• 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.

Roger Vine’s review of the Zeiss Conquest 8x56 HD (2 Viewers)

How can you trust a reviewer who gets the strap on upside down so it says "SSIƎZ" ? (that one must not be contoured)

Seriously though... I can't understand why there should be a detent at 0 on a diopter. If your setting is near 0 (as many people's must be) it just gets in the way.

Curious (especially as an astronomer) that he reviewed the huge and badly astigmatic Conquest rather than HT or SLC.
 
Last edited:
Gosh, wherever he is sure is beautiful.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I know, the photos are the best part of his essays!

I've wondered why Zeiss today seems to have so much trouble meeting the standard of the 8x56 Dialyt. It had better edge of field than any 56mm they've made since. It was lighter than any 56mm since. The only downside it had was false color, which is not a problem for astronomy or low-light use. After trying the 54mm HT's I decided to go to ebay and find a nice pair of 8x56 Dialyt instead. A 10x56 Dialyt would be excellent. Or how about new 54mm HT's with the same oculars the Dialyt used, that would be just about perfect for my tastes.
 
John A Roberts said:
Here on BF there’s been recent discussion about the large 8x models.
And coincidentally, Roger has recently added a review of the Zeiss Conquest 8x56 HD to his body of work,
see at: Zeiss 8x56 Conquest HD

View attachment 1494784

As he notes, he’s reviewed the higher magnification Swarovski x56’s but not yet the 8x - so hopefully to come
(the full set of reviews is at: Binocular Reviews ).


John
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with Roger:

“I’m pleased to see that it still says ‘Made in Germany’ on the Conquests’ focuser knob. Why pleased? Because German manufacture is good for Europe, good for repairability and helps set the most famous brand in optics apart from others – Vortex comes to mind – that outsource their premium optics.”
 
Sounds like the SLC 8x56 might be reviewed relatively soon given he's spend time with one. Weird photo of the SLC though next to the conquest, it says 8x56 where it should on the focuser, although the "8" doesn't look quite right and the eye lenses are the ones from either a 10x or 15x but definitely not the 8x.....

Doesn't sound hugely different from the conquest other than off axis curvature/astigmatism, maybe I could have saved a few quid as I rarely use the SLC for astro but the conquest does look even bigger and i already feel a bit of a twazzock with the size of the SLC!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting that link, John. I've read some of Roger's review, most recently his review of the 10x42 SFL, but I hadn't read this one.

Henry Link is the only birder I know who uses an 8x56 as his main birding bin, which is/was a Zeiss 8x56 FL due to its super sharp centerfield and better control of aberrations than smaller sized FLs. I wonder if he still uses it or if he switched to the 8x54 HT? He was interested in the 8x56 SLC HD, but they aren't sold in the U.S.

I had an 8x50 Zeiss Jena Octarem, which weighed 40 oz., but being a porro, the weight was so well distributed in the large, flat bottomed prism housings that it felt much lighter in my hands. OTOH, the Nikon 10x42 LX weighed a whopping 34.2 oz, which as a roof had its weight centered, and with a closed bridge, there was no barrels to wrap my fingers under, so it felt like an albatross around my neck and hurt my Popeye-before-the-spinach arms at the end of the day.

There's actual weight and RealFeel weight, depending on the weight distribution and your ability to support the weight with your hands.

These days, I'm content with using an 8x32 porro or roof for birding. What I lose in brightness, I make up for by being able to use the binoculars for longer periods without fatigue.
 
Last edited:
William Lewis said:
Sounds like the SLC 8x56 might be reviewed relatively soon given he's spend time with one. Weird photo of the SLC though next to the conquest, it says 8x56 where it should on the focuser, although the "8" doesn't look quite right and the eye lenses are the ones from either a 10x or 15x but definitely not the 8x.....

Doesn't sound hugely different from the conquest other than off axis curvature/astigmatism, maybe I could have saved a few quid as I rarely use the SLC for astro but the conquest does look even bigger and i already feel a bit of a twazzock with the size of the SLC!
Click to expand...
I think you made the best decision with the SLC 8X56, it is likely the best 8X56 made today. Additionally I also feel that the FL 8X56 has other attributes that make it excellent as well.
 
One thing that annoys me about Scopeviews is that he doesn't put dates on his reviews, but often makes statements like "these binoculars give the best view of XXXX I've yet seen". Without knowing the sequence of the reviews, it's difficult to understand how different models stack up.
 
William Lewis said:
Sounds like the SLC 8x56 might be reviewed relatively soon given he's spend time with one. Weird photo of the SLC though next to the conquest, it says 8x56 where it should on the focuser, although the "8" doesn't look quite right and the eye lenses are the ones from either a 10x or 15x but definitely not the 8x.....

Doesn't sound hugely different from the conquest other than off axis curvature/astigmatism, maybe I could have saved a few quid as I rarely use the SLC for astro but the conquest does look even bigger and i already feel a bit of a twazzock with the size of the SLC!
Click to expand...
Agreed, Will. That is definitely not an 8x56 SLC. It rather looks as if he has retouched the photograph!
No need to have any doubts about your SLC. Though I have never looked through an 8x56 Conquest I'm convinced it would not compete.
Several years ago, when interested in a15x boinocular I set up a 15x56 Conquest on my tripod. Its only positive attribute was better eye relief than the 15x56 SLC but the level of CA was the worst I have seen in any binocular after a cheap MIC Bauer.

John
 
[email protected] said:
The Zeiss Conquest HD 8x56 makes the Swarovski SLC 8x56 look like a Munchkin fromThe Wizard of Oz, and I know how HUGE the SLC is because I had one.

Zeiss 8x56 Conquest HD Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk www.scopeviews.co.uk
View attachment 1495210
Click to expand...
A not so obvious difference is that the SLC HD has thumb indents, which I think would be a real plus for holding supersized binoculars steady. If you look at the first photo of Roger holding the Conquest from the side, you can see how far back his right hand is to reach the focuser. Not anywhere near his other thumb to cross under the barrels together.

I find the thumb indents very helpful in the 8x and 10x42 SLC. By "two-stage cut-outs" I assume he means the 56mm having indents on the sides and underneath the barrels.

Roger comments on this difference in his review:

Zeiss don’t sculpt the back for thumb cut-outs, unlike the SLCs which now get a two-stage cut-out that really makes for a snug fit in the hand.

Brock
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

D
A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids.
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
ArchStanton
A
J
Brief reviews about Zeiss victory SFL 8/10 x40
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Declan Joseph Deasy
D
Swissboy
Zeiss 8x32 Conquest HD vs FL comparison?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Andy Gan
A
John A Roberts
Zeiss 10x40 SFL - Roger Vine's Review
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
thedarkbird
T
C
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
15 16 17
Replies
324
Views
54K
Maljunulo
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top