Is the Zeiss SFL 8x40 worth the difference in price over the Nikon MHG 8x42? (3 Viewers)

[[email protected]]

I would be very surprised if the10x56 conquest bettered any of the latest premium 8x42 or 10x42 offerings; except possibly in the first & last 1% of very low light.

They're 1363g in weight and obviously extremely large, so I fail to understand why you keep recommending them in nearly every thread here.
I certainly won't be buying them. My 9x63 (even better for those extreme low light moments? 😆) is kept in the car.

Your words:
Dennis:
"The Zeiss Conquest HD 8x56 makes the Swarovski SLC 8x56 look like a Munchkin fromThe Wizard of Oz, and I know how HUGE the SLC is because I had one."

www.scopeviews.co.uk

.

"The “big green monsters” were the 8X56 set and while they are larger than your typical Binocular, the quality of these are astounding. Now, I am no Binocular guru, but I do know what I like and when I was watching a Robin building a nest in a tree I could see every detail, every feather. The dirt on her beak came through with so much detail it was scary. I handed them to my son and the words out of his mouth was “Woooooow, this is COOL”. It was pretty amazing. I almost felt like I was Superman and I just engaged my super vision."

Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars

Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...

www.audubon.org

My Zeiss 8X56 Victory T* FL Binocular Experience | Steve Huff Hi-Fi and Photo

My thoughts on the Zeiss 8X56 Victory T* FL Binocular You know, I was never too much of a binocular guy up until I reviewed the Nikon Monarch sets a few weeks ago. I was blown away by not only the clarity, 3D view, and build that I almost bought myself a pair to go

www.stevehuffphoto.com

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

 

[[email protected]]

I've given up trying to keep track of what he has and what he has had - I think even Dennis does not know anymore!! It's pretty pointless anyway as he changes his mind on each binocular within a blink of an eye, making any opinion he has completely worthless.....

You don't really have to keep track of what binoculars I have. I don't keep track of what you have. I don't feel it is any of my business, and it shouldn't be any of yours.

 

[Scott98]

Well I got the Nikon HG 8x42 today and it is very nice. It is very bright, and it has very saturated colors colors say compared to the Zeiss Conquest HD. I compared it to my SLC 8x56 and of course the SLC was better, but the HG was very good for a 42 mm, and it does have a bigger FOV with quite sharp edges.

Let us know what you think about these two! I've tried the MHG more than the SFL. In particular I"m curious about the focuser action, and also the eyecup height and whether it works for you.

 

[[email protected]]

Let us know what you think about these two! I've tried the MHG more than the SFL. In particular I"m curious about the focuser action, and also the eyecup height and whether it works for you.

Thanks! I will look at those things very carefully. I think these are two of the top most popular binoculars that might be on a birders shopping list. They are a good size 40 mm apertures, but the binocular is light and compact. Kind of an ideal size for birding while hiking. On the MHG I already have, I think the focuser action is a little on the tight side and the eye cup height seems to work fine with no blackouts.

 

[[email protected]]

Since I am kinda of a hillbilly, this is my hillbilly review of the Zeiss SFL 8x40 compared to the Nikon MHG 8x42.

Well if you had a good hog season, I'll tell you right now, just go out and buy the Zeiss and then don't you have to read the rest of this baloney review. It is better. No hogwash about it. Just remember it will cost you almost $900 big ones more, though, so don't tell your better half. The Zeiss has nicer, more comfortable armor so when your hog hunting they ain't going to fall out of your hands and then the pig runs you over, and the focuser is better placed being more forward on the binocular.

The focuser on the Zeiss is smoother and more fluid than the MHG, as is normal for most of them Zeiss. So I guess we could say what is that big word, oh yeah ergonomics is better on the Zeiss. The big circle or what's that called FOV looks about the same, although the specs on the MHG say it's larger. The edges are sharp as a good hunting knife on both and are about the same. The colors are more accurate and purer on the SFL. I could make out the difference in a boar and sow hog easily with the SFL.

The contraster seemed a little better on the Zeiss, and the view seemed a little clearer and more real to me. The big difference I noticed was when I got near the sun, I didn't get as many reflections in the view with the Zeiss as I did with the MHG. The Zeiss SFL is much better around the sun than those big fancy alpha type SF and NL's for sure. Especially that glare monster, NL. CA is about the same on both and was very good.

Those rubber thingies you stick your eyes in are better on the Zeiss than the MHG also. They are rounded and more comfortable than the MHG and I don't know why the MHG cups have to be so gol darn long. The Zeiss SFL cups are also much better than the Zeiss Conquest HD cups because you don't need vise grips to get them out and are more like the gooden ones on the SF. I don't get none of them blackout things either with the Zeiss SFL.

The Zeiss is a better binocular, but for $900 more smackers it darn well outa be. Well, anyways, let's get this thing done here. I told you I liked the Zeiss better, didn't I? Well I do. Darn straight. This Zeiss will be real nice when we're making shine down in the woods, watching out for the law. The Nikon HG 8x42 are on eBay if anybody wants them. For $700 I don't think you will find yourself a better binocular. If you buy em, I will throw in a bottle of my best shine.

