• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Another 'Best of 2013'' Binocular Test.... (1 Viewer)

James:

Good of you to post this review, and it is interesting for many here to see
the results.

There are a few things I gleaned when looking at the results of this small
panel of users.

The top end, "The Zeiss Conquest won value for money hands down".

Entry level, " The Nikon Prostaff 10x42 garnered most reviewers votes".

They scored the Prostaff as well or better optically than the Nikon Monarch 7.

No surprises here, the Conquest rises to the top for value. I reported years ago about the value of the Nikon Prostaff binoculars. At the entry level it is all about optical
design.

I am agreeable with the results, and for those watching look closely at the panel
that was assembled, and their main binocular. That is a positive also.

Jerry
 
james holdsworth said:
...to set tongues wagging and critics a'scorning....


http://www.fitzpatrick.uct.ac.za/african_birdlife/AB01(3)48-52.pdf
Click to expand...
It looks like ANOTHER win for the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD. I am telling you Zeiss made that binocular TOO good for the price. The Monarch 7 continues to be a value leader scoring high for it's price. I would bet the newer Monarch 7 8x30 would have scored even higher than the 8x42 model. Better on-axis sharpness. The Canon IS 10x42 does have good optics if you can tolerate the weight and the optical artifacts.
 
[email protected] said:
It looks like ANOTHER win for the Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD. I am telling you Zeiss made that binocular TOO good for the price. The Monarch 7 continues to be a value leader scoring high for it's price. I would bet the newer Monarch 7 8x30 would have scored even higher than the 8x42 model. Better on-axis sharpness. The Canon IS 10x42 does have good optics if you can tolerate the weight and the optical artifacts.
Click to expand...

Dennis,

It looks like you are getting ready to sell your Conquest. This test did not feature the 8x32 CQ at all. Just the 10x42.

K
 
I had the chance to get the Conquest and EL SV 8x32's outside yesterday (along with the new Cabelas Euro HD) and it's easy to see why people like the Zeiss so much. They appear to offer 95% of what the swaros give you at 1/3 the price. At this point I'm still pretty happy with my new Leupold Hawthorne 7x42s, and don't want to flip them, but if I didn't have those I would have gone for the Conquests.
 
Last edited:
kabsetz said:
Dennis,

It looks like you are getting ready to sell your Conquest. This test did not feature the 8x32 CQ at all. Just the 10x42.

K
Click to expand...
Same difference. Too bad they didn't test the new Nikon 7's 8x30. I think they would have scored about a 4.4 at least. They are very good for their price.
 
paul2013 said:
I had the chance to get the Conquest and EL SV 8x32's outside yesterday (along with the new Cabelas Euro HD) and it's easy to see why people like the Zeiss so much. They appear to offer 95% of what the swaros give you at 1/3 the price. At this point I'm still pretty happy with my new Leupold Hawthorne 7x42s, and don't want to flip them, but if I didn't have those I would have gone for the Conquests.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
paul2013 said:
I had the chance to get the Conquest and EL SV 8x32's outside yesterday (along with the new Cabelas Euro HD) and it's easy to see why people like the Zeiss so much. They appear to offer 95% of what the swaros give you at 1/3 the price. At this point I'm still pretty happy with my new Leupold Hawthorne 7x42s, and don't want to flip them, but if I didn't have those I would have gone for the Conquests.
Click to expand...
I liked the Hawthorne's 7x42 also but they lacked something. I think it was contrast because of not having ED glass. They just didn't have that "snap" that even the new Monarch 7's 8x30 have. BUT they are the best 7x42's for the money though if you like 7x.
 
I still wish more people would give the Leupold McKinley HD a try. I've honestly never been more impressed with a pair of binoculars than I am with these. When some birders came out last month to the Refuge to add some GRPC to their life lists, I compared them to someone's Swaro 8.5x42 and another person's Conquest HD 8x32, and I honestly came away feeling that I would never need to upgrade from these. Being China made, there does appear to be some minor QC concerns, but the few pair I've tried along with the ones I own are fine with no play in the focus-knob and no apparent differences between the right and left tubes.

If considering purchasing a new set of optics, I'm honestly not sure how someone could go wrong with these bins, so long as the person's facial geometry fits the eyecups well (which shouldn't be a problem with eyeglass wearers). Although I still covet a pair of high-quality 7x, these bins make it hard to continue to want to pursue my obsession with upgrading optics.
 
[email protected] said:
I would sell the SV's before I would sell the Conquests's 8x32 HD's. More profit and not much difference.
Click to expand...

Dennis

Do you know what you just said???????

The EL SV is not worth keeping if it means giving up the Conquest HD?

I will certainly agree that the ConqHD8x32 must be the best bang for your buck out there at the moment, but then again I am ZeissBoy.

Enjoy your HDs.

Lee
 
Troubador said:
Dennis

Do you know what you just said???????

The EL SV is not worth keeping if it means giving up the Conquest HD?

I will certainly agree that the ConqHD8x32 must be the best bang for your buck out there at the moment, but then again I am ZeissBoy.

