SLC, Monarch HG, Conquest or Trinovid ? (1 Viewer)

Hello, Please recommend: Swaro SLC 8x42, Monarch HG 8x42, Zeiss Conquest 8x42 or Leica Trinovid 8x42.
Purpose: Birding (Birds of prey) primary. secondary-sight seeing, star gazing.
It would be a onetime and final purchase so really confused. Appreciate ur help.

I have tried the SLC as well as the Conquest so can't respond to the other two. Of those two, they were almost identical in optics to my eyes. I have a feeling the SLC has better quality control (based upon the price). I preferred the ergonomics of the Conquest. So that is my vote and it is a lot less expensive.

But, if you could actually find a store to 'feel them' and touch them ...pull them up to your face, and walk around with them....which one best fits you? That is the intangible that cannot be decided by anyone but you. jim

I have had all those binoculars and there is no doubt that the Swarovski SLC 8x42 is the best. Optically and quality wise. It is also the most expensive. You generally get what you pay for.

I have now owned the SLC, the Conquest HD and the Leica Trinovid HD. I have not yet had the pleasure of using the Monarch HG's, although if/when I do, I expect to like them very much (I've always been impressed by Nikon optics).

Of the four, I chose the Conquest HD's. I had the SLC and Conquest at the same time, and I could not see any difference in image quality over multiple tests in many lighting conditions. They are both built very well. I think what you're getting for the extra price of the SLC's is the outstanding Swarovski warranty. They will take care of you no matter what happens to your binoculars. So that is worth quite a bit to many people. For what it's worth, both pairs of SLC's I owned had pretty annoying focusers. Dry and sticky. Shockingly bad for the price.

I have used the Zeiss warranty once, years ago and it was an "okay" experience. They took care of me, but it wasn't particularly fast or convenient. But I was satisfied in the end. I have used the Nikon warranty twice in the past 10 years, and they also took care of me eventually, but it was really slow and I had to send one pair back twice before it was actually fixed.

I can't comment on the Leica warranty other than I've not heard great things about it unfortunately. But they are lovely optics, especially if you wear glasses. Field of view on the Leicas is a bit disappointing though.

I would say you just need to prioritize what's most important to you. If it's size and weight, the Leicas and Monarch HG's will win there. If it's field of view, that goes to the Monarchs. If it's a bulletproof lifetime warranty, that goes to the SLC's. If it's a great focus wheel, then the HG's will probably be best.

They are all great, but all slightly different. If you can figure out what specifically you want most out of a binocular, that may help you decide.

One last thought - of the four, the SLC's will hold their value the best, followed by the Conquests, then the HG's, then the Trinovids. I think there's a clue in there somewhere about what the consumers think of those four.

Hi,

a lot of good advice has been given on the merits of the different models - I just wanted to point out that a not so great resale value can also be an advantage - if you are buying used and don't intend to sell it...

But of course make very sure that the pair is in good order - either by personal inspection before buying them or by having a no questions asked return policy...

PS: there is an EL Fieldpro 8.5x42 for 1400 quid plus shipping down there in the classifieds - but of course prior inspection might be an issue... otoh Swaro warranty will help with potential trouble...

Joachim, who has yet to have a pair of bins fail on him... must have been luck ;-)

I have been following the posts on this site for a year now. The information has been fantastic and really helpful. I have both the Zeiss 10x42 T*FL and Swarovski SLC 8x42. While the focus on the SLC isn’t as butter smooth as the Zeiss, the view on the SLC is spectacular. I use the binoculars daily and it always brings a smile to my face to bring up the SLC to my eyes. The view is that good. They are truly incredible in my limited experience.

adeel.mohd said:

It would be a onetime and final purchase so really confused. Appreciate ur help.

Click to expand...

Hi,

My hit list

1. Swarovski
2. Zeiss
3. Leica
4. Nikon

In my opinion, the Swarovski is a class ahead of all other glasses, that Conquest is also very nice but unfortunately has a somewhat small field of vision!
The Leica and Nikon have visible chromatic aberrations, and I don't find the center focus on both glasses to be optimal!
The Nikon is advertised with flat field, but I find the edge sharpness very poor.

For me it is very clear that swarovski is not only optically the best glass but also of the binocular case, a tank for life.

Andreas

Everyone has their preferences, of course. I think the SLC is a perfectly nice binocular but wouldn't buy one new, as I don't think the value is amazing. A used SLC for $1000 or so would be a different calculation. For the price of a new SLC, I would hunt for a good used Swaro EL or Zeiss SF.

Among the other three, I personally feel that the Conquest and MHG are a good step ahead of the Trinovid but, again, everyone has their preferences. Between the MHG and the Conquest (I've owned and used both extensively, not just trying them out in a shop), the Conquest might be a touch sharper in the center but I prefer the light weight, wide field of view, ergonomics, saturation/color, and the focuser of the Nikon.

So from your list I personally have a strong preference for the MHG unless there were a $1000-1100 SLC in good condition. If you're prepared to spend $1500-1600 on a new SLC, I'd hold out for a used EL or SF, as mentioned above.

pbjosh said:

For the price of a new SLC, I would hunt for a good used Swaro EL or Zeiss SF.

Click to expand...

Hello pbjosh,

in which points do you think that the SLC is inferior to the EL?
Except for the edge sharpness.
I used to think until I came across an SLC 8x56, what a great performance!