 

[dries1]

$900 however could buy you a Swarovski 10X40 Habicht for when you sell the Conquest 10X56.

 

[CharleyBird]

Been there, done that, my friend. The Conquest HD 10x56 will

make an excellent doorstop.

😄

 

[[email protected]]

$900 however could buy you a Swarovski 10X40 Habicht for when you sell the Conquest 10X56.

The Habicht's are nice optically, but too bad they have that way too tight focuser and those little hard eye cups. I really like a 5 mm or bigger exit pupil anymore for the brighter image and most importantly, easier eye placement. For a light hiking binocular, I much prefer the Zeiss SFL 8x40. The focuser and the eye cups are much better. The Zeiss SFL has an extremely fast smooth focuser which makes following fast birds much easier than a Habicht.

 

[gweller]

You don't really have to keep track of what binoculars I have. I don't keep track of what you have. I don't feel it is any of my business, and it shouldn't be any of yours.

Like I said, and if you read my post properly you would have understood, I gave up trying long ago.

 

[Scott98]

I see from Amart the SFL have emerged victorious! That was fast. FWIW I also thought the focuser was the weak point in the MHG vs. the Nikon EDG - the EDG being the fairly-priced competitor to the SFL. I liked the optics in the 42mm and 8x30's MHG, for me that's where the value is. And the light weight and comfortable hold.

I'm interested by users' perceptions of focuser quality. For me it's paramount and I demand a very high standard, apparently....focusers I find non-useable are thought to be perfect and smooth by others. I can almost pick out the other posters here with my taste in focusers at this point. We must be the weak-fingered folk or something. e.g. I know from these people that I need not bother trying any Maven binoculars.

 

[[email protected]]

I see from Amart the SFL have emerged victorious! That was fast. FWIW I also thought the focuser was the weak point in the MHG vs. the Nikon EDG - the EDG being the fairly-priced competitor to the SFL. I liked the optics in the 42mm and 8x30's MHG, for me that's where the value is. And the light weight and comfortable hold.

I'm interested by users' perceptions of focuser quality. For me it's paramount and I demand a very high standard, apparently....focusers I find non-useable are thought to be perfect and smooth by others. I can almost pick out the other posters here with my taste in focusers at this point. We must be the weak-fingered folk or something. e.g. I know from these people that I need not bother trying any Maven binoculars.

The focuser is much smoother, more fluid and faster on the SFL versus the MHG, and it is in a better location for me, being set further back. When you really compare the optics on the SFL 8x40 to the MHG 8x42, the Zeiss are at another level, especially when it comes to glare. The Zeiss SFL IMO are worth the extra money, no doubt about it. The Zeiss SFL 8x40 are very close to the SF 8x42 with a slightly smaller FOV and less weight.

The Zeiss SFL 8x40 is just as light as the MHG 8x42 and because of the balance it feels even lighter, and it has a more comfortable hold. The armor on the Zeiss is nicer than the armor on the MHG. It is just real comfy in the hands. The focuser knob on the Zeiss is nicer also. It is easier to turn with better knurls.

I think if you want a light weight, compact 8x40/42 the Zeiss SFL is probably the best choice available. It is pretty much a perfect binocular. You don't sacrifice much coming down from an SF 8x42 or NL 8x42, except for a smaller FOV and you gain a much more compact lighter birding package.

 

[Paultricounty]

I see from Amart the SFL have emerged victorious! That was fast. FWIW I also thought the focuser was the weak point in the MHG vs. the Nikon EDG - the EDG being the fairly-priced competitor to the SFL. I liked the optics in the 42mm and 8x30's MHG, for me that's where the value is. And the light weight and comfortable hold.

I'm interested by users' perceptions of focuser quality. For me it's paramount and I demand a very high standard, apparently....focusers I find non-useable are thought to be perfect and smooth by others. I can almost pick out the other posters here with my taste in focusers at this point. We must be the weak-fingered folk or something. e.g. I know from these people that I need not bother trying any Maven binoculars.

I for one think the MHG is built as good, if not better than the SFL. I’ve had multiples of the 10x and 8x 42‘s and tried the 30’s as well , which I didn’t get along with because of blackouts. I have used a few MHG ‘s that the focuser could’ve been better, but the majority of the ones I tried were quite good, much better than just adequate, they were/are smooth , light with good feedback. Although not as good as the best, as in the SF , SFL (if you get a good one), the EDG , then I’d say the Noctivids followed closley by the NL’s as being as good as focusers get today.

My take on the 40 SFL has been the same as I’ve stated prevpiously, this is good glass, optically a clear step up from the MHG, but not quite up to the standard of the best of the best, but your still paying just a few hundred dollars less than the best. I do believe this was a very clever and exceptional piece of equipment in the Zeiss lineup, that nobody has yet matched. Your paging a premium for the good glass of course, but it’s in combination with a very light weight compact binocular that is less money than the heavier more expensive best. So there really isn’t anything out there in it’s class in that respect. Optically to me (because the weight don’t matter to me) they are not worth the money over the MHG considering the Nikon is just as light and 2 mm more objective size , and with exceptionally good optics. If I want better optics I’m going all the way.

