Conquest 32 mm owners thread / reliability, durablity (1 Viewer)

NDhunter said:

James:

This is a glowing report for the Conquest HD, from someone who knows the Zeiss
lineup well, and I respect your opinion because of all of that experience.
They seem to do very well compared to the FL.

I recall you have the 10x42 FL, the 8x42 HT, and now the 8x32 Conquest ?
Are those the models you are comparing?

Jerry

Click to expand...

CSG said:

Glad you're enjoying them, James. My 8x42 HT's and 8x32 HD's are on a table together and when looking through them at the feeders I have trouble telling which is which (optically speaking) on bright days.

Very interesting comments comparing them to the FL's. I've wondered how much I'm leaving on the table having only the 8x32 HD's. Sounds like not much.

Click to expand...

james holdsworth said:

Well, I'm very pleased. The HD's seem to be a well-rounded binocular, with no real vices - if you can work with the eye-relief. For me, they fit very well.

Focus is smooth, very fast and light but with nice damping. If you have used an ultra-fast focus before, no problem as this one is very precise - if not, you may not be able to adapt easily as the tendency is to overshoot and backtrack.

Compared to the FL, the HD's have numerous advantages - the sweet spot is larger, the area of sharpest focus seems almost twice as big, and edge of field quality is higher. CA in the HD is nearly as good - lateral colour only appears at the edge of the sweetspot, and doesn't become obvious until the outer FOV. Sure, there is some fringing in this area, but it's there in the FL as well, although a bit paler perhaps. I'm not sure if the 32's are better than the 42's in this area, as some have mentioned it as weakness. [and I am very sensitive, and expected it to be worse]

The HD's have better contrast than the FL, giving a more lively view, with more 'pop', more transparency to my eye. Sharpness would be equal, as near as I can tell.

The HD, in apparent brightness, always looks slightly less bright than the FL, with a very slightly warmer bias. White rendering is OK, a bit ivory and warmer than the FL. Overall presentation would be very similar to the FL, with sweetspot size / contrast [HD] and whiteness of the image / brightness [FL] perhaps the only things that would stand out.

The HD's handle stray side light well, better than the FL, with any flare occurring as a small crescent, at the very edge of the FOV and not impacting the view much. Veiling glare is well controlled, again better than the FL's, really only present in those blinding situations of low, bright and scattered light.

Compared to the much more expensive HT - the HT is obviously brighter - all the time, white's are much whiter, overall colour more neutral [less warm], sweet spot similar but area of sharpest focus bigger, a hair sharper with better contrast and better [ideal] stray light control. I would think most users would never see the difference without owning both. If I didn't have the HT, I would have probably been very content for the Conquest to be my primary field binoculars.

Click to expand...

CSG said:

If the redesigned eyecups add a little more length and work more smoothly (I had two of them actually come apart on my 8x42 HD's and they are the exact same eyecups as on the 8x32's), seems like the HD line will be hard to beat.

Still have no issues with the diopter that a couple people have claimed. That, of course, could change over time.

Click to expand...

Holger Merlitz said:

When considering the responses to this thread, I conclude that the diopter problem seems to be under control by now. This is good news, since otherwise the Conquest HD is an excellent binocular for its price. Maybe, some day I shall consider to get the 8x32 with improved eyecups ;-)

Cheers,
Holger

Click to expand...

james holdsworth said:

Thought I should chime in on this, as I started the thread.

I have been using the HD's a lot this winter, and it's been really cold - down to -25 C. Focus is sweet, just as good as the HT's and works as well in the cold, although a bit smaller knob so a bit less intuitive.

Everything else working well and I'm really enjoying these in the field. Eye relief is so much better than the 42's, gives a very immersive and easy view, bright and very sharp and contrasty.

One negative that has crept up over lots of use is that the HD does show some glare / flare in strong side-light. It's not bad and tends to be confined to the edge of the FOV but it is surprising that the Terra is better in this regard. Looking down the barrels of the HD and Terra, the Terra looks blacker, with the ribbed ''extinction'' threading less shiny. So, something for Zeiss to improve with Gen. 2. Other than that, they are a really fine binocular, probably good enough to be most anyone's one-and-only.

The Terra, BTW, might need an optical tweak or two to be a class leader, but the body and build are already top-notch, beautifully clean inside with top-of-class stray light control.

Click to expand...

NDhunter said:

James:

I have both the Terra 8x42 and the HD 10x42, and have not noticed
much difference in light handling, I find them both to be quite good
overall.

They do have some differences inside, and I agree with you the Terra has
a much flatter black, with full ribbing all along the objective barrels.
Of course, my examination is with a bright light through the objective
lenses.

I find the Conquest to have a stop part way down from the last
objective lens, maybe 30mm. and some nearby surfaces having
less ribbing, so I suppose that means that it is not as
important in the lower area. The Terra has no ring or stop in that
area.

The difference in the blackening is interesting. The HD's interior has
almost a sparkle to the interior, not flat black at all, there is that much difference.

The optical design is different with these models, and the lens coatings
are different with the Conquest having the magenta reflections all
the way through, where the Terra is more of a green.

I will give both of these more of a comparison for the flare thing when
I get more time. How do you find the insides of the Victory HT compare ?

Jerry

Click to expand...

james holdsworth said:

Forgot to add, the 8x32 has very little pincushion and, as a result, I see a bit of ''rolling bowl'' [not ''rolling ball''] when panning or scanning quickly.

This effect is similar to what is seen in the old Zeiss 10x40 Classic, but to a lesser degree. It's kinda a trade-off, less distortion but a bit less settled panning behaviour. I imagine most will never see it or be bothered by it.

Click to expand...

brocknroller said:

Very little pincushion would produce "rolling ball" (or as Holger calls it, the "globe effect") rather than "rolling bowl" (negative curve), which occurs from a lot of pincushion like the ZR 7x36 ED2.

Here's Pincushion.

The 10x40 Zeiss ClassiC definitely has "rolling ball," so if what you're seeing looks the same in the 8x32 HD, it's "rolling ball." That rules me out since I'm "allergic" to RB! But the fast focuser would have put me off, anyway. That, combined with the shallow depth perception in midsized roofs would make for a not-better view desired.

How about the full sized 8x model, does it also have little pincushion (surprising for a Zeiss) and a fast focuser?

I'm more interested in the full sized model for ergonomic reasons, and I'm told the new, extended eyecups will be available in a couple weeks for that model, so that will overcome that problem. Still, I'm thinking that I should wait another year until all the bugs are worked out.

Brock

Click to expand...