• 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.

Tell me about the difference between low and high end. (1 Viewer)

HeadWest

Well-known member
I use a pair of Terrra ED 8x42s. I have really liked them until lately. I bought my first spotting scope, which I made a Kowa TSN-883. Incredible instrument, and of course I love it. So I've been exposed to "alpha" optics. To make it more clear, I recently spent a day with a Vortex Diamondback scope. Nice scope and all, but holy cow! What a difference.

So my question is, will I experience a similar contrast between a nice pair of bins vs my Terra EDs? I'm not going to go "alpha," but would probably upgrade to the Zeiss Conquest HDs or something similar (suggestions welcome). Thanks.
 
I use a pair of Terrra ED 8x42s. I have really liked them until lately. I bought my first spotting scope, which I made a Kowa TSN-883. Incredible instrument, and of course I love it. So I've been exposed to "alpha" optics. To make it more clear, I recently spent a day with a Vortex Diamondback scope. Nice scope and all, but holy cow! What a difference.

So my question is, will I experience a similar contrast between a nice pair of bins vs my Terra EDs? I'm not going to go "alpha," but would probably upgrade to the Zeiss Conquest HDs or something similar (suggestions welcome). Thanks.
Yes, you will. Try a Tract Toric HD 8x42 or Maven B.1 8x42. Less money than the Zeiss Conquest HD and better.

https://www.tractoptics.com/products/binoculars/toric-binoculars
 
Last edited:
Very generally, more money buys the following:
- better glass
- better quality coatings
- larger center view
- possibly a larger field of view
- less distortion
- flat field on higher end models
- better contrast
- more brightness
- possibly better resolution
- better mechanics
- better construction and materials
- better accessories
- possibly prestige

Keep in mind the law of diminishing returns apply. The improvement going from a $200 binocular to a $1,000 model will be more noticeable than going from a $1,000 model to a $2,500 model.

The Terra is a high quality entry level binocular for a serious viewer that provides a very good guality view, but the improvement going to a Zeiss SF is noticeable as it was in your scope example. It may not be quite as great because the Terra is a step up over the Diamondback.
 
Last edited:
btw.....the conquest is not an alpha.....just a step up from the terra.....and most of that step up is in build toughness.....not optics
 
I use a pair of Terrra ED 8x42s. I have really liked them until lately. I bought my first spotting scope, which I made a Kowa TSN-883. Incredible instrument, and of course I love it. So I've been exposed to "alpha" optics. To make it more clear, I recently spent a day with a Vortex Diamondback scope. Nice scope and all, but holy cow! What a difference.

So my question is, will I experience a similar contrast between a nice pair of bins vs my Terra EDs? I'm not going to go "alpha," but would probably upgrade to the Zeiss Conquest HDs or something similar (suggestions welcome). Thanks.
Using an 883 should give you a deep appreciation for alpha class views. You can creep up the binocular ladder or just go look at a few alphas and decide if the improvement is worth the expense. At my age, with my eyes even the best alphas keep me looking for that "better" view. The 883 is nice, isn't it!

Personally I disagree with the notion of diminishing returns when it comes to optics. I simply see it as this works and this doesn't. Seemingly small differences can make or break one's personal enjoyment and the difference between $1000 and $3000 over a fifteen year time span is about $11 a month or a few cups of coffee.
 
My argument to me (and maybe foolish) is that the better the quality,
the more detail I MAY be able to see.
Long term expensive optics become cheaper the lower priced optics frequently replaced.

edj
 
btw.....the conquest is not an alpha.....just a step up from the terra.....and most of that step up is in build toughness.....not optics

Pure hogwash. Not surprised given the poster. The Terra is nowhere near as good optically as the Conquest HD. Everyone in my family could see the difference and the women didn't know squat about binoculars. Not sure where you come up with this garbage but you're good at it.
 
nothing against the conquest....just saying...Zeiss alphas sell for 3 times the price of the conquest.....making the conquest Zeiss's upper end middle class binocular.....and the terra Zeiss's lower end middle class bin.....Zeiss doesn't make or market any junk......
 
