Swift Ultralite/Pentax SP/Zeiss Conquest (1 Viewer)

I currently have in my possession three wonderful little mid to low priced roof prism binoculars…the Pentax 8x43 SP, the Zeiss Conquest 8x30 and the Swift Ultralite 8x42. The Zeiss I have had in my possession for some time. Both the Swift and the Pentax are relatively new acquisitions. With some time on my hands today I decided to do a little non-scientific comparison between them. Observations were done in my backyard. I live in a fairly rural setting with a lot of opportunity to compare both short and long distance viewing. I am going to break this down into some of the common key characteristics without actually assigning any type of ranking system.

Handling

Each of these binoculars has an entirely different feel to them. The Swift has the thickest barrels and thumb indents that feel a little bit too far forward for my hands. Placing my thumbs in the indents does provide a steadier overall feel and better balance but it is not an intuitively natural position when I first pick up the binoculars. Overall weight is very respectable with the Swifts weighing in at around 23 ounces.

The Zeiss are noticeably smaller and lighter than the other two. I have fairly large hands so I prefer a glass that has some length to it. Because of this I have slight trouble really warming up to many of the 30-32 mm glasses currently on the market. Not so with the little Conquest. It is probably the least compact of any of the 30-32 mm glasses I have owned/tried. To me that is a benefit as it gives me a better opportunity to steady the bins for more precise viewing. Their overall weight, around 17 ounces, makes them a breeze to tote around. You could easily forget these bins are hanging around your neck. There aren’t any thumb indents on these bins but the barrels are fairly narrow and easy to get your hands around.

The Pentax is somewhat of a combination of the two. The barrels are noticeably narrower than the Swift and it does have thumb indents on the underside of the barrels. Unlike the Swift though the indent placement seems to fit my hands much more like a glove. I have no problem instantly finding the indents and holding these bins surprisingly steady. Their 22-ounce weight is a perfect compromise for portability and steady viewing…at least for my hands.

All three binoculars utilize a twist-up eyecup design. The Pentax and the Swift have several indents built into the design so the eyecups have a difficult time collapsing when pressure is applied on them. The Zeiss does not have the “indents” but it does have quite a bit of friction in the twisting mechanism, which, again, makes it difficult for the eyecups to be collapsed unintentionally.

Focusing

Each has its own particular feel to the focuser as well. Both the Pentax and the Swift have a relatively large and smooth focusing knob. These models, and others such as the Nikon Monarch, have a particular feel to the focusing mechanism. It is smooth and moderately precise in feel. One does not tend to overshoot prime focus too often. The Zeiss is a bit stiffer in overall feel but this tends to lend itself to more precise focusing in my experience. I believe this is one of the reasons that the Zeiss image tends to “pop” into focus a bit more dramatically than the other two.

Image Quality

There are several ways to look at this comparison so I am going to break it down into some of the most often referred to characteristics.

Brightness

Probably one of the most often cited optical characteristics is brightness. Among these three bins the Swift is the clear winner. In full daylight and even just now at dusk the Swift’s image was noticeably brighter than either the Pentax or the Zeiss. With all else being fairly equal (at least between the Pentax and Swift) I would have to chalk this up to the coatings used on the lenses. Of course the Pentax might require a more complex eyepiece design in order to attain some of its other unique optical qualities. With more glass typically comes a slightly dimmer image. The Pentax comes in second with the Zeiss not being too far behind despite the 25% smaller objective lenses.

Contrast

In this category there again seems to be a clear winner. The Zeiss has noticeably better contrast than either of the other two bins. The Zeiss gives one much of the “picture window” feel to the image. It actually appears as if you are standing right next to the feeder you are observing. The Pentax is a somewhat distant second with the Swift being almost tied for that second spot. Still when going from either the Swift or the Pentax to the Zeiss it is almost as if you are peeling a very slight film off of the image.

Color

I am going to chalk this one up as a tie between the Swift and the Zeiss. The Zeiss has that soothing level of color representation that is only bettered in this manner by the Leica Trinovid. The colors are crisp but they also seem to invoke a very relaxed feeling to my eyes. The Swifts seem more vivid and alive. Sometimes, for me, it is difficult to separate brightness with color representation especially when the colors are not “washed out” by the level of brightness. This is the case with the Swift for me. The Pentax’s color representation is neutral and very accurate as well but the colors don’t seem to be as vivid as that of the Swift’s.

Field of View

I am going to just refer to the commonly used “field of view at 1000 yards” to make things simple. You can calculate the angular field of view by dividing the numbers by 52.5 feet if you like.

Both the Pentax and the Swift have what I would call average field of view for their price range and optical design. Most 8x42 roof prism binoculars between $300-$600 have fields of view in the 320-360 foot range. The Pentax at 330 feet and the Swift at 341 feet fall right into the middle of this range. The 8x30-32 mm binoculars priced in this range typically have fields of view anywhere from 335-400 feet. Though the Zeiss falls right in the middle of this range I would still call it a bit on the narrow side as most of the current 8x32 models have fields of view that hover right around 390 feet. Still I have not found this to be a significantly detrimental characteristic for the Zeiss’s view.

