• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Some questions regarding the Victory T* FL 8x32 (1 Viewer)

O

Odradek

Well-known member
Hi,

i have some questions regarding the Zeiss Victory T* FL 8x32. Recently i had the opportunity the test the Conquest HD 8x32. The image was very great and i really would like to keep the binocular. Unfortunally i could not handle the strong kidney beans. Now, here are some questions that came to my mind:

1) What are the differences between the Conquest HD and the Victory FL? I cant imagine that Zeiss would build a binocular as good as their alpha and sell it for half the price. Has the Victory a equal oder even better image?

2) I am really interrested in the center field sharpness. Ultra sharp edges are not that important for me. How sharp ist the Victory in the center of the field? This review tells that the Ultravid HD is sharper? On the other hand this review is 8 years old, has something changed during the time? Maybe some improvements?

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_12_zeiss_leica32mm_GB.shtml

3) On the Albino review the say that the real magnification of the Victory is "just" 7,79 instead of 8. How could this be and is the lower magnification significant?

4) How would you rate the ease of view?

5) Maybe someone would tell me if you decided to choose or choose not the Victory T* FL 8x32.

Can someone pleas answer these questions?
 
Odradek said:
Hi,

i have some questions regarding the Zeiss Victory T* FL 8x32. Recently i had the opportunity the test the Conquest HD 8x32. The image was very great and i really would like to keep the binocular. Unfortunally i could not handle the strong kidney beans. Now, here are some questions that came to my mind:

1) What are the differences between the Conquest HD and the Victory FL? I cant imagine that Zeiss would build a binocular as good as their alpha and sell it for half the price. Has the Victory a equal oder even better image?

2) I am really interrested in the center field sharpness. Ultra sharp edges are not that important for me. How sharp ist the Victory in the center of the field? This review tells that the Ultravid HD is sharper? On the other hand this review is 8 years old, has something changed during the time? Maybe some improvements?

http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_12_zeiss_leica32mm_GB.shtml

3) On the Albino review the say that the real magnification of the Victory is "just" 7,79 instead of 8. How could this be and is the lower magnification significant?

4) How would you rate the ease of view?

5) Maybe someone would tell me if you decided to choose or choose not the Victory T* FL 8x32.

Can someone pleas answer these questions?
Click to expand...

Odradek

I own an 8x32 FL and have tested the Conquest HD several times.

The big difference between the FL and the ConqHD, in my opinion, is that with the FL there is virtually no chromatic aberration. CA normally refers to the colour fringe you can see when viewing for example a black bird against a very bright white sky. You can test something like this by viewing a chimney or television antenna against the sky. The FL has none for all practical viewing purposes while with the Conquest you can find it if you look for it.

In normal viewing I didn't actually notice the CA with the Conquest. I also think the FL is a little brighter and just a little sharper but your eyes may see things differently.

Its hard to lay down rules about what you see through bins when our eyes and brains are different.

Both have a similar ease of view. I can't comment on the sharpness compared with the Leica.

I think think the Conquest is outstanding value for money and would be proud and satisfied to own one.

Lee
 
Hello Odradek,

I own the FL but have not seen or used the Conquest HD, so I cannot answer questions 1 and 5. Question 3 should be directed to Zeiss, and may be a matter of quality control.
As to your question two: I cannot make a comparison with the the Ultravid, but the FL does not lack sharpness. Depressing lateral chromatic aberration is not just a matter of minimising colour fringing but also one of resolution and contrast, or sharpness. The FL has great center field sharpness.
I can answer question four, from my own experience: I find it very easy to use. However, any binocular with a four mm. exit pupil may require a little care in placing the eyes and setting the inter-pupillary distance.
I have been using mine for almost seven years and have not been enticed to try another.

Happy bird watching,
Arthur Pinewood :brains:
 
Last edited:
Hi Odradek

I also have an 8x32 FL. I have not tried the Conquest HD 8x32 but, by chance I briefly tried a Conquest HD 8x42 yesterday. On that model the eyecups did not twist out nearly far enough to accommodate the eye relief, resulting in severe kidney beaning. I believe that this has issue has been highlighted by a number of others, and it presumably must be an issue with the 8x32 as well. This is a pity as otherwise I was very impressed with the view of the Conquest.