In my opinion the Conquest is optically closer to the Victory than to the Terra. If you can't see the difference you have a hell of a good Terra, a terrible Conquest, or terrible vision perhaps? I can see differences between the Conquest and the SF, certainly, but the vast majority of the time they aren't differences that would matter in the field. Speaking purely optically, of course. The SF is still a far finer binocular than the Conquest and I greatly prefer it. But I don't think it will ever be the difference between ID'ing something and not.
 
Hi HeadWest,

The only Conquest I've tried is the 8x32, and I believe that is a special binocular. It is in a price point that is attainable for most people at least once in their lives and is close enough to the high end that I think most people would be happy with them. I've never looked through a Terra, but I've had a binocular in the same "class" as the Terra. The Conquest is a big step up.

I am not as good at comparing qualities as others in this forum and it has been a few years since I have looked through a Conquest, so as with all advice in this forum, take this with a pinch of salt. The Conquest's sweetspot is quite large and the view is immersive. I like how small it is. When you put it up to your eyes, you would not expect the view to look so good, but it is. It is a bright binocular and it handles well. The focus is smooth and fast; it is easy to go from birds down to butterflies. Build quality seemed good, though this was never my focus when others let me try theirs. I did notice it felt "right" in my hands. A good feature is that the eye cups are removable. Zeiss offers longer eyecups from their 8x42 and I think they fit the 8x32, though I would check. This is nice for people without glasses who like to push the eyecups into their face.

I thought about buying my own for a time, but I decided to save for an alpha model. If I had a quieter mind, I think I would have bought one, but I know my brain would have always been looking at the next "step up."
 
btw.....the conquest is not an alpha.....just a step up from the terra.....and most of that step up is in build toughness.....not optics

Pure hogwash. Not surprised given the poster. The Terra is nowhere near as good optically as the Conquest HD. .......

I'm riding along with JG on this one.

The Conquest HD is not quite alpha but it is darn close. I think of it as a sub alpha and just a small step down from the Zeiss SF.

There is a noticeable step up in the optics of the Conquest HD compared to the Terra. The Terra offers a very good view but the improvement in the Conquest HD is immediately noticeable. Actually, it is even more noticeable when then switching back to the Terra.

The first thing is the color balance where the Terra is on the warm side and the Conquest HD is much closer to netural. When first looking through the Terra, all looks ok. Then look through the Conquest HD and everything looks brighter with more contrast and a more natural appearance. Now switch back to the Terra and the view has a relatively muddy flat look. No back and forth is required to see the obvious difference.

Another difference is the size of the center view. The clear area is noticeably smaller with the Terra. Also CA fringing is much more noticeable about 2/3rd away from the center.

The Terra is good but it is not even close to the Conquest HD in view quality.

The build quality on the Terra looks to be strong but I agree the Conquest HD is most likely better with a magnesium frame vs. a composite for the Terra. I doubt if the frame of the Terra would hold up as well to the blast of shotgun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qri4RuT7Bk

Next is comparing the Conquest HD to the Zeiss SF. There is a difference but it is not near as noticeable as with the Terra comparision. Both have a similar color balance that is close to neutral and each are bright with good contrast. Detail will stand out a little more with the SF but it is not a stark difference. I just did a side by side under what is left of the harsh summer noon day sun and there is really no significant difference under these lack luster viewing conditions.

The difference becomes more noticeable under less harsh light conditions with subjects that are not dull like the brown desert I looked at a bit ago. Additionally, the advantages of the SF and the ability to pick out the fine detail will be more apparent in the SF under adverse conditions such as a very gloomy day. or early and late viewing.

The SF steps ahead of the Conquest HD in a noticeable way with the larger FOV and the flat field. Those are a couple of benefits resulting from the extra bucks for the SF.

The SF is the better binocular than the Conquest HD but the improvement is not near as noticeable as the improvement of the Conquest HD over the Terra.

The comments above are based on ownership of all three binoculars and side by side comparisons using the 10X42 models.


..........
So my question is, will I experience a similar contrast between a nice pair of bins vs my Terra EDs? I'm not going to go "alpha," but would probably upgrade to the Zeiss Conquest HDs or something similar (suggestions welcome). Thanks.


HeadWest ...... Getting back to your original questions, yes I think you will easily see an improvement going from the Terra to the Conquest HD. If you are a serious viewer, can afford the increased price and have the ability to see the difference, then I think the upgrade is worth the price.

