New Zeiss 8x32SF as your main binocular (5 Viewers)

[lmans66]

I was thinking of using the 8x32 as my main binocular when in my Arizona SW house....where we will retire to. But I have a daughter in Australia so plan to do some traveling there so my thinking is that i can use the 8x32SF as my main bin in Arizona plus travel. I placed it 'on order' as well.

I have thought about the Swaro CL but just think it is a bit too portable. I like the EL but since I have several other Zeiss, I guess I am just a Zeiss man. I have thought about a Meopta, Leica, Kowa....but it will either end up the Zeiss or I will opt for the Swaro EL 8x32 although I have thought about the 8x42HT, just because I love the HT's. Just not too many of those floating around at the moment.

 

[NDhunter]

I was thinking of using the 8x32 as my main binocular when in my Arizona SW house....where we will retire to. But I have a daughter in Australia so plan to do some traveling there so my thinking is that i can use the 8x32SF as my main bin in Arizona plus travel. I placed it 'on order' as well.

I have thought about the Swaro CL but just think it is a bit too portable. I like the EL but since I have several other Zeiss, I guess I am just a Zeiss man. I have thought about a Meopta, Leica, Kowa....but it will either end up the Zeiss or I will opt for the Swaro EL 8x32 although I have thought about the 8x42HT, just because I love the HT's. Just not too many of those floating around at the moment.

Whatever suits you, there is no best binocular for everybody.
The new SF32 is not even out yet.

Jerry

 

[Steve C]

Whether a 32 mm will do or not is really not the point. The point is whether or not the user can eliminate specification anxiety and just use the binocular. Do your due diligence, buy the 32 mm glass that checks the most of your points. Take it out and just go use it. Don't start with...geez, what if I'd got a Swarovski....geez what if I would have looked harder for an EDG, ...geez, what would a warmer tint of a Leica have done foe me...geez, maybe I really do need a 43 mm glass....geez I just have a crummy Conquest HD, what if I saved for a new Victory SF...This goes on forever here, around and around the mulberry bush. This is the start of the road to perdition.

I don't want to unduly demean the phenomena, it is a simple expression of human nature. After all these years, there is one thing thing that really stands out to me. Yes you get what you pay for, but after you spend $1,000 the extra benefit is simply not worth the cost. Is the Victory a better glass than the Conquest? Yes if you look hard enough and pick apart the requisite nits, it is a better glass. The subconscious realization of this is not worth it to me, but it is to some. Personally if I had nearly $3K to spend, I'd get the Conquest and use the rest on a better trip. I would be secure in the knowledge I'd not miss a thing because of an inferior glass. Heck, I even use my Maven B 3 with the same secure knowledge. There is a reason I have it.

It is your gear, your use , and your money. I have no quarrel with how you spend it.

Jerry referenced my signature line from Teddy Roosevelt. This is one reason I choose to use it. Gets back to the best binocular is the one you have with you.. Just use it and enjoy yourself. Even if it is a 32 SF

 

[SeldomPerched]

Whether a 32 mm will do or not is really not the point. The point is whether or not the user can eliminate specification anxiety and just use the binocular. Do your due diligence, buy the 32 mm glass that checks the most of your points. Take it out and just go use it. Don't start with...geez, what if I'd got a Swarovski....geez what if I would have looked harder for an EDG, ...geez, what would a warmer tint of a Leica have done foe me...geez, maybe I really do need a 43 mm glass....geez I just have a crummy Conquest HD, what if I saved for a new Victory SF...This goes on forever here, around and around the mulberry bush. This is the start of the road to perdition.

I don't want to unduly demean the phenomena, it is a simple expression of human nature. After all these years, there is one thing thing that really stands out to me. Yes you get what you pay for, but after you spend $1,000 the extra benefit is simply not worth the cost. Is the Victory a better glass than the Conquest? Yes if you look hard enough and pick apart the requisite nits, it is a better glass. The subconscious realization of this is not worth it to me, but it is to some. Personally if I had nearly $3K to spend, I'd get the Conquest and use the rest on a better trip. I would be secure in the knowledge I'd not miss a thing because of an inferior glass. Heck, I even use my Maven B 3 with the same secure knowledge. There is a reason I have it.

It is your gear, your use , and your money. I have no quarrel with how you spend it.

