I agree. It will be interesting to see if the SFL 8x40 is much better than the Conquest HD 8x32 during the daytime. It is going to have to be pretty good to beat it.If Conquest HD is the best binocular an individual owns, they're not missing out on a thing. They're simply great binoculars and priced sensibly around $1000.
Spending $2700 for SF or $2900 for NL doesn't really make a lot of sense as far as utility of use is concerned, but if the expense is no object to someone - what the heck. Yes, much like buying ridiculously priced hi-fi gear.
I alternate using my Conquest HD binoculars (8x32 and 10x42) with my Ultravid HD+ (8x32, 10x32, and 7x42) and Zeiss SF (8x32, 10x32, and 10x42) and find the Conquest HD holds its own quite well along with the UVHD+ and SF lines. While there are small differences between all of these, they all serve the intended purpose exceptionally well.
Do I "need" all of these binoculars? Of course not. I'd be just fine if the Conquest HD 8x32 were the ONLY binoculars I owned.
And all that being said... yeah, I'm still very interested in checking out the 8x40 SFL! I think I'm going to like them very much.
-
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.
The new ZEISS SFL Binoculars. Maximum Image Quality. Minimum Weight. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Birdforum
- Start date
Ratal
Well-known member
Denco, that is going to be one heck of an interesting shoot out!
Yes, it will. they both have 90% transmission and the only advantage the SFL has of course it's bigger 40 mm aperture that I can see outside of maybe it's better ergonomics. In the daytime, the bigger aperture of the SFL won't be that much of an advantage outside of easier eye placement. So the two advantages I see the SFL has is eye placement and low light performance. The Conquest HD 8x32 is still smaller and lighter.
Ratal
Well-known member
I personally thought the 8x32 Conquest was the best of them all - nearly got myself a set, but in the end I took the Zeiss Victory 8x25 as my ultralight bin.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
In the conquest price range there’s really only four binoculars in its class (give or take) and optically the conquests are excellent glass and built tough. The others in the class that I tried were the Trinovid HD , MHG and Kowa Genesis. For me the Leica’s were ridiculous with CA. I chose the Kowa’s with better CA correction than the Zeiss, higher light transmission and better feeling eyecups. I think the Kowa is a very underrated and overlooked optic.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I like the idea of a computer program that can select our priorities, like ordering a dodge Hellcat (build your own) 😝.
I had a side by side with conquest and Genesis for over a month and I found on axis almost the same, both very sharp. The Genesis had better CA control and seemed a bit brighter. I won’t mention the haptics, i know that’s not important to you.
May I ask you, If you personally don’t like soft edges how do you tolerate the soft edges of the Habicht’s? And/or the low transmission of the BN’s. Again I find I’m on a merry go round every time I read some of your observations. 😉
Happy Easter.
The Conquest HD 8x32 is, in my view, a basic staple binocular, regardless of whatever else one might have. Eight years forming that opinion, along with ownership of numerous samples of today's top alphas, available to the world. Yes, it's just that good and SO sensibly priced.
The Conquest HD 8x32 are not especially crisp at the very edges... but whether that is key to someone's enjoyment of the bins is the crux. I see no glare issues whatsoever, and have never noticed any CA with these bins. They're just a simple pleasure to use.
Honestly, having sharp, crisp edges is all well and good... if one is willing to spend 2.5 to 2.8x the money for that? That's fine by me.
But in the end-user, real world experience, I don't see sharp, crisp edges as being of much significance, when all the other aspects of the 8x32 Conquest HD binoculars are so excellent and the price is only around 'one large'.
Yes, I enjoy numerous copies of today's TOP alphas to use... and yet, I enjoy my 8x32 Conquest HDs about as much as bins costing 2.7x as much. Go figure! We've all got a nice array of wonderful binoculars to use and enjoy. At somewhat sensible prices, too! No need to squabble, unless one feels compelled to nit-pick.
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Hi Don,The Conquest HD 8x32 are not especially crisp at the very edges... but whether that is key to someone's enjoyment of the bins is the crux. I see no glare issues whatsoever, and have never noticed any CA with these bins. They're just a simple pleasure to use.
Honestly, having sharp, crisp edges is all well and good... if one is willing to spend 2.5 to 2.8x the money for that? That's fine by me.
But in the end-user, real world experience, I don't see sharp, crisp edges as being of much significance, when all the other aspects of the 8x32 Conquest HD binoculars are so excellent and the price is only around 'one large'.
