People who used a Zeiss Conquest HD 8 x 32 (1 Viewer)

george-spiridakis said:

John,
so the problem you had with the blackouts, was because of the fact that the eyecups didn't come out far enough.. I don't get it, i thought that with the larger eye relief they would be easier for viewing through them..
Also, strangely, you didn't have the same problem with the 10 x 42 and their 17mm eye relief. What to you think is the reason?

Otherwise, did you notice a remarkable differnece in the view quality from your FL's (i suppose you have the 8 x 42)?
George

Click to expand...

Hi George,

Larger eye relief does allow easier viewing with glasses, but I like to wear contacts when using bins and depending on your facial features it can cause problems with blackouts if the eye relief is extreme. I had the same problem with the Zen Ray ED3 7x43. Several people have reported the same problem with both of these bins but there are many that don't have any problem with them. This is why it is always good advice to try before you buy. The more eye relief a bin has the further the eyes can be from the eyepiece and still see the full field of view, which is what happens when you wear glasses and press your glasses up against the eye piece. Your eye is a distance away from the eyepiece. Normally when used with glasses you turn the eye cups all the way in. Now when you use them without glasses you have to turn the eyecups out to get your eyes the correct distance away from the eyepieces. There is an ideal distance from the eye pieces that your eyes need to be to see the full field of view. For the sake of explanation let's assume that is 18mm for the 8x42 HD. If the eye cups only turn out 17mm or your facial features cause your eyes to be positioned at 17mm then you will experience blackouts. You can see this for yourself just by trying to use your bins with the eyecups turned in. Now as far as the 10x is concerned it has 1mm less eye relief than the 8x so assuming the eye cups turn out the same distance as the 8x it would position my eyes at 17mm and with the 17mm eye relief of the 10x I would be ok. Of course I use these numbers for explanation sake and don't know what the actual numbers would be.

I have the 7x42 FL's, so it would not be an apples to apples comparison, but I can give you what I personally remember from comparing them side by side. The view quality was not remarkably that different. There were subtle qualities that did stand out though. As I said above, I actually liked the colors better on the Conquest HD. They were very vibrant and saturated. The FL's were ever so slightly sharper for me, but unless you are very picky, as most are on here, you would probably not really notice this in general use. The other thing where the FL's were better was in the field of view. It was noticeably wider in the FL's but again that is an apples to oranges comparison. Anyway that is about all I can accurately remember and anymore would be a fuzzy speculation.

Dear all,
We had only a couple of days to investigate the Conquest HD 8x32, 8x42 and 10x42.
My impression is that the plastic eyecups may be a weak point of these binoculars, not so much because they are made of plastic (there are very strong plastics around), but the whole construction did not feel OK. Furthermore we have measured the transmission spectra of all three and we noticed that they are within experimental error completely identical, while the spectra of the old Conquest 8x30 and the new Conquest 8x32 HD were also exactly the same. All this brought us to the hypothesis that these Conquests are, as far as optical glass and coatings is concerned , identical to the old ones, but the binoculars are somewhat upgraded with a slightly larger objective diameter, shorter close-focus, twist-up eyecups and a new aluminium body. Considering the price of the Conquest HD"s it seems unlikely that all parts of these binoculars are made in Wetzlar Germany, but they certainly are assembled in Wetzlar, otherwise Zeiss would not be allowed to write "Made in Germany" on it.
We also looked with the HD's at point sources and there seemed to be remnants of either coma or misaligment, which we did not see in the old Conquest or the Victory FL.
This is something to investigate further to be certain.
Gijs

Help me out here. How can the new Conquest 8x32s be the same optically as the old Conquests if the new model sports ED glass in the objective design?

I looked at them for quite a bit this past Saturday. Though they weren't as impressive optically as I expected they did appear to have different optical performance parameters than the old model. Sadly, the old 8x30 was also on the table and it was the only bin that had dust on them from not being handled.

