Has Conquest HD 8x32 matched the older Victory T* FL LT 8x32 - cost aside (1 Viewer)

ZDHart said:

BTW, what is RRP?

Click to expand...

Recommended retail price!

ZDHart said:

I do enjoy just a touch of peachy pink (optimistic warmth) in my outlook on the world... so I can imagine a lack of same giving a very lifeless look indeed. Now I'm having doubts about ordering an 8x32 FL.

Interesting comments pro and con. Obviously, the only way for one to know what suits him best is with first-hand experience.

Click to expand...

The 10x32 FL served me well, as did the 10x32 HG, but I sold both and stick with 8x and 7x now. If I had had the 8x32 FL, the chance that I kept it might have been a bit bigger. My personal taste is for binoculars with good edge sharpness and brilliant colours, so my current best binocular is a Nikon EDG 7x42. Take a look at the EDG 8x32, although a bit big and heavy for an 8x32, or the Cabela's Euro HD 8x32. I have the non-HD version (Meostar B1) and like it very much.

//L

looksharp65 said:

Recommended retail price!



The 10x32 FL served me well, as did the 10x32 HG, but I sold both and stick with 8x and 7x now. If I had had the 8x32 FL, the chance that I kept it might have been a bit bigger. My personal taste is for binoculars with good edge sharpness and brilliant colours, so my current best binocular is a Nikon EDG 7x42. Take a look at the EDG 8x32, although a bit big and heavy for an 8x32, or the Cabela's Euro HD 8x32. I have the non-HD version (Meostar B1) and like it very much.

//L

Click to expand...

Lars:

You do have good advice here, and I agree with you , as I have had
experience with models of the Zeiss and Nikons you have mentioned.

I also appreciate the Nikon View, a wide sweetspot without distortion, and a color balance
that is very pleasing.

The FL is more cool, and Zeiss is doing better with the Conquest HD in that regard.

Jerry

NDhunter said:

Lars:

You do have good advice here, and I agree with you , as I have had
experience with models of the Zeiss and Nikons you have mentioned.

I also appreciate the Nikon View, a wide sweetspot without distortion, and a color balance
that is very pleasing.

The FL is more cool, and Zeiss is doing better with the Conquest HD in that regard.

Jerry

Click to expand...

The Conquest may appear ''warmer'' than the FL, but that is only because of lower transmission and more yellowish white rendering. If you want really warm, go to the Terra, it's almost hot with the boosted browns and reds.

Don't care for the ''warm'' look much at all as [to my eye] it just looks less contrasty and a bit muddy. But, to each their own, of course.

james holdsworth said:

The Conquest may appear ''warmer'' than the FL, but that is only because of lower transmission and more yellowish white rendering. If you want really warm, go to the Terra, it's almost hot with the boosted browns and reds.

Don't care for the ''warm'' look much at all as [to my eye] it just looks less contrasty and a bit muddy. But, to each their own, of course.

Click to expand...

James:

I am still awaiting my first chance to see the new Victory HT. They are
not being stocked at any stores that I visit.
So that means the FL will be one I do know, a bit cool, and I appreciate more the Conquest HD and the Terra, and I do recommend both of these in their price range.

I like a natural view, and that is why I do like Nikon and Swarovski, on
the high end, that deliver a very nice, corrected, wide view without distortion.

Jerry

Jerry,

How do your EDG's compare with your SV's when it comes to whiteness rendering? I try to use fresh, clean snow [still lots of it here!] as my reference as poor whiteness is really obvious against such a bright and stark background.

The Conquest [and even the Terra] seem pretty good in this regard until a far better example [HT] is tested side-by-side. Here, the Conquest is clearly creamy and the Terra yellowish.

By all accounts, the SV's are just about perfect in this regard and I would be interested to see if the ''warm'' view of the EDG's translate into less than white - white's. I would also be interested in the Ultravids, as many rave about the ''warm colours'' there too. Is it really a design choice or is it just lower transmission and less than perfect white rendering?

james holdsworth said:

Jerry,

How do your EDG's compare with your SV's when it comes to whiteness rendering? I try to use fresh, clean snow [still lots of it here!] as my reference as poor whiteness is really obvious against such a bright and stark background.

