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

[Paultricounty]

I've been told (twice now) by people in the trade, that the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 is actually the 'guts' of the old FL in different clothing (this crossover doesn't apply to any other model in the Conquest range). This has been disputed on the Forum because the published specs for the Conquest are different specification to the FL and the body is of different dimensions - my answer to that is, Zeiss wouldn't let on that a Conquest is very nearly as good as a Victory, so they publish what they want you to know.

So, in answer to the original question - on the evidence of sources whom I trust, and my own eyes (as I've just bought the 8x32 Conquest), the Victory is not worth 2.5x more than the Conquest 8x32.
.

I would love to know if the conquest 8x32 is same optics as the FL line. I had tried the FL a while back and was very impressed. I’d be shocked if that was the case. I’d have to do some research on that but I was under the impression the FL used fluorite in there optics & Conquest does not, I could be wrong. I never bought it because I wasn’t ready at that time to spend that much on binoculars. My purchasing journey started at the around $500 mark, with a Nikon M7.

Later on I did move up the conquest but had my own personal issues with them and traded for the Kowa 8x33 Genesis, which I still own and are my go to 32’s (33’s in this case).

As far as the FL being worth 2.5x more to me is more of a personal opinion. If the optics are the same as the FL, I would certainly agree they are not worth that premium.

As far as the Conquest and Fl , that’s an interesting conversation and even if the optics are not the same there is still build quality and materials to take into mind.

Of course then we move to the discussion here, which might become a little easier, is the SF worth 2.5x more than the conquest. And again thats a personal opinion as well. As far as optics and build quality, the SF it’s clearly in a class of its own with the finest and highest alpha binoculars being manufactured today. The pinnacle of optical and mechanical design in binoculars , in my opinion. To me there is more to it than just an incremental improvement from really good binos to the best In the world. There is the feel of the equipment, the pride of ownership, to some folks, the prestige and of course resale will always be strong, just look at what used FL’s are selling for.

Thank you
Paul

 

[Hermann]

I would love to know if the conquest 8x32 is same optics as the FL line. I had tried the FL a while back and was very impressed. I’d be shocked if that was the case. I’d have to do some research on that but I was under the impression the FL used fluorite in there optics & Conquest does not, I could be wrong.

AFAIK they're not the same optics. At least that's what I've been told by someone who should know. I also found the optics somewhat different when I did a thorough comparison in the field many years ago.

Of course then we move to the discussion here, which might become a little easier, is the SF worth 2.5x more than the conquest. And again thats a personal opinion as well. As far as optics and build quality, the SF it’s clearly in a class of its own with the finest and highest alpha binoculars being manufactured today. The pinnacle of optical and mechanical design in binoculars , in my opinion. To me there is more to it than just an incremental improvement from really good binos to the best In the world.

Sure. On the other hand the Conquest 8x32 is a very nice pair that's pretty close in performance to the top alphas. It's also very robust, almost indestructible. I find I could happily live a Conquest 8x32 no problem.

Hermann

 

[Peregrine Took]

I would love to know if the conquest 8x32 is same optics as the FL line. ... I’d have to do some research on that...

No need, I just told you.

 

[Maljunulo]

I would love to know if the conquest 8x32 is same optics as the FL line. I had tried the FL a while back and was very impressed. I’d be shocked if that was the case. I’d have to do some research on that but I was under the impression the FL used fluorite in there optics & Conquest does not, I could be wrong. I never bought it because I wasn’t ready at that time to spend that much on binoculars. My purchasing journey started at the around $500 mark, with a Nikon M7.

If we are going to veer off in this direction let's be sure we understand the distinction between Fluorite (CaF2 a mineral) and Fluoride Glass (optical glasses containing compounds of fluorine).

I think very few binoculars used fluorite lenses in their optical train, and they had eye-watering prices. For the average binocular, there would be no advantage whatsoever.

 

[Paultricounty]

No need, I just told you.

