot and the views are nearly rock steady albeit a bit of an unconventional way but it definitely works real good.
Yes I would also check the Noctivid 10x and also throw the Canon 10x42 into the mix as well but the NL 12x is a special binocular.
Yes there's shake but can be reduced, the view makes you forget the shake, mount them and they are god like.

 

[Chotacabras]

Latching on to this thread rather than starting anew...

I tried lots of binoculars recently, and my eventual favourites were the SFL 8x40s and the EL 8.5x42s.

(I have massive Leica brand loyalty after 30 years of indestructibly wonderful BAs. But sadly I experienced some "beaning" with both Trinovid HDs and Noctivids: eyecups too short for me I suppose. Unless there's some magic solution for that?)

The ELs had superlative image quality, of course, and they feel like they're built to last decades. But close focus is now only 3.3m. Close focus is important to me: only occasionally useful for birding, I know, but always delightfully enjoyable.

(NL Pures were lovely, certainly: but like Noctivids they're really outside my budget, and I also experienced somewhat irritating glare.)

SFL image quality and ease-of-view almost as good as EL (in my opinion), with excellent close focus (1.5m), and I like the fast focusing. But (big but) I don't trust build quality, of eyecups in particular but also more generally… bad experience with Conquests (eyecups broke twice, hinge gone loose, possible slight misalignment). My BAs have worked well for 30 years without ever needing servicing: perhaps such remarkable build quality is a thing of the past?

So should I go for EL excellence (of image, of build) and accept not-very-close close focus? Or should I stop worrying about Zeiss build quality and get the SFLs?

Probably the right answer is to do some more testing then go with my gut! But expert opinions might sway me...

 

[Troubador]

Latching on to this thread rather than starting anew...

I tried lots of binoculars recently, and my eventual favourites were the SFL 8x40s and the EL 8.5x42s.

(I have massive Leica brand loyalty after 30 years of indestructibly wonderful BAs. But sadly I experienced some "beaning" with both Trinovid HDs and Noctivids: eyecups too short for me I suppose. Unless there's some magic solution for that?)

The ELs had superlative image quality, of course, and they feel like they're built to last decades. But close focus is now only 3.3m. Close focus is important to me: only occasionally useful for birding, I know, but always delightfully enjoyable.

(NL Pures were lovely, certainly: but like Noctivids they're really outside my budget, and I also experienced somewhat irritating glare.)

SFL image quality and ease-of-view almost as good as EL (in my opinion), with excellent close focus (1.5m), and I like the fast focusing. But (big but) I don't trust build quality, of eyecups in particular but also more generally… bad experience with Conquests (eyecups broke twice, hinge gone loose, possible slight misalignment). My BAs have worked well for 30 years without ever needing servicing: perhaps such remarkable build quality is a thing of the past?

So should I go for EL excellence (of image, of build) and accept not-very-close close focus? Or should I stop worrying about Zeiss build quality and get the SFLs?

Probably the right answer is to do some more testing then go with my gut! But expert opinions might sway me...

Close focus is important to you.. Follow your iheart.

 

[Chotacabras]

Close focus is important to you.. Follow your iheart.

Thank you Troubador (Lee I think): I appreciate that response. Yes, close focus is important to me, it's a lovely nice-to-have: though my primary requirements are 1) superb "ease-of-view", so hard to define and so user-specific, and 2) durability/reliability. Many parameters are not very important to me: I really don't care very much about FOV or edge resolution, for example. Thank you again!

 

[Ted Y.]

Thank you Troubador (Lee I think): I appreciate that response. Yes, close focus is important to me, it's a lovely nice-to-have: though my primary requirements are 1) superb "ease-of-view", so hard to define and so user-specific, and 2) durability/reliability. Many parameters are not very important to me: I really don't care very much about FOV or edge resolution, for example. Thank you again!

I think no one but you can answer to first requirement.
For the second one, the SFL is to recent to have durability/reliability data over years of use. Therefore, I think it is no answer.
You can consider the antidote, a solid warranty with prompt service.
Other factors: is one binocular repaired/maintained in USA and the other in Europe? Just assess the situation.

 

[Scott98]

The shapes and gripping, and focusing, of these two binos is as different as it could possibly be - I would want to try using both of them in person first.

 

[Rg548]

Latching on to this thread rather than starting anew...

I tried lots of binoculars recently, and my eventual favourites were the SFL 8x40s and the EL 8.5x42s.

(I have massive Leica brand loyalty after 30 years of indestructibly wonderful BAs. But sadly I experienced some "beaning" with both Trinovid HDs and Noctivids: eyecups too short for me I suppose. Unless there's some magic solution for that?)

The ELs had superlative image quality, of course, and they feel like they're built to last decades. But close focus is now only 3.3m. Close focus is important to me: only occasionally useful for birding, I know, but always delightfully enjoyable.

(NL Pures were lovely, certainly: but like Noctivids they're really outside my budget, and I also experienced somewhat irritating glare.)

SFL image quality and ease-of-view almost as good as EL (in my opinion), with excellent close focus (1.5m), and I like the fast focusing. But (big but) I don't trust build quality, of eyecups in particular but also more generally… bad experience with Conquests (eyecups broke twice, hinge gone loose, possible slight misalignment). My BAs have worked well for 30 years without ever needing servicing: perhaps such remarkable build quality is a thing of the past?

So should I go for EL excellence (of image, of build) and accept not-very-close close focus? Or should I stop worrying about Zeiss build quality and get the SFLs?