There are a lot of good choices available in the sub alpha class. Some 8X42 models to consider are the Conquest HD, the Tract Toric (which JG likes), Opticron iMagic BGA VHD, Maven B1, Leica Trinivid HD and the new Nikon Monarch HG. My benchmark for this 8X42 group is the Nikon HG because it is unique in the class for the wide FOV of 435 ft and low weight. Many in this size have a FOV of about 380 ft so this is a significant plus for the HG. It is also relatively small in size and has a light weight of 23.4 oz (weighed no strap or covers). I bought one recently under the current instant rebate and like it.

Of the group, I would probably leave off the Trinivid HD and Maven from my personal list. For whatever reasons, I have never been able to warm up to the Trinivid, either the current of prior models, and the Trinivid HD FOV is only 372 ft. The Maven looks good but it is expensive for a non name brand and rarely has a discount so some of the others may be a better value.

The group would be the same for the 10X42 models but the benchmark would be the Conquest HD. The Nikon larger FOV advantage is not as great in the 10X and I think Zeiss Sports Optics is the much better company than Nikon and I like the construction better on the Zeiss. I also recently acquired the iMagic in a 10X42 and it is very nice. The Conquest looks to have just a little bit more contrast so far but it is close. The iMagic is a little smaller and lighter with the iMagic at 24..6 oz and the Conquest HD at 27.8 oz (both weighed no strap or covers).

Most of these come from Kamakura in Japan so there are a lot of similarities. The iMagic and Conquest HD have the exact same focus feel (although they have opposite travel directions). The iMagic and Tract are said to be built on the same frame and they may have similar optics. If so, then I can see why Tract gets good reviews.

You can not go wrong on any of these. I think the choice is less dependent on optical differences and comes down more to ergonomics and value.

On Edit: I started this post before the posts from pbJosh and Jack S. but posted it later after getting a couple of phone calls. So it looks like I will not only be riding along with JG but also pbjosh and Jack. All aboard!
 
Last edited:
This is a really well thought out, experience and equipment based analysis/commentary on the topic at hand. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Bill
 
nothing against the conquest....just saying...Zeiss alphas sell for 3 times the price of the conquest.....making the conquest Zeiss's upper end middle class binocular.....and the terra Zeiss's lower end middle class bin.....Zeiss doesn't make or market any junk......

Hi Gunny

I have to say I agree with JG about Conquest being a very significant step up from Terra. Your own summary above is correct too. I have a Terra 8x32 and Conquest HD 8x32 and to my eyes the Conquest is streets ahead although the Terra is a competent bino.

Lee
 
Bruce

Just spotted your post and you explain it very well indeed. I would only add that although we often obsess about optics on here, if you enjoy observing behaviour and so have your binos up to your eyes for long periods then SF's handling also counts as an alpha feature IMHO.

Lee
 
These threads always make me wonder about the eyesight of those who claim they can't tell any difference between an alpha and "lesser" optics, or that model "A" is "as good as" an alpha.

When I take my glasses down form my eyes, I am always disappointed by how poorly the "unclad" human eye can see, even as wondrous as it is.
 
Have to agree with JG here. I tried Conquest 8x and 10x32 at the nature store I go to every once in a while.
Looking out at their feeders and woods behind them, I noticed right away 3 things about the Conquest:

1. They worked very well with my eyeglasses and even the 10x32 seemed fine.
2. Noticed immediately the image popped (very nice colors and contrast, very sharp).
3. Large sweet spot.

When I tried the Terra at the same place on a different occasion (same spot, same view) I was not immediately impressed with the view like I was with the Conquest. The Terra is a nice bino, but the Conquest has a very high quality image and I would agree with many others who claim it's very close to top tier/alpha level.

If I had to buy a more affordable Chinese binocular I would be fine with Terra since Zeiss designed it ,has great customer service and I would think they're checking quality control before the bins hit the store shelves.
 
Very generally, more money buys the following:
- better glass
- ...
[Several points here]
- ...
...
Also, it seems to me that somehow "alpha" models make up more than the lesser ones for problems in the viewer's vision, like weaker acuity or astigmatism. I say somehow because I have, either, not seen the explanation or not been able to understand it from relevant text that I may have read.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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