Is the 8x32 Victory SF really worth almost 2.5x the cost of the 8x32 Conquest HD? (2 Viewers)

[CSG]

Of all the guitars I've sold, I regret having done so with most, except for perhaps a couple of them. I'm a player. And a collector.

I regret almost everything I've sold in years past but not so much anymore as I get older. Today, a buddy of mine just called about a firearm of mine he wanted to buy earlier this year but finally has the $ so he's coming over tonight. That about covers half of the Zeiss VSF 8x32!

I would like to sell, without regret, two Martins I bought in 2014, an HD-28V and a D-42. On both guitars, the ivoroid purfling has popped from the waste of both guitars even though they are in humidified cases. Turns out Martin used an "earth friendly" glue for a couple of years and I had the misfortune of buying these two guitars from those years. Closest authorized warranty location is almost 250 miles away. I'm furious with Martin for not sending call tags and fixing them at the factory. Great sounding, playing, and looking guitars but their poor customer service and casual attitude about this problem has put me off Martins for good.

 

[CSG]

Hello CSG,

Only you can decide whether the improvements in the SF, as marginal as they may be, are worth the price.

I am in no hurry to upgrade from my 8x32FL to the Zeiss.

Stay safe,
Arthur Pinewood

Isn't the 8x32 FL Zeiss' former top of the line model? I doubt I'd be looking to upgrade from that one either.

 

[ZDHart]

I regret almost everything I've sold in years past but not so much anymore as I get older. Today, a buddy of mine just called about a firearm of mine he wanted to buy earlier this year but finally has the $ so he's coming over tonight. That about covers half of the Zeiss VSF 8x32!

I would like to sell, without regret, two Martins I bought in 2014, an HD-28V and a D-42. On both guitars, the ivoroid purfling has popped from the waste of both guitars even though they are in humidified cases. Turns out Martin used an "earth friendly" glue for a couple of years and I had the misfortune of buying these two guitars from those years. Closest authorized warranty location is almost 250 miles away. I'm furious with Martin for not sending call tags and fixing them at the factory. Great sounding, playing, and looking guitars but their poor customer service and casual attitude about this problem has put me off Martins for good.

Sorry to hear about your Martins. Generally, they're such wonderful instruments. My only Martin is an OM-28 Vintage, 2013 model. Fantastic instrument, though I play electrics most of the time. I guess I was able to avoid the "earth friendly" glue production.

 

[ZDHart]

Can you comment a bit comparing the SF to the Ultravids? That would be great. Thank you.

These are both top-shelf binoculars, though obviously, the form factor differs dramatically.

Wonderful as the optical qualities of the SF are, I find the UVHD+ optics to offer just a touch more sharpness, clarity, and contrast. In addition, the color quality of the Leicas is, to me, magical: rich, saturated, punchy, delicious. I think the Leicas transmit just a bit more light in the red spectrum.

Everything about the UVHD+ binoculars (I have three of them: 8x32, 10x32, and 7x42) exudes outstanding quality - the build quality, the materials, the mechanical operation, the glass. The view is a little wider with the SF, but not to a degree that is significant to me. The sweet spot in the Leicas is wide and transitions very gently so as to not be very noticeable.

The focuser in the SF has a lighter touch, is very smooth. Both focusers are quick - which I like. The focuser in the UVHD+ isn't as light as the SF, but is perfectly smooth and even. If I could have the lighter Zeiss focuser in the UVHD+, I'd call the Leicas absolutely perfect.

The compact form factor of the UVHD+ is very appealing, making this an easy choice for carrying. It's not so small as to be at all fiddly, and is just large enough to provide a nice palm-filling hold. The armor is flawless and feels great - providing a very secure hand hold. The eyecups and relief work perfectly for me (I don't wear glasses when using binoculars.)

Aesthetically, the Leicas have a design that is classic, timeless, supremely elegant.

