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

[kimmik]

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.

So you replaced your NL with SFL i see!

 

[edwincjones]

the clear advantage is getting a 40mm at the size and weight of a 32mm, the disadvantages ??

Can I replace my 42mm EL and 32mm FL with one SFL?
(does seem too good to be true)

edj

 

[Troubador]

the clear advantage is getting a 40mm at the size and weight of a 32mm, the disadvantages ??

Can I replace my 42mm EL and 32mm FL with one SFL?
(does seem too good to be true)

edj

There is no getting away from those 40mm objectives so SFL does feel bulkier when around your neck and in your hands.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

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.

Dead right James and I'm an SFL fan, but it could never replace my Conquest HD 8x32. There is no getting away from those bulky 40mm objectives.

Lee

 

[Paultricounty]

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.

Vivid, you mean like a Leica 😜

 

[[email protected]]

I didn't know I was seeing green!

Guess I'll have to sell my Conquest HD and SF and just pick up an SFL!

You probably don't notice it until you compare them or look through an SFL. Some people say they see green through Zeiss and others don't because it is not that noticeable unless you know what it should like without the green. You don't know what pure white is until you look through an SFL. Henry's test shows it very well in the Conquest HD. The very slight green tint is not necessarily a bad thing it could help with contrast in low light, but it is there. Many binocular manufacturers have used tints in the past for example to aid low light viewing like the older Swarovski Habichts that had a marked yellow tint for hunting in low light. You have to decide if you like it or not. That was the biggest thing I noticed about the SFL when I first looked through it. I thought these binoculars have truer colors than any Zeiss I have seen in the past. The green is gone!

"Color Transmission:

Unfortunately, the dealer had no SF models in stock, so I compared the color bias of the SFL to a Conquest 8x42. The photo below shows the view through the objective lenses of the Conquest and the SFL when placed eyepieces down on top of an iPad with a blank white screen. I hope it's obvious that the color transmission of the SFL comes much closer to matching the background color of the screen than the Conquest does."

 

[[email protected]]

Vivid, you mean like a Leica 😜

No, the SFL is different in color than Leicas. The SFL has truer, more accurate natural colors. Leicas are more saturated and almost Disneyland like. Leicas enhance the colors, but the SFL is exactly what nature is showing you. If you like a lot of color, get a Leica. If you want true colors, get an SFL. Look at Henry's photo, how accurate the SFL color is through the eyepiece compared to the iPad color. It is almost exactly the same, and the Conquest HD has the green tint. Zeiss did a good job with their UHD coatings on the SFL.

 

[[email protected]]

the clear advantage is getting a 40mm at the size and weight of a 32mm, the disadvantages ??

Can I replace my 42mm EL and 32mm FL with one SFL?
(does seem too good to be true)

edj

I would say yes. That is why Zeiss made the SFL. It gives you the advantages of a 42 mm like the bigger exit pupil with more eye placement comfort and better low light performance without the weight or size. It is groundbreaking. The objectives are a little wider on the SFL 8x40 than the Conquest HD, but the overall binocular is no wider, and it is only a 1/2 inch longer, so the overall dimensions are not much different, and the weight is about the same. The Zeiss SFL feels like a 32 mm when you handle it outside of the optical tubes are a little bigger, but you can still hold them just fine. The SFL would have a bigger FOV than your EL and the edges will be almost as sharp and the SFL will have sharper edges than the 8x32 FL, so a proportionately bigger sweet spot. The CA on the SFL will be just as good as the EL and only slightly worse than the FL. The FL though has the best CA control of any binocular I have seen though. The SFL will have better, truer colors than either the EL or FL.

 

[james holdsworth]

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.

So you still have a Conquest? Otherwise it’s memory and completely subjective.

 

[CharleyBird]

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.

Dennis,
Do you have all three (Conquest, SFL, SF) to compare side by side?

 

[SUPPRESSOR]

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.

Have we not been here before!!

 

[james holdsworth]

It’s a merry go round.

 

[dries1]

Curious on how the 10X40 SFL performs, not much on those yet.

 

[Paultricounty]

No, the SFL is different in color than Leicas. The SFL has truer, more accurate natural colors. Leicas are more saturated and almost Disneyland like. Leicas enhance the colors, but the SFL is exactly what nature is showing you. If you like a lot of color, get a Leica. If you want true colors, get an SFL. Look at Henry's photo, how accurate the SFL color is through the eyepiece compared to the iPad color. It is almost exactly the same, and the Conquest HD has the green tint. Zeiss did a good job with their UHD coatings on the SFL.

I like Disney except for the woke 😂, was just there. When I want color and delicious I go Leica, when I want true color I go swarovski.

 

[Grando]

Curious on how the 10X40 SFL performs, not much on those yet.

I tried the 10x40s and 8x40s the other day and wasn’t very impressed by the 10s. The 8s were nice, though not as nice as the SFs or NLs in 32.

 

[dries1]

It will be interesting as time goes on. I am sure they are a very good glass, I am less particular these days. Perhaps the price will come down around 10% - which is wishful thinking on my part.

 

[Troubador]

Curious on how the 10X40 SFL performs, not much on those yet.

I expect to receive a review unit SFL 10x40 in the next couple of days and am taking it to Islay for 3 weeks and plan to post the review in late November.

Lee

 

[Troubador]

I expect to receive a review unit SFL 10x40 in the next couple of days and am taking it to Islay for 3 weeks and plan to post the review in late November.

Lee

Zeiss SFL 10x40: A Field Review

My review of Zeiss SFL 8x40 proved so popular ( Zeiss SFL 8x40, A Field Review ) that the thread it generated has reached over 44k hits at the time of writing this, demonstrating how much interest there is in this new series of models from Zeiss. However, there have been several protests that...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Ted Y.]

Just a thought and not one based on facts.
Terra models are labeled "Designed by Zeiss". First produced in Japan, now MiC.
SFL models are labeled "Designed by Zeiss". Produced in Japan, for now and forever?
Meaning, if I want a SFL, better to buy it now... Just in case.
Are Victory SF marked "Designed by Zeiss"?

 

[Canip]

Terra models are labeled "Designed by Zeiss". First produced in Japan, now MiC.

I am not aware that Terras were first produced in Japan. I have an early version, and it is labeled „China“.