• 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.

Conquest vs FL (1 Viewer)

Lewis 1980

Lewis 1980

Well-known member
I had a chance to compare both models (several mag variations) at Slimbridge several weeks ago..

It seemed to me that the Conquests were every bit as good as the FL's and indeed the Swarovski EL's.

That obvious colour definition and sharpness you get when looking through ED glass (in comparison to your own £200 Opticrons;)) was matched by the conquests I felt.

Half the price and half the worry?

P.S.
I am not talking about the compact model (8x20)
 
Last edited:
Not quite half but certainly a lot less FOV too in the Conquests.

And the FL color correction is very good (not quite complete in the Conquests but for non-ED bins they're good and yes I'd ope they'ed be better than £200 Opticrons!).

And the FL has higher transmission and (in the roof prism conquest at least) a slightly flatter spectrum too. The Conquest is slightly biased warm (a silver mirror, I suspect).

And stray light control. On my Conquest 8x30 they do fall apart completely in low bright light out of the field of view. The FLs are very resistant to stray light.

The half the price and half the worry is a valid point: I find I bird less with my FLs because they aren't cheap. It's a not uncommon problem (especially if you have a selection). A bit silly though having very good bins and not using them all the time.

That said the Conquests are very good bins and for quite a few people will do all that is needed for them.
 
Yes, I would say Kevin touched on most of the key points. Comparing the full-sized Conquest ABKs to the full-sized FLs is interesting. The one notable point about the image of the Conquest ABKs is the increased amount of color fringing in the image. It has been speculated that the use of the ABK prisms creates more color fringing and therefore the use of ED/FL glass is needed (hence the FL design). I can say that the smaller 30 mm Conquests actually display less CA than their larger ABK counterparts.

All in all though I would agree with you. The Conquests are an exceptional value considering their performance compared to their "bigger brother".
 
Kevin Purcell said:
(not quite complete in the Conquests but for non-ED bins they're good and yes I'd ope they'ed be better than £200 Opticrons!).
Click to expand...

How do we know there's no ED or other exotic glass in the Conquests?
Zeiss don't say anything about the glass composition.

Kevin Purcell said:
(in the roof prism conquest at least)
Click to expand...

Are there others?

[/QUOTE]
And the FL has higher transmission and (in the roof prism conquest at least) a slightly flatter spectrum too.[/QUOTE]

As you have numbers and graphs to support this I am looking forward to see them along with a protocol of how the data were obtained. Most interesting.

T
 
ThoLa; As you have numbers and graphs to support this I am looking forward to see them along with a protocol of how the data were obtained. Most interesting. T[/QUOTE said:
Your point seems only to disagree with Kevin, which is fine. Otherwise, I don't see much reason for the post. The simple thing to do is to simply post the data you have to back your counter point (ie he's wrong, you're right) up. Some reference to the existence of ED glass in the Conquest, for example. You would be providing useful information. Simple, end of debate. Game, Set, and Match point to ThoLa. Otherwise you just seem to be one more cranky human who's having a bad day. There are lots of those at any given moment for sure, sometimes even including me. ;)
Click to expand...
 
How do we know there's no ED or other exotic glass in the Conquests?
Click to expand...

I know you were not referring to my comments but felt the need to comment on this issue. I would be genuinely surprised if there was some form of ED/FL glass utilized in the Conquest ABKs. I just see too much CA in the image...even compared to the 30 mm Schmidt-Pechan model. I could believe the 30 mm might utilize it in some fashion as CA is fairly well suppressed in it...but somehow I think that might have more to do with the entire optical design of that particular model rather than the specific use of ED glass (purely conjecture).
 
I have the Conquest 8x30's and the Zeiss 10x42Fl's. To me eye the conquest image is a touch colder and dimmer than the FL's but just as sharp. The main drawback is that the apparent FOV is a good deal smaller in the Conquests, maybe 2/3rds the size. If a person is just looking at objects and not so much interested in being wowed by the size of the complete image then the Conquests are tough to beat. Especially when you consider how light they are.

I've also come to like the slower focus better. Yeah the fast focus is nice going from close to far but it's that much more finicky getting dialed in just perfect.
 
Nessus,

Your observations mirror my own. I do feel that the little 8x30 Conquest is highly undervalued. I compared it extensively with the 8x32 FL and found the two very much alike optically aside from the narrower field of view of the Conquest. The Conquest is most certainly a better value. I have wrestled with picking another one up recently but see that the prices have jumped another $150 or so from the last time I purchased one.
 
BB,

Thanks. I might just pursue that opportunity. I am still wrestling with which 8x32 to pick up strictly for warbler watching. I have an 8x32 Legend on order...but the Pentax SP 8x32 would suit my needs as would the 8x30 Conquest and most certainly the 8x32 Meopta. The latter may be out of my price range for now though.
 
Pentax 8x32 SP

Hi Frank,

If you'd like a pair of the 8x32 SPs, I've got a pair I can give you a deal on. I've owned the WP for years. I came across the SPs on clearance at Sportsman's Warehouse for $200 (plus tax), so I decided to upgrade. I mailed in the warrenty card but when I compared them side by side with the WPs, I could not tell the difference. So, I decided to sell the SPs. You can have them for $225 plus shipping if you want them. I only used them one day.
 
I bought a pair of 8 x 30FL's and find them superb. My existing bins are Leica 10 x 42 BA's which are about 12 years old. The FL's are really light to carry and are much brighter than the older Leica's. I often carry a digital SLR and big lens, so a lighter smaller pair of bins is a real benefit. Some days on longer treks, I wonder whether the camera is worth the hassle or not.
 
Lewis 1980 said:
It seemed to me that the Conquests were every bit as good as the FL's and indeed the Swarovski EL's.
Click to expand...

ahem in respect to the swaro EL, i would really have to see to believe that, i would suspect in brightness only, if that do they equal... no way across the board
 
I tried the Zeiss against the Swaro's and did find the Swaro's a little brighter, however they were harder on the eyes. I thought that over sustained viewing the FL's would be more confortable for me. After about 5 - 10 minutes of direct comparison I decided to go with the Zeiss FL's. Of course the lower price had nothing whatsoever to do with my decision!

Richard
 
See the swaro and their wide sweet spot work best for me. I was referring to the comparison between the EL & conquest
 
Actually I tend to agree with you to an extent 308. The Conquest ABK has higher light transmission numbers from what I remember reading in one of the technical reviews (something like 91% vs. 88% IIRC) but the field of view is narrower on the C-ABK..and the sweet spot is much larger on the EL.

Back before the latest price increase and when the Conquest ABK series was "on special" for about $770 it was a real bargain as the image quality is good overall (with just a bit too much CA to be perfect). Now with the same binocular selling for close to or over $1000 they don't seem as good of a bargain anymore.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 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.

Similar threads

Swissboy
Zeiss 8x32 Conquest HD vs FL comparison?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Andy Gan
A
P
8x42 FL comparisons
Replies
6
Views
1K
Patudo
P
A
Zeiss Victory 10x42 T* FL Rubber Armouring
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
PYRTLE
PYRTLE
Samolot
Conquest HD 8x42 - Some thoughts.
2
Replies
24
Views
6K
Samolot
Samolot
C
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
15 16 17
Replies
324
Views
53K
Maljunulo
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top