Question regarding focus issues with the Conquest HD 8x32 (2 Viewers)

[Paultricounty]

It is possible that the Conquest was never specced to be a $1K binocular, or compete in the $1K arena.

When I tried an 8x32 it was on sale for about 500E and at that price it was phenomenal value. But I paid double and got an a 7x42 Ultravid HD demo unit, which I think played in a different class, in ease of view and color, with no disrespect intended to the Conquest. And to take up the above quote, I guess if the Swaro EL line is now getting sold at the price of a Conquest, the dealer is going to have a tough time persuading the customer that the Conquest is a better glass or better value, whatever the close focus distance of the Swaro.

Pricing is always a problem with products - retailers don't like products that are priced too low because they kill the possibility of greater profit on the competition. This is what may have pushed Zeiss to set the price of the Conquest higher than initially considered, similar to that of the other luxury betas - the Trinovid HD and the Swaro Companions, but in pushing the price up so far they may have created unrealistic expectations of perfection that were not intended at design time, and that were realised in the SF line. And that may also explain why people on this thread - and other places on the net - consider the Conquest as competing on performance and quality with products that are priced much lower.

Edmund

I agree the conquest at $1000 price point is right up there with all the other competitors optically. You just can’t go wrong with that glass. Focuser is pretty darn good as well. But the build quality, it’s fit finish, materials and of course the eye cops are just not up to that $1000 standard IMHO. The CL, Trinovid, Genesis even the Monarch HG to name a few have that high quality, more refined feel. Some say that Zeiss spent more on the optics , I’m not buying that, the competitors are equally good.

As far as SF, that’s a whole other world. Was out with my new pair today and leaving out discussion of optical quality the build quality and material are exquisite and elegant and feel great to the touch with fantastic balance. They are a work of art and you pay for that level. Is it worth it on a monetary level, there is no right or wrong answer, there is only, is it worth it to you. You are not just paying for better optics when you go to an SF, NL or Leica, you’re paying for the materials, the fit and finish and how it feels in your hand.

Maybe I misunderstood what you said about the EL, but I’m not seeing EL’s selling at similar prices as the conquest. If I could buy 32mm EL’s for a grand, I’d be all over that. Heck I’d buy two of them.

Thank you

Paul

 

[james holdsworth]

Build quality? We’ve got $3000 optics that shed their accessories and armouring like leaves in autumn …my Conquests have crap eyecups, given, but the rest is tough as nails and as well screwed together as anything out there, full stop.

 

[Paultricounty]

Build quality? We’ve got $3000 optics that shed their accessories and armouring like leaves in autumn …my Conquests have crap eyecups, given, but the rest is tough as nails and as well screwed together as anything out there, full stop.

I was trying to be nice and not use the word crap, I always get in trouble when I try to be politically correct and when I don’t. Every binocular product whether it’s the best of the best, very good or just good will have examples of quality control issues. But comparing apples to apples with one good example with another good example, all Conquest eyecups are crap, and whether I piss money away on high end $3000 binoculars, at least I feel like I’m getting something for that money. I got $300 binoculars that feel like they’re made better than the conquest, optics aside of course. Tough as nails, so is the Chinese terra, vortex Viper, Monarch seven at half the price.

✌🏼

 

[jgraider]

I'll take a Tract Toric over the Conquest any day.

 

[ZDHart]

Personally, I think a bit much is made about Conquest HD eyecups, which may, needlessly, put some potential buyers off.

My two Conquest HDs (8x32 and 10x42) were purchased almost 8 years ago. Zeiss sent free replacement cups at the time I bought them and I've used them ever since.

The eyecups have served me perfectly all these years. They may be a little stiffer to rotate up and down than some other options, but still, they function just fine and feel very good to the eye sockets. And, many people would likely set eyecup positioning and just leave them as is, much, most, or even all of the time.

While my $2100+ Zeiss & Leica alpha bins have somewhat smoother rotating eyecups, I have no quibbles whatsoever about Conquest HD eyecups, even considering my use of three Zeiss SF bins and three Leica UVHD+ bins, as well.

I'd say to those considering purchase of Conquest HD binoculars, don't place much concern over Conquest HD eyecups... you will likely find that they serve you just fine.

 

[MandoBear]

It always strikes me that the Conquest HD is very much a tool binocular - very rugged construction, great optics, but perhaps not the most refined user interface. The eyecups are an example of this: they get the job done, even if their adjustment is a little bit clunky. I set mine when I got my binoculars (actually between clicks, and in that way they give me a little micro-adjustment) and I've not really had to think about them since. In contrast, the "better" eyecups on my Swaro ELs are very content to spontaneously readjust themselves when I remove and replace the rainguard - which does become a little tiresome.

 

[CSG]

Personally, I think a bit much is made about Conquest HD eyecups, which may, needlessly, put some potential buyers off.

My two Conquest HDs (8x32 and 10x42) were purchased almost 8 years ago. Zeiss sent free replacement cups at the time I bought them and I've used them ever since.

The eyecups have served me perfectly all these years. They may be a little stiffer to rotate up and down than some other options, but still, they function just fine and feel very good to the eye sockets. And, many people would likely set eyecup positioning and just leave them as is, much, most, or even all of the time.

