It would be a onetime and final purchase so really confused. Appreciate ur help.
For the price of a new SLC, I would hunt for a good used Swaro EL or Zeiss SF.
I have had all those binoculars and there is no doubt that the Swarovski SLC 8x42 is the best. Optically and quality wise. It is also the most expensive. You generally get what you pay for.
I have a Conquest HD 8x42 that is my current main/heavy use/beater binocular. It is a very solid pair of binoculars with no glaring flaws and is easily comparable in many ways to the other alphas. The eye-cups are junk and I've had issues with both the originals and the replacements I received from Zeiss. I bought it used for a rather cheap price as it has some lens issues/damage that do not effect the view.
I've owned the SLC-HD (the old model that was two-toned) and would say it is one of the best binoculars I've ever had; exceptionally sharp and minimal distortion. I would highly recommend this model IF able to be bought at a reduced price (I bought mine as a new-old stock and it was several hundred cheaper than 'new').
The Monarch HG would be my pick if buying new. Optically I'd say it is certainly on par with the Zeiss Conquest HD, but lighter and with a wider field of view. Nikon has had varying levels of after-market service so that is something to consider.
I have no experience with the Trinovid but I find its stated FoV disappointing.
My hit list
In my opinion, the Swarovski is a class ahead of all other glasses, that Conquest is also very nice but unfortunately has a somewhat small field of vision!
The Leica and Nikon have visible chromatic aberrations, and I don't find the center focus on both glasses to be optimal!
The Nikon is advertised with flat field, but I find the edge sharpness very poor.
For me it is very clear that swarovski is not only optically the best glass but also of the binocular case, a tank for life.
Well, the Zeiss isn't exactly one of the wide-angle binoculars either!
The SLC is better that the HG but with binocular's like most everything you have diminishing returns as you move up in price. IMO it is but you have to decide that for yourself based on your need's and how much of an optical perfectionist you are and what your budget is. The aperture is usually what makes the most difference in low light performance with the transmission next. The Conquest has 93% transmission, the SLC has 92% transmission and the HG is 88% transmission. Usually you are not going to notice a 2% difference in transmission so the SLC and Conquest would be about equal in low light performance with the HG being slightly less bright in low light.Thanx, Is there a huge difference between HG and SLC? Is SLC double the price of HG worth it? How is the low light performance of HG? Little less or very less than Conquest or SLC? appreciate ur help.
Correct, Andreas, and honestly that is the main reason I'd have gone with the Monarch HG if I'd been buying new - I just happened to get the Zeiss at a much reduced price.