FrankD,
On the Zeiss WEB-site I did not find any sign of Extra Low Dispersion optical glass present in the Conquest HD. It only says: HD, which stands for High Definition and that can mean anything when it is not specified. The term covers already in principle the upgrade to a larger field of view, shorter close-focus and slightly larger objective diameter. The 8x32 Conquest HD for example shows no significant difference in image brightness and color reproduction compared with the old Conquest 8x30.
Gijs

This is a question for Gary......rather than the speculation. The website does, though, call the HD lens system ''new.''

Gary?

The question of whether the Conquest HD's use ED glass has already already answered by Gary here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2362015&postcount=43

Conquest HD 8 x 32, Kowa Genesis 8 x 33

Gijs van Ginkel said:

FrankD,
On the Zeiss WEB-site I did not find any sign of Extra Low Dispersion optical glass present in the Conquest HD. It only says: HD, which stands for High Definition and that can mean anything when it is not specified. The term covers already in principle the upgrade to a larger field of view, shorter close-focus and slightly larger objective diameter. The 8x32 Conquest HD for example shows no significant difference in image brightness and color reproduction compared with the old Conquest 8x30.
Gijs

Click to expand...

Gijs,
and other members of course, how does the Kowa Genesis 8 x 33 stands against the Conquest HD and even other top 8 x 32s?
I' ve read some good comments about it, it has many great characteristics competing even the best binos out there, how does this come in reality? Any opinions from personal experiences?
Gijs, have you done a test on that?
George

George,
No I have not tested or seen the Kowa Genesis 8x33, so I can not say anything about it, I am sorry. In binocular shops in The Netherlands Kowa is not seen frequently.
Gijs

henry link said:

The question of whether the Conquest HD's use ED glass has already already answered by Gary here:

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2362015&postcount=43

Click to expand...

Thanks, Henry!

BTW - I would love to hear your take re: colour cast to the FL - lately all the divergent opinions have my head spinning. Does the transmission curve result in a warm colour bias? I seem to see the opposite......

James Holdsworth,
The best thing you can do, is to ingnore everything we have published on this forum about color reproduction of the different binoculars, visit a binocular shop and compare different binoculars with regard to color reproduction and image brightness, if you want to focus on these properties. As a binocular user you undoubtedly know how to establish the differences quickly, conclude what you like best and do not worry anymore. We on this forum (myself included) focus sometimes on minute details of binoculars, which may not be noticed by more than 90% of the binocular users.

Gary,
Why did Zeiss not report use of one or more ED lenses in the Conquest HD, if it is present as you have said? Second question: how many ED components are used and where is/are the ED component(s) incorporated in the system?

Gijs van Ginkel said:

James Holdsworth,
The best thing you can do, is to ingnore everything we have published on this forum about color reproduction of the different binoculars, visit a binocular shop and compare different binoculars with regard to color reproduction and image brightness, if you want to focus on these properties. As a binocular user you undoubtedly know how to establish the differences quickly, conclude what you like best and do not worry anymore. We on this forum (myself included) focus sometimes on minute details of binoculars, which may not be noticed by more than 90% of the binocular users.

Gary,
Why did Zeiss not report use of one or more ED lenses in the Conquest HD, if it is present as you have said? Second question: how many ED components are used and where is/are the ED component(s) incorporated in the system?

Click to expand...

I've done what you suggest, with many types of bins over many years. To my eye, and seemingly almost every other user of the FL, it is not yellowish at all.

james holdsworth said:

Thanks, Henry!

BTW - I would love to hear your take re: colour cast to the FL - lately all the divergent opinions have my head spinning. Does the transmission curve result in a warm colour bias? I seem to see the opposite......

Click to expand...

James,

Here's a link to a thread about photographing the color bias of binoculars:

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=131853

Posts 21 and 30 contain photographs of the bias of a few Zeiss FL models. What you see in the photos is also the way those particular FL's looked to my eye; almost neutral but slightly cool in the early 2004 sample and a more pronounced greenish bias in later (2007-8) production. I haven't seen any more recent examples.

Henry

Thanks again Henry, confirms what I thought I remembered.

So, do we take it that the latest examples of FL's are now ''warm'' biased or yellowish or is this just another case of different eyes seeing different things?