10x42- What is Next Step in Quality/Price Above Zeiss Conquest HD? (1 Viewer)

[dorubird]

The SF definitely has a stronger green tint than the HD. Have you ever had your vision checked for color blindness? The SF shows more glare than the HD
because of the distinct reflections beyond the eyepiece diaphragm, which in my case created an orange ring around the FOV. Many other birders have noticed it also and have verified it with pictures. The CA is slightly better in the SF, but I think Zeiss has improved the edge sharpness in the HD because the new HD I just bought is tack sharp to the edge and just as sharp as the SF I had. Have you tried a brand new HD lately? They are definitely improved.

There is no way the SF has more stereoscopic effect because the objective separation on the SF and HD are almost identical and stereopsis is entirely determined by objective separation. Both the HD and SF have equally good transmission, so the brightness is equal, and actually the HD is sharper on-axis than the SF. The HD is known for being one of the sharpest binoculars around, on-axis. I have compared these two binoculars closely back to back and in fact I sold the SF because of the orange ring of glare around the FOV which is caused by reflections beyond the eyepiece diaphragm. Here are some photos below of the orange ring in the SF caused by reflections beyond the eyepiece diaphragm and an explanation of what causes it.

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF 524223 REVIEWS?

Funny how some worry about the outer 5% of the FOV of binoculars, yet dismiss veiling glare that will affect contrast and image quality across the entire FOV at all times. James. Yes, I do worry about it and it bothers me when that outer 5% of the FOV is an ORANGE RING. I do not dismiss veiling...

www.birdforum.net

The Green ghost ( Zeiss SF 8X42 )

Green cast......is like absinthe for me, a pleasure to drink but not to see. Today i went to Madrid's largest photography store and I was playing with a Black SF 8X42 Serial number 4372227 for one hour and a half,I am lucky because I am a friend of the owner so I also took the binoculars to...

www.birdforum.net

This SF 10x42 allbinos review is very old gray one and does not reflect the reality of very new SF 10x42 binoculars which are only a few years old. If allbinos had tested the new black SF 10x42 model would have been completely different results, because all models improve by time.
I have the very new SF10x42 black model and it has no glare or other reflection problems. SF is the art when it comes to glare! My 10x42 CHD it is also glare resistant.
Regarding the three-dimensionality, you can see in the picture that the SF has a more trapezoidal shape than the CHD which gives it a little more 3d. It has a greater distance between the objectives than between the eyepieces. In the CHD these differences are smaller.
Regarding the center resolution, SF and the CHD have very similar results. I tested with a booster and this 10x42 SF and CHD it is ones of the best in 42mm/50mm class resolution!

 

[Dennis Mau]

This SF 10x42 allbinos review is very old gray one and does not reflect the reality of very new SF 10x42 binoculars which are only a few years old. If allbinos had tested the new black SF 10x42 model would have been completely different results, because all models improve by time.
I have the very new SF10x42 black model and it has no glare or other reflection problems. SF is the art when it comes to glare! My 10x42 CHD it is also glare resistant.
Regarding the three-dimensionality, you can see in the picture that the SF has a more trapezoidal shape than the CHD which gives it a little more 3d. It has a greater distance between the objectives than between the eyepieces. In the CHD these differences are smaller.View attachment 1633950
Regarding the center resolution, SF and the CHD have very similar results. I tested with a booster and this 10x42 SF and CHD it is ones of the best in 42mm/50mm class resolution!

I had the newer black Zeiss SF 10x42 SF when I compared them with my Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 less than a year ago, and the SF had the same type of glare that Allbinos described in their test and Peatmoss described in his posted pictures. Zeiss never made any significant changes in the optics. The problem is still there. You may not see it because it depends on your eye socket depth and your eyes.

That is the reason I returned the SF. Below is a thread and pictures of the same glare problem and the thread is from 2022 so it is not the older gray SF. There is not enough difference in objective separation between the Zeiss SF 10x42 and the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 to give it more three-dimensionality. Here is the kind of objective separation you need to get a difference in three-dimensionality.