With the FL I have never had an issue with kidney-beaning. I find them plenty sharp enough and very comfortable to use. They are my main birding binoculars.
 
I've tried all the Conquest HD's and the only one that "kidney beans" is the 8x42. I have noticed that the eyecup indents are very positive and you can think you have them fully extended when you haven't.

Maybe that's what happened with Odradek.
 
Not tried the 32mm Conquest but did encounter this problem with the 8x42.

For myself the Victory has a colder hue with greater brightness than the Ultravid which in turn has warmer richer colours with better contrast but noticeable CA which is all but absent with the Victory.

As to which is sharpest, well I think you`d be hard pressed to see a difference hand held and unboosted.

However one tone, contrast combo may appear sharper to you, I like them equally but find them subtly different.
 
Hi Odradek

I made a direct comparison in a shop between a pair of Zeiss Victory FL 8x32 and a pair of Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32.

Firstly, I didn't really notice any undue Chromatic Aberration in the Conquests, although I'm not especially susceptible to noticing it.

The FLs are lighter in weight, I found the FLs to be marginally brighter and sharper, but there was not a lot in it.

If buying the binoculars brand new (full price), I might find it hard to justify the price difference for the FLs.

However, I found a pair of used 8x32 FLs on Ebay which were only a few months old (perfect condition) and about half the price of a new pair. So I bought the secondhand FLs!

My main reason for buying a pair of 8x32s in the first place was their light weight and compactness compared to my other alpha bins (Swarovski Swarovision 10x42s). Another reason for buying some FLs.

But as I say, if buying new (full price), and unless price is not a factor, I would be quite happy with the Conquests!

Good luck with your decision.

Nick
 
Thank you for all these answers!

Then i think i will give the Victory a try.

It is right, the Conquest HD is a great binocular. I compared it to the Swarovski Habicht 8x30 (i ordered them both) and i think its clearly better. The Conquest is brighter, has no veil in situations where the Habicht shows veil and the contrast is warmer. Also has the Conquest a more clear image. To be honest, i was a bit disappointed after i have watched through the Habicht. The image is some kind of boring? And even with the 136m FOV it has somewhat of a "watching through a keyhole".
But the best image is useless when you cant enjoy it because of kidney beaning. In a german forum a few guys tryed it too and it seems that it works better for people with eyeglasses. At least all of them without glasses suffered the kidney beans.

By the way, i made a strange observation with the Conquest. As a reference spot i was watching a sign in the distance. While i could clearly read the words with the Conquest i could only decipher them with the Habicht. I am very sure that this was not a question of sharpnes. It seems both are equally sharp. But the letters appear clearly bigger in the Conquest. I skipped both binos several times and i would bet on it that the Conquest has a larger magnification. While the Conquest let me say "WOW, yeah i can read this" the Habicht let me say "Uhmm .. wait a second ... maybe there is blabla written .... " How could this be on two binos with the same magnification?
 
Odradek,
I can not confirm your observations when I tested the Conquest HD 8x32 and the Habicht 8x30W. The Habicht was in my hands much brighter than the Conquest and my observations were fully confirmed by measurement of the light transmission spectra. Moreover the sharpness of the Habicht was better. It is of course possible that you have an older Habicht, but the new ones outperform the Conquest 8x32HD and the Nikons 8x30EII and the Nikon 8x32 SE. Considering the enormous attention both Nikons received on this forum I have thouroughly investigated them both and on the basis of the results I decided that I will never buy one.
Gijs
 
You are right, Gijs. My actual Bino is a Nikon EII and i am looking for a better Bino right now. I also think that the Habicht is sharper than the EII. Maybe thats also because of the (sometimes) strong grey veil in the EII. In this veil details can disappear.