Yes, I enjoy numerous copies of today's TOP alphas to use... and yet, I enjoy my 8x32 Conquest HDs about as much as bins costing 2.7x as much. Go figure! We've all got a nice array of wonderful binoculars to use and enjoy. At somewhat sensible prices, too! No need to squabble, unless one feels compelled to nit-pick.
Happy Easter my friend,
I agree, it’s not always about edge image quality or lack there of. Sometimes that weak edge (if we want to call it that, I’m not so sure) can be a good thing, like in the Leica’s we both love. That edge distortion (curvature) is part of what gives it that immersive image quality.
The image quality of the Conquest, MHG and Genesis are all high quality optics that can serve any optical needs without reservation. I’m guilty of becoming an optical snob as my income increased over the years and started with the hi-end equipment. I still enjoy them all and never feel under equipped whenever using the the binoculars mentioned.
One persons squabble can be another persons friendly verbal sparing 🤭. I enjoy Dennis posts when he’s not degrading somebody else’s optical choices. I sometimes respond in kind.
Paul
Hi Don, Paul (and Arthur who 'liked' Don's post)
Couldn't agree more. We are on Islay right now and I have 2 SF32s with me plus a borrowed NL32 and they are such a pleasure to use, but the Genesis 8x33 I also brought along (and the Conquest HD 8x32 that is taking a break back home) also give me great views of bird and animal behaviour. Come to that, so do the Opticron Traveller 32s that I reguarly use back home and like you Paul, I never feel under-equipped when using any of these.
Dennis really enjoys his binoculars and his enthusiasm sometimes knows no limits!
Lee
Couldn't agree more. We are on Islay right now and I have 2 SF32s with me plus a borrowed NL32 and they are such a pleasure to use, but the Genesis 8x33 I also brought along (and the Conquest HD 8x32 that is taking a break back home) also give me great views of bird and animal behaviour. Come to that, so do the Opticron Traveller 32s that I reguarly use back home and like you Paul, I never feel under-equipped when using any of these.
Dennis really enjoys his binoculars and his enthusiasm sometimes knows no limits!
Lee
Ratal
Well-known member
Could not agree more. Once you step into a pair of Conquest HD 8x32, you really are covered for your daytime adventures no matter what other binoculars you own. A truly 'One and done' set for sure.
tenex
reality-based
Mild softness due to curvature is a very different thing near the field edge from distracting aberrations (astigmatism, coma), which even some Zeiss models have had. It's those that can make edge quality a serious issue for me, though others seem to manage not to be bothered.
Paultricounty
Well-known member
I understand and agree 100%. Sometimes I don’t articulate very well. Field curvature, astigmatism, coma in the optical train are different issues. Curvature not always a bad thing as some have said.
Paul
jafritten
Well-known member
It is my impression that binoculars with larger objective diameters give a crisper image in bright daylight, too. I am not an expert on physics or optics in particular, but having a photographic background I think that may have to do with increased f/numbers that effectuate a greater acuity and, possibly, less aberrations. Assuming that most binoculars will be something around f4 which is, as far as I know, the sweetspot of binocular design, a large exit pupil will be stopped down by your eye pupil to larger f/numbers than a small exit pupil. If your eye pupil dilates to, say, 2.5 mm in bright daylight a pair of 8x20s will not be stopped down because exit pupil and eye pupil are the same diameter. A pair of 7x42s will be stopped down heavily. Thus, the effect is not there in the 8x20s but very present in 7x42s. Coming back to your comparison of the 8x32 Conquest and the new 8x40, I think there may well be a discernible difference in acuity in bright daylight.
As for the easier eye placement, I'd mildly disagree. In my experience, larger exit pupils do not always allow of an easier placement. My 10x42s are better than my 7x42s in that respect. Of course, YMMV.
Last edited:
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Fun read, I took a similar road in search for optical perfection from one manufacturer to the next from the bottom up. And yes it was costly considering I kept many of the top tier ones. Of course we both came to the conclusion with the help of BF that there is no perfect set of binoculars, just the ones that please us on any given day.Hard to say. I am one of those that would pay an absolute premium for a "perfect" binocular. Which I kind of did with the Pure NL 8x32.
I did have the option of either the Zeiss SF 8x32 or the Pure NL 8x32 and to my eyes and hands I slightly preferred the Pure NL. Neither was what I had planned for, it was Leica QC that ultimately veered me off course towards one of those two.