I alternate between the SFs and the UVHD+ models continually. It's difficult for me to fully commit to just one or the other, but I think if it came down to it, I'd stick with the Leicas, as they are just incredibly charming, delicious, lovable. You could almost say that they have character.

There are other great, awesome binoculars out there, but In my experience, nothing quite compares to these 8x32 and 10x32 UVHD+ binoculars. The 8x32 and 10x32 are virtually the same size and weight.

 

[Paultricounty]

These are both top-shelf binoculars, though obviously, the form factor differs dramatically.

Wonderful as the optical qualities of the SF are, I find the UVHD+ optics to offer just a touch more sharpness, clarity, and contrast. In addition, the color quality of the Leicas is, to me, magical: rich, saturated, punchy, delicious. I think the Leicas transmit just a bit more light in the red spectrum.

Everything about the UVHD+ binoculars (I have three of them: 8x32, 10x32, and 7x42) exudes outstanding quality - the build quality, the materials, the mechanical operation, the glass. The view is a little wider with the SF, but not to a degree that is significant to me. The sweet spot in the Leicas is wide and transitions very gently so as to not be very noticeable.

The focuser in the SF has a lighter touch, is very smooth. Both focusers are quick - which I like. The focuser in the UVHD+ isn't as light as the SF, but is perfectly smooth and even. If I could have the lighter Zeiss focuser in the UVHD+, I'd call the Leicas absolutely perfect.

The compact form factor of the UVHD+ is very appealing, making this an easy choice for carrying. It's not so small as to be at all fiddly, and is just large enough to provide a nice palm-filling hold. The armor is flawless and feels great - providing a very secure hand hold. The eyecups and relief work perfectly for me (I don't wear glasses when using binoculars.)

Aesthetically, the Leicas have a design that is classic, timeless, supremely elegant.

I alternate between the SFs and the UVHD+ models continually. It's difficult for me to fully commit to just one or the other, but I think if it came down to it, I'd stick with the Leicas, as they are just incredibly charming, delicious, lovable. You could almost say that they have character.

There are other great, awesome binoculars out there, but In my experience, nothing quite compares to these 8x32 and 10x32 UVHD+ binoculars. The 8x32 and 10x32 are virtually the same size and weight.

Thank you very much. Now I’ll need to have both. Elegant was the impression I always had about the Leica and the form factor. My recent jump back into my optics addiction progressed to a Leica Trinovid in 10x42 after trying a few mid grade binos that didn’t make the cut. I loved the build quality and form factor immediately. And after one look through them I knew they were on another level than the Nikons and Steiners I had previously tested. But one thing stuck out that I couldn’t live with at that $1000 price point was the CA. I tried two pairs then returned and moved on. I wasn’t mentally ready to spend more. The previous half priced binos were substantially better corrected for the CA.

That’s when I went on to the GPO and Nikon MHG’s. Most of all the reviews I read and listened to talk about Leica is if your sensitive to CA Leica is not for you. What’s your impression there? I’m thinking at the $2000 level they should be substantially better in that area.

I do have the swarovski 8x30 Habicht porros, which is absolutely amazing to my eyes. But is a completely different form factor. As far as optics the clarity and detail is breathtaking as well as the DOF. The negatives are the finicky eye box and stiff/heavy focuser. Although it’s very smooth with a relatively fast focuser and and the fantastic depth of field you don’t seem to have to focus a lot.

Thank you for your help, it’s very informative.

Paul

 

[ZDHart]

Thank you very much. Now I’ll need to have both. Elegant was the impression I always had about the Leica and the form factor. My recent jump back into my optics addiction progressed to a Leica Trinovid in 10x42 after trying a few mid grade binos that didn’t make the cut. I loved the build quality and form factor immediately. And after one look through them I knew they were on another level than the Nikons and Steiners I had previously tested. But one thing stuck out that I couldn’t live with at that $1000 price point was the CA. I tried two pairs then returned and moved on. I wasn’t mentally ready to spend more. The previous half priced binos were substantially better corrected for the CA.

