:-O Bryce.... very sage advice that you offer. I really should "quit while I'm ahead." :-O
Can I? Will I? We shall see!
-
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.
Has Conquest HD 8x32 matched the older Victory T* FL LT 8x32 - cost aside (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter ZDHart
- Start date
:-O Bryce.... very sage advice that you offer. I really should "quit while I'm ahead." :-O
Can I? Will I? We shall see!
stereotruckdriver
Well-known member
Gijs van Ginkel
Well-known member
Dear all,
I was clearing old files and I came across the following:
Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD: weight 643 g ; close focus 1,6 m ; FOV 140 m/1000m ; nr of rotations from close focus to infinity = 1,2 ; measured magnification 8,2x ; light transmission at 500 nm=88,5% ; at 550 nm=91,5% ; eyerelief 18 mm ; price 799 euro.
Now the "old" Conquest 8x30: weight 547 g ; close focus 2,8 m ; FOV= 120m/1000m ; nr. of rotations from close focus to infinity =1,4 ; measured magnification 7,9x ; light transmission at 500 nm = 88,9% ; at 550 nm = 91,5% ; eyerelief 16 mm ; price 799 euro
Would it be a bold hypothesis to assume that the Conquest HD is a slightly upgraded old Conquest, while the price of the new Conquest HD could be kept lower by outsourcing production of a lot of the parts of the Conquest HD to Kamakura either in his Japanese or in his Chinese factory? After all the Terra's are also made in China.
Any wise remarks?
Gijs
I was clearing old files and I came across the following:
Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD: weight 643 g ; close focus 1,6 m ; FOV 140 m/1000m ; nr of rotations from close focus to infinity = 1,2 ; measured magnification 8,2x ; light transmission at 500 nm=88,5% ; at 550 nm=91,5% ; eyerelief 18 mm ; price 799 euro.
Now the "old" Conquest 8x30: weight 547 g ; close focus 2,8 m ; FOV= 120m/1000m ; nr. of rotations from close focus to infinity =1,4 ; measured magnification 7,9x ; light transmission at 500 nm = 88,9% ; at 550 nm = 91,5% ; eyerelief 16 mm ; price 799 euro
Would it be a bold hypothesis to assume that the Conquest HD is a slightly upgraded old Conquest, while the price of the new Conquest HD could be kept lower by outsourcing production of a lot of the parts of the Conquest HD to Kamakura either in his Japanese or in his Chinese factory? After all the Terra's are also made in China.
Any wise remarks?
Gijs
FrankD
Well-known member
Gijs,
I have only handled the Conquest HD 8x32s on a limited number of occasions. Enough for me to form some initial impressions on it.
However, I did own the Conquest 8x30...two units actually over a span of a couple of years. My impressions are they are two entirely different designs but with the end result of similar specifications (minus field of view). Again, going by memory, some distinctive characteristics that the Conquest 8x30 displayed was somewhat of a "golden hue" to the image. Not really a color bias but rather just a specific sense of contrast typically found in my binoculars that utilize silver in the prism coating. Also, despite the fairly average field of view, there was a bit of a "ring" outside of the sweet spot that displayed itself depending on the conditions. I think the consensus on the ring was that it was the result of the glass "pane" utilized in front of the objective design for waterproofing purposes.
Physically I also remember the Conquest 8x30 being slimmer and longer in design than the 8x32 HD. The impression of a longer binocular may just be a result of the slimmer barrels. I don't have the length specs on hand at the moment for either model.
I have only handled the Conquest HD 8x32s on a limited number of occasions. Enough for me to form some initial impressions on it.
However, I did own the Conquest 8x30...two units actually over a span of a couple of years. My impressions are they are two entirely different designs but with the end result of similar specifications (minus field of view). Again, going by memory, some distinctive characteristics that the Conquest 8x30 displayed was somewhat of a "golden hue" to the image. Not really a color bias but rather just a specific sense of contrast typically found in my binoculars that utilize silver in the prism coating. Also, despite the fairly average field of view, there was a bit of a "ring" outside of the sweet spot that displayed itself depending on the conditions. I think the consensus on the ring was that it was the result of the glass "pane" utilized in front of the objective design for waterproofing purposes.
Physically I also remember the Conquest 8x30 being slimmer and longer in design than the 8x32 HD. The impression of a longer binocular may just be a result of the slimmer barrels. I don't have the length specs on hand at the moment for either model.
I went comparing and I'm glad I did.
Certainly an in-store comparison is neither exhaustive nor comprehensive, but after weeks of buying and returning a lot of bins and living with a number of them, this in-store comparison was enough to bring me to some selection conclusions.
