Desperately seeking advice: MHG vs Conquest vs SFL (10x) (1 Viewer)

[aquilaaudax]

Hi all,

For a number of weeks, I have been wracking my brain over which mid-range model I want to upgrade my 10x42 Monarch 7s to. Without a good store around that stocks a good range of quality binoculars to try before I buy (I'm in regional Australia), I've been over reviews and this forum near countless times convincing myself one way then the other.

The Monarchs have served me well but lately I've started to become a bit underwhelmed with the resolution (just slightly), low-light performance and all the glare, especially late in the day. So I'm guessing I'm looking for a pair that will improve in those regards.

I'm assuming the SFL will be the best in my budget (and it is the absolute upper limit of my budget). My concern is that they might lack a tiny bit of low-light performance vs the MHG and Conquest (especially the latter as it sounds like it has good brightness) given the slightly smaller objective and exit pupil. Would this be a noticeable difference?
I've also been spoiled by the M7s large FOV. I'd be dropping 6m @ 1000m in the SFLs. Would this be negligible also? Have those with 10x42 SFL been satisfied with the FOV? I'm quite wedded to 10x also.

Also, those who switched to the SFL from a more conventional focuser - did it take long to adjust? Does the way you hold it undermine stability?

Finally, if someone owns both 10x42 SFL and MHG (8s would do if they're the same dimensions-wise), I'd be appreciative if you could post a photo of them side by side. Also, what is the diameter of the SFL's eyecups? Any problems sinking them into your eye sockets for a fully blacked-out view?

Many thanks,
Chris

 

[chill6x6]

SFL 8X40, MHG 8X42, Conquest HD 10X42

Not a LOT of difference!

Haven't had any issue with any of those three. 2mm of objective won't be missed either way. Low-light performance is close enough you'll never notice the difference IF there is any. The FOV of any of these three is excellent and should be of no concern. Eyecup something like 39.5mm, 38.1mm, and 37mm in the order pictured. Rough measurement converting from inches to mm.

 

[aquilaaudax]

Not a LOT of difference!

Thanks, that solves one thing. I was hoping the SFLs wouldn't be much smaller than the MHGs.

Thanks for the info too. And the metric mm.

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi all,

For a number of weeks, I have been wracking my brain over which mid-range model I want to upgrade my 10x42 Monarch 7s to. Without a good store around that stocks a good range of quality binoculars to try before I buy (I'm in regional Australia), I've been over reviews and this forum near countless times convincing myself one way then the other.

The Monarchs have served me well but lately I've started to become a bit underwhelmed with the resolution (just slightly), low-light performance and all the glare, especially late in the day. So I'm guessing I'm looking for a pair that will improve in those regards.

I'm assuming the SFL will be the best in my budget (and it is the absolute upper limit of my budget). My concern is that they might lack a tiny bit of low-light performance vs the MHG and Conquest (especially the latter as it sounds like it has good brightness) given the slightly smaller objective and exit pupil. Would this be a noticeable difference?
I've also been spoiled by the M7s large FOV. I'd be dropping 6m @ 1000m in the SFLs. Would this be negligible also? Have those with 10x42 SFL been satisfied with the FOV? I'm quite wedded to 10x also.

Also, those who switched to the SFL from a more conventional focuser - did it take long to adjust? Does the way you hold it undermine stability?

Finally, if someone owns both 10x42 SFL and MHG (8s would do if they're the same dimensions-wise), I'd be appreciative if you could post a photo of them side by side. Also, what is the diameter of the SFL's eyecups? Any problems sinking them into your eye sockets for a fully blacked-out view?

Many thanks,
Chris

I think Chuck just about summed it up. I’d ad all of those choices are a good step up from the M7, and even more of a jump in the SFL. I’m more of an 8x guy so I might go that way with all of them , and I own the MHG, just sold my last conquest , actually gave it away. I tried the SFL in comparison to my SF 8x32 and imo it was not as good so I didn’t bite at that price point. Don’t get me wrong , if I didn’t have the SF , I might’ve bought the SFL40 instead.

Id like to make another suggestion that I feel is better than all of the ones mentioned, a true alpha all the way. The 8.5x or 10x Swarovski EL’s, now on sale.

Paul

 

[dries1]

Nice pics Chuck, love the duck and what ever is looking at it from the waters edge.

 

[aquilaaudax]

Id like to make another suggestion that I feel is better than all of the ones mentioned, a true alpha all the way. The 8.5x or 10x Swarovski EL’s, now on sale.

I'd definitely be keen on that but still a bit out of my price range. The SFL is already pushing it as it is.

So the SFL is clearly superior out of the three I'm looking at? Perhaps I should just bite the bullet and forget about my niggling little concerns.

