Very recently I purchased an 8x32 Victory SF off of the classifieds here on BF. I have been using a 10x42 SF for the last three years and used to have the 8x42 as well.
Previously (briefly) I had handled one 8x32 SF and had some concerns about their size and comfort to hold. I’m not very tall but seem to have larger hands than most but decided to see how the SF 32’s handled (again). I also bought a 10x32 SF from Eurooptic to compare all of them and see which I preferred the most
Well to get to the point, they might be a long 32mm optic but they still don’t work for me which is a shame because their smaller form factor was the huge selling point! My palms measure 4.25” wide (10.8cm) and I found the 32 SF a bit uncomfortable to hold. I can get my pinky, ring, and middle finger into the opening between the bridges but they are cramped and it is not a hold I would want to do very often and for long. Needless to say I am the person who can never have a 32mm MeoStar or Ultravid because of how small they are, and apparently the SF’s too.
So I will stick to the 10x42 SF and still want for nothing (maybe something a bit smaller!).
Also, I did a few comparisons in case others out there find these interesting.
The 8x32 and 10x32 SF’s are definitely top tier despite the smaller objective. The 10x32 SF’s are as bright as $1000 10x42mm optics. Directly compared to a Leupold Golden Ring HD 10x42 and a Vortex Razor HD 10x42 (both Japanese) the 10x32 SF’s are just as bright and show just as much detail at night. The 8x32 is the brightest of the four, but obviously has lower magnification, wider FOV, and physics on its side . It really does speak volumes for “alpha” optics. However, as can be seen in the photos, the 32mm SF is as large as the 42mm Razor HD so that might sway some. At night the 8x32 SF is as bright as the 10x42 which would be expected given the exit pupil sizes.
During daylight observation the 10x42 SF and both 32 mm SF’s are all equally bright. I will say that I think the newer SF’s might show more contrast than the older 42 SF’s. I haven’t tried the new SFL’s so I don’t know how they compare but I wonder two things: is Zeiss applying the same coatings to the SFL’s and SF’s now (SFL’s are touted as having good color representation) and do the newer 42mm SF’s show more contrast like the 32mm ones seem to?
Needless to say I am still a huge fan of the SF line and still highly recommend them. Also, I don’t wear glasses and did not have any eye placement issues with any SF, even the 10x32.
Previously (briefly) I had handled one 8x32 SF and had some concerns about their size and comfort to hold. I’m not very tall but seem to have larger hands than most but decided to see how the SF 32’s handled (again). I also bought a 10x32 SF from Eurooptic to compare all of them and see which I preferred the most
Well to get to the point, they might be a long 32mm optic but they still don’t work for me which is a shame because their smaller form factor was the huge selling point! My palms measure 4.25” wide (10.8cm) and I found the 32 SF a bit uncomfortable to hold. I can get my pinky, ring, and middle finger into the opening between the bridges but they are cramped and it is not a hold I would want to do very often and for long. Needless to say I am the person who can never have a 32mm MeoStar or Ultravid because of how small they are, and apparently the SF’s too.
So I will stick to the 10x42 SF and still want for nothing (maybe something a bit smaller!).
Also, I did a few comparisons in case others out there find these interesting.
The 8x32 and 10x32 SF’s are definitely top tier despite the smaller objective. The 10x32 SF’s are as bright as $1000 10x42mm optics. Directly compared to a Leupold Golden Ring HD 10x42 and a Vortex Razor HD 10x42 (both Japanese) the 10x32 SF’s are just as bright and show just as much detail at night. The 8x32 is the brightest of the four, but obviously has lower magnification, wider FOV, and physics on its side . It really does speak volumes for “alpha” optics. However, as can be seen in the photos, the 32mm SF is as large as the 42mm Razor HD so that might sway some. At night the 8x32 SF is as bright as the 10x42 which would be expected given the exit pupil sizes.
During daylight observation the 10x42 SF and both 32 mm SF’s are all equally bright. I will say that I think the newer SF’s might show more contrast than the older 42 SF’s. I haven’t tried the new SFL’s so I don’t know how they compare but I wonder two things: is Zeiss applying the same coatings to the SFL’s and SF’s now (SFL’s are touted as having good color representation) and do the newer 42mm SF’s show more contrast like the 32mm ones seem to?
Needless to say I am still a huge fan of the SF line and still highly recommend them. Also, I don’t wear glasses and did not have any eye placement issues with any SF, even the 10x32.
