I tried a slug of $1K roof-prism binoculars and I think the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 is still the best for the money! (2 Viewers)

[A2GG]

You should see a difference in the Zeiss FL line. It’s a high quality, true alpha binocular. The FL would be more comparable to the Swaro EL, Leica UVHD to to name a few. Conquest, MHG and Razor are all give or take in the same league.

totally agree. The FL has incredible resolution. Micro contrast is at a high level. Reduction of CA can’t really get any better; CA control and high transmission create great resolution and overall a very clean image. The construction and mechanics are at premium level too. Sometimes think I should have kept my most recent FL.

I enjoy my MHG and prefer its compact size and super light weight, but it’s not on the FL level. I haven’t had any ‘OMG, wow that’s incredible’ moments with the Nikon; I had those with the FL. With the HG it’s more like ‘oh that’s real pretty’ or ‘gee, that’s really very nice’. In certain lighting conditions the HG image can look close to alpha level, but FL, EL and UVHD+ show a great view more consistently.

I’ve always wanted to try NIkon EDG 8x32 but never had the chance. I’m sure it’s a noticeable step up from the Monarch HG.

 

[[email protected]]

totally agree. The FL has incredible resolution. Micro contrast is at a high level. Reduction of CA can’t really get any better; CA control and high transmission create great resolution and overall a very clean image. The construction and mechanics are at premium level too. Sometimes think I should have kept my most recent FL.

I enjoy my MHG and prefer its compact size and super light weight, but it’s not on the FL level. I haven’t had any ‘OMG, wow that’s incredible’ moments with the Nikon; I had those with the FL. With the HG it’s more like ‘oh that’s real pretty’ or ‘gee, that’s really very nice’. In certain lighting conditions the HG image can look close to alpha level, but FL, EL and UVHD+ show a great view more consistently.

I’ve always wanted to try NIkon EDG 8x32 but never had the chance. I’m sure it’s a noticeable step up from the Monarch HG.

The Nikon EDG 8x32 although getting kind of old in the tooth is better than the Monarch HG. It is kind of scary to own though because of lack of support and parts from Nikon. If something breaks on your EDG Nikon sends you an HG to replace it. The FL is a little better than the Conquest HD optically, but it is up to you to decide if it is worth twice the price. IMO, it is not. I actually prefer the ergonomics of the Conquest HD over the FL, but that is just personal preference. I never really was a fan of the ribs. I don't really like buying binoculars like the FL and EDG that have been discontinued because it starts to get hard to get parts for them. If I was going to spend alpha money for a Zeiss it would be the SF 8x32.

 

[[email protected]]

You should see a difference in the Zeiss FL line. It’s a high quality, true alpha binocular. The FL would be more comparable to the Swaro EL, Leica UVHD to to name a few. Conquest, MHG and Razor are all give or take in the same league.

I agree. You have to decide if that extra 5% of performance is worth it to you and your birding style for twice the price. Since the FL is discontinued, I would probably buy the SF 8x32 if I was going to spend that much because older discontinued binoculars begin to lose support and parts availability from the manufacturers. Zeiss is better about that, but companies like Nikon really don't maintain parts for their older models. They would rather just replace them with the newer model. I would buy a newer condition Zeiss FL 8x32 for around $1200 to $1400 but if I was going to spend over $1800 I would buy the SF 8x32. I have had them both and the SF is a definite upgrade from the FL with a much bigger FOV and better ergonomics.

 

[Mikewander]

I also looked at 10x binos around that price point and went for the Opticron Aurora 10x42s.
Ergonomics were the deciding factor. Too much eye relief on the others.

 

[[email protected]]

I also looked at 10x binos around that price point and went for the Opticron Aurora 10x42s.
Ergonomics were the deciding factor. Too much eye relief on the others.

In the US we don't have Opticrons too much so although I have tried a few I am not real familiar with them. Too much eye relief is a B IG problem on a lot of problems because if the eye cups are too short you have to float the binoculars in front of your eye sockets to avoid blackouts.

 

[Conndomat]

I’ve always wanted to try NIkon EDG 8x32 but never had the chance. I’m sure it’s a noticeable step up from the Monarch HG.

Hi Beth,

unreserved consent!

I had the HG 8x42 a few years ago and it just can't match a Swarovski EL or EDG, imo they're just a class better.

For me, the HG had too soft edges for a flat-field design, the chromatic aberrations were also more significant and the center sharpness was also slightly lower.

I think the optical distance from the HG to a Swarovski ELSV or EDG is greater than the distance from the Conquest to the FL.

Andreas

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis, thanks for taking the time to share your impressions. Good write up. I don’t own the 8x32 Conquests but sampled and direct compared them a number of times. The latest was at a Zeiss event just this past September. Agree that the optics are simply excellent, and IMO the 8x32 is the cherry of the Conquest HD line. Would own one except for the fact that I already have an FL 8x32 - the optics are very close but the FL handling and haptics are clearly better. The Conquest HD feels like a bit bigger and heavier glass, but still a very robust and rugged binocular that offers a very bright, crisp and detailed view. It is a great performer and offers significant value as a $1k 8x32.

Like Paul and others I was a bit surprised by your comments on the MHG 8x42. After extensive direct comparison I‘ve consistently found this glass optically among the best and as an overall optics/handling optical device simply exceptional at the $1k price-point. Recently compared it with the new Maven B1.2 and initially, in full, open, ideal daylight found the optics very close. However, when comparing the two in a forested environment I personally found the MHG a more consistent performer under a wider variety of field and lighting conditions.

Was also a bit uncertain as to the focus and limits of your review - appeared to be a mash-up of $500-1000 and even $2500 binoculars with a bit more focus on the ~$1k range. If $1k is the focus, I would invite you to sample the new Maven B6 10x50. It has all the advantages of a 50mm, but is in the size/weight range of a 42mm. I find it a better performer than the new Maven B1.2.

When I side by sided, the Conquest HD with the MHG I just didn't care for view as well in the Nikon. A lot of it could be personal preference, but I see a lot of CA on the edge and the FOV seems to have uneven illumination compared to the Zeiss. The Zeiss seems more real and the MHG seems more artificial. The MHG view just didn't WOW me like the Zeiss. It seems closer to the M7 or Vortex Viper HD, although a little brighter. I find the Nikon MHG 10x42 better than the 8x42, and I think it is the cherry of the line. Maven's tend to be a little on the heavy side, as the B1.2 8x42 was in this comparison. After handling it, I wouldn't care to carry the 31 oz. of the Maven B6 10x50. I don't think for most of my birding I need a 50 mm aperture. It offers no significant advantage, and the downside is increased weight.

 

[A2GG]

The Nikon EDG 8x32 although getting kind of old in the tooth is better than the Monarch HG. It is kind of scary to own though because of lack of support and parts from Nikon. If something breaks on your EDG Nikon sends you an HG to replace it. The FL is a little better than the Conquest HD optically, but it is up to you to decide if it is worth twice the price. IMO, it is not. I actually prefer the ergonomics of the Conquest HD over the FL, but that is just personal preference. I never really was a fan of the ribs. I don't really like buying binoculars like the FL and EDG that have been discontinued because it starts to get hard to get parts for them. If I was going to spend alpha money for a Zeiss it would be the SF 8x32.

Yes, the Nikon warranty is not as good and with a discontinued model you're left to worry if they can fix it.

Agree, the FL at 2100 bucks USD was overpriced and should have been reduced in its final few years. I think it makes sense at about 500 bucks more than the Conquest; I think 1500 for a brand new FL would have been a fair price.

I never liked the ribs on the FL. I wished they never added those, as it just made the bino bulkier. It also gave it a military-like appearance to me. No ribs would have made a more simple and elegant look and I think maybe improved ergonomics for my hands. I found the Conquest HD to be comfortable to hold, but I do wish they didn't add the thicker rubber on the sides; it's not as bad as the ribs on FL, but it seems unnecessary to me. I do like the more compact size and lighter weight of the FL though.

 

[Conndomat]

I don't think for most of my birding I need a 50 mm aperture. It offers no significant advantage, and the downside is increased weight.

Dennis where did the Fujinon FMT 10x50 land?

Andreas

 

[Allen]

In the US we don't have Opticrons too much so although I have tried a few I am not real familiar with them. Too much eye relief is a B IG problem on a lot of problems because if the eye cups are too short you have to float the binoculars in front of your eye sockets to avoid blackouts.

Without wishing to derail this thread, but with the experts on here......so too much eye relief = shallower eye cups? I do find with a lot of bins I have to rest them under my eyebrow to avoid blackouts whereas the best ones for me allow me to have them with in my eye socket.

 

[[email protected]]

Very interesting, how some people can see things so differently. The Razor (indifference of FOV) is a full step ahead of the viper line in almost every optical measurement (except obviously in someone’s eyes). I had multiple people compare the conquest to the Genesis (half a dozen) and every one thought the Genesis was brighter, had more contrast and build wise everyone agreed was impressive. What’s interesting about it, was three of those people were novices and could still see the difference. In all respect, I can’t help but sense a predetermined Zeiss preference in your choice.

I find the last 5 years or so the difference in the $500 to $1000 range, optically isn’t so far off as an all around everyday binocular. I think it’s more about Origin of manufacture. The differences seems to be much more in build quality materials. which leads me to think that if you had to take another look at the viper and thought it was that close to the conquest, then maybe that extra $500 was not worth the difference. Some do feel that way, that’s why vipers sell so briskly. I think most people agree ,especially today the sweet spot for quality binoculars is the $500 price point. Not everybody has a grand to throw at binoculars. If you notice, theres so many of the posts here are people trying to legitimize the $1000 price point because of the shortcomings. Let’s face it, when someone is looking to buy a true alpha , there not trying out 10 binoculars to help them make a decision to legitimize their purchase.

As far as the best of the best Alphas, those improvements are paying (a premium for sure) for the best material, modern design, balance and mechanical feel that can be produced in our time. Which all significantly improve the enjoyment of use in the field. It’s not always about feeling you have the best of the best, it’s more like knowing you have the best of the best. It’s more about how good they feel in the hand ,knowing your not dealing with clunky eyecups that you spent a $1000 for.

Thank you.

The Razor has never impressed me, especially at its price point. The 388 foot FOV is almost old school compared to the latest alpha's. When I side by sided the Kowa and the Conquest HD there was no contest as far as what one I thought was better. The Conquest HD is considerably sharper on-axis and IMO had better contrast than the Kowa. I had no sense of predetermined preference when I began this test. I side by sided the binoculars and picked the one I liked the best. I agree with you about the $500 binoculars getting closer in quality to the $1000 binoculars. Chinese quality is improving and a lot of brands are MIC. I would say the Viper HD 8x32 optically is 90% of the alpha's and the build quality is very good also. I just really preferred the smoother, lighter and faster focuser on the Zeiss and the superior on-axis resolution. I understand the rationalization for spending $2.5K for an alpha. I have had many of them.

 

[dries1]

So when can we look out for the Conquest 8X32 in the classifieds?

Asking for a friend.

 

[[email protected]]

I agree with Dennis about the new MIC Viper HD. I tried the 8x42 and liked it more than the original version. I’ve owned the MIJ Viper HD 8x32 and 6x32 years ago and thought they were very good. Seems like they won’t make 8x32 in the latest version which is a shame. I do prefer the Razor HD over the Viper. I came close to buying a 8x42 Razor HD in the past.

I do see a difference in the FL over the Conquest HD. The FL has awesome resolution and is still a premium bino IMO. At one time I had a 2017 manufactured FL. A Zeiss tech guy told me once they updated the coatings in the FL periodically.
I do not feel the MHG or Conquest HD rise to the level of the FL and they are priced appropriately although I think the FL price should have actually been priced around 1500 (not 2100) new in its last years.