Enjoy your HDs.

Lee
Click to expand...
What I said is that I don't feel the Zeiss Conquests' HD's 8x32 are quite as good as the SV's BUT as you said they are the best bang for the buck out there right now. There is not $1K difference between them and the SV's. The new Monarch 7's 8x30 are going to give the Conquests a run for their money in the bang for the buck contests also.
 
jremmons said:
I still wish more people would give the Leupold McKinley HD a try. I've honestly never been more impressed with a pair of binoculars than I am with these. When some birders came out last month to the Refuge to add some GRPC to their life lists, I compared them to someone's Swaro 8.5x42 and another person's Conquest HD 8x32, and I honestly came away feeling that I would never need to upgrade from these. Being China made, there does appear to be some minor QC concerns, but the few pair I've tried along with the ones I own are fine with no play in the focus-knob and no apparent differences between the right and left tubes.

If considering purchasing a new set of optics, I'm honestly not sure how someone could go wrong with these bins, so long as the person's facial geometry fits the eyecups well (which shouldn't be a problem with eyeglass wearers). Although I still covet a pair of high-quality 7x, these bins make it hard to continue to want to pursue my obsession with upgrading optics.
Click to expand...
I tried them and although I feel the optics are excellent because of the eyecups a lot of people including myself have trouble with ER and blackouts and other issues. If they work for you they could be great but they don't work for a lot of people.
 
[email protected] said:
What I said is that I don't feel the Zeiss Conquests' HD's 8x32 are quite as good as the SV's BUT as you said they are the best bang for the buck out there right now. There is not $1K difference between them and the SV's. The new Monarch 7's 8x30 are going to give the Conquests a run for their money in the bang for the buck contests also.
Click to expand...

Since when did you care about "bang per buck" ?

You`ve previously, and IMO insultingly accused other members of sour grapes through being unable to afford the SV.
 
jremmons said:
I still wish more people would give the Leupold McKinley HD a try. I've honestly never been more impressed with a pair of binoculars than I am with these. When some birders came out last month to the Refuge to add some GRPC to their life lists, I compared them to someone's Swaro 8.5x42 and another person's Conquest HD 8x32, and I honestly came away feeling that I would never need to upgrade from these. Being China made, there does appear to be some minor QC concerns, but the few pair I've tried along with the ones I own are fine with no play in the focus-knob and no apparent differences between the right and left tubes.

If considering purchasing a new set of optics, I'm honestly not sure how someone could go wrong with these bins, so long as the person's facial geometry fits the eyecups well (which shouldn't be a problem with eyeglass wearers). Although I still covet a pair of high-quality 7x, these bins make it hard to continue to want to pursue my obsession with upgrading optics.
Click to expand...

I was impressed with them as well. Unfortunately for me, I have decided that I don't want any bino that weighs more than 25 oz., and that puts the McKinley about a quarter-pound over my limit.

BTW -- for those that live in the U.S.A. -- Cabelas has the 10x McKinley on sale for $399, and that also includes a mail-in offer for a very nice harness as well.......
 
Performing a birding binocs 'test' without having the Swaro 8.5x42SV or the 8x32SV in the mix is not really fair. It's like staging a F1 race, and not bothering to invite Sebastian Vettel.

I don't think you can test one manufacturer's 8x glass against another manufacturer's 10x and draw too many inferences-- not really apples to apples.

Also no Nikon EDG.

Maybe this reflects some market issues in South Africa, or maybe they were relying on distributors to provide demos...
 
gvca1 said:
Performing a birding binocs 'test' without having the Swaro 8.5x42SV or the 8x32SV in the mix is not really fair. It's like staging a F1 race, and not bothering to invite Sebastian Vettel.

I don't think you can test one manufacturer's 8x glass against another manufacturer's 10x and draw too many inferences-- not really apples to apples.

Also no Nikon EDG.

Maybe this reflects some market issues in South Africa, or maybe they were relying on distributors to provide demos...
Click to expand...


I think they just tested what the manufacturer's sent them.

And, I wouldn't want Vettel there anyway - I am so sick of that finger in my face every two weeks for the last 4 months! Hamilton baby!
 
This is a bit off topic but I do have to bring this up, the Formula 1 race
connection.

The recent movie "Rush" is one I have recently seen, and it is worth the effort.

I have been a racing fan for many years, and I appreciate the skill and efforts that racing entails.

The connection to optics is I appreciate the efforts of some manufacturers that push things to a high level.

I don't race cars, but I can handle and use some of the best binoculars
that are made today. :t:

Jerry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

N
Entry/Test 8x32 binoculars
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Patudo
P
A
Outdoor Gear Lab Binocular Test?????
Replies
14
Views
1K
Maljunulo
M
D
Zeiss SFL 8x40 This Year's Best New Birding Binocular!
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
AlphaFan
A
B
Cost of testing every binocular.
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Bino Steve
B
M
Rarity of technical binocular reviews
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
agus_m
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top