UTGrad
"Hello I received my first pair of 8x42 Victory SF and the view is wide, sharp, and astonishing. One caveat is a noticeable reflection/glare coming from inside the binocular. It’s pronounced when looking at a bright, overcast white sky. Am I being over analytical of a new pair of binoculars? Is this a common occurrence when observing a bright sky?"

mgp13
"I have this exact issue with my new SF 8x42s, and I've just requested a replacement from the dealer. It's absolutely intolerable and present across a wide variety of lighting conditions. In my case, the reflections come from both the 4-5 and 7-8 o clock positions, creating two annoying reflective cusps to my image."

dries1
"I saw this the very thing in three samples of the SF, it was not consistent, but it did show up during viewing sessions. Perhaps Zeiss can address it."

Internal Light/Glare/Reflection in Periphery

Hello I received my first pair of 8x42 Victory SF and the view is wide, sharp, and astonishing. One caveat is a noticeable reflection/glare coming from inside the binocular. It’s pronounced when looking at a bright, overcast white sky. Am I being over analytical of a new pair of binoculars...

www.birdforum.net

"To experience a noticeable 3D effect with binoculars, you need a separation between the objective lenses (the lenses at the front) that's roughly equivalent to the average distance between your own eyes, which is about 2.5 inches or 6cm."

 

[dorubird]

You must be smoking something in Transylvania because there is not enough difference in objective separation between the Zeiss SF 10x42 and the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 to give it more three-dimensionality. Here is the kind of objective separation you need to get a difference in three-dimensionality.

Sir, why are you angry and insulting me?

A porro vs roof is clear that a porro has that much bigger difference. This is obvious! But SF and CHD being roof normally the 3d difference is more subtle not so obvious. SF is immediately noticeable that it has objectives further away vs eyepieces than CHD. This is a 3d subtle thing that you can notice if you have long experience with these models and not so in face like a porro. I have been used to CHD 10x42 for many years and I know its image naturally.

Let's speak on 10x42 subject topic not mixing 8x42 ones because may be diference in glare, chromatic aberration etc between them even same brand and class! So, if you see glare in your SF 10x42, it means that your SF 10x42 has a problem, or you look at the glare very off-axis, at which point you no longer see the entire FOV normally anyway. In normal looking way in eyepieces on-axis, SF 10x42 is one of the most glare-resistant in the world, only some Leica binoculars are even better. SF 10x42 is a Conquest HD 10x42 a bit on steroids not only in body but also in optic. That's why I selling CHD 10x42. I had this Conquest HD 10x42 for about 5 years and I liked it a lot and I knew all its strengths and weaknesses. Until I put my eyes on SF Victory 10x42 and I saw all the optical and mechanical + refinements. To pay more for this refinements or not it is up to you! For those who can't see them, it's better to stay happy with CHD and with lot of money in their pocket. But for those who see and appreciate the extra refinement, SF Victory 10x42 is worth it. I've tested them for years, not a few days, and I can say on the authority of these many years, that SF Victory 10x42 has no glare and this SF is an 10x42 CHD but optically and mechanically refined!

 

[Rg548]

Sir, why are you angry and insulting me?

Don't take it personally Dorubird.
A few weeks ago he told me there was no difference optically between an Abbe K HT, and a Conquest.... then posts up a report about even the SF not matching the HT... let alone the Conquest....

He just likes a 'bite' as we say.

The latest is FOVs .... mentioned in nearly every post.... but this was the guy who was touting the virtues of the Habicht 7x42, which is optically off the scale... but like looking down a straw.
Don't get drawn in.... its just coffee time entertainment at best.

I find him quite amusing, and he does sell us all some cheap 'like new' binos when he changes his mind...... always a sliver lining

 

[Dennis Mau]

Sir, why are you angry and insulting me?

A porro vs roof is clear that a porro has that much bigger difference. This is obvious! But SF and CHD being roof normally the 3d difference is more subtle not so obvious. SF is immediately noticeable that it has objectives further away vs eyepieces than CHD. This is a 3d subtle thing that you can notice if you have long experience with these models and not so in face like a porro. I have been used to CHD 10x42 for many years and I know its image naturally.

