Hi , many thanks for some reason I thought the HT were released at the same time as the SF. It is the close focusing distance I am after, Jerry
Many thanks for your detailed info Lee, I will have a look at the conquests, maybe see you at Arne one day. JerryHi Jerry
I am lucky enough to have both SF 8x and HT 8x. They have such similar close focus distances that I wouldn't choose one over the other on this alone. However the HT has a slower focus and to get from closest focus (say on a dragonfly at Arne) to a distant bird (lets say a Hobby) takes a lot of finger pumping. SF has a quicker focus and so is more versatile in this respect. However when in France this year I took not only my HT but also a pair of Conquest HD 8x32s and these latter are fantastic for close work, having a speedy focus that gets you quickly onto distant birds then back again. I used the Conquests for all visits to butterfly and dragonfly sites and the HTs when it was likely to be mainly birds and this worked out very well.
Even now I have SFs and with their faster focus I think I shall still rely on the Conquests for butts and dragons. Dont forget butts and dragons mainly fly in bright warm weather so you don't need a 42mm. However, if I had to choose one bin only for all tasks it would be SF because its extra wide field of view is great for capturing those fast flying butts and dragons and its faster focus than HT is pretty reasonable at the job and of course its brilliant at birds.
If on the other hand you do a lot of birding at dawn and dusk or under dreary dark skies then HT's brightness helps here.
Hope that helps.
Lee, my HT's have the fastest focus I've ever experienced and my friends and relatives who have handled them say the same.
Surprised to hear the SF's are that much faster than the HT's. :eek!:
What bothers me with the SF though is that it seems as a Swarovski clone.
I agree. I was talking about the double bridge design generally. Other makers use it too and if it works (I never used one) why not? But it is different from the Zeiss "family" design they generally follow in Zeiss (and Leica has her own style, even better aesthetically in my subjective opinion).
This dilemma is strange for me. I have to read that thread since after Terra and then Conquest I only have no clue about the Victory line qualities (never used a Leica or Swarovski either but I have little chance to solve this for as long as I pay my daughter's mortage for the next 30 years).
But I see here that a for a few people it is HT "and" SF (perhaps and FL too) and not "or". Others can't have either (most of the people according to demographics) and they have to solve dilemmas at lower budget.
So, if someone has 2000-3000 euros for just one pair of binoculars he has to scrutinize their strengths and weaknesses, because the "HT for hunting" and "SF for birding" is simplistic since people use both for hunting and birding much weaker and cheaper instruments, and if they get away with that, any Alpha or any Victory in particular would be a major improvement. If I had the money and since I am familiar with the Zeiss "family" line, I would feel familiarity with the HT and would be curious about what Abbe- Konings and 95% would give to my eyes. But ergonomics are very important and the popurarity of Swarovski and the double bridge design in general is a reality for some reasons.
Bottom line: Donate me any, but if you donate both I'll take the HT first. And I would take it in 10x, and the SF in 8x.
........... because the "HT for hunting" and "SF for birding" is simplistic since people use both for hunting and birding much weaker and cheaper instruments, and if they get away with that, any Alpha or any Victory in particular would be a major improvement.