• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Why buy SFL 8x40 and not Conquest 8x32? (2 Viewers)

Ted Y.

Well-known member
Canada
The question is genuine, it does not imply this two binoculars offer the same quality.
Except the x40 can be better than x32, what are advantages for SFL model?
The "Data" tab is almost the same for both models on the Zeiss web pages.
Any review answering my question?
This one, ZEISS Victory SFL 8x40 binocular , does not convince me or I do not understand it.
 

Troubador

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
I haven't tried SFL yet although I expect a review unit soon, but 40mm objectives mean a bigger exit pupil and easier eye placement as well as an advantage in twilight. As to other differences, this remains to be seen when I get my hands on the review unit. Conquest HD 8x32 is a favourite of mine but I can certainly see the attraction of a 40mm objective binocular that is only 10g (0.35 ozs!) heavier than the Conquest.

Lee
 

Grando

Well-known member
Until users have looked through the SFLs we won't know. And, like all binoculars, there's a large amount of subjectivity with bins choices meaning you'd really have to look through both pairs yourself to compare.

What this post also raises though is that just comparing binocular statistics is a fairly pointless exercise. A £100 pair of cheapos might on paper have the same stats as a £2000 pair, but quite clearly the differences in image quality will be significant – and there isn't a measurable image 'score' (or bit of data) that exists which manufacturers could (or would even want to) list.
 
Last edited:

Swedpat

Well-known member
I think one reason is better eye relief. Together with larger exit pupil 8x40 is surely more comfortable. But it's twice the price...
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
In my experience, an 8x40 or 8x42 will always outperform an 8x32, especially in low light and eye placement comfort. At almost 2x the price of the Conquest HD, I am sure the SFL will have better glass and coatings than the Conquest, and those are the things that start elevating a binocular into the alpha category and will give it that alpha "pop". The Conquest HD is an excellent binocular and one of the best at its price point, but when you move up in price to $1500 and over you do notice a difference in the view, and it does tend to spoil you. I think the SFL will be optically at about the level of the Meopta Meostar B1.1 Plus, which is at a slightly higher level than the Conquest. There is something special about an alpha view that makes it hard to go back to even a binocular as good as the Conquest. I think for the people that appreciate those differences and like a compact, lightweight binocular, the Zeiss SFL will be worth the difference. In the end, you get what you pay for.
 
Last edited:

chill6x6

Well-known member
So this is one question that can always be asked. What will an 8X40 do that a 8X32 WON'T? The answer is of course not much if anything. On the other hand I'm going to look at it as one of, if not THE lighest, smallest 42mm-ish binoculars there is. Some folks want a 42mm binocular. For many 40mm will be close enough. For sure it's in the same ballpark as far as size/weight goes as many 32mm binoculars. During the SHORT time I look at one while at Magee Marsh I was more impressed than I thought I'd be. It's shorter than the SF/NL 32mm.
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Why do we buy 32s? Not because they're better optically than equivalent ?X 42s. Isn't it size and weight? Why else? I used 1040s for 35 years. Got 1042s a couple years ago. I was surprised at how big what i took to be the latest "new and improved" 42s to be over those ol Zeiss. Then went looking for something smaller and found the SF/NLs to be close to my ol 40s. Puzzling. iIm hoping these SFLs are a new sweet spot in EP, size and weight.
 

ragin-cajun

Active member
United States
let's assume better eyecups, glass, technology and more light transmission/viewing at low light in similar size/weight range.
 

Swissboy

Sempach, Switzerland
Supporter
Switzerland
So this is one question that can always be asked. What will an 8X40 do that a 8X32 WON'T? The answer is of course not much if anything. .............
To me, the difference is what I consider the quality of the view. It's much more immersive. Thus, if ID is the only purpose, I might basically agree. But to me, these optics are as well for better enjoying, thus even a common Blue Tit or a tulip can be worthwhile concentrating on. My wife and I often sit on our porch/veranda looking at bumblebees or a group of flowers. Both the x40 and the x42 models provide a wow effect that my x32 model does not do in the same way. (all are Zeiss alpha models and thus comparable in quality)
 

Loddar

Well-known member
In my experience, an 8x40 or 8x42 will always outperform an 8x32, especially in low light and eye placement comfort.
For low light situations this may be true. On the other hand, I did not really miss a 42 for observations durung the day with a 32 bin. And also eye place comfort is worse with some 42s than with some 32s.
 

Waldemar54

New member
New Zealand
Re; SFL 8x40 it all comes down to a few numbers:
Number one > 8x40 delivers a 5mm Exit of Pupil (EP). That alone is a HUGE advantage & that alone is hugely important for me (over 65 young category)
Number two > all above @ 600 grams. A huge advantage that is a huge understatement.
If the SF part is really Smart, Zeiss has a real winner.
Another comment for consideration is they are of a "normal shape" and the 5 mm EP should eliminate the need for fancy shapes and a headrest.
Keeping it simple with integral and logical solutions is very important.

BTW. I'm an exclusive Swarovski user for over 30 years but I have to see the SFL 8x40.
My EL 10x42 served me very well over the years, but a smaller lighter unit with good FOV is now better for me.
***It would be good to see 8x40 NL Pure.
Competition works fantastically well for us ......
 

GrampaTom

Well-known member
United States
Another comment for consideration is they are of a "normal shape" and the 5 mm EP should eliminate the need for fancy shapes and a headrest.
Keeping it simple with integral and logical solutions is very important.
If this, "Keeping it simple with integral and logical solutions is very important."

Does this follow? "they are of a "normal shape" and the 5 mm EP should eliminate the need for fancy shapes and a headrest."
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
After having both the Conquest HD 8x32 and the SFL 8x40, I can honestly say the SFL is easily worth the difference in price for these reasons. The SFL has a bigger exit pupil, making eye placement easier and low light performance better, truer, more natural colors without the green tint that Zeiss are known for, less CA and probably the biggest advantage is a much larger sweet spot with sharper edges. There are ergonomic advantages also, but the optical improvements put the SFL definitely on a different level from the Conquest HD.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
You exaggerate…the Conquest 8x32 has low CA, big sweetspot and no green tint. I don’t doubt the SFL is a good bin but you don’t need to go hyperbolic to convince us.
Have you compared them? IMO, the biggest advantage of the SFL over the Conquest HD is the size of the sweet spot and the sharper edges, and that is no exaggeration. The SFL has almost as equally sharp edges as the SF, which surprised me because some had said there was a fall off in sharpness at the edges. It is not true. CA in the SFL is very close if not equal to the SF also. The only advantage I can see the SF 8x42 has over the SFL 8x40 is the slightly bigger FOV and then the SFL has the advantage of truer, better colors as Lee has said in his review. If you try an SFL with a Conquest HD, you will definitely see a difference in the colors. Your eyes could be different, but the Conquest HD and SF have a very slight greenish tint compared to the SFL. The SFLs colors are like a veil has been removed. The colors are clearer and more vivid in the SFL than the Conquest HD or SF. No doubt about it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top