Compared the Conquest HD 8x32 to Cabelas Euro hd 8x32 and Swaro EL 8x32. It wasn't an extensive comparison... just in-store. But I quickly determined that the image quality with the Conquest HD was on par, in my view, with that from the Swaro EL 8x32 and clearly better than the Cabelas Euro HD 8x32. The Zeiss looked brighter and crisper to me than the Cabelas Euro HD 8x32's.
So, I quickly eliminated the Cabelas Euro HD and spent some more time between the Conquest HD and the Swaro EL.
For my interests, the Conquest HD had a comparable image quality, though slightly less focused at the edges. And sharp focus at the edges is not something of much, if any, importance to me. I don't view things carefully at the edges of the glass... when I want to look at something, I bring the glasses to center on the object. The Conquest HD had good enough focus at the edges to catch objects in the periphery, which is all I need from the edges of bins.
Further, the focus wheel on the Swaro felt a little cheesy to me compared to the focus wheel on the Conquest HD which felt smoother, and more even in both directions. I tend to use the focus wheel CONSTANTLY while using bins, so the feel of the focus wheel is something that I consider a very important selection criterion. Feel in the hand... for me, the nod goes to Zeiss.
So... $825 for the Conquest HD 8x32 vs. $2200 for the Swaro EL 8x32. My mind was made up in a heartbeat. I appreciated the slightly lighter weight of the Swaros, but for the price difference, that wasn't a significant factor.
I was unable to find a pair of 8x32 FL's to look at and from all that I've read now about them, I have no plans to bother with trying to do so.
Ruled out Swaros, Leicas, and Meoptas. Conquest HD 8x32 is it for me. At this point, I've looked around enough to know that they're the ones I want to go through time with. No more nagging desire to do comparisons with the intent of returning the Zeiss. Now all I have to do is use them and enjoy them! That's a happy place to be.
Certainly an in-store comparison is neither exhaustive nor comprehensive, but after weeks of buying and returning a lot of bins and living with a number of them, this in-store comparison was enough to bring me to some selection conclusions.
Compared the Conquest HD 8x32 to Cabelas Euro hd 8x32 and Swaro EL 8x32. It wasn't an extensive comparison... just in-store. But I quickly determined that the image quality with the Conquest HD was on par, in my view, with that from the Swaro EL 8x32 and clearly better than the Cabelas Euro HD 8x32. The Zeiss looked brighter and crisper to me than the Cabelas Euro HD 8x32's.
So, I quickly eliminated the Cabelas Euro HD and spent some more time between the Conquest HD and the Swaro EL.
For my interests, the Conquest HD had a comparable image quality, though slightly less focused at the edges. And sharp focus at the edges is not something of much, if any, importance to me. I don't view things carefully at the edges of the glass... when I want to look at something, I bring the glasses to center on the object. The Conquest HD had good enough focus at the edges to catch objects in the periphery, which is all I need from the edges of bins.
Further, the focus wheel on the Swaro felt a little cheesy to me compared to the focus wheel on the Conquest HD which felt smoother, and more even in both directions. I tend to use the focus wheel CONSTANTLY while using bins, so the feel of the focus wheel is something that I consider a very important selection criterion. Feel in the hand... for me, the nod goes to Zeiss.
So... $825 for the Conquest HD 8x32 vs. $2200 for the Swaro EL 8x32. My mind was made up in a heartbeat. I appreciated the slightly lighter weight of the Swaros, but for the price difference, that wasn't a significant factor.
I was unable to find a pair of 8x32 FL's to look at and from all that I've read now about them, I have no plans to bother with trying to do so.
Ruled out Swaros, Leicas, and Meoptas. Conquest HD 8x32 is it for me. At this point, I've looked around enough to know that they're the ones I want to go through time with. No more nagging desire to do comparisons with the intent of returning the Zeiss. Now all I have to do is use them and enjoy them! That's a happy place to be.
Last edited:
Thanks, Lee. I considered all of, and I do know that had I bought ANY one of these:
Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 (the ones I decided to keep)
Zeiss 8x32 FL
Swaro EL 8x32
Cabelas Euro HD 8x32
Meopta MeoStar 8x32
Swaro CL 8x30
Vortex Viper HD 8x32 (which I lived with for a week)
Leica Ultravid 8x32
Leica Trinovid 8x32
I would have benefitted from superb performance and loved having and using any one of them for the long haul. There are no poor choices here, really, just slightly differing variations on the 8x32 format, each with slightly differing pros and cons. (None are perfect!)