Lol, it appears there are others that have alternative facts 🙄😉. Unless we had them side by for a comparison or a partial schematic we can’t be sure. A he said , she said won’t do it for a lot of people who are shelling out hard earned money for ridiculously expensive binoculars.
Thank you

 

[Peregrine Took]

^^^ Oh dear. I'm just passing on the word of two trusted industry insiders, who seem to know what they're talking about. Folks are obviously free to make of things what they will, including closing one's mind, and a flat refusal to entertain information offered in good faith.

Getting back to the original point of the thread - which was to offers opinions that might help the original poster - if the information is of interest and does indeed help him decide whether or not to shell out for expensive binoculars, the fact that others feel the need to prove or disprove it for themselves, is irrelevant.
.

 

[Paultricounty]

The quality control is a little disappointing but to be honest I don’t think I could tell there was a problem looking through the binoculars, only looking at them. And that is part of the reason I didn’t notice these issues right away. I looked through them and not at them when testing. Only when I got out the LED flashlight and went looking did I find these issues and Zeiss has taken care of it with no questions. I still think they are great binoculars and would do it again but naturally I would have preferred to save the extra shipping it cost me to send them in. My 3rd pair with a higher serial number appears to be without these issues.

Finally received the replacement SF today. Was hoping they would be different than the first ones with the powdery substance on them, no such luck. Although the eye cups work as they should. Were the two you had bought in sealed box similar to this?

As you had said it does wipe off but what is the issue taking place, could this be a issue that could deteriorate sooner than expected. There must be something going on here for the rubber to have this substance on them. The fact that Zeiss can’t answer that question makes it more troubling. What do you think?

 

[Paultricounty]

^^^ Oh dear. I'm just passing on the word of two trusted industry insiders, who seem to know what they're talking about. Folks are obviously free to make of things what they will, including closing one's mind, and a flat refusal to entertain information offered in good faith.

Getting back to the original point of the thread - which was to offers opinions that might help the original poster - if the information is of interest and does indeed help him decide whether or not to shell out for expensive binoculars, the fact that others feel the need to prove or disprove it for themselves, is irrelevant.
.

I have absolutely no doubt in your sources and respect everybody’s posts here. My opinion doesn’t matter, we’re all just discussing our love for the hobby. Though I think you might agree that unless the original poster knows you personally they may want a little more proof to feel confident they are putting their money in the right area.

Now could I ask you a favor to reach out to your trusted sources in the industry and see what they might know about this white powdery substance on these few pairs SF binoculars that another member and I have experienced? See pictures a few posts ago.
Thank you
paul

 

[birdcat]

Finally received the replacement SF today. Was hoping they would be different than the first ones with the powdery substance on them, no such luck. Although the eye cups work as they should. Were the two you had bought in sealed box similar to this?

As you had said it does wipe off but what is the issue taking place, could this be a issue that could deteriorate sooner than expected. There must be something going on here for the rubber to have this substance on them. The fact that Zeiss can’t answer that question makes it more troubling. What do you think?

Your pair looks similar to what I received as far as residue. The residue came off by itself after using them a few times. I still think it’s just a result of off gassing while sitting in a box. I should get my replacement pair next week from Zeiss.

 

[CSG]

^^^ Oh dear. I'm just passing on the word of two trusted industry insiders, who seem to know what they're talking about. Folks are obviously free to make of things what they will, including closing one's mind, and a flat refusal to entertain information offered in good faith.

Getting back to the original point of the thread - which was to offers opinions that might help the original poster - if the information is of interest and does indeed help him decide whether or not to shell out for expensive binoculars, the fact that others feel the need to prove or disprove it for themselves, is irrelevant.
.

Without naming names or telling us your credentials as to why you have such insider information, your claims are just more internet ramblings.

Being the OP, I think I posted a while back that I came to my senses about the 8x32 SF. I have no doubt they're fabulous bins but having only paid $719 back in 2013 for my 8x32 Conquest HDs and using them again today walking a few miles in the Snake River Canyon (Idaho), I have zero doubt now that I might gain a couple hundred dollars of enjoyment over my Conquests but certainly nowhere near the $1531 cost difference from what I paid to what I would pay for the SFs today.