EDIT: short conclusion is that I would happily pay that extra $1K if it got me what I wanted, instead of having two similar binos that both were "almost what I wanted". Sometimes it is that extra money that goes into passing the bar. If I get it for less (like I have with Meopta) I am happy with that. If it was true that "you get what you pay for" things could have been easier - but in reality you always "pay for what you get". And sometimes what you get isn't the best bang for the buck.
At the start of the quest I was literally an optics snob and I was trading great binos left and right - but in my defence I was also using them on a daily basis. When I started getting fed up I had a clearer vision of what I needed, rather than wanted.
I tried inching my way up and down the line ups of every noteworthy manufacturer and I was trying to get the most bang for the buck instead of buying into any particular brand based on what is considered the "best".
It has been a roller coaster of highs and lows and I am not a bino collector per se. I could have saved myself some time and money by going "straight to the top" but even at the top I found that my bias did steer me off course. Still, I think it was a good experience in the end.
I have managed to shake my brand bias and have added brands to my list of "approved optics", much thanks to this forum.
My conclusion is that all said and with the 8x32 Pure NL firmly in my grasp; if I had started my quest this year not having the NL and had known the SFL 8x40 was coming I would have waited a while to compare it to the NL before taking the plunge. If it had been a "draw" between the two I would have saved a noteworthy penny by going for the SFL.
But, there will always be the next big thing. I will try out the SFL 8x40 once it hits the shelves and if it fits me even better than the Pure NL 8x32 I will be more able to make an informed decision. I honestly don't expect the SFL to "outperform" the NL but it might have something that I like even better in terms of ergonomics/haptics while being practically on par with the optics. And if it doesn't I will continue to enjoy the Pure NL. I have already gotten over the feeling of picking up a pair of carrots
Most important is that my rekindled interest in premium optics also has made me get out more in the woods, enjoying/observing nature.
I have a pair of Patagonia shorts from 1997, which still fit. That and a fleece vest from 1999. I did throw a couple of new shorts in the mix after I discovered I always had the same clothes in my traveling pictures for two decades...
...I am still a novice birder. Now, I know Binos, looking forward to knowing more about them Birds.
I can’t say the ride hasn’t been a blast although expensive , and I’ve spent more time observing tree bark than anybody really should.
Im as curious like everybody else here about the SFL’s , and looking forward to reading all the posts pro and con (ad nausea 😜) before jumping in for a try (and probably keep if something worth it).
As far as the carrots , you could’ve got the cucumbers 😉.
And way to much knowledge on the shorts and attire choices. 😝
Paul
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Are we dismissing optical design, glass quality and coatings as potential improvements from a Conquest. I we so ready to spend an additional grand for a 40mm conquest with better eyecups and focuser?
These new Zeiss will have to be something special over the average $1000 binoculars. I’m hoping more similar in an optics jump to the FL, SLC, and maybe Ultravid level.
Paul
"As for the easier eye placement, I'd mildly disagree. In my experience, larger exit pupils do not always allow of an easier placement. My 10x42s are better than my 7x42s in that respect. Of course, YMMV."
Ease of eye placement also depends upon how the eye relief, the length of the binoculars eye cups and the depth and shape of your eye sockets all interact. If they are all perfect, that 10x42 with the smaller exit pupil may have easier eye placement than the 7x42 with the larger exit pupil.
I am assuming coatings and glass quality on the SFL and Conquest will be similar because the transmission is identical at 90%. The Conquest glass is called ED and the SFL is called UHD. I am not sure if there is any difference. I don't think there will be a huge difference in optical design both having SP prisms, although the focal ratio on the SFL could be faster than the Conquest because it is so short for a 40 mm. That is a bit worrisome concerning its ability to handle CA because it does not state it has fluoride in the glass like the SF's do. The Conquest HD might handle CA better than the SFL. The biggest advantage of the SFL could be the smaller size and weight for a 40 mm, versus any big step up in optic quality from the Conquest HD. Just guessing though. We won't know until we try them!
Paultricounty
Well-known member
Dennis
Let’s hope they’re at least as good or better than the conquest on CA. Albinos (your holy grail of optical data) says it’s a 6.8/10.
(Slight in the center, a bit higher than medium on the very edge of the field). As far as light transmission the conquest are 88%, I believe the SFL should be a little brighter and better on the edges where the conquest fall off a bit.
They might be more like the EDG (also a short bino) on CA 8.5/10, and better edge than conquest. But again maybe we shouldn’t be comparing binoculars at twice the price of a high quality mid-grade optic. But the one thing we haven't discussed, which could make all the world of difference on spending a $1000 more, is the smell test. 😄