Is the 8x32 Victory SF really worth almost 2.5x the cost of the 8x32 Conquest HD? (1 Viewer)

[CSG]

Other than a wider FOV and slightly brighter image what do I really gain? IIRC, focus distance is a little closer with the Conquests. Having the Victory HT 8x42s as my main bin, I do see a difference between that glass and the smaller Conquests, particularly in color. The Conquests, like my Terra 8x42s both have a slightly yellowish cast compared to the Victorys which show whiter whites. I'd love to justify buying the SFs. Somebody help me figure out a good reason to spend almost $1400 more than I spent on my Conquests!

 

[wdc]

Eye relief

 

[ZDHart]

No one but you can make the 2.5x extra cost justification, for you. "Is it really worth it?" Perhaps so, or not. It's all in the estimation of the beholder and the beholder's pocket book. The point of diminishing returns, for binoculars, does set in pretty firmly at the Conquest HD level.

I've used a pair of Conquest HD 8x32 and 10x42 for going on eight years. This year, just for interest sake, I decided to check out the Victory SFs. Today I also have 8x32, 10x32, and 10x42 SF. While I do prefer using the SFs over the Conquest HDs, that doesn't make the Conquest HDs any less wonderful than I have "enjoyed them to be" for the last eight years - they are just as great as day one, for me. I didn't "need" the SFs, but I didn't mind spending the money for them either.

I have worked as a commercial photographer for decades, my eyesight is quite good, and I don't wear glasses with binoculars. Excellent visual image quality is something I have enjoyed for a lifetime and is quite important to me. The biggest difference that I find between Conquest HD and SF is that I see a noticeable difference in clarity and sharpness with the SFs. And, I like the color quality slightly more with the SF. But there isn't a dramatic difference, by any means, between them. Conquest HDs are quite sharp, crisp, and mechanically, the Conquest HDs are built!!!

Form factor - the Conquest HDs feel beefy, more "stocky" and are a bit shorter. The SFs give a bit leaner impression. They are longer, and have a rearward/eyepiece balance emphasis, which makes them feel quite light weight. They both have quick, light, and very smooth focusers - pretty much as good as focusers get: awesome.

As to whether 8x32 SF is "worth" the extra cost over 8x32 Conquest HD... that's all about the individual's pocket book, really. Either choice is an excellent choice and will serve quite wonderfully. If you don't mind spending the extra money, I think you'll find there is a bit of an edge up with the SFs. On the other hand, Conquest HD saves a good bit of money and performs exceptionally well.

To step up from Conquest HD to SF is really more a matter of want, than a matter of need.

My trio of 8x32s

Obvious to many here, I have mentioned my 8x32 UVHD+ bins numerous times before. They have sharpness, clarity and color quality surpassing anything else that I've experienced. But that's for a different thread.

 

[CSG]

No one but you can make the justification for you. I've used a pair of Conquest HD 8x32 and 10x42 for going on eight years. This year, just for interest sake, I decided to check out the Victory SFs. Today I also have 8x32, 10x32, and 10x42 SF. While I do prefer using the SFs over the Conquest HDs, that doesn't make the Conquest HDs any less wonderful than I have "enjoyed them to be" for the last eight years - they are just as great as day one, for me.

My eyesight is quite good, and I don't wear glasses with binoculars. The biggest difference that I find between them is that I see a noticeable difference in clarity and sharpness with the SFs. And, I like the color quality slightly more with the SF. But there isn't a dramatic difference, by any means, between them. The point of diminishing returns sets in pretty firmly with the Conquest HDs - they are sharp, crisp, and mechanically, the Conquest HDs are built!

Form factor - the Conquest HDs feel beefy, more "stocky" and are a bit shorter. The SFs are a bit leaner and longer, and have the rearward balance emphasis, which makes them feel quite light weight. They both have quick, light, and very smooth focusers - pretty much as good as focusers get.

As to whether 8x32 SF is "worth" the extra cost over 8x32 Conquest HD... that's all about the individual's pocket book, really. Either choice is an excellent choice and will serve quite wonderfully. If you don't mind spending the extra money, I think you'll find there is a bit of an edge up with the SFs. On the other hand, Conquest HD saves a good bit of money and performs exceptionally well. To step up from Conquest HD to SF is a more a matter of want, than a matter of need.

My trio of 8x32s

Have I mentioned my 8x32 UVHD+ bins before?

I know, first world problems. I already know the answers to my questions but I'm looking for encouragement. I tried a couple Leica (7x42 UV+ and 7x35 Retrovid) just this morning and couldn't get on with either ergonomically so back they went to BH. Lovely optics though. For me, I'd guess their 8x32 UV+ would also be a non-starter. Maybe if I sell a Strat or something I can convince myself I need the 8x32 SF...