Jerry referenced my signature line from Teddy Roosevelt. This is one reason I choose to use it. Gets back to the best binocular is the one you have with you.. Just use it and enjoy yourself. Even if it is a 32 SF

Steve,

This is a post that should be reread at frequent intervals.

Interestingly your signature line, which I've noticed before and has stuck in my mind, occurred to me yesterday while enjoying the everyday drama of garden creatures through 7x42 in between spells of outdoor labour. When good views present themselves I forget about the instrument; the marvel is what I'm actually viewing and I'm thankful for whatever it is I happen to be looking through.

I might need to reread your post a few times myself. Somewhere there needs to be a formula that reconciles the need to declutter and just enjoy with the conflicting urge to add to a collection!

Tom

 

[[email protected]]

Whether a 32 mm will do or not is really not the point. The point is whether or not the user can eliminate specification anxiety and just use the binocular. Do your due diligence, buy the 32 mm glass that checks the most of your points. Take it out and just go use it. Don't start with...geez, what if I'd got a Swarovski....geez what if I would have looked harder for an EDG, ...geez, what would a warmer tint of a Leica have done foe me...geez, maybe I really do need a 43 mm glass....geez I just have a crummy Conquest HD, what if I saved for a new Victory SF...This goes on forever here, around and around the mulberry bush. This is the start of the road to perdition.

I don't want to unduly demean the phenomena, it is a simple expression of human nature. After all these years, there is one thing thing that really stands out to me. Yes you get what you pay for, but after you spend $1,000 the extra benefit is simply not worth the cost. Is the Victory a better glass than the Conquest? Yes if you look hard enough and pick apart the requisite nits, it is a better glass. The subconscious realization of this is not worth it to me, but it is to some. Personally if I had nearly $3K to spend, I'd get the Conquest and use the rest on a better trip. I would be secure in the knowledge I'd not miss a thing because of an inferior glass. Heck, I even use my Maven B 3 with the same secure knowledge. There is a reason I have it.

It is your gear, your use , and your money. I have no quarrel with how you spend it.

Jerry referenced my signature line from Teddy Roosevelt. This is one reason I choose to use it. Gets back to the best binocular is the one you have with you.. Just use it and enjoy yourself. Even if it is a 32 SF

"Yes ,you get what you pay for, but after you spend $1,000 the extra benefit is simply not worth the cost."

That is your opinion. To a lot of birder's and to me personally the extra benefit of an alpha is worth the cost. I have had a lot of mid-range binoculars and IMO they were never quite up to the alpha's optically or build quality wise. Plus, when you buy from a company like Zeiss, Swarovski or Leica you know they are going to be around in 20 years, whereas, that is questionable about Maven or Tract. To some people especially those that keep their binoculars a long time unlike me that assurance is worth the extra money and having excellent customer support is also. To know that you can send your old beat up Swarovski in to SONA and they will repair it like new for free instead of sending you a replacement has to be worth something and also knowing there will be part's available to do it for a long time. IMO there is something satisfying about having the best and if you have the money to spend I think it is well worth it to get an alpha. To some people a $1000.00 isn't anything. They can buy the alpha and take the birding trip. So why not get the alpha? It is not just that little bit of extra performance you are paying for when you buy an alpha you are paying for that companies reputation which comes from years of experience and satisfying customer's.

 

[lmans66]

Whether a 32 mm will do or not is really not the point. The point is whether or not the user can eliminate specification anxiety and just use the binocular. Do your due diligence, buy the 32 mm glass that checks the most of your points. Take it out and just go use it. Don't start with...geez, what if I'd got a Swarovski....geez what if I would have looked harder for an EDG, ...geez, what would a warmer tint of a Leica have done foe me...geez, maybe I really do need a 43 mm glass....geez I just have a crummy Conquest HD, what if I saved for a new Victory SF...This goes on forever here, around and around the mulberry bush. This is the start of the road to perdition.

I don't want to unduly demean the phenomena, it is a simple expression of human nature. After all these years, there is one thing thing that really stands out to me. Yes you get what you pay for, but after you spend $1,000 the extra benefit is simply not worth the cost. Is the Victory a better glass than the Conquest? Yes if you look hard enough and pick apart the requisite nits, it is a better glass. The subconscious realization of this is not worth it to me, but it is to some. Personally if I had nearly $3K to spend, I'd get the Conquest and use the rest on a better trip. I would be secure in the knowledge I'd not miss a thing because of an inferior glass. Heck, I even use my Maven B 3 with the same secure knowledge. There is a reason I have it.

