If you really value low edge aberrations, the SLC is the better binocular for you.I love the 15x56 SLCs and if money was no object I'd get the 10x56 SLCs on that basis alone, but with excellent condition used FLs half the price of a new pair of the SLCs...
It's mainly CA that annoys me - I don't mind non-flat field if the sweet spot is large enough.If you really value low edge aberrations, the SLC is the better binocular for you.
Andreas
No need to go to Rokslide, they are only into the new production glass. I have never seen any discussion of the Zeiss FL there. If you can get the FL 10X56 at a fair price go for it, I find the FL to be a stellar 10X56. I believe you actually have a better chance getting a good sample from Germany than anywhere else.
I believe you actually have a better chance getting a good sample from Germany than anywhere else.
The big difference is the CA. The FL has superb CA control, but the Conquest not so much.Has anyone compared the Conquest to the old FLs?
That speaks in turn for the FL...It's mainly CA that annoys me -
Good point! Swarovski's are ALWAYS better at low edge aberrations. That is their trademark.If you really value low edge aberrations, the SLC is the better binocular for you.
Andreas
I don't have any issues with the barely perceptible CA in the 15x56 SLC - I wonder whether 10x56 FL is significantly better or the 10x56 SLC worse. The Conquest's beyond the 8x30 seemed poor, and I know the 10x54HT was only okay - Is the FL that much better?That speaks in turn for the FL...
Andreas
My 10x40 Habicht is okay, but not stunning in that respect (admittedly it is a Porro). My SLC 7x50 is are pretty good.Good point! Swarovski's are ALWAYS better at low edge aberrations. That is their trademark.
Yes the FL is better than the HT and slightly better than the SLC.I don't have any issues with the barely perceptible CA in the 15x56 SLC - I wonder whether 10x56 FL is significantly better or the 10x56 SLC worse. The Conquest's beyond the 8x30 seemed poor, and I know the 10x54HT was only okay - Is the FL that much better?
I have the FL and SLC both in 10x56. In that configuration both handle CA quite well, with the FL maybe edging out the SLC. Andy and Andreas (especially post #58) pretty much nailed it on overall performance. There is no loser between them, but they are very different both physically and optically. Personally, I find the glare-crushing ability of the FLs second to none and thoroughly enjoy using them to view waterfowl and waders on bright, sunny days.I don't have any issues with the barely perceptible CA in the 15x56 SLC - I wonder whether 10x56 FL is significantly better or the 10x56 SLC worse. The Conquest's beyond the 8x30 seemed poor, and I know the 10x54HT was only okay - Is the FL that much better?
I thought what I said about the one still wrapped up was fairly obvious, referencing this photo. Roger quickly put a spare on the bin in order not to mess with the one it came with. Sorry now to have mentioned it just to poke fun at SSIƎZ, not worth the trouble. I wonder whether he follows our dissections.On the contrary, take a look further down those photos and you reach one showing the Conquest laying down with the contoured strap folded to show the legend ZEISS in capitals.
I use the 10x56 freehand during the day and on a tripod in the sky at night!The ones who have a 10x56 or 8x56, do you use them handhold? Or mostly mounted on a tripod?
I tried a 12x50 Leica a few months back and was very impressed at the stability, but if you think of how easy a heavy barreled revolver is to keep steady it makes absolute sense.The ones who have a 10x56 or 8x56, do you use them handhold? Or mostly mounted on a tripod?
I apologise for not reading your post carefully enough.I thought what I said about the one still wrapped up was fairly obvious, referencing this photo. Roger quickly put a spare on the bin in order not to mess with the one it came with. Sorry now to have mentioned it just to poke fun at SSIƎZ, not worth the trouble. I wonder whether he follows our dissections.
I wonder whether he follows our dissections.
I meant Roger of course, not Zeiss. You must really be enjoying your trip! Do share a photo if you have one.I am sure Zeiss do not mind the odd bit of fun being poked in their direction.
We have been exploring a part of northern England and southern Scotland that we have never visited before and it is very beautiful. It doesn't have the wild ruggedness of the west but the sheer lack of urban development and the mix of lowland grazing (sheep) and higher level rough grazing (also sheep) with small hamlets and farmsteads makes for a landscape easy on the eye. Unfortunately the narrow roads with no stopping places make photography impossible so despite us having our DSLRs with us we haven't taken any pics.I meant Roger of course, not Zeiss. You must really be enjoying your trip! Do share a photo if you have one.
I mostly use the 10x56 for astronomy, I tried them on a tripod once, the stability was nice, but it hurts my neck to look upward. You need a specialized parallelogram mount which are bulky. I prefer handheld for 10x, it's easier to brace my elbows against something. And easier to look upwards.The ones who have a 10x56 or 8x56, do you use them handhold? Or mostly mounted on a tripod?