 

[ZDHart]

I know, first world problems. I already know the answers to my questions but I'm looking for encouragement. I tried a couple Leica (7x42 UV+ and 7x35 Retrovid) just this morning and couldn't get on with either ergonomically so back they went to BH. Lovely optics though. For me, I'd guess their 8x32 UV+ would also be a non-starter. Maybe if I sell a Strat or something I can convince myself I need the 8x32 SF...

Oh man... we have some significant interests in common. Picking a guitar to sell... I've done that a good few times. But I always wind up with even MORE guitars than before. These days more Teles than Strats.

 

[CSG]

Oh man... we have some significant interests in common. Picking a guitar to sell... I've done that a good few times. But I always wind up with even MORE guitars than before. These days more Teles than Strats.

Got those too and too many amps. I used to run a guitar forum around Fender guitars and amps and, somehow, over the years they multiplied. Now, I don't play much and find myself interested in different pursuits. Or, I could always sell a watch...

 

[ZDHart]

CSG... bottom line: if you fully enjoy the Conquest HDs and you aren't closely looking for optical differences between them and the SFs, you may not see enough difference to justify the extra $1400. (Buy a Tele Performer, instead. ) If you don't mind spending the money, you would probably enjoy having the SFs.

 

[ZDHart]

Or, I could always sell a watch...

...or guns, flashlights, or knives?

See you over at TDPRI or Strat Talk?

 

[CSG]

...or guns, flashlights, or knives?

See you over at TDPRI or Strat Talk?

Yeah, those too. I don't do guitar forums any more. 22 years of mine was enough.

 

[Troubador]

Yeah, those too. I don't do guitar forums any more. 22 of mine was enough.

I have just come back from 3 weeks on the Isle of Islay and (apart from my reviewing of Opticron's Verano BGA VHD 8x32) my binos were SF8x32 and Conquest HD. My opinion of these two is exactly the same as ZD's: SF simply has more clarity that is immediately obvious and getting really picky it does have a richer colour reproduction. None of this makes Conquest a kind of second-best loser, it is still one of my all time favourite binos. That said, SF's superiority isn't subtle, its clear, and in the coastal habitats that we frequent in the west of Scotland that big field of view is so useful.
So good luck with your decision and by all means sell a couple of Strats and get yourself an SF and a Tele. Yep I am a Tele-lover too!

Lee

 

[dorubird]

To step up from Conquest HD to SF is really more a matter of want, than a matter of need.

very well said

CSG,​

I tested these binoculars in the 10x42 version, not 8x32, but maybe it can help you for your "needs"

I had Conquest 10x42 hd and I can say that tested on a target with resolution lines show the same resolution from 10m as Victory SF 10x42. But if two binoculars have the same resolution, it does not mean that they have the same image and the same experience. There are clear differences.
So, the differences between Conq 10x42 and SF 10x42 are more about the aesthetics of the overall image than the resolution, contrast and brightness taken separately, to be honest. But SF has something special aesthetic that can only be explained by looking through it. Has a more immersive and three-dimensional image and it's very easy to watch through it. Having a longer focal length is easier and better corrected at the edges even if it has a wider field of view. It also has no chromatic aberrations and is a little more immune to stray lights. SF has a very "contagious" image, once you look through it, it "conquest" you
Mechanically there are no huge differences, but for me they are two important differences: the extraordinarily precise focus adjustment and better ergonomics. The only advantage of Conquest over SF is the smaller volume (but the same 795g)

So, even if both binoculars solve the same details during the day time and at night, it is clearly a more pleasant experience with SF binoculars than with Conquest, which can be seen as soon as you put them in sight.

 

[Singlereed]

I’ve been a long time user of the Conquests. In the summer, I tried them against the 8x32 Victory and the EL and NL Pure at RSPB Titchwell. I spent quite a while comparing them and went away unconvinced that it was worth upgrading. They all had their subtle plus points and I think you should try them for yourself. To be fair, my trial was from a fixed point, so limited experience, and I defer to others who have field tested them in varied conditions. But for me, there was no wow factor about the more expensive bins.

 

[CSG]

I have just come back from 3 weeks on the Isle of Islay and (apart from my reviewing of Opticron's Verano BGA VHD 8x32) my binos were SF8x32 and Conquest HD. My opinion of these two is exactly the same as ZD's: SF simply has more clarity that is immediately obvious and getting really picky it does have a richer colour reproduction. None of this makes Conquest a kind of second-best loser, it is still one of my all time favourite binos. That said, SF's superiority isn't subtle, its clear, and in the coastal habitats that we frequent in the west of Scotland that big field of view is so useful.
So good luck with your decision and by all means sell a couple of Strats and get yourself an SF and a Tele. Yep I am a Tele-lover too!

