Zeiss 8x32 Coquest HD or Terra ED (1 Viewer)

Hello again.

Two weeks ago I asked here about a binocular in the 600 euros range. I finally bought the Canon 12x36 and I am very pleased. But it leaves me wishing also for a rugged, light and small binocular, something like 8x32. I want it for travels, hikes, maybe even EDC, between the Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 and the Canon 12x36. It is going to be used for everything, general use so to speak. So I want big FOV, bulletproof construction, light weight, small form, big, quick and precise focuser and the best optical quality I can get for my money. I like AFOV >60 degrees, 66 would be my optimum.

This is what I have now.



I am not a real birder, although I love to look at birds. So it doesn't have to be Alpha but it has to be quite good. I live in Greece, so have in mind the financial situation and the fact that I can find Zeiss locally (we have a representative) but not Leica, Swarovski and the high grade Nikons. But I might buy from classifieds if I find a good deal. Price range 400-850 euros.

So I am thinking about a 8x32. Here is the local store, which has also Vixen, Celestron and Kowa, apart from Zeiss.

Options are the Zeiss Terra 8x32 ED, Kowa 8x32 DCF and Zeiss Conquest 8x32 HD.

The Terra isn't available locally yet, but I might order from the Lufthansa shop or Asrtoshop. It is the cheapest and I already have the 8x42 and I am very pleased with it. Some first lights say that the 8x32 is even better, if so this will be welcomed. The Terra boosted my recent binocular frenzy after all.

The Kowa is priced in the middle and it is readily available. But if I would buy Kowa I would want the XD Prominar which is available in 10x32 only. Since I have the 8x42 maybe I could try a 10x32? 3mm exit pupil is nice on my Canon 12x36 with the IS but I'm not sure how easy it would be to handhold these. But in Astroshop they have the 8x32 Prominar XD at 400 euros, half the price of the Conquest and same with the Terra.

The Conquest has overall the best reviews everywhere. That is intriguing for me. I would like to taste (almost?) Alpha without stealing money from my kids' education budget. It isn't available to test, they'll have to order it and it might take a month or so. It costs 850 euros but in Amazon.de 650 (too good to be true?). Recently a member here was displeased and that puzzled me a bit.

If I say I am pleased with the Terra, what would I want more?
More AFOV
Flatter field and less aberrations at the edges, wider sweet spot
Brighter optics (the 8x42 is bright but since we are going at 32 beeing brighter would be welcomed)
Whatever comes with made in Germany vs made in China

After market value is irrelevant, I intend to keep them and pass them to my kids.

So what to do? Go for Conquest or Terra? And is the Kowa better than the Terra or not? And what about the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30?

I've not seen the Terra 8x32 yet so I can't really comment, but I found the sharpness of the x42s to be pretty variable. Perhaps one I would treat with caution unless I was able to cherry-pick the sample. The older Kowa BD never really impressed, but alongside the Genesis not much does. The new BD XD is a bit curious. The sample I tried at launch was plagued by very high levels of CA. The one I tried a year later was improved, but still not as good as I would expect for the money. Another member tried one recently and said it was CA free. I don't know if there have been a series of unannounced improvements or there is sample variation. Apart from that it seemed compact and light and rather promising.

I actually preferred the Conquest HD 8x32 to the x42s, and its certainly best of that list from the samples I've seen. I just wasn't convinced I'd want to pay that much for them when I could get a Nikon HGL for less money or hope to get lucky with a deal on a Kowa Genesis. Having said that the appeal of an x32 over the full size models is the size and weight and I'd personally go for Nikon M7 8x30 and put up with a bit of glare now and then.

David

Thanks. I forgot to state that I hate ca and glare. My Terras have almost no glare, impressively so, and ca is evident under certain circumstances (when the sun is low and the contrast is extreme, which with birds often is). If the Conquest has the same glare and less ca it gains more of my attention.

Why is it so complicated? Telescopes are much easier to choose when you know your budget.

I'm thinking now: Since I have the 8x42 (and a Pentax 8x30 which I use although eye relief isn't good, and a Soviet 8x30 Monocular) maybe I should go for 10x32? What's your opinion about 10x32?

Hi,
conquest HD 8x32 is very nice bin,
but you must try, if it fits, you. I borrowed it to friend, and he has
problems with lot of blackouts in view. In my case, I do not have such a problem,
but still when panning fast, there are some minor blackout. But generally, it is very good 8x32,
as the close focus and FOV and sweetspot makes it nearly alpha class. Regarding CA, it is well controlled, but not as good as in Meopta HD 10x42 I have. Regarding glare, there conquest HD performs average, I think, so probably Terra can be better /I do not tried it/. In my opinion, 10x32 can be risky, as the binoculars with smaller exit pupil are often uncomfortable / or just does not have relaxed view/.
Anyway, nice chart in you first post.

Thank you. I see you keep the exit pupil at 4-5 in your three pairs. Nicely spaced.
At night even the 8x42 shakes bother me. I fear I'm ruined for ever with IS. 10x32 is the less likely option. Would it matter to have 2 8x? I have two kids anyway.

Two replies and neither one remarks about the amazing graph!? If only my brain worked like that, I would be an astrophysicist today. But it doesn't, math is "Greek to me." My brain works by analogies, similes, and metaphors, and with those traits you end up in the Humanities, driving a compact car and eating whatever is on sale at the supermarket. Once in a while, a creative type hits it big, J.K. Rowling, for example, with Harry Potter and the Book that Laid the Golden Egg. But in most cases, we end up selling woven baskets at craft fairs, and when we're really desperate, felt paintings.

To me, it makes no sense to buy the 8x32 Terra when you have the 8x42. Too similar. Plus if you want better edges, the Conquest is the way to go. Praised nearly universally and if you have no trouble with the fast focuser on the Terra 8x42, the Conquest's should be a breeze. And like you said, "Alpha without stealing money from my kids' education budget."

The only negative with the Conquests, for some users, were the eyecups, which some found too short. Zeiss came up with a fix and will send you new eyecups if it's a problem, though I don't remember if this was just an issue for the 8x42 or also the 8x32.

As to the 8x32 M7, it's lighter and less bulky, but will it have the dreaded "veiling glare," and if so, is there a Nikon repair center where they could either fix the issue (add painted rings inside the objective tubes) or send you a new one? I can't hold small, closed bridge roofs, so for me, I would have to go with the M7, but optically, the Conquest HD might have the EDG.

If anyone has tried both the 8x32 M7 AND the 8x32 Conquest HD, please chime in, Konstantinos has two large "balloons" to fill on is graph and 600 Euros burning a hole in his wallet.

Brock

kkokkolis said:

So what to do? Go for Conquest or Terra? And is the Kowa better than the Terra or not? And what about the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30?

Click to expand...

As the 32mm Terra is IMO not worth it's price, I would say that even though I have not tried the Kowa, the Kowa is what I would purchase first. Kowa products have an excellent build quality, and I am confident that the DCF will be the same way. As for the 8x30 M7 - it is head and shoulders above the Terra in every way. You can read more about this in the post that I put up a few weeks ago about these binos.

kkokkolis said:

I'm thinking now: Since I have the 8x42 (and a Pentax 8x30 which I use although eye relief isn't good, and a Soviet 8x30 Monocular) maybe I should go for 10x32? What's your opinion about 10x32?

Click to expand...

We each have 10x32's. One is a Zeiss Conquest, and the other is a Kowa XD Prominar. They don't get used as much as our other binos, but they have their place. We live in what is usually a very sunny area, and the 10x30's get used a lot when we are out west, during the daytime. I think that if your viewing is often in sunny daytime conditions, then a 10x30 would be just fine, as long as it is a good one. If your viewing is of a short range, or at times of lower light levels, then don't get one.

brocknroller said:

If anyone has tried both the 8x32 M7 AND the 8x32 Conquest HD, please chime in, Konstantinos has two large "balloons" to fill on is graph and 600 Euros burning a hole in his wallet.

Click to expand...

We own both. The Conquest HD is my wife's primary viewing bino, and the M7 is kept in one of our vehicles, to be used as a hiking bino when I don't have the CL-P around. The Conquest HD is certainly the better bino, but not by very much at all. And when you consider how much you get out of the M7, it really is the better buy. I would have no qualms about recommending the M7 to someone who does not want or cannot spend Conquest HD money. The biggest difference between these two (besides size and cost) is that the M7 is more demanding of correct eye placement. Also, be aware that the Conquest HD's eyecups are rather hard to turn. Evidently, some people who don't wear eyeglasses have complained that ER is still too short even with eyecups extended, and it then turns out that they did not extend them all the way. If one extends them all the way, the extended ER should be fine for the great majority of users.

PhilR.

Why doesn't the Terra 32 worth its price? I like the Terra 42 which was top pick at the Cornell review and people say the 32 is better.
The Nikon isn't available here. I'll have to buy it from abroad.

Since you liked the graph I updated with semitransparent colors and some captions. I can post an xls version without my binoculars in order to organise yours if you wish.

kkokkolis said:

Why doesn't the Terra 32 worth its price?

Click to expand...

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=303618

I don't know about the 32 but I disagree with several comments having used the 42 for a year. I like the focuser, the armor, the objective caps (I love those in fact, they don't add length and they are quickly released) etc. And I find it very sharp with large sweet spot and almost no glare (only a little when looking at the moon, but 8x isn't for looking at the moon regularly.
What I would change in my Terra or a potential upgrade of any brand: Wider AFOV (60-66 degrees), flatter field (my Pentax and Canons, all have flat field and I like that, the Canons have wide AFOV also), less ca (it is absent in the exact center but under certain circumstances it is evident towards the edge as narrow magenta and green bands) and elimination of the spikes that come from the roof prisms when looking at strong point light sources (and I like to watch the boats during the night so it matters to me). All these are optical properties. If the Conquest is better on these (I only know the AFOV) I am good.

Hope this helps

The Zeiss Terra is very over priced. Unfortunately you are paying for the Zeiss emblem. The Terras are a bottom end binocular. If you are going for viewing quality and something to pass to your children please do not purchase the Terra. The Kowa and the Conquest are both very good binoculars, I prefer the Conquest. It is very ergonomic with high quality glass that will provide you with a very enjoyable viewing experience even in low light, and when you pass to your children it will still be a quality piece of equipment. The Nikon is also a decent binocular and will provide you with a much better viewing experience than the Terra.

Ben Baham
SportOptics.com

Bottom end? Then what are all these 20$ binoculars I see around? I own one from Bresser and bottom end or not it still does the basics. I have no doubt Conquest is better and I'm leaning towards that but I can't accept the bottom end, even as an exaggeration. Were all these people of the Cornell review blind?
Anyway, Zeiss is selling a lot of these Terras and the money will probably be invested to the next gen of binoculars, those that might break the 3000 limit.

I'm not sure anyone has had experience with the 8x32 or 10x32 Kowa BD Prominar XD.

I have the 8x42 version. CA control is mediocre. I tested it against the Nikon 8x30 EII this morning, and CA with the Kowa appears to be perhaps 25% to 40% stronger than the classic Nikon. Personally, I don't think the CA is a big deal though... but it depends what kind of objects you are viewing and under what conditions. On the plus side, the 8x42 Kowas have a large sweet spot, and are compact and relatively lightweight for a 8x42 and show good control of glare.

The Kowa 8x42 has a much larger sweet spot than a Nikon M7 8x30 (based upon my testing with the Maven B3), and much better control of glare. I'm not sure how the Kowa 8x32 would be though. Overall, the 8x42 version are excellent binoculars.

The Kowa's are manufactured in China, like the others mentioned.

SportOptics said:

The Zeiss Terra is very over priced. Unfortunately you are paying for the Zeiss emblem. The Terras are a bottom end binocular. If you are going for viewing quality and something to pass to your children please do not purchase the Terra. The Kowa and the Conquest are both very good binoculars, I prefer the Conquest. It is very ergonomic with high quality glass that will provide you with a very enjoyable viewing experience even in low light, and when you pass to your children it will still be a quality piece of equipment. The Nikon is also a decent binocular and will provide you with a much better viewing experience than the Terra.

Ben Baham
SportOptics.com

Click to expand...

Ben:

You are a seller, so tell us what binoculars in the $300-400 range that you recommend, and would be a better value ?

I own both the Terra and Conquest binoculars, so I know the differences.
I am also familiar with the Nikon Monarch 7, and it is priced higher than
the Terra.

I find the Terra a nice binocular in this range, with a strong wty. and
I recommend this one.

Jerry

Ben - I went to your website and noticed your business doesn't list the Zeiss Terra 8x32 ED, but it does the Terra 8x42 ED. I agree with Jerry's comments above. Perhaps you have some information about the Terra(s) you would share with us to support your conclusion? Obviously the Terra is a third tier offering. Zeiss has publicly announced it doesn't consider it an alpha.

John

After this thread and another one about Conquest 32 or 42, I finally purchased a Conquest HD 8x42, so I could compare the two specimens from the two lines myself.
My first thoughts are here. Keep the better accessories for the Terra and the better coatings, less ca and less spikes for Conquest.
Today I used a USAF 1951 target and a constructors' tape with both binoculars mounted.
I found that the Conquest gained one point of resolution (1.4 vs 1.3 from where I was standing, both marginally/suspected.) I get better resolution unmounted with both Canons, 12x36 and 18x50. But these have other deficiencies over my Zeiss.
On the tape I saw that the Conquest had a hair of better resolution at the edges and a little bigger AFOV.
Overall the Conquest wins almost everywhere for a small margin. Terra is a winner in weight, height, close focus and eye relief management. The later might be balanced when I get the longer eyecups for the Conquest.
So, my opinion is that the Terra isn't that much behind and it is adequate for my needs. I wouldn't call it bottom line, neither mediocre. Of course I accept that it is overpiced (but then all Zeiss are) and there are other binoculars in its range that might be better but I have no access to any. I grew curiosity on Maven and Kite but if I order them from abroad they will cost as much as the Conquest, not the Terra.

I'm keeping the Conquest, mainly because of the less color aberration. Almost non existing in the center and paler/softer at the edge, so I don't notice it unless I want too. This will be my all around binocular for years to come.
But I'll try to swap my Terra 8x42 for a 8x32 or 10x32 (for more portability and close focus between the Papilio and Conquest, or as a second binocular for family and guests). Or a 10x42 for more options between my compacts and Canons.

I accept that other people are more demanding and richer than me. I just say that Terra is great for me and Conquest even greater (and perhaps Victory the greatest but that's irreirrelevant now).

Now that I have the Papilio 6,5x21, Pentax 8x30 (hopefully soon a Terra for an upgrade of that vintage porro with poor eye relief), Zeiss Conquest 8x42, Canon 12x36 and 18x50 and my William Optics 66ED with 16-50mm zoom, the only thing missing are the more exotic birds than the usual I see (urban and pelagic birds of Mediterranean). I'm going to an environmental park we have here for a start and then will take my time to visit our small but rich lakes, rivers and mountains.

Thanks everybody who helped me. I'm quite pleased. I predict I will be hanging around since I love optics anyway, optics I need amd optics I don't.

A side by side pic.

Glad hear you will be hanging out, kkokkolis, though perhaps we can drop a few consonants and shorten it koko, like the clown since you seem to like cartoons from your avatar.

Koko the Clown

You may not be the best person to ask this question since you are not in the least bothered by the ultra-fast focuser on the 8x42 Terra ED (3/4 of a turn from close focus to infinity say two member, I measured less than that), which drives me nuts except for watching birds of prey, but how does the HD focuser compare to the 8x42 Conquest HD? How many turns from close focus to infinity?

The other thing I noticed is that the Conquest's focuser is about half the length of the Terra's, and it also appears to have a smaller diameter. So I'm also wondering if the focuser size has an impact on focusing.

Brocckko