Let's speak on 10x42 subject topic not mixing 8x42 ones because may be diference in glare, chromatic aberration etc between them even same brand and class! So, if you see glare in your SF 10x42, it means that your SF 10x42 has a problem, or you look at the glare very off-axis, at which point you no longer see the entire FOV normally anyway. In normal looking way in eyepieces on-axis, SF 10x42 is one of the most glare-resistant in the world, only some Leica binoculars are even better. SF 10x42 is a Conquest HD 10x42 a bit on steroids not only in body but also in optic. That's why I selling CHD 10x42. I had this Conquest HD 10x42 for about 5 years and I liked it a lot and I knew all its strengths and weaknesses. Until I put my eyes on SF Victory 10x42 and I saw all the optical and mechanical + refinements. To pay more for this refinements or not it is up to you! For those who can't see them, it's better to stay happy with CHD and with lot of money in their pocket. But for those who see and appreciate the extra refinement, SF Victory 10x42 is worth it. I've tested them for years, not a few days, and I can say on the authority of these many years, that SF Victory 10x42 has no glare and this SF is an 10x42 CHD but optically and mechanically refined!

I had glare, which manifested itself in orange rings around the bottom right of the FOV in both the SF 8x42 and SF 10x42. They were both the newer black models and I returned them because of it. Many other birders have experienced the same type of glare, as documented above in photos they have taken through their binoculars. If you don't see any glare in your SF, you are very lucky. Not everybody sees the same glare because it depends on the depth of your eye sockets and other factors, but that doesn't mean Zeiss doesn't have a problem with the SF. For me the SFs were very good binoculars outside of the glare which was a deal killer. I feel I should warn potential buyers about it so they at least try them before buying to make sure they work for them. Not every binocular works for everybody, and if they don't, it is best just to move forward and try something else. I am glad you are happy with your SFs. Here is a good thread on 3D in roof prism and porro prism binoculars with a good post by Henry Link.

"All binoculars have some stereopsis. Traditional Porros have more than roofs or reversed Porros because the baseline between objectives is wider. I'm also curious about reports of more or less "3-D" in roofs with the same magnification and baseline. These can't reflect true differences in stereopsis unless the baselines are actually different, which they could be in some roofs. AK prisms, for instance, usually have a little wider baseline than the viewer's IPD and sometimes SP's have a little narrower baseline than IPD. If the baselines are identical, I think any extra "3-D" is likely to be ersatz, perhaps generated by differences in the off-axis aberrations or distortions seen by each eye. I have a very large magnifying glass that allows me to view flat pictures with both eyes. Sometimes I see spurious "3-D" effects when viewing pictures through the magnifier when each eye is looking through a different part of the lens. If I switch back and forth between eyes, I notice objects in each eye have slightly different shapes, amounts of lateral color, etc. Well, roofs with wider baselines will create a more Porro like presentation, if you consider that more pleasing and natural. Wider objective baselines are probably confined to roof prism binoculars with AK prisms and larger ones will probably have the widest baselines, but measuring is the only way to know for sure. My 8x42 FL with AK prisms has an objective baseline about 7mm wider than the IPD setting, while my 8x56 FL has an objective baseline about 13mm more than IPD. It's surprising how noticeable those small differences are regarding stereopsis and apparent magnification at close focus compared to inline roofs. SP objective baselines will usually be the same as IPD, but may occasionally be a little wider or narrower. I recall that the 8x32 Nikon Premier XL has an objective baseline about 5mm narrower than IPD, and that is also surprisingly noticeable compared to inline roofs."

3D in roof prism binoculars

When someone describes a pronounced 3D view in a roof, the Zeiss HT and SF most recently, what combination of optical traits would be the reason for what they see. It's always been my understanding that 3D is exclusive to the Porro binocular due to the wider objective spacing. Robert

www.birdforum.net

 

[Dennis Mau]

Don't take it personally Dorubird.
A few weeks ago he told me there was no difference optically between an Abbe K HT, and a Conquest.... then posts up a report about even the SF not matching the HT... let alone the Conquest....

He just likes a 'bite' as we say.