It is your gear, your use , and your money. I have no quarrel with how you spend it.

Jerry referenced my signature line from Teddy Roosevelt. This is one reason I choose to use it. Gets back to the best binocular is the one you have with you.. Just use it and enjoy yourself. Even if it is a 32 SF

We are not quite on the same page. First, I am all about you get what you pay for in optics (quality in optics but in the intangible too) but doesn't imply you buy the most expensive. You can buy a nice looking pair for $500 or even a $1000 and depending on the manufacture you end up playing with the lifetime warranty. No thanks. So for me, the 'mulberry tree' you mentioned is playing that lifetime warranty or dealing with a pair of bins that don't quite feel good, work well....IE: Little things that bug me (slow focus, or eyecups issues or bins collapsing on you etc)

Birding involves not only optics but many intangibles. For instance, it is 'free' to walk the land for the most part and get fresh air. Silence, nature etc. That is an intangible that has nothing to do with the binoculars. But to connect back to the actual bins, there is the intangible of the ergonomics of the binocular, how it feels in your hand, against your face, the rubber coating, the ease of focus and the smoothness of the focus wheel.

I have held up the Swarovski's to my face and even though it is '$$$$', the intangible of what I just spoke to isn't there. So dollars in that case didn't win over. I have a pair of Zeiss HT's and love the intangible....the intangiblel won me over, beyond the optics. I can't get that same' intangible' with the lesser priced Zeiss Conquests.

Now, I do want a 8x32 or 8x30 pair of bins for travel and regular birding in Arizona, and keep my 10x's for the coastal area of jersey for they are excellent in low light and the 10 power is great for shorebirds. So when looking at Zeiss lineup I am drawn to the 8x32 SF's, dollars or not. The optics will most likely excel and the 'intangible' exists since the SF's are pretty darn close to the HT's in the physical end of things. But this remains to be seen.

Today, as opposed to 20 years ago, I am comfortable in paying a few thousand for the binoculars while I recognize that not all are in that same comfort zone for whatever their financial or intangible reasons are. I can have the price + have the travel.

My main question in this forum has long been replied to by many. Can I rely upon a 8x32 or 8x30 as a main pair of bins and I can see that yes, they can be. I could opt for the 8x42SF's but they are bigger and a bit overpriced in my thinking. If someone had an older pair of 8x42's HT's, I would think seriously about that though if they were in good shape since the price would be less, the intangible would be there and while a bit larger than the 8x's, I might accept.

Anyone have a pair of 8x42 HT's they want to sell ?

Otherwise.....I will await the 8xSF's and see how they end up. If I was closer to a store that allowed me test drive multiple binoculars such as Nikons, Meopta's etc...perhaps the ergonomics of other pairs might entice me and for a lesser price, but for now, I don't have that as an option. I want 'ergonomics' that fit what I am looking for in an intangible, and for now, that is the Zeiss line. Notice I didn't mention specs.

 

[eronald]

If someone wants to use Swaro x32 after a test, good for them, but why believe in the virtues of a product which only a few people have used for a few days? We each have our intangibles, and thing is, recognising them can’t be delegated, even to a man as distinguished as Troubadour. And I say that as someone who thinks that Zeiss are at the moment the winning team.

Edmund

We are not quite on the same page. First, I am all about you get what you pay for in optics (quality in optics but in the intangible too) but doesn't imply you buy the most expensive. You can buy a nice looking pair for $500 or even a $1000 and depending on the manufacture you end up playing with the lifetime warranty. No thanks. So for me, the 'mulberry tree' you mentioned is playing that lifetime warranty or dealing with a pair of bins that don't quite feel good, work well....IE: Little things that bug me (slow focus, or eyecups issues or bins collapsing on you etc)

Birding involves not only optics but many intangibles. For instance, it is 'free' to walk the land for the most part and get fresh air. Silence, nature etc. That is an intangible that has nothing to do with the binoculars. But to connect back to the actual bins, there is the intangible of the ergonomics of the binocular, how it feels in your hand, against your face, the rubber coating, the ease of focus and the smoothness of the focus wheel.

