I'm trying to sell my 8x32 FL and met up with a potential buyer who brought along the Conquest HD 8x32 he has owned for two years (bought new). So we started comparing the two models, and we were agreeing that the two models were pretty close. But the price is by far lower in the Conquest. Definitely no reason for this fellow to get the FL I had on offer.
So I'm wondering now, why the Conquest escaped my "radar" when I was looking for a small model a few years ago (pre SFL time). Is it that the Conquest only gained this fine quality with the arrival of the HD version? Also, I noted that the ocular lens is considerably larger than the one on the FL, thus viewing is a bit more comfortable. But what struk me most, the coating was not that aggressive reddish-orange Zeiss had started with a bit before the FL line was replaced by the next models. Thus this Conquest HD had a very pleasing neutral coating, like the older FLs or the newer SFLs.
So I'm wondering now, why the Conquest escaped my "radar" when I was looking for a small model a few years ago (pre SFL time). Is it that the Conquest only gained this fine quality with the arrival of the HD version? Also, I noted that the ocular lens is considerably larger than the one on the FL, thus viewing is a bit more comfortable. But what struk me most, the coating was not that aggressive reddish-orange Zeiss had started with a bit before the FL line was replaced by the next models. Thus this Conquest HD had a very pleasing neutral coating, like the older FLs or the newer SFLs.