Probably the right answer is to do some more testing then go with my gut! But expert opinions might sway me...

Save yourself a fortune, and buy a late mint BN instead of BA. Send to Leica for service (free) and enjoy.
I've gone all round the houses with all 4 top brands, Nikons Se's, Zeiss FL's, even Meoptas included... and I am delighted with my 18year old mint BN's.
The fact they also 'only' cost £650 means I use them without being precious. Couldn't be happier, and that build quality is a joy to hold.
I can't justify the crazy prices of the top tier these days, and I don't think they are THAT much better than the older high end stuff.

 

[Chotacabras]

Thank you so much Ted, Scott and Rg.

Ted: yes, I agree on all counts, including warranty = Bauangstgegenmittel! (In UK, so access to servicing shouldn't be an issue).

Scott: yes, agree ergonomics important, I've tried both, ergonomics different but both fine for me.

Rg: used BNs certainly an intriguing and very lovable possibility, would somewhat improve close focus on BAs.

Thank you all again! And apologies to actual German speakers for that implausible and probably incorrect neologism

 

[Chotacabras]

For information: I bought the ELs, i.e. I prioritised "build confidence" (Bauvertrauen?!) over extreme close focus.

Brief comparison of the ELs with my personal benchmark (Leica BA 8x42s, 1990s) after a couple of days in the field. Disclaimer: I'm talking about my own experience, not lab testing, and it's all specific to my particular eyesight characteristics and face-shape.

1) ELs certainly have better contrast and colour intensity than the old BAs, and slightly better resolution (as per my eyes, not a measuring device): but I'm not sure these differences will have any real impact on bird detection/identification.

2) Of course the ELs have much closer close focus than the BAs: significant advantage, the BAs are about 6m, really not close enough.

3) Ease-of-view with the ELs is very good, but still not as good as the BAs. The BAs give me a limpid feeling of total visual relaxation; pretty much all other binoculars give me a slight (or strong) feeling of tension. I have no idea what the cause of this might be: at this quality level, I doubt that it's a collimation issue.

4) Despite narrower FOV than the ELs, the BAs have a somewhat more immersive feel for me, perhaps (?) related to larger exit pupil… the ELs feel a bit more "tunnely".

So Rg548's advice to consider used BNs was perhaps good advice. I would have done so, if I'd been able to find a pair somewhere that I could try before buying.

Anyway: the ELs are absolutely fabulous binoculars, it's just that no binocular I've ever tried gives me such superlative ease-of-view as my BAs. Again: all of this is no doubt specific - at least in part - to my particular eyesight characteristics and face-shape. (I need reading glasses but have decent long sight; left eye acuity much worse than right; dioptre setting very close to centre; require long eyecups.)

Of course, after months or years of use of the ELs, my judgements may change...

 

[tenex]

3) Ease-of-view with the ELs is very good, but still not as good as the BAs. The BAs give me a limpid feeling of total visual relaxation; pretty much all other binoculars give me a slight (or strong) feeling of tension. I have no idea what the cause of this might be: at this quality level, I doubt that it's a collimation issue.

4) Despite narrower FOV than the ELs, the BAs have a somewhat more immersive feel for me, perhaps (?) related to larger exit pupil… the ELs feel a bit more "tunnely".

Of course the major design difference is EL's flat field. I wonder how much of this is somehow due to that, and how your experience will develop.

 

[Chotacabras]

Of course the major design difference is EL's flat field. I wonder how much of this is somehow due to that, and how your experience will develop.

Might be that. No idea, I bow to your more expert insight. Could be multiple other things too I guess... like some inscrutable side-effect of the longer eye relief of modern binoculars, or of close-focus optical elements, or etc etc. Perhaps Leica could just re-release the BNs with newer glass and newer coatings 🙂 Haha, not going to happen I suppose.

 

[Patudo]

Perhaps Leica could just re-release the BNs with newer glass and newer coatings 🙂 Haha, not going to happen I suppose.

Aren't the Ultravids supposed to be just that - same optics but with better coatings and a lighter/more compact housing?

 

[Paultricounty]

Aren't the Ultravids supposed to be just that - same optics but with better coatings and a lighter/more compact housing?

Yes and no. It’s more like the next generation in Leica optics. It’s using different optics , schott glass, higher light transmission with improved modern coatings, I believe different ocular design. And of course magnesium body and much improved focuser. Imo.

Paul.

 

[John M Robinson]

Aren't the Ultravids supposed to be just that - same optics but with better coatings and a lighter/more compact housing?

Exactly 😊

 

[Ofthewoods]

If I wanted a 10x or greater I’d almost have to go NL to avoid a narrow claustrophobic view. I’m thinking about a 10x one day, too.

I recently tried the Zeiss SF 10x32 and I was blown away. It unfortunately recalibrated my whole idea of what binos I should buy.

 

[Rg548]

Aren't the Ultravids supposed to be just that - same optics but with better coatings and a lighter/more compact housing?

Yes..... and No

For me the BN's ergonomics far surpass the Ultravids.
I actually think they should have kept the BN design and developed it optically...
But that's not good marketing....
I think the same with FL's too.

But NEW models will always get more interest.

 

[Swedpat]

If I wanted a 10x or greater I’d almost have to go NL to avoid a narrow claustrophobic view. I’m thinking about a 10x one day, too.

That was in my ears an extreme standpoint to mean smaller FOV than NL Pure gives a claustrophobic view...