Andreas

I have a Conquest HD 8x42 that is my current main/heavy use/beater binocular. It is a very solid pair of binoculars with no glaring flaws and is easily comparable in many ways to the other alphas. The eye-cups are junk and I've had issues with both the originals and the replacements I received from Zeiss. I bought it used for a rather cheap price as it has some lens issues/damage that do not effect the view.

I've owned the SLC-HD (the old model that was two-toned) and would say it is one of the best binoculars I've ever had; exceptionally sharp and minimal distortion. I would highly recommend this model IF able to be bought at a reduced price (I bought mine as a new-old stock and it was several hundred cheaper than 'new').

The Monarch HG would be my pick if buying new. Optically I'd say it is certainly on par with the Zeiss Conquest HD, but lighter and with a wider field of view. Nikon has had varying levels of after-market service so that is something to consider.

I have no experience with the Trinovid but I find its stated FoV disappointing.

Justin

jremmons said:

I have a Conquest HD 8x42 that is my current main/heavy use/beater binocular.

I have no experience with the Trinovid but I find its stated FoV disappointing.

Click to expand...

Hello Justin,

Well, the Zeiss isn't exactly one of the wide-angle binoculars either!

Andreas

Thanx a lot everyone for your comments seems i need to decide between two: SLC and HG... Im wondering is SLC worth 1100 USD and also double the price of HG?

[email protected] said:

I have had all those binoculars and there is no doubt that the Swarovski SLC 8x42 is the best. Optically and quality wise. It is also the most expensive. You generally get what you pay for.

Click to expand...

Thanx, Is there a huge difference between HG and SLC? Is SLC double the price of HG worth it? How is the low light performance of HG? Little less or very less than Conquest or SLC? appreciate ur help.

jremmons said:

I have a Conquest HD 8x42 that is my current main/heavy use/beater binocular. It is a very solid pair of binoculars with no glaring flaws and is easily comparable in many ways to the other alphas. The eye-cups are junk and I've had issues with both the originals and the replacements I received from Zeiss. I bought it used for a rather cheap price as it has some lens issues/damage that do not effect the view.

I've owned the SLC-HD (the old model that was two-toned) and would say it is one of the best binoculars I've ever had; exceptionally sharp and minimal distortion. I would highly recommend this model IF able to be bought at a reduced price (I bought mine as a new-old stock and it was several hundred cheaper than 'new').

The Monarch HG would be my pick if buying new. Optically I'd say it is certainly on par with the Zeiss Conquest HD, but lighter and with a wider field of view. Nikon has had varying levels of after-market service so that is something to consider.

I have no experience with the Trinovid but I find its stated FoV disappointing.

Justin

Click to expand...

Ok gr8. So please suggest.. SLC for 1100$ and HG for 600$, Both of them almost new, never used. Which one will u pick?

Conndomat said:

Hi,

My hit list

1. Swarovski
2. Zeiss
3. Leica
4. Nikon

In my opinion, the Swarovski is a class ahead of all other glasses, that Conquest is also very nice but unfortunately has a somewhat small field of vision!
The Leica and Nikon have visible chromatic aberrations, and I don't find the center focus on both glasses to be optimal!
The Nikon is advertised with flat field, but I find the edge sharpness very poor.

For me it is very clear that swarovski is not only optically the best glass but also of the binocular case, a tank for life.

Andreas

Click to expand...

Thanks Andreas. Is SLC worth double the price of HG?

Conndomat said:

Hello Justin,

Well, the Zeiss isn't exactly one of the wide-angle binoculars either!

Andreas

Click to expand...

Correct, Andreas, and honestly that is the main reason I'd have gone with the Monarch HG if I'd been buying new - I just happened to get the Zeiss at a much reduced price.

Justin

adeel.mohd said:

Thanx, Is there a huge difference between HG and SLC? Is SLC double the price of HG worth it? How is the low light performance of HG? Little less or very less than Conquest or SLC? appreciate ur help.

Click to expand...

The SLC is better that the HG but with binocular's like most everything you have diminishing returns as you move up in price. IMO it is but you have to decide that for yourself based on your need's and how much of an optical perfectionist you are and what your budget is. The aperture is usually what makes the most difference in low light performance with the transmission next. The Conquest has 93% transmission, the SLC has 92% transmission and the HG is 88% transmission. Usually you are not going to notice a 2% difference in transmission so the SLC and Conquest would be about equal in low light performance with the HG being slightly less bright in low light.

adeel.mohd said:

Ok gr8. So please suggest.. SLC for 1100$ and HG for 600$, Both of them almost new, never used. Which one will u pick?

Click to expand...

If you can get a new SLC for $1100.00 go for it!

adeel.mohd said:

Thanks Andreas. Is SLC worth double the price of HG?

Click to expand...

Hi,

you can't say that clearly in a price!
I find the SLC much better than the HG, whether twice as good is a nonsensical question ... sorry!

Andreas

jremmons said:

Correct, Andreas, and honestly that is the main reason I'd have gone with the Monarch HG if I'd been buying new - I just happened to get the Zeiss at a much reduced price.

Click to expand...

Justin,

I really like the conquest, the optics are already very good, the 8x32 is best for me, it also has a large field of view.
The 8x42 is also very nice, field of view is not everything, just a factor.

Andreas