I have held up the Swarovski's to my face and even though it is '$$$$', the intangible of what I just spoke to isn't there. So dollars in that case didn't win over. I have a pair of Zeiss HT's and love the intangible....the intangiblel won me over, beyond the optics. I can't get that same' intangible' with the lesser priced Zeiss Conquests.

Now, I do want a 8x32 or 8x30 pair of bins for travel and regular birding in Arizona, and keep my 10x's for the coastal area of jersey for they are excellent in low light and the 10 power is great for shorebirds. So when looking at Zeiss lineup I am drawn to the 8x32 SF's, dollars or not. The optics will most likely excel and the 'intangible' exists since the SF's are pretty darn close to the HT's in the physical end of things. But this remains to be seen.

Today, as opposed to 20 years ago, I am comfortable in paying a few thousand for the binoculars while I recognize that not all are in that same comfort zone for whatever their financial or intangible reasons are. I can have the price + have the travel.

My main question in this forum has long been replied to by many. Can I rely upon a 8x32 or 8x30 as a main pair of bins and I can see that yes, they can be. I could opt for the 8x42SF's but they are bigger and a bit overpriced in my thinking. If someone had an older pair of 8x42's HT's, I would think seriously about that though if they were in good shape since the price would be less, the intangible would be there and while a bit larger than the 8x's, I might accept.

Anyone have a pair of 8x42 HT's they want to sell ?

Otherwise.....I will await the 8xSF's and see how they end up. If I was closer to a store that allowed me test drive multiple binoculars such as Nikons, Meopta's etc...perhaps the ergonomics of other pairs might entice me and for a lesser price, but for now, I don't have that as an option. I want 'ergonomics' that fit what I am looking for in an intangible, and for now, that is the Zeiss line. Notice I didn't mention specs.

 

[[email protected]]

The decision between an 8x32 and an 8x42 is very easy. An 8x42 is going to be better in low light because it brings in 50% more light than an 8x32, it will have easier eye placement and will usually be a little better at glare control. An 8x32 is going to be smaller and lighter and will usually have a bigger FOV. If you can only have one binocular and you bird in a lot of low light situations like under a forest canopy or in the jungle or at dusk the 8x42 would be preferred. If you bird primarily in the daytime and not under a canopy and you hike a lot the 8x32 would probably be better for you. If you could have four binoculars for birding they would be an 8x42 first, 10x42 2nd, 8x32 third and a 15x56 fourth. The 15x56 is for really long range birding like raptor's and coastal and open areas.

 

[jgraider]

"Yes ,you get what you pay for, but after you spend $1,000 the extra benefit is simply not worth the cost."

That is your opinion. To a lot of birder's and to me personally the extra benefit of an alpha is worth the cost. I have had a lot of mid-range binoculars and IMO they were never quite up to the alpha's optically or build quality wise. Plus, when you buy from a company like Zeiss, Swarovski or Leica you know they are going to be around in 20 years, whereas, that is questionable about Maven or Tract. To some people especially those that keep their binoculars a long time unlike me that assurance is worth the extra money and having excellent customer support is also. To know that you can send your old beat up Swarovski in to SONA and they will repair it like new for free instead of sending you a replacement has to be worth something and also knowing there will be part's available to do it for a long time. IMO there is something satisfying about having the best and if you have the money to spend I think it is well worth it to get an alpha. To some people a $1000.00 isn't anything. They can buy the alpha and take the birding trip. So why not get the alpha? It is not just that little bit of extra performance you are paying for when you buy an alpha you are paying for that companies reputation which comes from years of experience and satisfying customer's.

Aren't you the same guy who wrote the thread about "The Alpha Killer" ? Was that you before you changed your mind for the 6th time?

 

[[email protected]]

Aren't you the same guy who wrote the thread about "The Alpha Killer" ? Was that you before you changed your mind for the 6th time?

C'mon JG that thread " Death of the Alpha " thread was 4 years ago. That is ancient history! People change their minds with experience and their is always new binoculars coming out. I had build quality issues with the Maven's I had and when the Nikon Monarch HG's came out I dumped the Tract's for their narrow FOV. Plus, I have more money now so I don't mess around with the middle of the road stuff anymore. Frankly, I wouldn't buy a Maven or a Tract now because I don't think they will be around in 5 years.

