swift audubon 8.5x44 vs. Zeiss Conquest 8x40

[vvsarana]

Dear fellow birders,

I seek your wise counsel yet again. After months of deliberation, I have narrowed down my choices to either Swift Audubon HHS 8.5x44 vs. Zeiss Conquest 8x40. But the local shops in New Haven dont carry either of these and I am not running into folks with these bins in my birding trips. So, could someone who has had the chance to compare these two side by side, suggest/advice on which one I should choose. I could in theory buy 2 Swifts for the price of 1 Zeiss. I dont in the end want to pay for the name Zeiss. I would really like to know if I am getting my moneys worth when it comes to the Conquest.

cheers
Vinod

[Tero]

Optics OK on Zeiss, see my note on Eye cups
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=83092

[ceasar]

I've never tried the Zeiss Conquests, but I did have the opportunity to compare the Swift 8.5 x 44 roofs to the Swarovski 8.5 x 42 roofs and I can tell you that you will certainly get your money's worth from them. I compared them for about 15 minutes and the Swaro is better but not (to my mind) $1200.00 better. Check with www.eagleoptics.com and ask about their 30 day tryout period on the binoculars they sell.
Bob

[ThoLa]

Dear fellow birders,

I seek your wise counsel yet again. After months of deliberation, I have narrowed down my choices to either Swift Audubon HHS 8.5x44 vs. Zeiss Conquest 8x40. But the local shops in New Haven dont carry either of these and I am not running into folks with these bins in my birding trips. So, could someone who has had the chance to compare these two side by side, suggest/advice on which one I should choose. I could in theory buy 2 Swifts for the price of 1 Zeiss. I dont in the end want to pay for the name Zeiss. I would really like to know if I am getting my moneys worth when it comes to the Conquest.

cheers
Vinod

If the Audubon HHS is anything like the Adubon 8.5 Porro (which is horrid) the Zeiss will be far better.
Tom

[ceasar]

If the Audubon HHS is anything like the Adubon 8.5 Porro (which is horrid) the Zeiss will be far better.
Tom

Tom,
Which model Audubon 8.5 Porro are you talking about? Have you tried them all? In what way are they horrid? Can you give us details, or are you just "flaming?"

Cordially,
Bob

[ThoLa]

Tom,
Which model Audubon 8.5 Porro are you talking about? Have you tried them all? In what way are they horrid? Can you give us details, or are you just "flaming?"

Cordially,
Bob

Hi Bob!

I was referring to this model:
http://www.betterviewdesired.com/audubon/audubon.html
It was much hyped so I ordered it but put it back into the box quickly.
It suffers from the worst distorsion (bending) I have ever seen in any binocular.
Perfectly straight trees, lampposts, etc. all look like bananas. Looking through this strange machine was the closest thing to and LSD trip I can imagine without taking the real thing.
I did not like the geometrically ridiculous way it presented the world.
Others might be immune to this or simply do not care.
Personally, I regard this geometric inaccuracy as a serious flaw.

Another problem (which will not apply to a roof equivalent) was the design of the Porro's body. It looks elegant but I (1,8 m; average-sized hands) did find it very awkward. I simply felt very uncomfortable holding it.

I have used the Conquest 8x30 and 8x50.
Image quality is great.
There is a little bit of chromatic abberation, but it is equal to a Leica Ultravid.
Apart from a slightly smaller field of view the Conquests are right up their with their much more expensive cousins from the top brands.
Whatever fault anyone might find with them, in terms of value for money I have not seen anything better.

Best,
Tom

PS: I am not working for Zeiss or any other optics company. I am a professional biologist who buys in the shop and pays in full for his toys.

[Marko_]

It suffers from the worst distorsion (bending) I have ever seen in any binocular.


Oh, I thought the Swarovski EL was the one with distortion.


Swarovski EL ....... nice but suffers from terrible concave distortion.


Marko

[NoSpringChicken]

I can't comment on the Zeiss Conquests as I haven't tried them but I have had a pair of Swift Audubon HHS 8.5x44 for the past three years and have been really pleased with them.

They feel very well made and, for me, comfortable to use. The focussing is smooth and I haven't noticed any optical annoyances. They just give off a very nice air of quality which seems to belie their price.

The only criticisms I have are that the field of view is rather restricted compared to some of the very best and, as mine are the earlier versions, they have pop up rather than twist up eyecups which do not stay in place very well.

After three years I still don't have any great desire to swop them in for something different, which says a lot.

Ron

[ThoLa]

Oh, I thought the Swarovski EL was the one with distortion.



Marko


BOTH suffer from distorsion but in different ways:

The Swaro EL (otherwise superb) has concave distorsion (inward bending).

The Swift has convex distorsion (outward bending).

It is a similar but distinct optical flaw.

The degree of distorsion is much worse in the Swift.

I (personally - that's what ALL this forum is about) did not like the concave distorsion of the EL but prefer the SLIGHT convex distorsion Zeiss, Pentax, and other have.

It is a philosophy with both the user and the optics designer.

Some Nikons are said to be virtually without any.