 

[CSG]

Finally received the replacement SF today. Was hoping they would be different than the first ones with the powdery substance on them, no such luck. Although the eye cups work as they should. Were the two you had bought in sealed box similar to this?

As you had said it does wipe off but what is the issue taking place, could this be a issue that could deteriorate sooner than expected. There must be something going on here for the rubber to have this substance on them. The fact that Zeiss can’t answer that question makes it more troubling. What do you think?

I'm not sure I could keep those even if it were only cosmetic. Not for that kind of money. None of my Zeiss bins ever had any residue on them when fresh from the box.

 

[Paultricounty]

I'm not sure I could keep those even if it were only cosmetic. Not for that kind of money. None of my Zeiss bins ever had any residue on them when fresh from the box.

That was the second pair from a sealed box that had no appearance they were ever opened. Im now waiting to see what zeiss repair will Say. Birdcat, another member posting here had two of the same binos in sealed boxes which had the same issue. He wiped them down and moved on.

 

[Paultricounty]

Your pair looks similar to what I received as far as residue. The residue came off by itself after using them a few times. I still think it’s just a result of off gassing while sitting in a box. I should get my replacement pair next week from Zeiss.

Please let us know when you get your replacement how they are. And if there is the powdery residue. My wife says it looks like mold. She said it looks like that was on these thin rubber boxes that she kept old knickknacks in, in the basement. 😳

 

[james holdsworth]

My take on Conquest vs. FL 32 mm

Conquest has larger ocular lens
Conquest had less astigmatism and different distortion profile
FL has fluorite in the lens system, Conquest does not
Coating colour and intensity differ
Conquest has warmer colours and creamy whites compared to FL
FL lens path shorter

My amateur verdict - not the same “guts.”

 

[Paultricounty]

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!

Because you want them, you’ll love them, you’ll know you have the best, they will last a lifetime and every time you use them, you’ll go , wow!
And even better, you’ll probably never look back and say, I should’ve bought the conquest 😀

 

[eronald]

Because you want them, you’ll love them, you’ll know you have the best, they will last a lifetime and every time you use them, you’ll go , wow!
And even better, you’ll probably never look back and say, I should’ve bought the conquest 😀

Because good is good enough. Because the $1500 difference funds a couple of weekend trips.

Edmund

 

[Hermann]

Finally received the replacement SF today. Was hoping they would be different than the first ones with the powdery substance on them, no such luck. Although the eye cups work as they should. Were the two you had bought in sealed box similar to this?

As you had said it does wipe off but what is the issue taking place, could this be a issue that could deteriorate sooner than expected. There must be something going on here for the rubber to have this substance on them. The fact that Zeiss can’t answer that question makes it more troubling. What do you think?

I suspect it's talcum powder, often used as a preservative for rubber based compunds. Or something like it.

I think you're making a big fuss about nothing. Wipe it off and that's it.

Hermann

 

[CSG]

Because you want them, you’ll love them, you’ll know you have the best, they will last a lifetime and every time you use them, you’ll go , wow!
And even better, you’ll probably never look back and say, I should’ve bought the conquest 😀

But I already bought the Conquests in 2013. And, like eronald said, there are a whole lot of other things to do with the $$ than get a slight increase in performance, especially because I already own a pair of the finest binoculars ever made (IMO), the Victory HT 8x42s.

 

[Hermann]

All this speculation about the FL and the Conquest having the same optics is pretty ludicrous. Anyone who ever used them side by side knows they're different because they are. See James Holdworth's post (#94) for a list of the (rather obvious) differences.

Quoting some anonymous "industry sources" to "prove" they are the same is well off the mark.

Hermann

 

[dorubird]

Of course, FL and Conquest HD are not two identical series because they have other specifications (FOV, eyerelief, mechanics, price etc.). However, the light transmission curve is identical in the Conquest HD and FL series. Zeiss gave up the FL series and was replaced with the cheaper Conquest HD series, but in my opinion just as efficient, to some specifications even better.