That’s when I went on to the GPO and Nikon MHG’s. Most of all the reviews I read and listened to talk about Leica is if your sensitive to CA Leica is not for you. What’s your impression there? I’m thinking at the $2000 level they should be substantially better in that area.

I do have the swarovski 8x30 Habicht porros, which is absolutely amazing to my eyes. But is a completely different form factor. As far as optics the clarity and detail is breathtaking as well as the DOF. The negatives are the finicky eye box and stiff/heavy focuser. Although it’s very smooth with a relatively fast focuser and and the fantastic depth of field you don’t seem to have to focus a lot.

Thank you for your help, it’s very informative.

Paul

Paul... in regular use, I have not noticed any CA using either the SFs or the UVHD+. But I will make a concerted effort to see if I can find any... and then report back.

 

[CSG]

All the forum critiques in the world won't tell a person how a pair of binoculars will work for them. Earlier this week, after reading so many glowing reviews of the Leica 7x35 Retrovids and, more so the 7x42 UV+, I had one of each delivered. No doubt the optics were wonderful on both, and particularly the 7x42s but, FOR ME, the ergos of both bins sucked and I had far steadier views and less image shake with my much longer Zeiss Victory HT 8x42s. They simply balance better. I saw little if any CA in the Leicas but I preferred the view of the Victory HTs overall. Owning a Leica M4 and 50mm Summicron lens, I'm a fan of their optics but I didn't see any of the warmth that so many see in their bins. For me, that's a good thing. Anyway, they both were reboxed and sent back the same day.

If you buy bins based on reviews, glowing forum reports, etc., make sure you can buy from a place with easy returns. What works for one and is the best ever may not work for you.

 

[Rg548]

All the forum critiques in the world won't tell a person how a pair of binoculars will work for them. Earlier this week, after reading so many glowing reviews of the Leica 7x35 Retrovids and, more so the 7x42 UV+, I had one of each delivered. No doubt the optics were wonderful on both, and particularly the 7x42s but, FOR ME, the ergos of both bins sucked and I had far steadier views and less image shake with my much longer Zeiss Victory HT 8x42s. They simply balance better. I saw little if any CA in the Leicas but I preferred the view of the Victory HTs overall. Owning a Leica M4 and 50mm Summicron lens, I'm a fan of their optics but I didn't see any of the warmth that so many see in their bins. For me, that's a good thing. Anyway, they both were reboxed and sent back the same day.

If you buy bins based on reviews, glowing forum reports, etc., make sure you can buy from a place with easy returns. What works for one and is the best ever may not work for you.

Absolutely..... I have Zeiss 8x56FL and the steady image I can get from those is the best I have experienced. But I am a big chap, large hands, so they work fine for me, although they are a touch heavy, and many folk won't like that, or accept that.
But they work for me, and once I tried them, they were bought, even though I wasn't actually looking for those particular binos.

 

[Paultricounty]

Paul... in regular use, I have not noticed any CA using either the SFs or the UVHD+. But I will make a concerted effort to see if I can find any... and then report back.

I’d love to hear your in depth observations of those UVHD to the SF. My SF’s are sitting in my office waiting for me to get home from vacation. Haven’t even opened the box yet nor looked at them and still have the bug for the Leicas. 🙄

 

[CSG]

So I want to update my thinking on the SF vs. Conquest. I live in Idaho near the incredible Snake River Canyon and went on a long walk with my son today on a trail at the bottom of the canyon. I'm not primarily a birder by any means but birding, astronomy, and general long distance viewing are my primary excuses to use nice optics. Anyway, I brought my 8x32 Conquests today and looked at a lot of ducks on the river and assorted birds in the brush. The views are just so remarkably good and there's so little noticeable CA that I've put aside the idea up buying the SF. As I've got the 8x42 Victory HTs as my primary binocular, I decided I'm good. Besides, I was alerted to a sale on the previous generation of the Vortex Razor spotting scopes for $750 at our local Sportsman's Warehouse.