The latest is FOVs .... mentioned in nearly every post.... but this was the guy who was touting the virtues of the Habicht 7x42, which is optically off the scale... but like looking down a straw.
Don't get drawn in.... its just coffee time entertainment at best.

I find him quite amusing, and he does sell us all some cheap 'like new' binos when he changes his mind...... always a sliver lining

I never said there wasn't any difference optically between an AK HT and a Conquest, and I never said the SF does not match the HT or the Conquest. I don't know where you came up with that misguided information about the Habicht either. Obviously, you're not comprehending what I am saying. Please try reading my posts a little more carefully you might even learn something.

 

[Rg548]

No, it is all in your mind. You expect the HT to be better because you paid more for it, but actually it isn't that much better than an HG or Conquest HD. When you expect something to be better simply because it is more expensive

Looks like I did dream it all up......
Please accept my apologies........

 

[hopster]

Looks like I did dream it all up......
Please accept my apologies........

I have owned the HT 10x42 and enjoyed the view through the HT 8x42 many times (my favourite 8x42 along with the NV). The Conquest HD 8x42 I tested did not compete in terms of image quality.

 

[Rg548]

The SF 10x42 has better CA control, a slightly bigger FOV and slightly sharper edges than the HD 10x42. But the HD 10x42 handles glare better, and has a slight green tint, but it is not nearly as green biased as the SF. I just looked at the edges on my HD 10x42, and I was amazed how tack sharp they are right to the edge. I wonder if Zeiss made some improvements in them. Furthermore, I can't see how the SF 10x42 could have sharper edges.

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

And there's the review you posted.... which clearly says the SF doesnt come upto the standards of the HT
Quote.... from that review.... that you posted..... "Still the overall image is worse than that of the HT model"

Or did I get that wrong too...... apologies yet again if I did.

However.... you are always entertaining, and I'll give it to you that you always remain quite good natured, even with all the flack.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I have owned the HT 10x42 and enjoyed the view through the HT 8x42 many times (my favourite 8x42 along with the NV). The Conquest HD 8x42 I tested did not compete in terms of image quality.

Didn't compete in what areas? How about FOV, distortion, astigmatism, coma and glare control? It looks like the Conquest HD beats the HT in those areas. It depends on what your preferences are in what binocular you will like. If you don't like distortion, astigmatism, coma, glare and a puny 6.3 degree FOV you are not going to like the HT.

Carl Zeiss Victory HT 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[Dennis Mau]

And there's the review you posted.... which clearly says the SF doesnt come upto the standards of the HT
Quote.... from that review.... that you posted..... "Still the overall image is worse than that of the HT model"

Or did I get that wrong too...... apologies yet again if I did.

However.... you are always entertaining, and I'll give it to you that you always remain quite good natured, even with all the flack.

I didn't say the SF doesn't come up to the standards of the HD. I said the HD has strong points and the SF has strong points. You have to decide for yourself based on your own preferences what binocular is better for you. The SF didn't work for me because I saw orange rings of glare on the bottom edge of the FOV as many others have as documented by the posts and pictures above. That was a deal killer for me. I just bought a different binocular and moved on. One thing I have learned is just because a binocular like the SF or NL is more expensive doesn't mean it will work better for your eyes and brain.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Looks like I did dream it all up......
Please accept my apologies........

One thing I have learned is just because a binocular is more expensive, it is not necessarily going to work better for you because everybody's eyes and brain are different. The cheaper binocular may suit you better.

 

[dorubird]

I looked for this type of orange rim for a long time and I only saw it a few times with the sun near the field, but only if I was not in the normal optical axis and try to look very off-centered to see this. Only in that weird position you can see this orange rim and only with Sun proximity. In this weird position I can't even see the entire FOV, so much off-center I must be to see this orange ring!!! So, in the correct and natural position this orange rim is impossible to see. Zeiss SF is the binocular that does not suffer from any glare! For example I directly compared SF 10x42 with Swarovski EL Swarovision 10x42. The latter had a decrease in contrast at the bottom of the image (glare) when looking at the tops of some trees against the sky light. The Zeiss had the perfect contrast over the entire surface of the FOV when looking at same trees, regardless of the positions of the Sun in front of the binoculars. This SF 10x42 It's perfect from glare aspect!