Distortion/Aberration

This is an interesting point of discussion for these three bins because each has a totally different level of representation in this category. The Zeiss has a relatively small “sweet spot” (around 60% of the field of view if I had to hazard a guess) surrounded by what is often referred to as astigmatism. This is the “blurriness” one often sees if one looks away from the center of the image in many mid to low priced binoculars. The difference between this and something like field curvature (another “blurriness” for lack of a better layman’s term) is that you cannot refocus the outer edge of the field of view with the focusing knob. It is always “blurry” no matter what you do. With the little Conquest I have not really found this to be that detrimental. The sweet spot offers a very sharp, bright contrasty image and because of the small exit pupil you, as the user, are forced to move the binocular itself to scan for an object. If this image were represented in a 40-42 mm model (same magnification) then it might be more objectionable as your eye would want to search around exit pupil to look for an object rather than just moving the binocular itself.

The Swift also has a relatively small sweet spot but the difference here is that the change from perfect sharpness to blurriness is much more gradual. The inner 50% of the image is what I call perfect focus. The next 20-25% of the image is less than perfect but still close enough to it that you can barely perceive the change unless you look for it. The outer 25% of the image is noticeably blurry but again the transition is gradual and not distracting, as is the case with some other models I have owned. Also, this is field curvature. I can refocus the outer portion of the image with a little effort

The Pentax has a noticeably larger sweet spot than either of the other two. I have read in the Pentax literature that this is the result of the aspherical lens utilized in the eyepiece design of this particular binocular. The sweet spot of image in perfect focus probably hovers around 85% of the image with a very gradual transition over that last 15%. This produces a very relaxed and naturally looking image to my eyes.

Chromatic Aberration, or color fringing as it is more commonly called, is evident in all three bins but in varying degrees. The Pentax probably exhibits the worst with noticeable purple and yellow fringing on high contrast objects. The Swift is slightly better in this regard but not by much. The Zeiss exhibits extremely low levels of color fringing which surprises me because it does not reportedly utilize any type of ED, HD or FL low dispersion type glass in its design. Looking across a broader spectrum of binoculars I would rate the Pentax and Swift as average in this regard for their price point and the Zeiss significantly above average.

Overall impressions

I enjoy using each of these binoculars. Each has something to it that I find appealing. I know when I pick up the Swift that I am going to be rewarded with a very bright, colorful image. The Zeiss is going to give me a tack sharp view in a very lightweight package. The Pentax’s wide sweet spot and wonderful handling makes it a pleasure to put up to my eyes. I cannot really find significant fault with any of them despite their shortcomings.

The CA would be even more obvious in the 10x versions.

Is there any reason one would prefer an 8x40 over a 8x30 in normal use in daylight, cloudy winter days included?

The Swift sounds like an overall pleasant view.

Thanks for the reply Tero. My threads never seem to go over too well here. ;-)

Probably the biggest reason I can think of why one would choose an 8x40 over an 8x30 for regular daytime use is because of the exit pupil. Just about any 8x40/7x40 model gives much easier eye placement and a subsequently more relaxing view all else being equal. As I mentioned above when using a smaller exit pupil binocular I tend to want to move the binocular around to scan for a given object. With a slightly larger exit pupil model I want my eye to roam around the image more.

The Swift really surprised me. It provides a "better" overall view than the Monarch in my opinion and at the same price point.

I may be interested in an 8x, but it has to be something new, formatwise. So an 8x40 with a fov 360-380ft would be neat. If not too heavy. The only one I have found in my budget...or near..is the Stokes DSL 8x at 383ft. I would need to sell a 10x first.

FrankD,

Thank you for the comparison.

I enjoy comparisons such as yours because I think it is a good example that not all optics are built with the same end result in mind. As I read your comparison I found myself thinking that I would use one pair in certain circumstances, and another pair in other circumstances, etc.

So if I could only buy one, which circumstance do I find myself in most often...

Enjoy.

Frank, I for one always look forward to your bino comparisons.

I have a Zeiss Diafun 8x30 and while it is nice and bright, I find it lacks a little in ultimate resolution - fine details are a little harder to see, compared to my Minox 8x32s or my Pentax 10x43s. Now, obviously these are different binos and magnifications, but I generally have been less than impressed by Zeiss's less expensive binos.

I am, however, surprised that the Swift Ultralites were so much better than the SPs, especially in brightness & color. I havent checked out the Swifts but I've compared the SPs to the Trinovids and found them on par in field use (no resolution charts). That bodes really well for the Swifts.

Thanks for sharing your comparison!

Vandit

Tero,

That Stokes DLS 8x42 is one very nice piece of glass from what I have gathered. I have yet to handle one myself but at the price they are selling for now I am surely tempted. If you are looking to spend that much though I would also keep the Razors in mind as well especially at 8x. Doug had demos at around the same price as what the Stokes are selling for now at EO.

chartwell99,

I would agree. The Zeiss eyecups can be a bit of a dealbreaker for some folks. I have never had a problem with them in this regard but I can see how a slightly thicker level of rubber would be warranted.

CMB,

Your comments are spot on...and probably one of the reasons I use to keep convincing myself that I need to buy another binocular. I could easily see how one individual may have a priority on low light conditions thus putting the Swifts on the top of the list while another might value portability thus giving the Zeiss the nod.

vkalia,

I have tried the Diafuns. Neat housing but the optics were a bit below what I expected from Zeiss. The Conquests offer better optical performance in a more conventional design..ofcourse at a significantly more expensive price....so you can see the trade-off. It is funny that you mentioned resolution though in reference to the Zeiss. I sort of referenced it in my review but I perceived the Zeiss to have the best resolution at both short and long distances. Again, this was only my perception and not any type of scientific measurement. I do have some nice little resolution charts that a friend sent me so I may have to break them out eventually.

I have to admit that I was very surprised by the Swifts as well. Had the salesperson at the optics counter not handed them to me to consider I probably would not have asked for them. I would have probably asked for the ED porro that they are so famous for (they sold the last one the week before so I could not sample it). In comparison directly with the Nikon Monarchs the Ultralite was definitely brighter with better color representation. I did not really expect to see an improvement over the Monarchs at that price point so the Ultralites really were a pleasant surprise.

A local birder has the Zeiss 8x30s. He never messes with eye cups, he leaves them in. Somehow he holds his hand close to his eye brow and looks, never touching the face with the bins. We are looking for birds, never mind the eye cups.

Tero,

Because of the height of the bridge of my nose and and the distance my eyes are set apart I tend to leave just about all of the eyecups fully collapsed on my bins...Conquest included. Personally I do not have a problem with their level of padding but I can see where someone that wears eyeglasses just might.

.....cannot wait for tomorrow. UPS is bringing the EO order.

I have noticed it makes a difference what day you get the bins. One pair I had with me at work, but all I could find was starlings that day. The starlings pair is gone by now.

The eye cups is one thing with the Zeiss, but my 40mm model ended up not used because of the weight. I even got a harness to help out. I am not a harness guy, no matter what.

FrankD said:

Chromatic Aberration, or color fringing as it is more commonly called, is evident in all three bins but in varying degrees. The Pentax probably exhibits the worst with noticeable purple and yellow fringing on high contrast objects. The Swift is slightly better in this regard but not by much. The Zeiss exhibits extremely low levels of color fringing which surprises me because it does not reportedly utilize any type of ED, HD or FL low dispersion type glass in its design.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about objects that are in focus, out of focus, or both? I find on my binoculars that things that are in focus don't have fringes even against fairly bright backgrounds, but things that are somewhat out of focus, in the foreground and background, grow substantial color fringes. It actually gets to be a bit distracting at times, even though the out-of-focus objects aren't usually what I'm trying to see. Did you see a lot more color fringing for out-of-focus objects than the in-focus objects?

bkrownd,

Truthfully, I did not really look for, or notice, any color fringing on objects specifically out of focus. As with most of the roof prism binoculars I have tried the color fringing is more pronounced around the outer edge of the image usually coinciding almost exactly with the percentage of distortion in the image. All of the color fringing I noticed were on objects in focus.

Thanks Frank,
I really liked reading that your opinion of the Swift Ultra 8x42 is high, since I have one, (a green one).

Your welcome Marcus. I hope to take a stab at a review for the Celestron Ultima DX model next.

Frank, didn't you just get the Diamondback 8x42s as well? Could you comment on how they compare with the others-what you give up for going with the lower priced bins?
I've got a neighbor on a budget who might be willing to buy a Diamondback now that the tan ones are so cheap(though they're still more than he wants to spend). At these prices, I might buy one just to leave at work, assuming they handle glare fairly well.
Thanks.

Owen,

Yes, I ordered the 8x42 Diamondbacks along with the Celestron Ultima DXs and the Bushnell Legend 8x26 reverse porros.

The Diamondbacks remind me very much, image wise, of the Nikon Sporters in that they have that big "walk-in" view (excellent eye relief and a very unique eyepiece design). If you took the Sporter I's view and made it a bit wider (with an equal increase in distortion over the increased field of view), and sharper and brighter then you would basically have the Diamondback. The Diamondback features phasecoating on the roof prisms unlike the Sporters which is probably why the image is noticeably sharper and brighter.

Handling on the Diamondbacks is excellent in my opinion. The rubber has a very pleasant feel to it and the contouring of the bins is equally appealing. Focusing speed and tension were just about ideal.

Now the downside....I have decided to send my pair back to EO as there seems to be some disparity between image quality in each barrel. I am guessing this is more of an issue with quality control at this price point rather than any defect in the optical design itself. If I could sit down with a half dozen Diamondbacks and pick and choose through the lot then I might find one that completely meets my needs.

Hope this proves helpful.