Also, I found my receipt for the Conquests; I paid $719 with no tax or shipping back in 2013. Helluvadeal.

 

[Paultricounty]

Paul... in regular use, I have not noticed any CA using either the SFs or the UVHD+. But I will make a concerted effort to see if I can find any... and then report back.

Just had the time to unbox the SF 8x32 for a look. I’ll give them a try out during the week. There are two things that were underwhelming at first glance. One was the right eye cup is substantially loser than the left. And the other that really surprised me was a powdery covering on the outer rubber. Has anybody else experienced this with their new SF’s?
Thank you

Paul

 

[ZDHart]

Just had the time to unbox the SF 8x32 for a look. I’ll give them a try out during the week. There are two things that were underwhelming at first glance. One was the right eye cup is substantially loser than the left. And the other that really surprised me was a powdery covering on the outer rubber. Has anybody else experienced this with their new SF’s?
Thank you

Paul

Paul... I have not experienced either of those with my three SFs.

As for comparison of the 8x32 SF to 8x32 UVHD+, I still haven't found a situation where CA is of note with either.

I will say that the "picture" presented with the SF is wonderful. But, with the UVHD+, fantastic! More punch, contrast, clarity, detail, and a touch more saturation with the Leicas.

As I mentioned earlier, these Leica UVHD+ binoculars present to my eyes the most enjoyably beautiful image of any binoculars I've owned or tested, Zeiss SF, Zeiss Conquest HD, Swarovski NL and CL, Opticron Traveller included.

 

[Paultricounty]

Paul... I have not experienced either of those with my three SFs.

As for comparison of the 8x32 SF to 8x32 UVHD+, I still haven't found a situation where CA is of note with either.

I will say that the "picture" presented with the SF is wonderful. But, with the UVHD+, fantastic! More punch, contrast, clarity, detail, and a touch more saturation with the Leicas.

As I mentioned earlier, these Leica UVHD+ binoculars present to my eyes the most enjoyably beautiful image of any binoculars I've owned or tested, Zeiss SF, Zeiss Conquest HD, Swarovski NL and CL, Opticron Traveller included.

That’s what I thought, gotta go back. Amazing $2300 , the pinnacle of human engineering in optical and mechanical systems and still they can’t make sure they don’t leave the factory like this.
Thank you for the input, much appreciated.

 

[Troubador]

That’s what I thought, gotta go back. Amazing $2300 , the pinnacle of human engineering in optical and mechanical systems and still they can’t make sure they don’t leave the factory like this.
Thank you for the input, much appreciated.

I haven't seen this on my SFs but it reminds me that when I worked in a rubber industry for some products our factory included a special wax in the rubber compound and this migrated to the surface of the rubber and provided a level of protection for the rubber. It looked white and kind of powdery and was effective in maintaining the rubber's properties when the product was stored in less than perfect conditions. So maybe don't assume your white powder is something bad.

Lee

 

[CSG]

I'd listen to Lee on the rubber but the looser eyecup is a question that needs to be addressed.

 

[eronald]

So the Conquest is a very good product and the SF is a superb design. However the Conquest is half the price of the SF, so Zeiss probably sell 4x more Conquests than SFs. Because of the resulting economies of scale, I believe Lee will agree with me that the Conquest becomes easier to manufacture or source the more its sells - and so the tooling and staff training is paid for, the marginal price of making each new sample of the Conquest goes down, profit goes up, making it more and more interesting for the company to advertise them, discount them to dealers which in turn sells more of them, so Zeiss learns to make them even better and faster and cheaper, it's a virtuous circle.

As a result of this happy story, funds become available for stringent QC on the existing Conquest, fast warranty repairs, and to assign the best engineers to do an even better design for the Conquest replacement or other models of the same product line. Basically, when you have a good product that sells well, responsible management has the funds to keep making a good product. Like Mercedes with its midrange cars.