The Conquest [and even the Terra] seem pretty good in this regard until a far better example [HT] is tested side-by-side. Here, the Conquest is clearly creamy and the Terra yellowish.

By all accounts, the SV's are just about perfect in this regard and I would be interested to see if the ''warm'' view of the EDG's translate into less than white - white's. I would also be interested in the Ultravids, as many rave about the ''warm colours'' there too. Is it really a design choice or is it just lower transmission and less than perfect white rendering?

Click to expand...

You mean kind of like that "Team of Snow White Horses" pulling the "Surrey with the Fringe on Top" in "Oklahoma" where "One's like snow, the other's more like milk."

But how are they on "fringeing?":king:

Bob

James,

I usually do the "how white is snow" test with all the binoculars I test whenever there is snow, and if there isn't, I use the whitest clouds in the sky or the whitest paper available placed in direct sunlight. Then hold two binoculars side-by-side with their eyepieces towards the white target, looking at the objectives next to each other, and swap around the binoculars for good measure to ensure no shadows or small differences in angle to the light make a detectable difference.

After this introduction, about the Nikon EDG and Leica Ultravid HD series binoculars, yes, to my eyes they give a slightly amber-reddish bias to whites, but it is very slight even in direct comparison to even more neutral binoculars, and something my eyes get accustomed to in no time. The even more neutral binoculars would be the Swarovsions, and even slightly more so the SLC HD and the latest SLC, as well as Zeiss HT.

But, to be honest, to my eyes the current crop of top binoculars all are now close enough to neutral color rendering that I no longer consider this to be a crucial factor in determining relative superiority.

Kimmo

Do NOT eat the yellow snow! :eek!:

Don't worry David, I won't. My mother also taught me never to buy a binocular that shows snow as yellow.

kabsetz said:

Don't worry David, I won't. My mother also taught me never to buy a binocular that shows snow as yellow.

Click to expand...

With you there. I don't care for yellow bias (non-HD Meoptas) or noticeable blue bias (some Zeiss)... I prefer neutral or slightly warm (reds can have a bit of pop and I'm okay.)

In my photography I'm a sucker for the polarizing filter.

Oh...and hello from the USA to Finland...

I too prefer neutral to slightly warm.

My choice in sunglasses is Maui Jim's Rose colored glass lenses, if that tells you anything. I just love the visual slant it places on the world... especially on a somewhat overcast day.

As a life-long, career portrait photographer, I've earned well from dialing in a slightly warm bias in my image's color balance... it just makes the world look a little more delightful and "wonderful". And my clients have rewarded me richly for that vision.

That said, I do understand the "scientific" requirement of neutrality in color that some may need for birding or other scientific pursuits. For some, neutrality is the best view for required accuracy.

My objectives in viewing the world lean more artistic than scientific, and therefore, a touch of rich warmth and vividity to coloration is fine with me, provided it isn't pushed very far beyond neutrality. It's all a matter of degree, isn't it?

Unfortunately, it seems I prefer Zeiss design and mechanical operation along with Leica coloration. Thus, there may not be any model of bin that quite meets my desired criteria.

So far, it's looking like the Conquest HD 8x32 and, possibly, Meopta MeoStar offerings (Cabelas Euro HD 8x32) are providing the combination of design and visual rendition than suits my fancy best for 8x32.

I still haven't looked through a pair of Victory FL 8x32's yet, however. My naked eyes are tortured, by the siren's sweetly singing. (Victory FL 8x32 siren still has me wondering, but I haven't tasted the fruit as yet.) Tales of Brave Ulysses. (For those of you, from my generation, who would know.)

ZDHart said:

I am interested in one of these two models. Obviously, the cost difference is dramatic and for that difference, one should expect nothing but a better product. Does one truly get a significantly superior pair of bins with the Victory FL vs. the Conquest HD?

