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

[henry link]

Would you rate the HT 42's over the FL 8x56's
I've never looked through HT's

I compared them here: Encounters with Zeiss 8x42 HT and SF

 

[lmans66]

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?

Interesting....I believe the SF armor is the same as the HT, right? And both of those bins have been around for many years. Could it possibly be down to 'supply' and what is needed to make the armor? Given today's supply problems, perhaps they need to improvise a bit.

 

[Paultricounty]

Interesting....I believe the SF armor is the same as the HT, right? And both of those bins have been around for many years. Could it possibly be down to 'supply' and what is needed to make the armor? Given today's supply problems, perhaps they need to improvise a bit.

I already replied the mystery was solved. Zeiss now uses a protectant on the SF rubber and have started using it on conquest as well. The rubber is a different compound than any Zeiss prior to the SF. So about 5 years on the 42’s and about two years for the 32’s.

 

[[email protected]]

Yes! If you can afford it, get the SF.

 

[eronald]

My feeling these days is that any binocular you have with you is enough binocular. The true price you pay is the weight.

Edmund

 

[CSG]

OP here. The more I thought about my own experience with the 8x32 SF vs. the 8x32 Conquest HD, even had I gotten a properly working SF, I came to this conclusion: Yes, the SF optics are slightly better, no question but only very slightly. The wider FOV wasn't something I took much note of as the HD's FOV is 420'. But that damn front hinge on a binocular that size for my size 8 or so hands was in the way and uncomfortable. The eyecups were far superior to the Conquests' but, in the end, they are not worth 2.5 the price (or 3 times in my personal case as I bought the Conquests back in 2013 for $719). I think even had I received a superlative working pair of the SFs, that hinge would have caused me to send them back in the end. I didn't like the hinge on the 8x42s either or on Swaros for that matter. I LOVE my 8x42 HTs and love my 8x32 Conquest HDs.

As I've posted many times, I'm not a birder though I enjoy looking at them and have the usual field guides and phone apps. I just am not into it the way most on this forum are. I don't care about the minutiae of the differences between two sparrows that look almost identical. I don't need to use my bins on jungle field trips or bird at dawn/dusk. I only mention this so my opinion is taken more of that as a naturalist than birder. My requirements are likely quite different than serious dedicated birders. Still, I want the best optics I can afford for the things I do look at, both earthly and heavenly.

 

[Paultricounty]

OP here. The more I thought about my own experience with the 8x32 SF vs. the 8x32 Conquest HD, even had I gotten a properly working SF, I came to this conclusion: Yes, the SF optics are slightly better, no question but only very slightly. The wider FOV wasn't something I took much note of as the HD's FOV is 420'. But that damn front hinge on a binocular that size for my size 8 or so hands was in the way and uncomfortable. The eyecups were far superior to the Conquests' but, in the end, they are not worth 2.5 the price (or 3 times in my personal case as I bought the Conquests back in 2013 for $719). I think even had I received a superlative working pair of the SFs, that hinge would have caused me to send them back in the end. I didn't like the hinge on the 8x42s either or on Swaros for that matter. I LOVE my 8x42 HTs and love my 8x32 Conquest HDs.

As I've posted many times, I'm not a birder though I enjoy looking at them and have the usual field guides and phone apps. I just am not into it the way most on this forum are. I don't care about the minutiae of the differences between two sparrows that look almost identical. I don't need to use my bins on jungle field trips or bird at dawn/dusk. I only mention this so my opinion is taken more of that as a naturalist than birder. My requirements are likely quite different than serious dedicated birders. Still, I want the best optics I can afford for the things I do look at, both earthly and heavenly.

CSG I’m the same way on many things, not a dedicated viewer of anything. I enjoy all types of viewing experiences as well as the minutia of all the product differences.

The facts as stated, ergonomically the SF didn’t work for you and was not enjoyable to use. i’m sure you would agree putting specs aside that it’s only an opinion that they’re only slightly better than a conquest. I found them to be substantially an improvement over a Conquest. Opinions on value are even more subjective. I don’t think a conquest is worth $1000 as much, as I don’t think an SF is worth $2000, but I’m willing to pay that money for that qualitative difference, which for me jumps right out at me. Which by the way I enjoy every time I pick them up. Same with NL’s, EL’s and the UVHD+ and new to the clan the Noctivids. I like all my $1000 level binoculars, I love all my $2000 binoculars, if you get my drift ✌🏼

I am much the mechanical enthusiast as I am an optical enthusiast, and I appreciate the differences in quality of different levels of devices.

