SUPPRESSOR
Well-known member
Thumb indents are wonderful, if they fit your hands.Thumb indents are wonderful, if they fit your hands.
Horrible if they don't.
Thumb indents are wonderful, if they fit your hands.Thumb indents are wonderful, if they fit your hands.
Hi Brock,Hi Henry,
I referred to your BF review of the 8x56 FL earlier about why a good quality 8x56 can beat a good quality 8x42 even during the daytime. Do you still use the 8x56 FL as your main birding bin or did you replace it with an 8x54 HT or Swaro 8x56 SLC HD?
Or did you find a smaller aperture bin that corrects axial aberrations as well as larger aperture bins?
Brock
Good call. That's a photo of 10x56 (smallest oculars of the three).
I've not found much variation in Swaro focusers (apart from Habicht which I'll admit is slow) in those I own or have borrowed - Yes they're a fraction slower closer focusing than focusing past, but like Troubadour I was taught you focus past then fine tune back, but they've all been pretty consistent and smooth enough. I'm possibly less bothered by focusers than some though and just adjust - old fashioned greased focusers in my vintage Zeiss do slow down below freezing, but still work fine and I've been happy with Nikon focusers in the past. I thought the SF focusers were okay - nothing special, a little too fast but not terrible - the only focuser I really disliked was on a borrowed pair of Terras. Conquest focusers seemed 'okay'.
The Habicht 8x30 is like a Ferrari and the SLC 8x56 is like an SUV.I test drove a Rolls-Royce the other day but concluded it was really no better than my SMART.
John
That is why Swarovski designed the NL with adjustable thumb indents.Thumb indents are wonderful, if they fit your hands.
Horrible if they don't.
Glad to hear you still have the old FL workhorse but are also happy birding with the "latest and greatest" 8x42 NL, which for $3,299 damned well better have a "Pure" image!Hi Brock,
I still have the 8x56 FL, but these days I use a Swarovski 8x42 NL more for birding. The FL is still the best I have for center field sharpness in daylight. I thought I was going to replace it with the 8x54 HT when that first appeared, but the HT turned out to be a dud. For the last few months I've been really enjoying sometimes using an old Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 B (1968-78 version). It has turned out to be very impressive, certainly the best of the Oberkochen Porros.
I found an 8x32 over 25 years ago that corrects axial aberrations better and is closer to diffraction limited at its full aperture than any larger aperture bin I've tried. You've got the same one.
Henry
No doubt these Wunderbins would be interesting to try, but “out of stock” and a minimum shipping charge of more than US$80 rather puts me off…Have you tried Kevin's Obie-Wan Ken SE? I've read rave reviews, most recently by Neil English, who said the OB SE beats the 82xxx 8x30 E2, which has Nikon's best glass and coatings.
[…]
On the contrary, take a look further down those photos and you reach one showing the Conquest laying down with the contoured strap folded to show the legend ZEISS in capitals.Perhaps, but in any case it isn't the strap shown included with this Conquest, which has lowercase lettering and remains wrapped.
Holy Smokes, that Conquest looks BIG in that picture! 😁On the contrary, take a look further down those photos and you reach one showing the Conquest laying down with the contoured strap folded to show the legend ZEISS in capitals.
Yeah, that sucks. I'm surprised about the added co$t since Australia is over 4,000 km closer to China than the US. The Chinese could drop them off with one of their weather/spy balloons.No doubt these Wunderbins would be interesting to try, but “out of stock” and a minimum shipping charge of more than US$80 rather puts me off…
…Mike
Here's a BF thread devoted to that comparison.Has anyone compared the Conquest to the old FLs?
Here's a BF thread devoted to that comparison.
Which 8x32: Victory FL or New Conquest HD ?
I'm going to get some Zeiss 8x32 bins. It was going to be a pair of Victory FLs - maybe a second hand pair. But I just found out about the new Conquest HD 8x32 bins, which are a lot cheaper. Now I'm wondering whether to buy a good (ie mint) second-hand pair of FLs or a new pair of Conquest...www.birdforum.net
Since you liked one model Conquest ad not the other, it appears that you can't make generalizations across the entire line. You need a apples to apples comparison. Did you read Roger's review of the 10x56 Conquest HD? He makes a few comparisons to the FL, but most of the comparisons are with the HT.Thanks, but it was specifically the 10x56s I was interested in. Optically I quite liked the 8x32 Conquest, but not the 10x42s I tried. I'm tempted by a 10x56 but not sure I can justify the £1800 for the SLC, and wondered where the FLs sat between the Conquest and SLCs.
Hello Richard,Thanks, but it was specifically the 10x56s I was interested in. Optically I quite liked the 8x32 Conquest, but not the 10x42s I tried. I'm tempted by a 10x56 but not sure I can justify the £1800 for the SLC, and wondered where the FLs sat between the Conquest and SLCs.
Since you liked one model Conquest ad not the other, it appears that you can't make generalizations across the entire line. You need a apples to apples comparison. Did you read Roger's review of the 10x56 Conquest HD? He makes a few comparisons to the FL, but most of the comparisons are with the HT.
Zeiss 10x56 Conquest HD Review
www.scopeviews.co.uk
You might search hunting optics forums such as Rokslide since this format is used more by hunters than birders.
Brock
Hello Richard,
I think the FL are still on par with the SLC.
The binoculars have slightly different focal points, that SLC is better in terms of balance, insight and edge sharpness, that FL is at least as sharp on the axis, and also in terms of contrast, stray light suppression and chromatic aberration is better in FL.
I wouldn't necessarily swap my FL for an SLC, I don't know that Conquest 10x56.
Andreas
I had the 10x42 fl briefly - I saw it for sale cheap so bought it to sell - if the '56 is in the same league you wouldn't be missing much compared to the SLC, c.a control off axis I suspect would be superior to the SLC, other off axis aberrations less so. Shop around though.The 8x32's are the only Conquests that optically impressed - the 10x42s and 15s I tried had far too much CA for my tastes and edge abberations - decent on axis performance and I could live with the poor eyecups and probably cope with the over fast focusers, but not the optics. Yes I read Roger's review - I don't think the Conquest are for me. Maybe gritting my teeth and looking at Rokslide might be an idea.
Thanks - it's a whim more than a need. I love the 15x56 SLCs and if money was no object I'd get the 10x56 SLCs on that basis alone, but with excellent condition used FLs half the price of a new pair of the SLCs...