The design dates of these two models are different (as was the marketplace at the time of design) and one might think that the Conquest HD, being a newer design, may possibly benefit from some improvement, such as a development in coatings, etc.

If the cost to you was the same, would you choose the Victory, or might the Conquest offer something possibly as good as, or even better than, the older Victory FL model?

Certainly there are differences in the designs, materials, coatings, etc. However, the specifications below are quite similar:

Zeiss Victory 8x32 T* FL LT
Exit Pupil 4.0
Magnification 8x
Objective Lens Diameter 32 mm
Field of View 420 feet/1000 yards - 64
Eye Relief 16 mm
Close Focus 6.5 feet
Weight 19.75 ounces
Dimensions (HxW) 4.6 x 5.1 inches
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproof

=============================================
Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32
Exit Pupil 4.0
Magnification 8x
Objective Lens Diameter 32 mm
Field of View 420 feet/1000 yards
Eye Relief 16 mm
Close Focus 4.9 feet
Weight 22.2 ounces
Dimensions (H x W) 4.9 x 4.5 inches
Weatherproofing Waterproof/Fogproof

====================

This thought also occurs to me: why hasn't Zeiss produced an 8x32 HT?

Click to expand...

I have had them both and although they are both excellent I really feel the FL is not worth the difference in price over the Conquest. I had the Conquest HD 8x32 at the same time I had my Swarovski 8x32 SV and although the Conquest HD was close optically I preferred the Swarovski for the sharper edges and flatter field and IMO the ergonomics of the SV were better for me. I kept the Swaro.The Conquest HD at the demo price of $700.00 is undoubtedly the best bang for your buck out there.

ZDHart said:

My naked eyes are tortured, by the siren's sweetly singing. (Victory FL 8x32 siren still has me wondering, but I haven't tasted the fruit as yet.) Tales of Brave Ulysses. (For those of you, from my generation, who would know.)

Click to expand...

Rope yourself to the mast and put on a pair of opaque goggles, ZD - it´s the only way!

[email protected] said:

I have had them both and although they are both excellent I really feel the FL is not worth the difference in price over the Conquest. I had the Conquest HD 8x32 at the same time I had my Swarovski 8x32 SV and although the Conquest HD was close optically I preferred the Swarovski for the sharper edges and flatter field and IMO the ergonomics of the SV were better for me. I kept the Swaro.The Conquest HD at the demo price of $700.00 is undoubtedly the best bang for your buck out there.

Click to expand...

I have a pair of Conquest HD 8x32's arriving tomorrow. If I'm smitten with them, as I think I probably will be, I will likely pass on further consideration of a pair of 8x32 FL's.

The Swaro 8x32's are really more than I want to spend. The law of diminishing returns probably begins to set in fairly strongly, for me, at around the $1000 mark for bins. One can obtain some really fine bins at $1k, with very minimal compromise. At this price point, it's pretty much down to Conquest HD 8x32 and Cabelas Euro HD 8x32's - and either choice would be a very good one.

Considering how much I like my Conquest HD 10x42's, and given all that I've seen in user feedback on the Conquest HD 8x32's, I think I'm going to be quite content with having my 8x32 bins also be Conquest HD's. Spending twice the price for a pair of FL 8x32's probably won't return enough on the investment, for me. Of course, unless I strap on a pair of Sancho's "opaque bins" I could succumb to the sirens sweetly singing and change my mind. :-O

They are both very good.

I'd judge them on their own merits and your personal preferences.

The HD has a more neutral color rendition.

The FL is the more compact of the two.

From there, the differences become slight.

CG

If I can find a pair of 8x32 FL at my local Cabelas, I will compare them to the Conquest HD 8x32's that are arriving tomorrow. I want to compare them to the Cabela Euro HD 8x32's also. I'm sure I would like the FL's. Just not so sure I would find enough added utility to justify more than double the cost.