 

[Dennis Mau]

The SF is perfect for you and that is great because it is a superb binocular, but it is not the best binocular for everybody. It is not perfect for me or a lot of other people because of the glare problems. It depends on your eye socket depth and how the binocular fits your face. Some people will see glare and some won't. The NL is the same way for me, but if you mention glare everybody that doesn't see the glare gets defensive, when in reality it comes down to the fact that seeing glare is different for everybody with different binoculars. You may or may not see it. That is why it is best always try binoculars with your own eyes to see if they work for you and if they don't move on too something else.

Just because a binocular is more expensive doesn't mean they will work better for you, either. A lot of the NL's don't work for me, and the bigger SF's like the 10x42 and 8x42 don't work for me. The smaller SF's like the 8x32 and 10x32 are fine. I think my shallow eye sockets are part of the problem. I have tried all the alphas, pretty much. Here is a good thread comparing the Nikon EDG, Pentax ED and Zeiss Conquest HD where absolut_beethoven does resolution testing on all three and finds the Conquest HD the sharpest of the three. It was sharper than the EDG! I hope Paultricounty doesn't hear that!

"Unsurprisingly, using the same scenario of the tiny print and one dollar bill, the sweet spot sharpness and resolution are better with the Zeiss Conquest HD than the Nikon EDG, the winner in that department earlier. I’d be hard-pressed to put a value on it, but it was obvious enough that I noticed it immediately without too much effort. Tomorrow I’ll do further tests to see whether this can actually be seen in normal conditions of handheld use."

Nikon Edg vs Pentax ED vs Zeiss Conquest HD

I've been watching your posts and find them interesting. Holger Merlitz has a recent review of 8x32 optics, and he found the Nikon EDG at the top. He placed the Pentax much lower at #7, and in the mid range. The Zeiss Conquest HD looks like a nice new optic, and as a 8x42, it would be hard...

www.birdforum.net

 

[tenex]

However.... you are always entertaining, and I'll give it to you that you always remain quite good natured, even with all the flack.

You seem somehow to have missed quite a bit there, and only some of it got deleted.

In any case there is a common-sense limit to how long to go on about which model is better than which in whoever's opinion... except Denco of course, that's his raison d'être. I cringe now every time a question like this is asked.

 

[David in NC]

I've not been on this forum much at all in a couple years or more, but am pondering a new pair of bins. Ironically this was spurred on by a buddy who hit me up about what pair to buy for his needs, and doing my research for HIM have about decided on the new Conquest HDXs.

We live in western NC and I'm mostly a birder (but been less so lately) and and he's exclusively a hunter here but does sometimes travel "out West". Obviously both of use use bins for general stuff also. I'm obviously a huge proponent of 7x or 8x for birding but for him going out West, I did suggest moving up to 10x.

My alphas are a pair of 8x42 Leica Ultravids that are about 12 years old. I also have Vortex 6x32 Viper HDs and use a pair of Vortex 8x32 Diamondbacks to keep in my SUV for when I need bins but didn't pack good ones. He was going out West a couple years ago and just before he left he wanted to buy a pair under $300 so I gave him my standard advice (that was at least good and current then by this boards standards) which I still give when someone is looking at $300 or less-Vortex Diamondbacks. I have talked at least 3 folks into these and all are happy and I still feel this is good advice (although I haven't been keeping up lately). He stopped at the original Cablea's store and bought a pair, and they worked enough for him on that trip. Now he's decided to move up and is devoting $1000 to a set. In my scanning of several topics it looks like these are about the peak of the sub-1K market, and likely even more so at the price we can get them for (800ish). I am without anything more than 8x currently so I decided I might treat myself to a pair also.

I hear many of you touting the older HDs and I respect that but we are looking at new models currently in the pipeline so it'll be the HDXs. I haven't handled the HDs in a long time but I think I'll prefer the new ones, although I can't say for sure.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I've not been on this forum much at all in a couple years or more, but am pondering a new pair of bins. Ironically this was spurred on by a buddy who hit me up about what pair to buy for his needs, and doing my research for HIM have about decided on the new Conquest HDXs.

