Is there an advantage optically? Is it a cost factor?
I have both, except for a Tactical scope that allows me to MIL at all magnifications I lean towards the 2nd Focal Plane as the larger reticles at the higher magnifications tend to bother me..
Your thoughts

It doesn't really matter any more unless you are using BDC or are range-finding with reticles, in which case FFP is best.

If you search for old European scopes on the Internet, you'll find some where the reticle not only grows bigger (if a variable) but can be wound visibly out of the centre. While that sounds untidy it actually gives you a better scope - which is why the Germans kept making them like that for 30 years after American makers pulled the wool over our eyes with image-movement. The advantages of these reticle-movement scopes include greater field of view or smaller ocular housings, absence of tunnel vision and having less junk lurching around under recoil and bumps.

It only needs windage-adjustable mounts and a few shims to mount them so the reticle is centred. Sometimes you can get real aristocrats like Zeiss, Hensoldt and Nickel Supras from about 1990 in good condition for less than $200. Look for ones without rails, though, as it can take some trouble finding and fitting rail clamps and/or claw mounts.

I don't even want to deal with that when I'm hunting. I just want a shot, put the X on the target and pull the trigger, it works up too 400 yards with me with consistency and that suits me...With either plane you will hit the target in the same spot of a big game animal.

If you are using the reticle to estimate range, the FFP allows you to do so at any magnification. SFP will only allow you to do it at a specific power.