 

[Troubador]

If someone wants to use Swaro x32 after a test, good for them, but why believe in the virtues of a product which only a few people have used for a few days? We each have our intangibles, and thing is, recognising them can’t be delegated, even to a man as distinguished as Troubadour. And I say that as someone who thinks that Zeiss are at the moment the winning team.

Edmund

Absolutely right, one man's attractive intangible is another man's unacceptable niggle. Binos need to be tried out to find out if they suit the potential buyer.

Lee

 

[eronald]

Lee thanx - and btw the full size I’d like to use would be SF x42. And for all I know the x32 are equally memorable But the surest way to have disappointed buyers is to have buyers who bought blind.

Edmund

 

[Torview]

My biggest regret with binoculars was selling my two Nikon 8x32 SE`s, the only 32mm binoculars so far that convinced me a 32 could be a main/only Birding bin, it was a moment of madness on my part and I`m always looking for another.

I recently bought a Kowa 8x33 and its brilliant, I`m sure it could be my only bin if I could`nt have others.

But the all day viewing comfort a 5.25 mm exit pupil provides in a roof prism still wins me over, and I would`nt want to give that up personally.

 

[Patudo]

C'mon JG that thread " Death of the Alpha " thread was 15 years ago. That is ancient history!

15 years ago? More like less than four...

Death Of The Alpha?

That explains a lot though - four years passes as quickly to you as fifteen to the rest of us?

The funny thing is that I agree to a great extent with the gist of what you posted back in December 2016. Alphas need to offer a tremendous amount nowadays, as the tier below is objectively so damn good. When I looked through the Meopta HD, Conquest HD and Monarch HG last year I thought all three were superbly effective birding tools in their own right - they handle well, are excellent optically, and mostly give the impression of being well built. If you found yourself at a top birding spot without binoculars you would be more than happy to rely on any of these for a whole week/fortnight/month and your enjoyment of your trip would be in no way compromised. I'm sure a lot of folks that in previous decades would have bought a then alpha have gone for the likes of the Conquest HD instead.

That said, I feel confident in saying the alpha class binocular as a category is always going to exist. There always has been a market for the best in binoculars (the best in anything, really), and there always will be. The alpha manufacturers will just have to offer more - and they do, but at a price.

 

[[email protected]]

15 years ago? More like less than four...

Death Of The Alpha?

That explains a lot though - four years passes as quickly to you as fifteen to the rest of us?

The funny thing is that I agree to a great extent with the gist of what you posted back in December 2016. Alphas need to offer a tremendous amount nowadays, as the tier below is objectively so damn good. When I looked through the Meopta HD, Conquest HD and Monarch HG last year I thought all three were superbly effective birding tools in their own right - they handle well, are excellent optically, and mostly give the impression of being well built. If you found yourself at a top birding spot without binoculars you would be more than happy to rely on any of these for a whole week/fortnight/month and your enjoyment of your trip would be in no way compromised. I'm sure a lot of folks that in previous decades would have bought a then alpha have gone for the likes of the Conquest HD instead.

That said, I feel confident in saying the alpha class binocular as a category is always going to exist. There always has been a market for the best in binoculars (the best in anything, really), and there always will be. The alpha manufacturers will just have to offer more - and they do, but at a price.

The problem I have with Maven's and Tract's anymore is I really question if they are going to be around in 5 years. I think they will go away like Zenray's did because they are just another Kamakura clone like Zenray's were and then you will have an orphan with no support or any chance to get them repaired or replaced if something happens to them. Honestly, I give Tract 2 years.

 

[PYRTLE]

The problem I have with Maven's and Tract's anymore is I really question if they are going to be around in 5 years. I think they will go away like Zenray's did because they are just another Kamakura clone like Zenray's were and then you will have an orphan with no support or any chance to get them repaired or replaced if something happens to them. Honestly, I give Tract 2 years.

But you argued relentlessly about their excellent warranty / better than Alphas and so on citing some extraordinary claims along the way. Okay, you have now changed tact and that is recognised. However you now appear to be "slating" these brands and for me, that becomes slightly hypocritical, as well as unfair now you have more disposable cash.