ZD, I´ve owned both (HD and FL), and now own neither. I found the grip of the FL very uncomfortable, even though it´s smaller. The underside recess, into which the thumb naturally sits, was very deep, too deep for my thumb (I like a bino I can "one-hand"). Cracking view though, but I never compared them side-by-side. I was a little under-whelmed by the HD view, but that´s because I´ve spoiled myself rotten with optics.

james holdsworth said:

Jerry,

How do your EDG's compare with your SV's when it comes to whiteness rendering? I try to use fresh, clean snow [still lots of it here!] as my reference as poor whiteness is really obvious against such a bright and stark background.

The Conquest [and even the Terra] seem pretty good in this regard until a far better example [HT] is tested side-by-side. Here, the Conquest is clearly creamy and the Terra yellowish.

By all accounts, the SV's are just about perfect in this regard and I would be interested to see if the ''warm'' view of the EDG's translate into less than white - white's. I would also be interested in the Ultravids, as many rave about the ''warm colours'' there too. Is it really a design choice or is it just lower transmission and less than perfect white rendering?

Click to expand...

I tried this this morning on a fresh snow with a conquest hd 8x32 and an edg 7x42. The edg was a bit whiter than the conquest hd.

CG

My Conquest HD 8x32 arrived late this afternoon... just in time to catch the late afternoon feeding frezney :-O (how we term it) that takes place in the desert behind our house. Cardinals, Cactus Wrens, Curve Billed Thrashers, House Finches, Towhees, Doves, Quail, rabbits, chipmunks, and an assortment of other birds that I have yet to learn the names of.

Initial impressions... they are a little on the large side for 8x32, however, the view is a veritable twin to what I have been enjoying with my Conquest HD 10x42 for the last week or so. The glass, coatings, prism, etc. must be identical (aside from the difference in magnification and objective size) as the "look" and "feel" of the bins are essentially brotherly. Obviously, the "family" of Conquest HD bins is quite wonderful indeed, particularly at the price point. Practically "alpha" in many ways at such a great price!

In comparison to the Vortex Viper HD 8x32's that I have, the "visual" is clearly superior with the Conquest HD 8x32's; brighter, crisper, cleaner, clearer. Not that the Vipers weren't nice, because they truly are nice. But the Conquest HD 8x32 renders a noticeably "nicer" visual result. Therefore, the Vipers are going to be returned to the vendor. In the Viper's defense, I will say that they are very well built, handle well, give a very good visual, and are smaller and lighter weight than the Conquest HD 8x32. There is a lot to like about the Vipers. But the look through the glass is definitely better with the Conquest HD. The price to pay is a slightly larger size and slightly heavier weight... and a few extra bucks!

Were I not analytically anal about these matters (like a few of my fellow posters here), I would be thrilled to have and keep these Conquest HD 8x32's and be DONE with looking.

However, I'm still motivated to compare and anaylze! I will venture to my local Cabelas to compare the Conquest HD 8x32 to the Cabela Euro HD 8x32. And, if they have one in stock (unlikely) to a pair of Zeiss Victory FL 8x32's. (I've ruled out Leica 8x32's for wonky focuser wheel, small eyecups, and just "not feelin' the love".)

I believe that in the end, I will retain these Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 bins. If I never compared to another pair of bins again, I KNOW I would be exceptionally pleased with the performance of these 8x32 HDs. Zeiss has produced a great product, at a great price, that meets needs exceptionally well, without draining the wallet "alpha style". The question is whether I can overcome my nature to continually seek out and compare to better, more costly options. :-C At this point, however, there isn't much else that I am interested in comparing to... Cabelas Euro HD 8x32, Victory FL 8x32, or Swaro Swarovision 8x32.

For the money, the smart move would be to stick with the Conquest HD 8x32's and get on with enjoying my life with two pair of Conquest HD's: 10x42 and 8x32.

Don't go comparing, if you like the two Conquest's leave here immediately and be done with it. : )

If not be prepared to open your wallet and join the rest of us optically obsessed geeks!

Bryce...