Besides the test with the letters on the sign, i have not used any test scales. What i have seen was just my impressions while testing them in the field. As i did the paper test, the Habicht has shown a absolute white sheet while the Conquest ... hmm ... if you want to nail me down i would say it was a bit of a yellow tone on the paper. Nevertheless, in the field the Conquest was brighter for me.

The serial number on the Habicht starts with 83 ... which should mean that it is a model from 2013?
 
Odradek,
I am not an expert in the numbering of Swarovski binoculars, but my hypothesis is, based on Habichts from which I know the number and the date of construction, that your Habicht is a recent one and in that case it should be very bright.
I noticed that the Habicht performed better in low light than the Nikon EII 8x30 and the Nikon 8x32SE and the image was much sharper under these conditions.
Gijs
 
Maybe i have a bad Habicht specimen?

Today i was at a member from my local birding group and we looked together through the Habicht and the Conquest HD. But here it was the same, a short view through the Habicht, and a few longer after a while, he said that the Habicht perfomance is nothing special. And he has a lot more experience with binos than i have.

A whila ago i had a 10x40 Habicht here and i was really impressed by the image. It was such a clear and sharp image. So i cant understand why the 8x30 is such a disappointment. Maybe on a high level, but nevertheless, it is nothing special.
 
Hi,

I own a pair of 8X32FL (lotutec).

I tried the Leica 8X32UHD, Swaro 8X30 SLC swarobright, Swaro CL, and the 8X42 Conquest HD before deciding on the FLs. I didn't directly compare the FL to any of them, as I bought them sign unseen on eB.

The center field is wonderfully sharp - I also own the Nikon Venturer LX 10X32, and the FL appears sharper to me. There is no CA to be seen in normal use. The view is very easy - I can easily see the whole (wide) field with my glasses. Eye positioning has not been a problem - just hold them to my face and enjoy!

I have noticed that the edge sharpness is not as good as my Nikons. To see this, you need to look sideways into the eyepiece to put the edge of field in the center of your vision (the only part of the human eye that focuses sharply anyway!). Having blurred edges in your peripheral vision is of no consequence in terrestrial use - at least to me.

I don't think the magnification is an issue - no practical difference between 7.8X and 8X.

Other notes are the nice smooth focuser (much nicer than the Leica's teflon-disk focuser in my opinion), light weight, and nice case.

Hope it helps!

-Jeremy
 
Hello Gijs,

I have had the same experience comparing for several hours a Swarovski Habicht (last version) vs. a Nikon SE, both 10x40/42. For me the Habicht has better resolution and brightness. Clearly!

Thank you for your very good reports!

PHA
 
Troubador said:
Eerrrmm.

You wouldn't mind clarifying that would you?

Lee
Click to expand...

Not sure if I can, but, objects seem to appear larger through a roof than an a similar mag porro ............to me.

For instance my 10xHRWP presents objects the same size to me as an 8x roof.

Then again I could be nuts :brains:
 
Torview said:
Not sure if I can, but, objects seem to appear larger through a roof than an a similar mag porro ............to me.

For instance my 10xHRWP presents objects the same size to me as an 8x roof.

Then again I could be nuts :brains:
Click to expand...


This has been discussed here quite a number of times because many people have noticed it. (Too bad we don't have an index!) If I remember correctly (and I often don't) it has been explained as an optical illusion caused by the narrow separation between the barrels of a Roof Prism as opposed to the wider separation between porro prism barrels. This seems to be particularly noticeable when looking at close objects. It disappears as the objects viewed approach the infinity focus of the binoculars.

Give it a try and see if that is the case. Of course both binoculars will have to be the same power.

Bob
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Y
Victory T*FL 32 - Difference in eyepiece lens diameter
Replies
5
Views
698
dries1
dries1
J
Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Declan Joseph Deasy
D
A
Zeiss Victory 10x42 T* FL Rubber Armouring
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
PYRTLE
PYRTLE
Allen
Zeiss T*FL 8x32 v Zeiss Conquest 8x32 - discuss!
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Julian61
J
Swissboy
Zeiss 8x32 Conquest HD vs FL comparison?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Andy Gan
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top