I would buy a new condition FL for $1200 to $1400 but because Zeiss has discontinued it if I were to spend more I would get the SF 8x32. I don't think the FL is worth twice the price of the Conquest HD. I actually prefer the ergonomics and the focuser of the Conquest HD over the FL. Optics IMO are very close.

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Beth,

unreserved consent!

I had the HG 8x42 a few years ago and it just can't match a Swarovski EL or EDG, imo they're just a class better.

For me, the HG had too soft edges for a flat-field design, the chromatic aberrations were also more significant and the center sharpness was also slightly lower.

I think the optical distance from the HG to a Swarovski ELSV or EDG is greater than the distance from the Conquest to the FL.

Andreas

I agree. I had a Nikon MHG 8x42 and I thought it was great, and then I bought a Swarovski NL 8x42. The NL just blew it away, except for the glare at the bottom of the FOV! The Conquest HD is closer to the FL because it is sharper on-axis than the MHG. The Conquest HD is as sharp on-axis as the FL although the FL controls CA a little better and is a slight bit brighter.

 

[[email protected]]

So when can we look out for the Conquest 8X32 in the classifieds?

Asking for a friend.

 

[[email protected]]

Without wishing to derail this thread, but with the experts on here......so too much eye relief = shallower eye cups? I do find with a lot of bins I have to rest them under my eyebrow to avoid blackouts whereas the best ones for me allow me to have them with in my eye socket.

That is the BIGGEST problem with most binoculars. If a binocular is a floater, it is returned!

 

[A2GG]

Hi Beth,

unreserved consent!

I had the HG 8x42 a few years ago and it just can't match a Swarovski EL or EDG, imo they're just a class better.

For me, the HG had too soft edges for a flat-field design, the chromatic aberrations were also more significant and the center sharpness was also slightly lower.

I think the optical distance from the HG to a Swarovski ELSV or EDG is greater than the distance from the Conquest to the FL.

Andreas

Thankfully, I rarely notice any CA in my HG 8x30. I've noticed it only a handful of times in a year and a few months of using it. The image in general is very clean and free of any color fringing for the most part. I don't see it in the central part of the view and I guess that's mostly what matters to me.

I experience blackouts occasionally which I hadn't noticed until only recently, as they are a quick flash and my mind hadn't registered them much before.

I compared Swaro EL SV 8x32 to my MHG 8x30 once and it didn't take much viewing time to see the Nikon was outclassed.

I do really appreciate the large sweet spot in the HG even if it's not sharp all the way to the edges and the wide true FOV is also appreciated. The 30mm HG is really quite small and it's amazing the optics they engineered into such a tiny little thing. This is what I really like and admire about it. I think they did a great job with it.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis where did the Fujinon FMT 10x50 land?

Andreas

I used it mainly for astronomy, and then I replaced it with a Fujinon 14x40 TS. I get better views of the moon, and it will go way deeper, plus I can use it for long distance spotting of game and birds. I think it is one of the IS binoculars on the market.

 

[[email protected]]

Thankfully, I rarely notice any CA in my HG 8x30. I've noticed it only a handful of times in a year and a few months of using it. The image in general is very clean and free of any color fringing for the most part. I don't see it in the central part of the view and I guess that's mostly what matters to me.

I experience blackouts occasionally which I hadn't noticed until only recently, as they are a quick flash and my mind hadn't registered them much before.

I compared Swaro EL SV 8x32 to my MHG 8x30 once and it didn't take much viewing time to see the Nikon was outclassed.

I do really appreciate the large sweet spot in the HG even if it's not sharp all the way to the edges and the wide true FOV is also appreciated. The HG is really quite small and it's amazing the optics they engineered into such a tiny little thing. I think they did a great job with it.

The EL 8x32 kills the HG 8x30 or any 8x30 including the CL 8x30 for that matter. I have moved away from 8x30's because they are a little on the finicky side for me.

 

[Conndomat]

Beth...I can't say anything about the MHG 8x30, I don't know that glass!

Andreas