There is a market ( or was ) for affordable binoculars and we shouldn't loose sight of those users either.

Let's just enjoy what we have, eh?

Regards

PS. I own a 42mm SF, 8 x32 mm Victory FL, and a 7 x 42 Dialyt, none of which will be traded. If I was 10 years younger, a pair of SF 8 x 32 would be perfect for me as the only bin I needed.

 

[Steve Babbs]

We live in different worlds if you pay that much for a binocular at it not be your main binocular. I was a 8 x 42 fan until I sat down at dusk with someone with a comparable pair of 8 x 32. (I had Bausch and Lomb - probably the highest rated binocular at the time and she had Leica). With a lot of strain we could both convince ourselves that mine were slightly brighter but the difference was tiny. I am a keen mammal watcher so, mainly when abroad, I spend a lot of time and dawn and dusk and spotlighting at night but since that night I've decided that the tiny difference in brightness is worth it for a lighter pair of binoculars around my neck. Especially as they can be there for about 15 hours in a day. Possibly more.

 

[[email protected]]

But you argued relentlessly about their excellent warranty / better than Alphas and so on citing some extraordinary claims along the way. Okay, you have now changed tact and that is recognised. However you now appear to be "slating" these brands and for me, that becomes slightly hypocritical, as well as unfair now you have more disposable cash.

There is a market ( or was ) for affordable binoculars and we shouldn't loose sight of those users either.

Let's just enjoy what we have, eh?

Regards

PS. I own a 42mm SF, 8 x32 mm Victory FL, and a 7 x 42 Dialyt, none of which will be traded. If I was 10 years younger, a pair of SF 8 x 32 would be perfect for me as the only bin I needed.

Tract and Maven do have exceptional warranties and so did Zenray. My point is I question if either will be in business in 5 years. There is a market for affordable binoculars. Nikon sell's way more inexpensive and moderately priced binocular's than they did EDG's. That is for sure. My point is I think you would be better off staying with a brand that will be here like Nikon or Zeiss and buying their lower priced binocular's than buying a Maven or Tract. I guess I learned my lesson buying a Chinese electric bike about 4 years ago called a Prodecotech. It was a $1600.00 bike and it was a well built bike but this year I needed some part's for it and tried to find them and then I discovered the company had went out of business 2 years ago. So there was no place to get replacement part's to repair my bike. I sold the Prodecotech ebike and I bought a Trek road bike but even if I was buying another electric bike I would buy one from a brand name that you know will be around in 5 years from now like Trek, Giant or Cannodale. Same with binocular's. I feel you are better off buying a Nikon Monarch MHG or Zeiss Conquest HD rather than a Tract or Maven for that reason. Just my opinion.

 

[paddy7]

I feel a bit late to this, despite having been one of those chivvying round dealers and those in the know regarding a potential new SF 32mm since just after the 42mm came out....
I thought Steve's point was principally that you shouldn't ruin your enjoyment of birding by constantly thinking that there's a better binocular out there, and that i agree with completely; however, there is a reliance by the industry that there will be sufficient punters who feel that way to keep the wheels a-turnin'. I just had a deja vu, and think i've said this somewhere on BF before.
The question i think i ask myself these days is whether my binoculars have actively prevented anything - has glare, or CA, or poor transmission actually worked against what i set out that morning to do, or prevented an i.d.
When i was a kid, i used to go off on a bike with my cousin's navy-issue marine bins round my neck, bruising my chest as they swung about.
The FL 8x32 is now my 'main' bin and i consider myself a bit of a Fat Baron by also having a Nikon Eii, a Pocket and a Vanguard EDII 8x42. Riches indeed!
I'm really keen to look through a 8x32 SF, but don't think i'll be chewing myself up if i don't actually buy one, or enjoy the FL any less as a result.
One builds a relationship with a binocular over a period of time, and through a range of experiences you've shared together and the danger of becoming a 'binocular butterfly' becomes less as that relationship develops.

 

[tenex]

I just want to say, very briefly and simply, that I would enjoy threads like this more if they stayed on topic and didn't keep degenerating into personal attacks that have by now become unpleasant and entirely repetitive themselves. What effect are they meant to have, and if they haven't by now... ?