We live in western NC and I'm mostly a birder (but been less so lately) and and he's exclusively a hunter here but does sometimes travel "out West". Obviously both of use use bins for general stuff also. I'm obviously a huge proponent of 7x or 8x for birding but for him going out West, I did suggest moving up to 10x.

My alphas are a pair of 8x42 Leica Ultravids that are about 12 years old. I also have Vortex 6x32 Viper HDs and use a pair of Vortex 8x32 Diamondbacks to keep in my SUV for when I need bins but didn't pack good ones. He was going out West a couple years ago and just before he left he wanted to buy a pair under $300 so I gave him my standard advice (that was at least good and current then by this boards standards) which I still give when someone is looking at $300 or less-Vortex Diamondbacks. I have talked at least 3 folks into these and all are happy and I still feel this is good advice (although I haven't been keeping up lately). He stopped at the original Cablea's store and bought a pair, and they worked enough for him on that trip. Now he's decided to move up and is devoting $1000 to a set. In my scanning of several topics it looks like these are about the peak of the sub-1K market, and likely even more so at the price we can get them for (800ish). I am without anything more than 8x currently so I decided I might treat myself to a pair also.

I hear many of you touting the older HDs and I respect that but we are looking at new models currently in the pipeline so it'll be the HDXs. I haven't handled the HDs in a long time but I think I'll prefer the new ones, although I can't say for sure.

The next step-up in quality would be the Zeiss SFL 8x40, which you can get at Greentoe for less than $1100. They have the SFL, often times listed for that price. If you want to step up a little more, there is the Swarovski EL 8.5x42 or the SLC HD 8x42, but the price gets higher. The EL and SLC run about $1400 to $1700 on the used market. You are starting to get into true alpha territory there.

DEMO Swaroviski El Swarovision Binoculars with FieldPro 8.5x42mm

DEMO Swaroviski El Swarovision Binoculars with FieldPro 8.5x42mm

shop.natchezss.com

Swarovski SLC 8x42 HD Binoculars Field Bag Pro - Pristine Condition | eBay

Swarovski Optik SLC 8x42 HD binoculars. Green and black color. Made in Austria. Serial number starts with CA88. Pristine condition overall. No scratches on any of the lenses. Amazing view out. Body is also in pristine condition with very light wear.

www.ebay.com

Greentoe.com - Name your price on Cameras, TVs, Optics, Electronics and more!

Name your price on camera bodies, lenses, bags, pro lighting, photography accessories and more. Our network of authorized retailers is waiting to hear your offer. No grey market, all USA authorized retailers.

redirect.viglink.com

 

[ads]

I took a 10 year break from following the binocular market and am just recently back. Models have improved some, but not much. It's not like the computer CPU market, where there are substantial increases in performance over two years.

If you are buying a CPU, you probably don't want to buy a model that was released 10 years ago. But if you are buying binoculars, buying a model that was released 10 years ago is often the best route. With binoculars, the best price/performance comes from buying a model that is heavily discounted. The Zeiss Conquest HD's that were being sold by retailers at around $500 recently is an example of that.

To answer the original posters question "What is Next Step in Quality/Price Above Zeiss Conquest HD", it's probably at the moment the Zeiss SFL on sale at around $1,000.

 

[Scott98]

10x42 HDX for $800 sounds good to me! I'm sure you'll love them, good luck

PS....40mm SFL's for $1000? Where is that? Haven't seen them for more than 10% off

 

[Dennis Mau]

10x42 HDX for $800 sounds good to me! I'm sure you'll love them, good luck

PS....40mm SFL's for $1000? Where is that? Haven't seen them for more than 10% off

Greentoe has the SFL 8x40 for less than $1100 from time to time, but I don't see them right now. Watch Greentoe they will have them again.

Greentoe.com - Name your price on Cameras, TVs, Optics, Electronics and more!

Name your price on camera bodies, lenses, bags, pro lighting, photography accessories and more. Our network of authorized retailers is waiting to hear your offer. No grey market, all USA authorized retailers.

www.greentoe.com