I have a pair of Ziess Bins had them a few years now they are Conquest HDs and Realy good for me the Light Gathering is Excellent i will upgrade when finance allows , i also have a Swarovski scope which i want to part exchange for a Ziess Harpia scope as i think they are better at the light gathering again Ziess to me are the best.
No. The SF's are sharper all the way to the edges. The SFL's do have some fall off near the edges. But still really good and the best about them is that they are much lighter, smaller and comfortable to hold.
@@mrmaxaxl thanks for the reply, I'm actually looking at purchasing either the SFL's or the kowa genesis 33mm as they are really good too. Have u compared to these? Obviously the SFL's should be bit brighter in really low light. I like the low weight of the SFL's.
@@GM-bq6zo I haven't tried the Kowas. I'd say go for the SFL's! I have some amazing binos (Swarovski 8.5 EL, Swarovski 15x56) but my go to binoculars are the 8x40 SFL.
@@mrmaxaxl cheers, yeah I fancy the 8x40 SFL's, I've got some el 8x32, are the sfls as good as your els? Kowas are cracking binos, as good or better than el 8x32.
I don't buy the claim that the extra 2 per cent light transmissions gives you an extra 20 minutes of use in challenging light conditions. Sounds like BS to me. In reality I strongly doubt you'd notice the difference between 90 and 92 per cent. Let's see the physics here!
Yeah, they shortened that to the point of uselessness. Let's explain it a little better: First, 42 mm diameter vs. 40 mm. That's only 5% bigger. However, the amount of light you collect grows with the light-gathering surface area, so we need to square those numbers, and we get 10.25% more light gathered by the SF's 42 mm objective lenses. Plus, 92% of the collected light makes it to your eyes using the SF, while "only" 90% makes it through the SFL's optical system (which is still significantly better than the vast majority of binoculars in existence). So, with the same magnification your image will be about 12% brighter when using the SF. In low-light conditions that will make a difference! How much of a difference? Hard to tell - the closer you get to the equator, the shorter your twilight gets. But if you do a lot of twilight observing, you will want the brighter glass.
Unfortunately, that sound more of advertising then test and review.
Is there a big difference in low light conditions? Between those 2?
Is this worth 1000 euro?
I have a pair of Ziess Bins had them a few years now they are Conquest HDs and Realy good for me the Light Gathering is Excellent i will upgrade when finance allows , i also have a Swarovski scope which i want to part exchange for a Ziess Harpia scope as i think they are better at the light gathering again Ziess to me are the best.
Nice one, Tony! 👍
Is the Sfl 40mm the same optically as the sf 42? Apart from the slight extra light gathering of the 42mm? Are they the same components?
No. The SF's are sharper all the way to the edges.
The SFL's do have some fall off near the edges. But still really good and the best about them is that they are much lighter, smaller and comfortable to hold.
@@mrmaxaxl thanks for the reply, I'm actually looking at purchasing either the SFL's or the kowa genesis 33mm as they are really good too. Have u compared to these? Obviously the SFL's should be bit brighter in really low light. I like the low weight of the SFL's.
@@GM-bq6zo I haven't tried the Kowas.
I'd say go for the SFL's!
I have some amazing binos (Swarovski 8.5 EL, Swarovski 15x56) but my go to binoculars are the 8x40 SFL.
@@mrmaxaxl cheers, yeah I fancy the 8x40 SFL's, I've got some el 8x32, are the sfls as good as your els? Kowas are cracking binos, as good or better than el 8x32.
@@GM-bq6zo Cool!
For me, very few binoculars come close to the EL's! The edge to egde sharpness is unbeliavable :)
Can the Kowas really be that good?
1 thing to note SFL doesn't have the back balanced design like SF.
Collier Brooks
I don't buy the claim that the extra 2 per cent light transmissions gives you an extra 20 minutes of use in challenging light conditions. Sounds like BS to me. In reality I strongly doubt you'd notice the difference between 90 and 92 per cent. Let's see the physics here!
Its not only the extra 2 mm causing extra light. Also eyecubs, coating, field of view etc.
Yeah, they shortened that to the point of uselessness. Let's explain it a little better: First, 42 mm diameter vs. 40 mm. That's only 5% bigger. However, the amount of light you collect grows with the light-gathering surface area, so we need to square those numbers, and we get 10.25% more light gathered by the SF's 42 mm objective lenses. Plus, 92% of the collected light makes it to your eyes using the SF, while "only" 90% makes it through the SFL's optical system (which is still significantly better than the vast majority of binoculars in existence). So, with the same magnification your image will be about 12% brighter when using the SF. In low-light conditions that will make a difference! How much of a difference? Hard to tell - the closer you get to the equator, the shorter your twilight gets. But if you do a lot of twilight observing, you will want the brighter glass.