New Zeiss SFL 8x40 and 10x40 binos

AGPank

WKR
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
978
Interesting, the 8x40 is .2” shorter than the 8x32. I had a pair of the 32s, great glass, just big for a 32 model.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Hoodie

WKR
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
930
Location
Oregon Cascades
Looks like a competitor for the Monarch HG. Should fill the gap between the Conquest and SF pretty well and provide an option for people who would've bought an SLC before they were discontinued. Not too many options in that $1500-ish range.

Good move by Zeiss.
 

ChrisAU

WKR
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
6,053
Location
SE Alabama
IPD down to 52mm, 22.6oz weight, decent FOV…please have a 1/4-20 adapter. Why do I feel like they won’t?
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
317
Location
Rockies
IPD down to 52mm, 22.6oz weight, decent FOV…please have a 1/4-20 adapter. Why do I feel like they won’t?

The lack of alpha with 1/4 20 thing drives me crazy. I have a $100 pair of kowa porro prism 6x that have a 1/4 20. Why don’t alpha? It cant be a profit margin thing. $100 Kowa has it and im guessing still profitable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

JGTWI

WKR
Classified Approved
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
445
Dang it. Depending on the price, I have a sneaking suspicion that I’m going to end up with a pair of these.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
604
I was going to post a thread about these but you beat me to it. I do not, for the life of me, understand this addition. Here’s why:

1) they still only come in 8’s & 10’s
2) the 10’s have a smaller FOV than both the 10x42 and 10x32.
3) yes these are more compact than the SF 10x42 but the 10x42 feel smaller than they are due to the balance of them and they are quite compact.
4) the 32mm option is already a phenomenal option on the market.

Why can’t they just make a damn pair of 12’s or a pair of 15’s better than the Conquests?
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
317
Location
Rockies
I was going to post a thread about these but you beat me to it. I do not, for the life of me, understand this addition. Here’s why:

1) they still only come in 8’s & 10’s
2) the 10’s have a smaller FOV than both the 10x42 and 10x32.
3) yes these are more compact than the SF 10x42 but the 10x42 feel smaller than they are due to the balance of them and they are quite compact.
4) the 32mm option is already a phenomenal option on the market.

Why can’t they just make a damn pair of 12’s or a pair of 15’s better than the Conquests?

Im attracted to these new x40 because compared to the x32, you get some 36% more objective surface area at similar weight. For my chest bino, weight is huge. Especially on day 4 and 5 of bow hiking.

Im curious how they actually compare in the field. I do think its kind of funny how they are going back to the old x40 format. What is old is new again!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top