• 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.

Thoughts on Primes (1 Viewer)

Thanks for the follow-up.

I did have a Prime 10X from the very first production run, but we were not a good match for fit, thus my question on the 8X. I am under the impression the 8X is more forgiving for someone like me.

The 10X Prime did provide a most excellent view. The differences I would have expected to see between the 8X Prime and your Conguest is a larger center view in the Prime due to the flat field view and a little brighter view in the Conquest because of the potential of less lens surfaces (no flat field) and well, because it is Zeiss. It can take some time to get used to a binocular, so you may start noticing subtle differences in the view over time.

"Not a good match to fit." To fit what? Your hands? Your face? What didn't work for you?

Brock
 
I bet your wife would, though. :smoke:

<B>

She actually thought the Primes a little sharper. I suspect the field flattner is what she noticed.

They dont have quite the fit and finish but you got to really look to see the difference. They are both damn good binoculars, I aint real jazzed about the China part and for that reason I prefer the Ziess.
 
"Not a good match to fit." To fit what? Your hands? Your face? What didn't work for you?

Brock

Brock ... That comment was in follow-up to post 16 were I was asking about the fit of the eyecups. The eyecups were a little to short in relation to the eye relief on the 10X Prime I tried resulting in some blackouts. It was not a good fit for me.
 
Brock ... That comment was in follow-up to post 16 were I was asking about the fit of the eyecups. The eyecups were a little to short in relation to the eye relief on the 10X Prime I tried resulting in some blackouts. It was not a good fit for me.

Thanks for clarifying. Seems like there's a lot of that going around these days. I suggested a couple solutions on the Swaro forum:

One size does not fit all

Brock
 
Just back from ten days in the Rockies with the Zen 8x42 Prime and they performed flawlessly. In the field, in actual use, they’re as good as any alpha in my opinion. Under controlled A/B conditions maybe you can find a few small things to niggle about. But the birds don’t wait and I don’t think I once regretted leaving the 8.5 SV at home. This was a bit surprising to me, because I am (ahem . . .) picky. Best lifer: American Three-toed Woodpecker. Runner up: Williamson’s Sapsucker.

I often wanted something lighter though. My wife has sort of commandeered the 20.5 ounce 8x32 SV which is my personal favorite. The 29.6 ounce Prime is not first choice for an unacclimated 12 mile day hike at 9-10.5 k ft. (insert huffing-puffing smilie here). :-O Where I live I top out at 2200 ft. Well, we had a great day anyway.

Would something substantially less expensive than the $610 Prime do as well? Hmm, maybe, maybe not. I have the 8x43 ED2 and I think the Prime is a solid step up. I would take the Prime over the ED2 in a heartbeat. The Prime flatfield eyepiece is still a little “fussy” compared to the SV, however. Perhaps spherical aberration of the exit pupil is involved? It reminds me somewhat of the 8x32 SE in that regard. Not as touchy though, just not “slap ‘em on your face” easy like the SV.

Regardless, I had a great time with the Primes. They are plenty good enough. You can chase "diminishing returns" if you want to. Your call. But the Primes should thrill any birder. I love ‘em. :t:

Mark

PS: the weight issue should be kept in perspective. The 8.5 SV weighs 29.2 ounces (829 gm) so it's basically a tie. The Prime does feel a little heavy in comparison, so other factors must be involved (open/closed hinge, etc.). And in either case, if you're climbing mountains above the treeline, please take something smaller than a full-sized binocular. ;)
 
Last edited:
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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top