New Zeiss Bino—SFL 10x40–Review

[Kenn]

A bit off topic, but I have tried the RRS Cinch-LR tripod adaptor which can be used on nearly any binoculars without the use of a stud. Basically it works great and it holds the binoculars firmly and in an excellent position for use with a Manfrotto fluid head. The one annoyance was that it was claimed to have a base that fit a Manfrotto quick release and that didn’t work. It appeared to lock in, but was just a little smaller and could slip out. I had to screw on a base, which is no big deal because I remove the bins from the adapter if I’m going to carry them.

 

[nhgt_fd]

I spoke to a retailer who has tested this. Even though it is in the middle of the price range between conquest and SF, they think the optics are closer to the SF, which is good news.

 

[Brummie75]

Looking forward to the next part of this. I’m trying to decide whether to pick up a pair.

 

[robby denning]

Would love to see the direct comparison to the SF 8x42 (one of the best binoculars money can buy). The SF is so light, so bright, and just perfectly balanced.

I think the question will come down to image quality, (already giving up field of view on the new SFL) and some amazing ergonomics on the SF.

Would a used SF be the best route to go?

Excited to see read more as consumers get their hands on these.

I don’t have an SF 8x42 or I’d chime in.

I wouldn’t be afraid to buy used from a reputable seller. My Dialyt’s are from 1997, and still going strong.

 

[robby denning]

Put some more time on the SFLs last week. This time up against the smaller SF 10x32.

I did this comparison of these two because I think (and Zeiss may not agree) that if I was in the market for a compact to a mid-compact bino, I’d wanna know the differences in these two. See post #1 for a more complete discussion

I did a test on the Resloving Power Chart. For those new to that, it’s just groups of bars & lines that get smaller. The basic idea is to be able to resolve (completely see) the smallest group possible. Makes for a good comparison between optics BUT as @Matt Cashell says, it’s not the end-all test for optics either.




Hit the chart in the evening with full cloud cover.

Verdict:

The SF 10x32 we’re able to resolve Group -1, Element 2 (shown above) while the SFL 10x42s could only resolve Element 1 (so one step less in performance).

So although the SFLs have better twilight performance per post #1, the SFs can resolve more detail. So it’s a trade off.

For me, I’m liking the better twilight performance of the SFLs for only a small difference in resolving power.

Next up, I’ll post on the Zeiss tripod adapter and their stud installation system. Hint, I really like it. Maybe I can get it in a video.

 

[2blade]

I can only wonder, how much better are they than the 8x32 Conquest? Is it worth the upgrade?

 

[robby denning]

I can only wonder, how much better are they than the 8x32 Conquest? Is it worth the upgrade?

Since I haven’t got to try the conquest, all I can tell you is what I’ve learned with optics is that we pay a lot for small differences. And with the big three, they are very honest about what you’re getting, so if the conquest is a cheaper brand, then you are truly giving something up.

 

[Brummie75]

Do you notice much difference between the two in terms of chromatic aberration?

 

[Ramcharger]

I have one thought, comparing a 10x40 binocular with a 10x32 is not a fair comparison.
Apples to oranges. There should be some transmission and difference in brightness, in quality Zeiss optics.
So, this should not be a surprise.
A better comparison would have been the Zeiss SF 10x42.

 

[robby denning]

I have one thought, comparing a 10x40 binocular with a 10x32 is not a fair comparison.
Apples to oranges. There should be some transmission difference, in quality Zeiss optics.
So this should not be a surprise.

I agree but I think you missed my reasoning for choosing those two. It's for the guys (like me) who'd like the most performance for the least weight. This review is about trade-offs someone could live with to get a lighter optic. Make better sense now?

 

[robby denning]

Do you notice much difference between the two in terms of chromatic aberration?

Hey man, if you follow my reviews on optics, i don't comment on CA much for the simple fact that I'm color blind.

As CA can also show up as blurred edges, and not just noticeable colored edges I would be able to see that, but noticed nothing like that.

 

[NWPA-Whitetail]

Great review

 

[robby denning]

Great review

Thanks. More to come. Working on a video of their tripod adapter. It’s that good that I want to do included in the review. Always looking for a better experience with tripod adapters and this one seems to deliver

 

[robby denning]

Video on the Tripod Adapter/Stud Install is up

 

[TNKnoxville]

Just ordered the 8X!!!!!!!

 

[robby denning]

OK, I’ve used these a bunch since starting this post. Solid thumbs up! I’m going to sell my SFs and buy these, that’s how much I liked them. Yes, the SFs beat them in a few performance criteria (FOV & Resolving Power, weight) but it’s all about trade offs, and the 1/4-20 adapter pushed these SFLs over the finish line for me, not to mention the better Twilight Performance of the SFs

Anyone wanna a great price on the SFs?

I’ll put together my final thoughts on the SFLs and get it out in a formal review asap.

 

[Nolan_]

do you prefer this adapter over the outdoorsmans?

 

[robby denning]

do you prefer this adapter over the outdoorsmans?

Hi Nolan, I have not had the pleasure of running the Outdoorsmans adapter. I have ran their QR plates, and they’re tops.

 

[ILPete]

I've had the 8x40 SFLs for a couple days and have been comparing them to 8x32 NLs and 8x42 NLs.

At this point I'd keep the SFLs, sell the 8x32 NLs and maybe sell the 8x42 NLs. Handheld in general use, reading distant street signs, and astronomical viewing, the SFLs appear to have resolution slightly better than the 8x32s and almost equal, and at times equal, to that of the 8x42 NLs.

I'm not very sensitive to CA and haven't found any yet. Scuttlebutt is that it has some CA, but not excessive levels.

The focus wheel is stiffer than I like, but far end focus is fast and I haven't had much issue zeroing in on viewing targets.

I like the objective covers although they are a bit difficult to close, they seem to be getting better with use.

Versus the 8x42 NLs, the 8x40 SFLs give you a 40% $$$ savings and half a pound weight savings. However you give up 57 ft of FOV (420 vs 477) and various high end design elements and luxury bits.

 

[robby denning]

I've had the 8x40 SFLs for a couple days and have been comparing them to 8x32 NLs and 8x42 NLs.

At this point I'd keep the SFLs, sell the 8x32 NLs and maybe sell the 8x42 NLs. Handheld in general use, reading distant street signs, and astronomical viewing, the SFLs appear to have resolution slightly better than the 8x32s and almost equal, and at times equal, to that of the 8x42 NLs.

I'm not very sensitive to CA and haven't found any yet. Scuttlebutt is that it has some CA, but not excessive levels.

The focus wheel is stiffer than I like, but far end focus is fast and I haven't had much issue zeroing in on viewing targets.

I like the objective covers although they are a bit difficult to close, they seem to be getting better with use.

Versus the 8x42 NLs, the 8x40 SFLs give you a 40% $$$ savings and half a pound weight savings. However you give up 57 ft of FOV (420 vs 477) and various high end design elements and luxury bits.

Excellent feedback. Thank you!!!