So I guess it is inevitable that now that Zeiss has a solid seller with the Conquest, this midrange product will get improved to the point where it starts to compete seriously with the top of the range. The fans of the SF can console themselves with the idea that the Terra line might eventually do the same thing to the Conquest.

You can see the same logic at work with Apple products, where their mid-low range Macbook AIr computer gradually turned into a bestseller and ate the lunch of the whole of the more expensive notebook product line. People love the more expensive machines but most of the time they get the cheap one which just gets better and better.

Edmund

 

[Pinewood]

You can see the same logic at work with Apple products, where their mid-low range Macbook AIr computer gradually turned into a bestseller and ate the lunch of the whole of the more expensive notebook product line. People love the more expensive machines but most of the time they get the cheap one which just gets better and better.

Edmund

Hello Edmund,

I would guess that that the MacBook Air more than satisfies most computer users, including me. In facts, it is more than I need. Apple's higher priced units ar truly geared for profession use. The 27 inch iMac has a screen large enough to work on several documents, simultaneously. Other units are the choice of graphic artists and some cinema creators.
However, when i bought my FL, fifteen years, ago, it was obviously superior to my Leica Bn in ways I could appreciate.

Stay safe,
Arthur

 

[CSG]

So the Conquest is a very good product and the SF is a superb design. However the Conquest is half the price of the SF, so Zeiss probably sell 4x more Conquests than SFs. Because of the resulting economies of scale, I believe Lee will agree with me that the Conquest becomes easier to manufacture or source the more its sells - and so the tooling and staff training is paid for, the marginal price of making each new sample of the Conquest goes down, profit goes up, making it more and more interesting for the company to advertise them, discount them to dealers which in turn sells more of them, so Zeiss learns to make them even better and faster and cheaper, it's a virtuous circle.

As a result of this happy story, funds become available for stringent QC on the existing Conquest, fast warranty repairs, and to assign the best engineers to do an even better design for the Conquest replacement or other models of the same product line. Basically, when you have a good product that sells well, responsible management has the funds to keep making a good product. Like Mercedes with its midrange cars.

So I guess it is inevitable that now that Zeiss has a solid seller with the Conquest, this midrange product will get improved to the point where it starts to compete seriously with the top of the range. The fans of the SF can console themselves with the idea that the Terra line might eventually do the same thing to the Conquest.



Edmund

The Conquest HD is far from "midrange" IMO. But the eyecups still suck and I have yet another pair on the way. Also, it's closer to 40-41% of the cost of the comparable SF. As I only paid $719 for my 8x32s in 2013, mine were less than a third of the cost of the SF.

 

[eronald]

The Conquest HD is far from "midrange" IMO. But the eyecups still suck and I have yet another pair on the way. Also, it's closer to 40-41% of the cost of the comparable SF. As I only paid $719 for my 8x32s in 2013, mine were less than a third of the cost of the SF.

I too almost bought an 8x32 Conquest during a sale and regret I didn't.
TBH, my feeling is the SF is just a 1/5 size market study for the next Conquest, and people are paying for the privilege of seeing the future today

Edmund

 

[ZDHart]

The Conquest HD is far from "midrange" IMO.

True... they are what I would call "quasi-alpha", but at a "mid-range" ($1000) price. Indeed, there are small, yet discernible optical (and other) differences between Conquest HD and SF, or UVHD+, or NL Pure. But, those differences are not dramatic - not nearly as dramatic as the increase in price garnered by the alpha level binoculars.

I fully enjoy my Leica UVHD+ and Zeiss SF alphas most of the time, yet every time I pick up my 8x32 or 10x42 Conquest HDs, I'm reminded that I am very well-served with their quasi-alpha, excellent performance. No complaints with them, whatsoever.

If Conquest HD is the highest level of binocular that an owner may experience, they are really not missing out on anything of much significance. Conquest HD binoculars ROCK, and don't quite "break the bank"!

As for the eyecups, I ordered a free pair of extended eyecups back around 2013 when I bought my Conquest HDs, and they've served flawlessly on my 8x32s and 10x42s ever since.