Zeiss SFL 10×50

Specifications:

Objective diameter (acc. to spec. and measured):  50 mm
Magnification (acc. to spec.):  10 x
Magnification (measured):  10.1 x
Exit pupil (acc. to spec.) : 5 mm
Exit pupil (measured) : 4.95 mm
Eye relief (acc. to spec): 18 mm
Usable eye relief (measured from rim of eyecup): 15 mm
IPD (acc. to spec):  56 – 74 mm
RFOV (acc. to spec. and measured):  7  degrees = 122 m
AFOV (acc. to spec.):  66  degrees
AFOV (measured): 67 degrees
Minimum focus distance (acc. to spec. and measured): 1.8 m
Focus type: CF (direction of rotation from close to infinity: > clockwise)
Degrees of rotation of focus wheel from 3 m to infinity (measured): 190 degrees
Range of diopter adjustment (acc. to spec.): +/- 4 dpt*
Excess travel of focus wheel beyond infinity position (estimate): > 7 dpt*
Prism system:  Schmidt-Pechan
Waterproof: yes
Weight (without accessories, acc. to specs.): 872 g
Weight (measured, with eyepiece cover and strap): 950 g
Made in: Japan

*range of diopter adjustment not affected by position of focus wheel

Remarks:

A 10×50 binocular the size and weight of a 10×40 binocular? What Zeiss tried with the x40 and x30 SFL models – making binoculars more compact and lighter than competitors with similar configurations – is now available in the form of a 8×50 and a 10×50 SFL. Beside being pleasantly lightweight, both models convince with good ergonomics, pleasant haptics, an excellent smooth, precise and fast focuser, a comfortably wide field of view, natural color display, good sharpness across most of the image, and very satisfactory stray-light suppression. Overall a very well-rounded attractive binocular! BINOCULARS TODAY is still not a fan of the type of eyecups Zeiss uses, they appear a bit shoddy and not suitable for premium binoculars. Plus: the 10×50 model, unlike its 8×50 sibling (see separate post, https://binocular.ch/zeiss-sfl-8×50/), displays clearly a bit too much CA, which is a “drop of vermouth” in an otherwise splendid instrument (this does not really impair binocular performance much, it’s more an issue of image esthetics).

Ratings: