Glasses wearers - most comfortable 10x42 you have found? (3 Viewers)

[hopster]

As an aside, I think my biggest regret is that the new Opticron Aurora's didn't 'fit' me, I would place their optics above the Conquest's, although that really is just opinion, of course, the science probably says otherwise. But, I really loved the Aurora's, the first binoculars I tried and was able to perceive a huge jump in the quality of the optics over the ones I had tested previously.

The Auroras are much better optically than some here give them credit for, perhaps because of the cost, physical package and build quality? For me, the 8x42 is like a mini-Noctivid in some ways (only with less CA!).

 

[Conndomat]

I really don't agree with this. I was also quite surprised at just how poor the Conquest was and not in the same league as FL or HT for my eyes for brightness, sharpness, lack of CA or colour rendition.

M

You will read many reports here that the Conquest 8x32 in particular is optically very close to the FL 8x32!

I myself had the 8x32 Conquest and the FL 8x32 side by side for over a year, the differences were marginal.

How did you test the sharpness of the Conquest?

Andreas

 

[hopster]

You will read many reports here that the Conquest 8x32 in particular is optically very close to the FL 8x32!

I myself had the 8x32 Conquest and the FL 8x32 side by side for over a year, the differences were marginal.

How did you test the sharpness of the Conquest?

Andreas

I only looked through the 8x42 (two examples) but I have compared it to several binoculars and thought in each case quite quickly that it was the poorest view: CA and colour in particular. Someone earlier called it 'dirty brown' which made me laugh because it is too extreme but I know what they mean! The Terra 8x25 also had this colour. I am not anti-Zeiss as my main bin is one and I am probably about to purchase another unless I go mad and buy the Habicht 10x40.

M

 

[Conndomat]

I only looked through the 8x42 (two examples) but I have compared it to several binoculars and thought in each case quite quickly that it was the poorest view: CA and colour in particular.

I've already written it above, to be honest I don't think much of these short shop tests!

I trust more in assessments that users have made over a longer period of time and the Conquest scores mostly positively, I share this assessment myself.

Andreas

 

[hopster]

I've already written it above, to be honest I don't think much of these short shop tests!

I trust more in assessments that users have made over a longer period of time and the Conquest scores mostly positively, I share this assessment myself.

Andreas

I agree that you need time to understand subtle differences but to my eyes these differences were not at all subtle. Sample variation?

M

 

[Conndomat]

I agree that you need time to understand subtle differences but to my eyes these differences were not at all subtle. Sample variation?

M

You always talk about a lack of sharpness, it's not for nothing that experienced users like "Canip", "Henry Link" or "Kimmo" use tripods and boosters to really test them!

It just doesn't make sense to pick one particular statement (Chosun) and take that as proof of how bad the Conquest is, the vast majority of users are very happy with this glasses.

Andreas

 

[hopster]

I can only report my personal experience which was carefully considered, and I have no reason to be prejudiced.

M

 

[dorubird]

From my experience with 10x42 Zeiss Conquest HD it is one of the sharpest 10x binocular! Sharper on center than Swarovski EL Swarovision 10x42 and sharper than many bigger ones like:
Nikon Astrolux IF SP WP 10x70, Fujinon 10x50, Swarovski SLC 10x50, Meopta Meostar B1.1 10x50, APM ED APO 10x50. So good it was my Conquest HD 10x42 in the center resolution. Yes, maybe its about sample variation in Conquest line!

 

[dries1]

Me thinks other things are at work here, the eye is a complicated thing. And yes there is always the possibility of sample variation.

 

[hopster]

Well actually it was the colour balance and CA that offended me most on the two samples that I saw.

 

[Bentley03]

Crikey, just realised this is my first BF thread resurrected. I'm sitting here reflecting on the extraordinary binocular journey I've been on since starting it.

Without wanting to distract from the current discussion, two years on I can say that, for me, my 10x binocular of choice in bright conditions would be a Nikon EDG 10x42, in low light conditions a Noctivid 10x42, for an explosion of immersive 'wow' an Ultravid 10x42 HD+, yet the daddy of them all might just be (for me) the EL 10x50 which I am finding intriguingly addictive (and which I'm still discovering).

Choices choices choices...

 

[Scott98]

yet the daddy of them all might just be (for me) the EL 10x50 which I am finding intriguingly addictive (and which I'm still discovering).

there is no substitute for aperture! We need 50mm EDG, SF's, and NL's.

 

[etc]

I am at -5.25D. I get binos which have enough overdrive past infinity so I can use them without eyeglasses.
Zeiss 10x54 HT is pretty good, So is Swaro EL 8.5x42 and probably 10x42.. EL 12x50 has -7D of correction.

 

[hopster]

I am at -5.25D. I get binos which have enough overdrive past infinity so I can use them without eyeglasses.
Zeiss 10x54 HT is pretty good, So is Swaro EL 8.5x42 and probably 10x42.. EL 12x50 has -7D of correction.

I just started a thread about this to gather information for the community:

Focus to infinity for short-sighted users​

 

[Tero]

I only have one pair of Bushnells, 10x42, left. I rarely use them in summer. In the fall and spring I will use them for shorebirds and sparrows. I see the entire field of view with those. They are the cheapest ED glass ones, from 10-15 years ago.