Optically, all of the above provide a great visual experience. The bigger differences for me were ergonomics, how the focusing wheel felt/operated, and the size/shape/feel of the eyecups!
As I've mentioned before, to me the focus wheel is like the steering wheel of your car... it's THE user interface that you are constantly adjusting and working with. As it turned out, the feel of the focusing wheel played a significant part in my final selection decision. I found the focusing wheel on the Zeiss Conquest HD to have a much better feel than any of the Leicas and Swaros that I handled. I also learned that there is significant variation in the feel of the focusing wheel - even among different samples of the same identical model! I did find a greater consistency, however, among the feel of the focusing wheels on the Zeiss Conquest HDs that I handled and bought.
Along with the feel of the focusing wheel is how the bin's eye cups feel against the eye sockets and the relief of the eyecups. The Zeiss Conquest HD models have relatively larger eyecups with a larger, rounder edge (the part that sits right up against your eye socket) and I found these to be more comfortable than smaller-edged eye cups and they blocked stray sidelight very well for me.
So... Zeiss Conquest HD offers great sharpness, clarity, brightness, contrast, color quality (alpha-like optical quality), a wide angle of view, great focuser feel and consistency that I prefer, an eyecup size and shape that I prefer, and then we get to... price:
Zeiss has brought us a line of bins (Conquest HD) which offer virtual alpha performance in many aspects, at about half the price (and as low as just 37% of the cost of the most expensive alpha bins.)
Taken all together - and the fact that I wanted to have two pair of bins: 10x42 and 8x32 - the Zeiss Conquest HD won me over. So I finally wound up with two pair of Zeiss Conquest HDs: the 8x32 and 10x42. Total cost $825 + $925 = $1750.
We have a veritable embarrassment of riches going on in the bin market these days. Aren't we fortunate to have so many great choices!
Last edited:
Lee... how funny that you would mention that. I have yet to even look through a pair of 12x56, but just yesterday, the though DID occur to me that I should have a look at them! 8-P
Oh... I guess 12x56 HD's aren't offered yet. Are they?
I know they are more difficult to how still, but with a braced, seated position, I think I could really appreciate viewing the desert birds from my easy chair on the back porch!
Last edited:
Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
Hi Gijs,
The Conquest HD is very obviously a completely different design - I once had both, the new and the old one, for a short comparison, and they have practically nothing in common. Optically, the new Conquest HD is very significantly better than the old version.
With your outsourcing-remark you are certainly right - being made by Kamakura allows the new Conquest to be sold at the same price as the old one, despite of being superior. Since the focus-drift problem is apparently solved now, my only concern left with the Conquest HD is its super-fast focuser, I prefer it a little slower ...
Cheers,
Holger
Don
There is no 12x but there is a 15x!
A bit of a handful to be sure, but this cannon comes complete with a tripod adaptor o
So you really have no excuse :t:
Happy dreams :smoke:
Lee
hmmmmmmmmmmm... that sounds very nice!
NDhunter
Experienced observer
James:
You have a good question about whiteness ratings among binoculars.
And it is one thing I have not spent much time thinking about.
It is important, and there are differences that some may be able to see.
Among the ones you have mentioned I do have the EDG, SV, Conquest
and Terra. I could not tell you how I perceive any whiteness differences, as
they are all very good optically.
Here is how Albinos rates and ranks some of these.
These are the 10x42 models, as that is the EDG model that I own.
These comments are about the whiteness of the image as presented
by Allbinos.
Nikon EDG 10x42. Overall #1, ranking of the models they have tested.
Whiteness of the Image score: 4.5/5.0.
"High transmission values in the wide range spectrum. The curve a bit inclined with the highest value for the red part of the spectrum".
Swarovski 10x42 Swarovision. Overall #2, ranking.
Whiteness of the Image score: 4.8/5.0.
"Excellent, surprisingly high transmission in the blue range of the spectrum".
Zeiss Victory FL, 10x42. Overall #3, ranking.
Whiteness of the Image: 4.3/5.0.
"Very good".
Leica Ultravid 10x42 HD. Overall # 7 ranking.
Whiteness of the image. 4.6/5.0.
"Slight inclination of the transmission curve, with the growing tendancy toward the red part of the spectrum."
The reason I have picked Allbinos for this reference, is they do measure
the transmission spectrum, and most of them are posted with a graph on their reviews.
They comment on "whiteness" and score it.
For most wondering about which binocular to choose, whiteness of the image
is only a small part of the decision. I do agree with the Allbinos overall rankings.
Jerry
Last edited:
