For those more experienced than me how much difference is there between these two? I’m looking at 8x42 after using 8x32 Conquests forever and I know FL are out of production but I’m seeing a few available. I know its all subjective but is the extra cost for more contemporary SF worth it over the FL?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Victory FL vs SF (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Crazyjoe
- Start date
You will pay a LOT of money over the exceptional conquests, to get something just a bit better.
It's only worth it if you must have the best.
I sold some 8x42 conquests to a mate, and still get to see them.... every time I look through them, I wonder why I went on the upgrade wagon.
I finally ended up with 2nd hand FL's, and they are superb, but those conquests are really good, and for the money, astonishingly good.
The SF's are amazing, but at such a cost..... I would be happy with Conquests, FL's and SF's.... all superb. But SF's are huge money.
I'd go middle ground and go FL.... which will also hold good money, as people love them.
It's only worth it if you must have the best.
I sold some 8x42 conquests to a mate, and still get to see them.... every time I look through them, I wonder why I went on the upgrade wagon.
I finally ended up with 2nd hand FL's, and they are superb, but those conquests are really good, and for the money, astonishingly good.
The SF's are amazing, but at such a cost..... I would be happy with Conquests, FL's and SF's.... all superb. But SF's are huge money.
I'd go middle ground and go FL.... which will also hold good money, as people love them.
jan van daalen
Well-known member
Are you looking for extreme wide angle, balanced and sharp to the edge, go for the SF. If not go for the FL. Nobody can make that decision for you.
Jan
I have the impression that the Conquests are Zeiss-assembled Kamakura products, and equivalent to some of the Nikon Monarchs and the Trinovid HD. The Nikons can be bought fairly cheaply, ie about 20% of the cost of an SF. These Kamakura brothers are optically solid and physically robust, they seem to be an unbeatable value proposition even though they are nowhere near an SF by any measure. Some people need the full three star Michelin menu, but others are very happy with the one star version that leaves some bills in the wallet.
Edmund
I can't speak to FLs, never having had them.
Comparing Conquest HD to SF, having multiples of each, I will say that the SFs do have just a bit of an edge in clarity, sharpness, and color quality over the Conquest HD. Mechanically, they're both superb. Conquests are beefy in build (as you know from your 8x32s) and SFs are a bit more on the refined side of things.
But that said, the Conquest HD is fine enough that the step up to SF is not a matter of need, but merely of want.
Comparing Conquest HD to SF, having multiples of each, I will say that the SFs do have just a bit of an edge in clarity, sharpness, and color quality over the Conquest HD. Mechanically, they're both superb. Conquests are beefy in build (as you know from your 8x32s) and SFs are a bit more on the refined side of things.
But that said, the Conquest HD is fine enough that the step up to SF is not a matter of need, but merely of want.
Like I said in a similar thread that I started wondering about SF vs. C HD, I came to the same conclusion after a walk with the HDs yesterday. Save for the crappy eyecups (by comparison to my 8x42 HTs, every Swaro I've ever handled as well as Leica), I couldn't justify the increase in cost, especially as I already own the best 8x42s I've ever looked through.
I appreciate the advice. I understand it’s a personal thing but I’m not in a situation to try many out, especially FLs given they are out of production. I often feel like a troglodyte when trying out alphas and I just don’t see the £500-£1000 difference between my conquests and the bins I’m trying out while others wax lyrical about clarity, FOV etc. Better certainly but not in relation to the conquests.
On quick or casual observation, some of the optical differences between Conquest HD and SF, for example, may not be immediately apparent. I'd say that users may need to pay a bit closer attention to see the somewhat subtle differences. And because the differences can seem subtle or perhaps not quite so obviously apparent, for many users, jumping from $1000 Conquest HDs to $2300 SFs makes little sense. Even sub-$500 binoculars can deliver very good optical performance.
But for those who seek to gain whatever incremental improvements that they possibly can, those who are especially intent on achieving the finest view possible - making the jump gets you there, pocketbook willing.
One can thoroughly enjoy the views using a $480 pair of Opticron Travellers, for example. The point of diminishing returns does begin to enter the equation at around $500, and especially so at around $1000. There is no need to spend $1000, or especially $2500 or $3000 to obtain binoculars with sharp, crisp, beautiful views. But those high-end options can deliver the ultimate edge in views - for a price.
My view is that if one is a serious birder or user of optics and has the funds, getting the best makes sense. If one is like me, a casual user but one who owns two alpha bins and can see the difference, however small, it's hard to justify the very top tier vs. the Conquest, SLC, or Trinovid tier of bins. If I was a serious as some users here about birding, I would pay the extra to feel confident I had the best optics available.
Conndomat
United States of Europe
Hi Joe,
it is a question of experience and preoccupation with things.
A beginner will hardly recognize the differences between a Beethoven and a Brahms symphony, if you deal with the matter you will quickly recognize, ah Brahms, typically Beethoven ...
In the end, the alphas are usually a little better than the subalphas, sometimes only 5-10%, but they make up the price.
The biggest optical difference between the FL and the SF is practically in the larger FOV of the SF and that it has a greater edge definition.
The Conquest is closer to the optical design of the FL than the SF.
You could order an SF as a trial, there are 14 days right of return!
Personally, I always find it difficult to test binoculars in a specialist shop, you get a first impression of whether binoculars meet your requirements usually only becomes apparent after repeated use under different conditions.
The FL is unfortunately only used, but if you find a well-preserved one you can't go wrong with this glass, the FL is solidly built and has very good optical properties, it is still state-of-the-art.
Andreas
As has already been said - the Conquests are truly exceptional at their price point. Another point to consider about the FLs is they are part of the Zeiss Victory Series and the warranty transfers to subsequent owners. Buying used shouldn’t be an issue.
Last edited:
though somewhat dated, the review (linked below) done by cornell lab in 2013 does include the FL (8x32) and found it to be their top performer in clarity/sharpness. Take a look especially at the value related to performance graphs (though remember to update anything you're considering to modern/used prices).
Best Binoculars: Cornell Lab Review 2013
Noteably absent that year is the SF, but you can infer where it may have placed by the fact that the Swaro EL 8.5x42 and EL 8x32 (swarovision models) were included and both scored just a hair lower in this metric. I haven't used the FL or SF, but I have the Victory 8x42 HT and find it may be a hair sharper than the EL8.5 (more appreciably sharper than the EL32), and it was still ranked just below the FL32. This isn't the first time I've heard top-level acclaim of the FL32 (even without the AK prisms!), and I have to admit this review made me take another look at Ebay... that are there, but have retained their price remarkably well (unfortunately).
Good luck in your search, and in your battle against upgraditis.
Best Binoculars: Cornell Lab Review 2013
Noteably absent that year is the SF, but you can infer where it may have placed by the fact that the Swaro EL 8.5x42 and EL 8x32 (swarovision models) were included and both scored just a hair lower in this metric. I haven't used the FL or SF, but I have the Victory 8x42 HT and find it may be a hair sharper than the EL8.5 (more appreciably sharper than the EL32), and it was still ranked just below the FL32. This isn't the first time I've heard top-level acclaim of the FL32 (even without the AK prisms!), and I have to admit this review made me take another look at Ebay... that are there, but have retained their price remarkably well (unfortunately).
Good luck in your search, and in your battle against upgraditis.
An update from me. I was fortunate to be able to borrow a pair of SF for a fortnight. After using side by side with my conquests I really don’t see how to justify the additional cost. Yes the SFs are clearly better than the conquests but only marginally. And certainly not £1500 better. The key decider for me was that there was no situation where the SF let me identify something which the conquests didn’t and this included at very low light. Yes the image was slightly crisper and clearer but again not enough to justify £1500. I think I’ll invest in a decent pair of compacts that I can have in me at all times which my child can also use for a couple of hundred quid instead of £1500 for a pair of ore owned alphas.
Hard to disagree with. The gains are slight, but they are there.
You also get better build generally with the alphas, and better warranty.
But conquests are fantastic bins, and for the money, exceptional in my opinion.
I stated before that I probably shouldn't have gone on the upgrade path with my conquests, it wasn't really worth it.
However, I did end up with a mint 2nd hand pair of FL's, which are just incredible, and the same as you, I bought some Swaro CL8x25's for when I want a binocular, but don't really😅..... if you know what i mean.... ie paddle boarding, concert etc.
All in £1740 for both, still cheaper than 1x Alpha bin new!!
If you are in the market for pocket bins, the 'alpha' pocket bins are superb, and they are all around the £500-600 area.
My Swaros are more impressive as a bino to me than my FL's..... not because they are better, but performance for the money and size simply blows me away.
And I use them a lot.
It's very easy to get carried away with other peoples' opinions on binos on this forum. But it's got to be worth it to YOU.
My mate who bought my conquests off me wouldnt change them at all. They work for him, as they did for me.
I think the best part of the decision making process is the washing away of “fear of missing out” from not having alphas.
I was going to go for the 8x20 ultravids but while I think they’d suit my needs for bins when I don’t need bins (a phrase I’ll be using from now on!) I fear the sweet spot may be hard for my 7 year old to hit so May go cheaper after reading positive thing’s about the 8x25 Terra Ed’s. They are also a price I’m more comfortable hanging around a 7 yr olds neck! The bonus is I have enough left over from the bin budget to take the family on holiday for a week!
Joe... I understand being quite content with Conquest HDs. I was for eight years. They're excellent bins. That said, I do prefer my SFs to my Conquest HDs, for that extra bit of clarity and detail - but I use them all, happily.
What interests me: I have seen numerous people on this forum state that their criterion for optical quality is whether one can "identify" a type of bird. Surprises me a little. That's a bit of a low bar, for me personally. But certainly, if that is about all that a birder wishes from a binocular, that's their business. I'm not necessarily a "birder", though I frequently enjoy watching the birds and trying to figure out what kind of birds they are. And whether birds, or other wildlife, concerts, sports, people watching, whatever... I do enjoy that extra clarity and detail.
Last edited:
Just another thought.
I bought my 9 year old some 2nd hand bins of his own. He can dig sand castles with those for all I care😂
I didn't trust him to pamper my bins to the correct level!!!!
Ace optics have some superb 2nd hand bins, right down to £80 odd quid, and upto alpha.
They're all checked, and I've used them on several occassions, no worries.
Might be worth a look.
When it comes to kids, I think it makes a lot of sense to economize on the bins they are given - as they are not as likely to give them the kind of careful handling/respect that an adult would. The 8x25 Terras sound like a good choice!