Tom

[vvsarana]

well, I had the swift audubon 8.5x44 roof not porro in mind. thanks for all the thoughts. let me frame my question this way. has anyone compared zeiss conquest 8x40 (not 8x32!) to a Zeiss Victory 8x42 FL. Is the only difference in FOV?
I am happy with the Conquest if it is as close to the optical quality of a Victory for half the price.

[Tero]

If the 8x40 is like the 10x40, the optics are pretty good. With the eye cups out all the way, you do not see the entire field, and there is some brightness or distortion around the edges that should not be there. You can get rid of it by turning the eye cups about 1/3 way back in. The field is pretty even to the edges, compared to my Monarchs, sweet spot is bigger. It may be even better at 8x. The prisms in the 8x and 10x are the same.

[ThoLa]

well, I had the swift audubon 8.5x44 roof not porro in mind. thanks for all the thoughts. let me frame my question this way. has anyone compared zeiss conquest 8x40 (not 8x32!) to a Zeiss Victory 8x42 FL. Is the only difference in FOV?
I am happy with the Conquest if it is as close to the optical quality of a Victory for half the price.

Hi!
I was amazed how close the Conquests are to the Victories.
I am thinking of getting a 10x Conquest myself.
I have a Diascope so I know the T*FL optics of the Victories well.

The only difference I could detect was the smaller field of view in the Conquests and more chromatic abberation (colour fringes). With respect to the latter the Victories are currently the best of all. This means that the Conquests are no worse than, for example, Leicas which are much more expensive. I gave up the idea to have an Ultravid when I discovered this.
It does not show at all unless you look at objects of very high contrast (bird against blue skies, for instance).

The fov of the 8x40 Con is 55 degrees; the 8x42 Vic has a little bit more than 60, I think.
Whether it is worth the difference .... anybody must decide on his own.

Other differences are a smaller focussing knob on the Conquests.
And a bag without a shoulder strap.
That's cosmetic differences that were introduced to create a little more of a difference between the lines.
To me the smaller knob was just fine.
I would like a big with a strap, too, but it will not put me off having the Conquest on my short list.

It is impossible to quantitate the difference.
But let's say it is 10% with respect to optics. Those 10% will cost 80-100% more (depending on the model).

Cutting edge technology is always costly. In a few years from now, today's Victory technology will appear in mid-prized models. In the meantime I for one will be happy with today's more affordable one.

But their have to be aficionados who think differently.

tom

[jaymoynihan]

Hi,
I tried Zeiss conquests a few years ago, and cannot remember much about them. They kind of struck me as like the better Pentax roofs, but with not as good color correction. Of course, they may have changed since i tried them, so, mileage may vary, etc. Generally speaking Zeiss and Swift are pretty reliable, with Swift's Audubon series glass generally playing higher than their price point. Resale on the Zeiss should be higher, because it is, well, Zeiss!

I do use the 8.5xx44 hhs audubon, and the porro version, (as well as Zeiss 8x30 and 7x42 classics, Leica 10x42BA, and Nikon 8x32 SE).

The HSS version is a hair less sharp than the porro version, and have a narrower FOV. As you may be aware, the central field sharpness of the porro version is justfiably legendary.

What you get in trade, so-to-speak, is very generous eye relief (the porro version is not noted for that). Their build quality, and color correction, is excellent, for a roof in its price range.

[Tero]

The Swift roofs will be more rugged than the porros. The porro owners are always getting repairs.

[vvsarana]

hi all,
thanks for your suggestions. in the end i bought a Zeiss Conquest 8x40 for $749 from Eagle Optics and I dont regret it. My only squib is the lack of objective lens cover and the aberration at the edges of the FOV. But i was birding in NZ last week in the most abysmal conditions - fog, rain and the bincoulars were super-bright in such conditions and the image was very well resolved.
And my friend has an Audubon Equinox HP 10x42. He teased me saying he would have bought three of his for the price I paid for mine but he is having problems now with his cheap pair and the image doesn't seem that magnified compared to mine in spite of his being a 10x, maybe it is a FOV artifact/illusion.

cheers
V.

[Tero]

Yes, there seem to be a lot of illusions in binoculars. Perhaps the 8x is 9x, perhaps the 10x is 9.5x.

How is the weight? My only complaint witn 10x40 is the weight. I am used to cheap light products with less metal and less glass.

[John Russell]

My only squib is the lack of objective lens cover and the aberration at the edges of the FOV.

Zeiss offer objective lens covers as accessories for the 40 and 50mm Conquest models. They are not on offer for the 30 and 45mm models but I have found that the covers for 42mm Swaro SLCs fit the 45mm Conquests perfectly.

John

[vvsarana]

Tero: the weight is bearable actually lighter than the older Zeisses
John Russell: When you pay 750 bucks, you expect at least a certain minimum like obj lens cover

[John Russell]

John Russell: When you pay 750 bucks, you expect at least a certain minimum like obj lens cover

Exactly, I bought the 12x45 Conquests and they're not even available for that model. Bad marks for Zeiss that I have to buy Swarovski covers for Zeiss binoculars.