I must admit with the FOV I've grown used to in the M7s, the MHG still really appeals to me. Many seem very happy with it too. But perhaps if the view in the SFLs is superior in all other regards, I probably won't miss the extra 0.3 of a degree or whatever it is.

Arghh I seriously hate decisions.

 

[chill6x6]

Nice pics Chuck, love the duck and what ever is looking at it from the waters edge.

Thanks! Actually that's a tundra swan.

 

[chill6x6]

I'd definitely be keen on that but still a bit out of my price range. The SFL is already pushing it as it is.

So the SFL is clearly superior out of the three I'm looking at? Perhaps I should just bite the bullet and forget about my niggling little concerns.

I must admit with the FOV I've grown used to in the M7s, the MHG still really appeals to me. Many seem very happy with it too. But perhaps if the view in the SFLs is superior in all other regards, I probably won't miss the extra 0.3 of a degree or whatever it is.

Arghh I seriously hate decisions.

So the SLF is the newest model of the three. If I were picking a binocular for general birding I might still pick the 8X42 MHD. I don't have any issue with the Conquest HD 10X42 either. Not really sure the SFL is $500+ more binocular than either.

 

[aquilaaudax]

So the SLF is the newest model of the three. If I were picking a binocular for general birding I might still pick the 8X42 MHD. I don't have any issue with the Conquest HD 10X42 either. Not really sure the SFL is $500+ more binocular than either.

Yes this is why I'm doing my head in.

Do you notice the extra weight much with the Conquest vs the other two?

 

[Patudo]

In that category there are no bad binoculars so long as they feel comfortable in your hands and to your eyes. I'm not sure if I would describe excellent binoculars like the Conquest HD as "mid-range" - they really are sub-alphas that are really not far off the top of the range.

I was able to try out four of this class of binocular at the 2019 Birdfair (link to my notes). Since then I have briefly tried the SFL which I thought handled slightly better than the Conquest, is slightly smaller and lighter, but not that much better optically apart from the colour rendition being more alpha-like. I personally don't think I'd choose the SFL over the Conquest unless weight was very important, or you really liked the SFL's handling. As between the Conquest and the Monarch HG I think they are both excellent - the Conquest a little brighter and a tad sharper (to my eyes), the Monarch HG having a wider field of view and handling a little better. I thought at the time the MHG might suit very bright conditions like you get in places like Spain - could see them working well under that blinding Aussie sun.

 

[chill6x6]

In that category there are no bad binoculars so long as they feel comfortable in your hands and to your eyes. I'm not sure if I would describe excellent binoculars like the Conquest HD as "mid-range" - they really are sub-alphas that are really not far off the top of the range.

I was able to try out four of this class of binocular at the 2019 Birdfair (link to my notes). Since then I have briefly tried the SFL which I thought handled slightly better than the Conquest, is slightly smaller and lighter, but not that much better optically apart from the colour rendition being more alpha-like. I personally don't think I'd choose the SFL over the Conquest unless weight was very important, or you really liked the SFL's handling. As between the Conquest and the Monarch HG I think they are both excellent - the Conquest a little brighter and a tad sharper (to my eyes), the Monarch HG having a wider field of view and handling a little better. I thought at the time the MHG might suit very bright conditions like you get in places like Spain - could see them working well under that blinding Aussie sun.

I like that!

BTW the Conquest HD is a little heavier...but not too bad. If you can just try them....whichever you like the best is the one to get. Not really a lot of difference.

 

[Maljunulo]

If at all possible, try them, then pick the one you like best.

 

[Paultricounty]

I'd definitely be keen on that but still a bit out of my price range. The SFL is already pushing it as it is.

So the SFL is clearly superior out of the three I'm looking at? Perhaps I should just bite the bullet and forget about my niggling little concerns.

I must admit with the FOV I've grown used to in the M7s, the MHG still really appeals to me. Many seem very happy with it too. But perhaps if the view in the SFLs is superior in all other regards, I probably won't miss the extra 0.3 of a degree or whatever it is.

Arghh I seriously hate decisions.

No, you’re not going to miss anything with 0.30° difference. As stated before all of these are very similar in all categories. One might be slightly better in one area, and another better in another area. The EL will be superior to all of the ones mentioned in most areas, imo. If the SFL is pushing the budget as is, I’d suggest as I always do, wait and save up a few more bucks. Or put it on the card, pay down with what you have now when the statement comes, then pay off the balance over the next few months. We’re only talking about $200-$250 more than the SFL, as long as the sale lasts.

 

[has530]

One thing to keep in mind is the eyecups of the conquest do not work well for some people (myself included). I've heard Zeiss offers different replacement options but why buy something that doesn't work for you ergonomically.

