If you search you'll find lots of different opinions and even some arguments! All I can say is that for myself I'll never go back to SFP. I've switched all my scopes to FFP's and have spent lots of time behind them both on the range and in the field looking at animals from various differences.
FFP serves me extremely we'll......yes, even with the scope on its lowest power, I was observing a bull at +/- 1000 yds through my leupold Mk8 on 3.5x with a hours reticle last weekend and felt I could have taken the shot and that's from a tactical reticle, the same bull through my Mk4 LRT with TMR reticle on 6.5x was easily doable.
You'll hear different opinions and only you can decide what works for you, good luck......
In my opinion, FFP vs SFP really is a personal preference. The advantages of one over the other depend a lot on what kind of shooting you are doing, and what you are comfortable with. We see some argumentative exchanges on this topic because of this - people have strong opinions about what works for them and don't understand why others feel differently.
I prefer SFP scopes. I don't get much utility out of constant subtensions at all mag levels. The FFP scopes I have shot through to me had some trade-offs - reticle too thin at low mag/in lower light, too thick at high-mag/long range. With that said, neither of those things would be a deal-killer for me if the constant subtensions were valuable to my shooting preference/style. They aren't (to me) so I go SFP.
I do understand why some favor FFP - they are dumb and bad people and probably hate America
I would strongly recommend shooting a few of both, trying to replicate the conditions that you expect to most-often be shooting in. If you aren't able to do that, read up as much as you can and decide based on the pros and cons relative to what is important to you.