Paul

 

[Paultricounty]

The focuser is much smoother, more fluid and faster on the SFL versus the MHG, and it is in a better location for me, being set further back. When you really compare the optics on the SFL 8x40 to the MHG 8x42, the Zeiss are at another level, especially when it comes to glare. The Zeiss SFL IMO are worth the extra money, no doubt about it. The Zeiss SFL 8x40 are very close to the SF 8x42 with a slightly smaller FOV and less weight.

With more CA, not sharp near the edge, not quite as sharp an image and not as bright. So close except for all that. 🤪.

 

[CharleyBird]

Dennis,
How can we have a fluid and frank discussion with context when you repeatedly edit and even completely delete some of your posts?

I think you're a (edited)

😄

 

[[email protected]]

make an excellent doorstop.

😄

"For terrestrial use, the Conquest 8x56s are outstanding. Exceptional eyepiece comfort is the icing on a cake which includes the best optical quality I’ve seen in a while, extreme resolution, great color rendition and a very bright view under all conditions. Focus is smooth, precise and ultra-snappy. False color is low. True, there is quite a lot of off-axis blur, but you rarely notice it by day.

Dusk and night performance for terrestrial use is superb too, with the strong light intensifier effect that the 7mm exit pupil and big objectives confer. These are easy to focus even in very low light. Veiling flare at dusk and ghosting on bright lights at night aren’t a problem.

For terrestrial use these get my highest recommendation – the view is superb, the focuser excellent, ditto eyepiece comfort. For astronomy, I’d prefer a better corrected field off-axis."

Zeiss 8x56 Conquest HD Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

 

[GrampaTom]

The focuser is much smoother, more fluid and faster on the SFL versus the MHG, and it is in a better location for me, being set further back. When you really compare the optics on the SFL 8x40 to the MHG 8x42, the Zeiss are at another level, especially when it comes to glare. The Zeiss SFL IMO are worth the extra money, no doubt about it. The Zeiss SFL 8x40 are very close to the SF 8x42 with a slightly smaller FOV and less weight.

The Zeiss SFL 8x40 is just as light as the MHG 8x42 and because of the balance it feels even lighter, and it has a more comfortable hold. The armor on the Zeiss is nicer than the armor on the MHG. It is just real comfy in the hands. The focuser knob on the Zeiss is nicer also. It is easier to turn with better knurls.

I think if you want a light weight, compact 8x40/42 the Zeiss SFL is probably the best choice available. It is pretty much a perfect binocular. You don't sacrifice much coming down from an SF 8x42 or NL 8x42, except for a smaller FOV and you gain a much more compact lighter birding package.

And you KNOW this cuz youve owned these two (this time) what, 24, 48 hours? How many days a field? How much time twisting and twirling those knobs to get used to them. How many differing light conditions to know for sure or figure out things? Hardly better than the result of "try before you buy" in stores.

Silly stuff.

 

[Paultricounty]

And you KNOW this cuz youve owned these two (this time) what, 24, 48 hours? How many days a field? How much time twisting and twirling those knobs to get used to them. How many differing light conditions to know for sure or figure out things? Hardly better than the result of "try before you buy" in stores.

Silly stuff.

And your still taking these posts seriously, like they really have some meaning, like they’re honest and unbiased, come on Tom 😔.

🙏🏼
Paul

 

[CharleyBird]

"For terrestrial use, the Conquest 8x56s are outstanding. Exceptional eyepiece comfort is the icing on a cake which includes the best optical quality I’ve seen in a while, extreme resolution, great color rendition and a very bright view under all conditions. Focus is smooth, precise and ultra-snappy. False color is low. True, there is quite a lot of off-axis blur, but you rarely notice it by day.

Dusk and night performance for terrestrial use is superb too, with the strong light intensifier effect that the 7mm exit pupil and big objectives confer. These are easy to focus even in very low light. Veiling flare at dusk and ghosting on bright lights at night aren’t a problem.

For terrestrial use these get my highest recommendation – the view is superb, the focuser excellent, ditto eyepiece comfort. For astronomy, I’d prefer a better corrected field off-axis."

Zeiss 8x56 Conquest HD Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

Dennis,

I think you're a (edited) little too hasty dismissing the 8x42NL.

Seriously, pause and recall what all those expensive premium 8x42's you've tried were actually like.

The top models, all bright and sharp; recall their individual neutrality/colour in view, field of view sizes, the amount/absence of CA.
Don't take a step back is what I'm saying, you may have already tried the best birding binocular.

 

[GrampaTom]

And your still taking these posts seriously, like they really have some meaning, like they’re honest and unbiased, come on Tom 😔.

🙏🏼
Paul

Actually no. You dont really believe that do you? See my latest under the glare monster thingy

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,

I think you're a (edited) little too hasty dismissing the 8x42NL.

Seriously, pause and recall what all those expensive premium 8x42's you've tried were actually like.

The top models, all bright and sharp; recall their individual neutrality/colour in view, field of view sizes, the amount/absence of CA.
Don't take a step back is what I'm saying, you may have already tried the best birding binocular.

Review: Swarovski 8x32 NL Pure vs. 8x32 EL WB