mjensen6577
Well-known member
My error in a previous post. Yes, the old 56mm Conquest will be disc. also.
-
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.
New Zeiss 56mm Conquest HD's (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter mjensen6577
- Start date
My error in a previous post. Yes, the old 56mm Conquest will be disc. also.
Lee, Perterra, et al., I did that first post for the reason in the second - thought that in the Conquest non-"HD" line the 56s were *newer* models than the others. Sorry if that's wrong, the opposite is the case, and it shoud be obvious they'll be discontinued. What happened is that *I* noticed them only a day or two ago. (That was unrelated to this thread. Was looking for a high 'twilight factor' model of 12x or more, then went down to 10x.) As I'm about to post this I see Vb.'s link and the webpage it leads to! Discontinued. Adding in edit: Now I see Mike's post!
Last edited:
brocknroller
porromaniac
Mike,
I've only spent a $1,000 for binoculars once, that was for a Nikon 10x42 HGL, which I didn't like, the original version cost less and had better optics, IMO; however, if I had $1599 to spend on optics, the only binoculars I would pay that much for would be a late model Zeiss 15x60 BGA, which are still in high demand in the second-hand market and sell for about that much in VG to excellent condition. I would use them for stargazing, long distance birding, and for wildlife observation, so I'd get a lot of use out of them.
Why did Zeiss discontinue the 15x60 BGA 10 years ago, but keep the 7x50 BGA with IF EPs. If anything, I would think the 15x60 would be a better seller.
Although a Zeiss porro revival is probably about as likely as me hitting the Mega Millions lottery, I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see the 15x60 BGA resurrected. Just about everybody on the Cloudy Nights binocular forum (amateur astronomy Website) would like one. If Zeiss could make them waterproof, I think they would also be a good seller with hunters.
Brock
mjensen6577
Well-known member
Brock, When I was 15 (many, many moons ago), I worked all summer to save my money and plopped down $435 dollars for a pair of 15x56 BGA's, my very first pair of binos. Been a 15x BGA lover ever since. I used them for everything, and was young enough and tough enough to hand hold them. What a great glass. When Zeiss disc them15 years ago, it was BC they had raised the price to over $2000 and sales had slowed to a crawl. I was told at that time that Zeiss would bring them back from time to time to fill a "niche" market. In 1997 I took a job as a Sales Manager for this "up and coming" optics company named Swarovski. All they had in the line was an 8x30 SLC, a brand new 10x42 SLC and some large Porro SL models. Lobbying for a 15x (since I wasn't allowed to use Zeiss), 2 years later when Swarovski introduced their 8x56 SLC for the European market, they added a 15x model, better and lighter than the BGA. Zeiss never reintroduced the BGA. Shame is that when I was at Swarovski I sold my Zeiss, and have been watching ever since for a mint pair to pop us some day. 15x BGA's are a classic, but I don't expect to seen them come off the line again.
Hermann
Well-known member
Because the number of 15x60s sold were far too low to support continuing production of this model. All the porros with air-spaced objectives were expensive to manufacture (the 8x30B porro for instance was quite a bit more expensive than the 8x30B Dialyt roof in the 1970s), and the price of the 15x60 went through the roof over the years. Also many people who would have gone for the 15x60 went for scopes with their higher magnfications once half-way decent scopes became available in the late 1980s.
BTW, even though Zeiss never claimed they were waterproof, these binoculars (like all the Zeiss West porros) were far more weather resistant than almost all the other porros with centre focussing because of their special seals. I know a few people who've been using 15x60s for decades in all sorts of weather, and I don't know of anyone who had a problem with his bins.
The 7x50 BGAT is a different matter. I imagine Zeiss still sell a good number to sailors all over the world. Sales figures are probably still a lot higher than they ever were for the 15x60.
Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
Not sure about a Zeiss porro revival, but maybe some other manufacturer will have a go at a porro. A Leica with a Perger prism for instance would set the cat among the pigons I reckon ...
And Leica will have to do something about their top line, now that the "cheap" Trinovids are about as good as their Ultravids ... Hermann
Hermann
Well-known member
Same here. An 8x50 would be quite an interesting proposition, as long as the weight isn't too high (no more than 1000 gr.).
Hermann
brocknroller
porromaniac
Thanks for that story, Mike. If I hadn't read Hermann's post, I would have thought the reason the 15x60 BGA disappeared was because you had encouraged Swaro to make a 15x roof!
Hermann mentioned about the air-spaced objectives being expensive to manufacture, but surely still less expensive than a roof with 12 lens elements, internal focusing, internal diopter, phase coatings (at least back then when they were still an innovation), reflective coatings, submersible to x ft. and near mil-spec build quality.
So why did the price of the 15x60 BGA, which aside from an EP redesign to give better ER, jump from under $500 to $2,000 while remaining otherwise essentially the same? Certainly it can't be all explained with cost of living increases. I still can't understand why alphas cost over $2K now, other than enough people are still willing to pay that much.
A lot of people say, including experts, that you can get nearly as good performance from second tier roofs such as the Conquest HD (and I might add, premium porros such as the SE and EII) as you can from alphas but you have to pay nearly twice as much as a second-tier roof to eek out that last 5-10% performance. Why does it cost nearly twice as much to get that last bit of performance from an alpha? Is it really justified or are alpha companies merely bilking us?
With the second tier segment growing, and top tier prices ever increasing, it seems to be that we are reaching a point of diminishing returns for that extra bit of performance, if that margin even applies anymore. I've been saying this for years, but it seems more true today than ever.
Brock
Vespobuteo
Well-known member
thanks,
pretty good eye relief on all models, 18mm,
a bit longer and slightly heavier than the FL 56mm,
but less than expected, considering alu vs composite
no specs on transmission,
just the general conquest info "more than 90%"
perhaps they are too close to the HT:s…
no spec on field of view,
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/hunti...binoculars/conquest-hd-binoculars.html#models
Last edited:
thanks,
pretty good eye relief on all models, 18mm,
a bit longer and slightly heavier than the FL 56mm,
but less than expected, considering alu vs composite
no specs on transmission,
just the general conquest info "more than 90%"
perhaps they are too close to the HT:s…
no spec on field of view,
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/hunti...binoculars/conquest-hd-binoculars.html#models
VB
The subjective angle of view of the 8x56 calculates out to an objective angle of 7.1 deg, which compares well with the old Conquest 8x56 with 6.4 deg.
Lee
David in NC
Well-known member
Not that I can afford it anytime soon, but what a raptor watching bin-10x56 Conquest HD! :t:
All the "tech spec" says now is "ft" however under "Field of View"...
David
All the "tech spec" says now is "ft" however under "Field of View"...
David
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
The cited FOV of 80 feet @ 1000 yds for the 15 x 56 better be a typo..........
Hermann
Well-known member
They quote the AFOV as 69 degrees on the website. That translates to 80m/1000m, the same as the old 15x60.
Someone didn't switch on his/her brain when putting these figures on the website.
Hermann
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
The 15x56 HD [on paper] compares well to the SLC - slightly wider field, closer focus, a few ounces more weight but much less expensive. Let's see if they get the optics right....
. The 69° quoted seems to be in old measure unlike Nikon who use a more modern measure which gives lower figures. Do Swarovski give both measures?
this 69° is the same as the 12×50 Ultravid, and the same as the Canon 15×50 and Canon 18×50.
It is also the same as the 1950s 16×56 Hensoldt.
so all we have to see is the actual image performance centrally and at the edge of the new Zeiss 15×56 HD Conquest.
it is though almost double the weight of the Hensoldt.
going by the smaller HD Conquests I hope that the low level of vignetting and light loss at the edge compared with older designs is maintained.
this 69° is the same as the 12×50 Ultravid, and the same as the Canon 15×50 and Canon 18×50.
It is also the same as the 1950s 16×56 Hensoldt.
so all we have to see is the actual image performance centrally and at the edge of the new Zeiss 15×56 HD Conquest.
it is though almost double the weight of the Hensoldt.
going by the smaller HD Conquests I hope that the low level of vignetting and light loss at the edge compared with older designs is maintained.
Holger Merlitz
Well-known member
A misunderstanding: The "old measure", AFOV = m * TFOV ("angle condition"), is fine if the binocular has a significant amount of pincushion. Nikon's "tangent condition" is valid only for distortion-free binoculars. Swarovski is quoting the actual (measured) values of their apparent angles of view, i.e. they correctly take into account the actual values of distortion implemented into their binoculars.
Since Zeiss is traditionally applying more pincushion, the angle condition should be more or less accurate here ...
Cheers,
Holger
thanks,
pretty good eye relief on all models, 18mm,
a bit longer and slightly heavier than the FL 56mm,
but less than expected, considering alu vs composite
no specs on transmission,
just the general conquest info "more than 90%"
perhaps they are too close to the HT:s…
no spec on field of view,
http://sportsoptics.zeiss.com/hunti...binoculars/conquest-hd-binoculars.html#models
VB
I calculate that the FOV of the 8x56 at 1,000 yds should be about 374 feet compared with 330 feet with the old non-HD Conquest.
Lee