As far as the SF eyecups being far superior to the conquest, almost any binocular eyecups are superior to the conquest😏🤭

HAPPY NEW YEAR.

Paul

 

[eronald]

I compared my used-buy Ultravid to an SF x42 Sure, the SF wins; but not enough to warrant the price difference. I think if one really really likes a view, then the buy is easy, otherwise when the differences are incremental, reason grabs the handbrake 😀

 

[GrampaTom]

CONTEXT! Matters. Good stuff

 

[Paultricounty]

I compared my used-buy Ultravid to an SF x42 Sure, the SF wins; but not enough to warrant the price difference. I think if one really really likes a view, then the buy is easy, otherwise when the differences are incremental, reason grabs the handbrake 😀

😁 it’s all relative as said here more times than I can remember. But to quote part of your sentence “not enough to-warrant the price difference” Let’s keep in mind the person buying the Diamondback is saying that about the Monarch 5 and the zeiss Tera guy is saying that about the the conquest or MHG.


The best usually cost the most. There’s nobody here that if somebody handed the a $2500 binocular and $1000 binocular and said, which one do you want to keep, would say, I’ll take the $1000 binoculars because the others are not worth the money😏.

Hand brakes are used when parking , not to slow you down, that’s what wives are for……

Happy new year

Paul

 

[eronald]

😁 it’s all relative as said here more times than I can remember. But to quote part of your sentence “not enough to-warrant the price difference” Let’s keep in mind the person buying the Diamondback is saying that about the Monarch 5 and the zeiss Tera guy is saying that about the the conquest or MHG.


The best usually cost the most. There’s nobody here that if somebody handed the a $2500 binocular and $1000 binocular and said, which one do you want to keep, would say, I’ll take the $1000 binoculars because the others are not worth the money😏.

Hand brakes are used when parking , not to slow you down, that’s what wives are for……

Happy new year

Paul

You are right. And still I think that there are cases when adopting a utilitarian point of view changes ones approach to things.

I have a nice Leica glass I bought as a demo, which I taped and which I bang around, I have a superb Zeiss pocket glass which I didn't take along today because it needs care - and so taking the utilitarian binocular on a walk me today allowed me to glance at urban details without thinking twice about the instrument.

BTW, Happy New Year to all here!

Edmund

 

[Maljunulo]

The difference between my EL SV 10X42 and my 8x32 SF was sufficiently dramatic that I gave away the Swarovski binocular to my #1 granddaughter.

 

[Paultricounty]

The difference between my EL SV 10X42 and my 8x32 SF was sufficiently dramatic that I gave away the Swarovski binocular to my #1 granddaughter.

Wow that’s quite an endorsement for the 8 x 32SF. Many people here rave about the ELSV 42s.
I would think that #2 granddaughter is not gonna be too happy about that. 🤭

happy new year
Paul

 

[Maljunulo]

Wow that’s quite an endorsement for the 8 x 32SF. Many people here rave about the ELSV 42s.
I would think that #2 granddaughter is not gonna be too happy about that. 🤭

happy new year
Paul

#2 granddaughter got my Nikon Venturer LX 10X42.

 

[Paultricounty]

#2 granddaughter got my Nikon Venturer LX 10X42.

Happy New Year.

Lucky grandkids. So then, we have Swarovski and Nikon fangirls. Somebody might like those Zeiss soon.


Paul

 

[Maljunulo]

Happy New Year.

Somebody might like those Zeiss soon.


Paul

Inevitably, but I hope not particularly soon.

 

[Paultricounty]

Inevitably, but I hope not particularly soon.

Hey did your SF have that white substance on the exterior?

 

[ZDHart]

The difference between my EL SV 10X42 and my 8x32 SF was sufficiently dramatic that I gave away the Swarovski binocular to my #1 granddaughter.

Zeiss 10x32 SF are quite awesome, as well! They pair well with the 8x32 SF. I don't use my x42s very much these days.

 

[Maljunulo]

Hey did your SF have that white substance on the exterior?

No, I’d did/does not.

 

[birdcat]

I'm glad the white powder was finally confirmed to be a non-issue officially.