 

[Paultricounty]

Yes that

One thing to keep in mind is the eyecups of the conquest do not work well for some people (myself included). I've heard Zeiss offers different replacement options but why buy something that doesn't work for you ergonomically.

Yes that’s true, the eye cups suck. Plastic, clunky clicking things and slowly to short for some. Zeiss will supply for free slightly longer eyecups that work very well. But that doesn’t change the quality, or lack thereof the design. To me it was very disappointing in this price point. But if you’re one that sets them in one position and forgets them, you’ll never have a problem and they are really nice binoculars.

 

[dries1]

Yes that

Yes that’s true, the eye cups suck. Plastic, clunky clicking things and slowly to short for some. Zeiss will supply for free slightly longer eyecups that work very well. But that doesn’t change the quality, or lack thereof the design. To me it was very disappointing in this price point. But if you’re one that sets them in one position and forgets them, you’ll never have a problem and they are really nice binoculars.

Especially if one wears glasses, no need to utilize the eyecups.

 

[Rg548]

I think Chuck just about summed it up. I’d ad all of those choices are a good step up from the M7, and even more of a jump in the SFL. I’m more of an 8x guy so I might go that way with all of them , and I own the MHG, just sold my last conquest , actually gave it away. I tried the SFL in comparison to my SF 8x32 and imo it was not as good so I didn’t bite at that price point. Don’t get me wrong , if I didn’t have the SF , I might’ve bought the SFL40 instead.

Id like to make another suggestion that I feel is better than all of the ones mentioned, a true alpha all the way. The 8.5x or 10x Swarovski EL’s, now on sale.

Paul

So you rate the MHG above Conquests ??

 

[Paultricounty]

So you rate the MHG above Conquests ??

No, not really. As Chuck said and I agree, there all about the same in optical quality. It’s more about the ergonomics and what feels better in your hands. As far as the optics, it’s splitting hairs. Conquest may be a tad brighter and sharper and the MHG is warmer with a tad bit more contrast and color saturation.
But neither will jump out at you and you’d need a side by side to see any difference.

Both of those are excellent Binoculars. I’d also agree with Chuck concerning wether the SFL is worth $500+ more, unless weight is a concern. If I was going up to that money, I’d get the EL for sure. I can’t emphasize enough how good the EL‘s are. When it comes to sheer image quality, they’re right up there with SF’s and NL’s.

 

[Maljunulo]

The memory of my first look through an 8X32 EL will remain with me forever.

 

[aquilaaudax]

In that category there are no bad binoculars so long as they feel comfortable in your hands and to your eyes. I'm not sure if I would describe excellent binoculars like the Conquest HD as "mid-range" - they really are sub-alphas that are really not far off the top of the range.

I was able to try out four of this class of binocular at the 2019 Birdfair (link to my notes). Since then I have briefly tried the SFL which I thought handled slightly better than the Conquest, is slightly smaller and lighter, but not that much better optically apart from the colour rendition being more alpha-like. I personally don't think I'd choose the SFL over the Conquest unless weight was very important, or you really liked the SFL's handling. As between the Conquest and the Monarch HG I think they are both excellent - the Conquest a little brighter and a tad sharper (to my eyes), the Monarch HG having a wider field of view and handling a little better. I thought at the time the MHG might suit very bright conditions like you get in places like Spain - could see them working well under that blinding Aussie sun.

Thanks that's a very helpful overview. And thanks to others who have given info and their impressions of these models. By "mid-range" I just meant they're not the top-of-the-line alphas. Though what would I know... I'm sure they're all very good bins. I see they're often grouped as the "$1K" bins in the US (SFL a bit more), but the prices are all over the place here in Aus. $1400 for MHG, $1800 for Conquest, $2000+ for Trinovid, $2250 for SFL (on sale, usually $2550+).

I don't think the weight of the Conquest would be a deal-breaker for me. I do go on long walks but barely even notice the weight of the M7 10x42 and we're talking just over 100 g difference. Any ideas how I could add 120g to my Monarchs to find out? It might help me rule out the SFL at least.
Conquest sounds like the picture that would be most appealing to me. While it's plenty bright over here most of the time, we do have rainforest etc. (and dusk) and recently in the rainforest was where I was starting to get a bit frustrated with my Monarchs brightness-wise (looking for Logrunners and Albert's Lyrebids in the ferny undergrowth).

However, I'm a big fan of the Monarch line too and I love the 10x views in that big FOV. This is why it's hard - they all have this one area where they shine. Is it so hard for one manufacturer to put the MHG's FOV in a Trinovid build with Conquest brightness/sharpness at the same price point? Well, seems it must be, because you'd make a killing if you did. Anyway, it's a hard enough choice already without adding in imaginary binoculars...

For those who have mentioned it, I'd like very much to try before I buy. But I can't find a store even in my nearest state capital that keeps these models in store.