Lee

But I already have three Teles!

Once the return of the two Leicas (thread in the Leica forum) I sent back yesterday is complete, I'll probably order the SF 8x32s and if they are what I hope they are, I'll probably either sell my Conquest 8x32 HDs or put them in the Land Cruiser and sell the existing 8x42 Terras that ride in the center console or keep them in my camper van. Selling a guitar?? Sacrilege!

 

[Maljunulo]

"Is A really worth n times as much as B?" cannot be quantified, and is therefore (in my opinion) solely an intellectual exercise, which each must carry to his own individual conclusion.

I might also add the comment that OP seems to have asked the question after concluding that the answer is "no".

 

[CSG]

"Is A really worth n times as much as B?" cannot be quantified, and is therefore (in my opinion) solely an intellectual exercise, which each must carry to his own individual conclusion.

More an emotional rather than intellectual exercise...

 

[sudsdetailing]

But I already have three Teles!

Don't you know? We like even numbers here - just to tease of course 🤗

 

[Maljunulo]

More an emotional rather than intellectual exercise...

I was trying to be diplomatic.

 

[ZDHart]

But I already have three Teles!

Selling a guitar?? Sacrilege!

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.

 

[Paultricounty]

No one but you can make the 2.5x extra cost justification, for you. "Is it really worth it?" Perhaps so, or not. It's all in the estimation of the beholder and the beholder's pocket book. The point of diminishing returns, for binoculars, does set in pretty firmly at the Conquest HD level.

I've used a pair of Conquest HD 8x32 and 10x42 for going on eight years. This year, just for interest sake, I decided to check out the Victory SFs. Today I also have 8x32, 10x32, and 10x42 SF. While I do prefer using the SFs over the Conquest HDs, that doesn't make the Conquest HDs any less wonderful than I have "enjoyed them to be" for the last eight years - they are just as great as day one, for me. I didn't "need" the SFs, but I didn't mind spending the money for them either.

I have worked as a commercial photographer for decades, my eyesight is quite good, and I don't wear glasses with binoculars. Excellent visual image quality is something I have enjoyed for a lifetime and is quite important to me. The biggest difference that I find between Conquest HD and SF is that I see a noticeable difference in clarity and sharpness with the SFs. And, I like the color quality slightly more with the SF. But there isn't a dramatic difference, by any means, between them. Conquest HDs are quite sharp, crisp, and mechanically, the Conquest HDs are built!!!

Form factor - the Conquest HDs feel beefy, more "stocky" and are a bit shorter. The SFs give a bit leaner impression. They are longer, and have a rearward/eyepiece balance emphasis, which makes them feel quite light weight. They both have quick, light, and very smooth focusers - pretty much as good as focusers get: awesome.

As to whether 8x32 SF is "worth" the extra cost over 8x32 Conquest HD... that's all about the individual's pocket book, really. Either choice is an excellent choice and will serve quite wonderfully. If you don't mind spending the extra money, I think you'll find there is a bit of an edge up with the SFs. On the other hand, Conquest HD saves a good bit of money and performs exceptionally well.

To step up from Conquest HD to SF is really more a matter of want, than a matter of need.

My trio of 8x32s

Obvious to many here, I have mentioned my 8x32 UVHD+ bins numerous times before. They have sharpness, clarity and color quality surpassing anything else that I've experienced. But that's for a different thread.

Very interesting discussion. I to was bitten to the highend alphas as well. I had the Zeiss conquest 10x42HD and had bought the GPO in the same 10x42. I sold the Zeiss and was Difficult due to the fact I was kind of a Zeiss fan boy having collected Zeiss astronomical equipment for years. I thought the optics were comparable but liked the build quality much more on the GPO. It had that high end feel to it that was missing on the conquest.

Fast forward I decided on a pair of Swaro NL’s which was to me a dramatic improvement. So now I’m at the same place with 8x30/32’s adventure. I have a Kowa Genesis which replaced the conquest 8x32’s. I just bought the SF but haven’t taken out of box yet. I’m hoping that there will be the same wow difference I felt when comparing the 10x GPO to the 10x Swaro NL.

When I seen your post with the Leica’s I had to reply. I was very torn between those two binos for the highend 32’s. I wasn’t crazy of what I’m reading about how big the SF’s are compared to the UVHD or for any 32 for that matter. If the wow factor comparing to the Kowa it’s not there even if they’re nice I may wind up returning them for the form factor of the ultravid. Can you comment a bit comparing the SF to the Ultravids? That would be great. Thank you.

 

[Pinewood]

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