While my $2100+ Zeiss & Leica alpha bins have somewhat smoother rotating eyecups, I have no quibbles whatsoever about Conquest HD eyecups, even considering my use of three Zeiss SF bins and three Leica UVHD+ bins, as well.

I'd say to those considering purchase of Conquest HD binoculars, don't place much concern over Conquest HD eyecups... you will likely find that they serve you just fine.

While I'm on my 4th pair of replacement extended eyecups in 8 years, they do work and are comfortable with those big rubber ringed ends. It's just they should be so damn sticky to raise and lower. They have stopped me from enjoying the heck out of my HDs.

 

[Paultricounty]

Personally, I think a bit much is made about Conquest HD eyecups, which may, needlessly, put some potential buyers off.

My two Conquest HDs (8x32 and 10x42) were purchased almost 8 years ago. Zeiss sent free replacement cups at the time I bought them and I've used them ever since.

The eyecups have served me perfectly all these years. They may be a little stiffer to rotate up and down than some other options, but still, they function just fine and feel very good to the eye sockets. And, many people would likely set eyecup positioning and just leave them as is, much, most, or even all of the time.

While my $2100+ Zeiss & Leica alpha bins have somewhat smoother rotating eyecups, I have no quibbles whatsoever about Conquest HD eyecups, even considering my use of three Zeiss SF bins and three Leica UVHD+ bins, as well.

I'd say to those considering purchase of Conquest HD binoculars, don't place much concern over Conquest HD eyecups... you will likely find that they serve you just fine.

There are reasons a lot is said about the conquest eyecups and it can and probably does put some people off. I never read any posts about the eye cups when I bought my first pair, I learned about them after I bought them. And to be perfectly honest with you I was not pleased with those eyecups for $1000.

Regardless about how some people feel about them I think it is a contention for discussion due to the fact these are $1000 binoculars. And considering the fact that discussion after discussion talks about these $1000 price range binos being 90% or 95% as good as the true high-end alphas, it’s understandable that people raise the issue of these.

I say they are more than adequate for their intended purpose . I think they’re fine and will last as long as needed. But that is not the discussion here.

Here’s where it gets tricky, at the thousand dollar price point that some say say are almost as good as the alphas you expect that part of the binocular to at least be equal to a binocular less than half the there price.

Off the top of my head there are numerous other binoculars of equal optical quality at the thousand dollar price point, the Nikon HG, the Kowa Genesis, Leica Trinovid and even the vortex razor HD, all of which have a much better design & quality feel to to there eyecups. As well as other parts of the build the quality. I can name a couple of $300 binoculars as well. But we’re discussing this because a lot of people feel they should be better designed.

I contend that if Zeiss designed these eyecups more like the Nikon or even the Zeiss SF , or any one of the ones i mentioned, these ultimately would wind up being the top choice for most people in $1000 category, and fly off the shelves. Heck I would’ve kept mine. That seems to be one of the biggest gripes other than some people complaining they don’t like the way the exterior rubber is put on the body, but all in all their tanks.

I do believe that if these little things really don’t bother you, then the conquest is on the top of that list. But if you’re one of those people that are a little bit OCD or you’re expecting the whole package at that price range, then there are other options that you would may like better.


Thank you
Paul

 

[CSG]

The gal at CS that I spoke to today regarding the protectant on the SF binoculars was the same one I spoke to a week or so ago to get a replacement set of eyecups for my HDs. She claimed Zeiss was working on a new design and, of course, they would be available at no cost to all Conquest owners. We'll see. After 8-9 years, you'd think they'd have done that already.

 

[Paultricounty]

While I'm on my 4th pair of replacement extended eyecups in 8 years, they do work and are comfortable with those big rubber ringed ends. It's just they should be so damn sticky to raise and lower. They have stopped me from enjoying the heck out of my HDs.

That’s why I sold them and kept the Kowa Genesis. CSG, why are you on your 4th pair of eyecups? What happened to the last 3 pairs?

Some photos of the Kowa Genesis 8x33, note the metal focus wheel.

 

[CSG]

I've written about them over the years. Maybe do a username search.

 

[Paultricounty]

I've written about them over the years. Maybe do a username search.

It’s hard enough remembering what binoculars I have, I have no idea why I’m trying to remember what other members have

 

[ZDHart]

Some of us find Conquest HD eyecups perfectly satisfactory, not a problem. Others do not. This kind of thing (quibbles about one aspect or another) apply to any binoculars you can name.

Whatever binoculars you buy are likely to involve some type of preference trade-off, in one way or another. No binoculars, including $2000-$3000 alphas, will perfectly meet everyone's preferences in every way.

If perfectly smooth operating eyecups are a high priority to anyone... just choose bins which have that quality. Any time you select a choice for one particular attribute (very smooth eyecup movement, for example), you may be selecting to trade-off some other aspect (focus speed, for example), relative to a competitive product. Choices in life are all about trade-offs.

If you're the type to set and forget your eyecup positions, or you don't mind a little stiffness when turning the eyecups, this aspect is probably inconsequential to you. That bit of stiffness can hold the eyecups in intermediate positions pretty securely, if desired. So, some may consider that to be a benefit feature.

Kowa Genesis, as Conquest HD, are excellent and largely comparable binoculars. You can get a smoother turning eyecup feel with the former (if that is important to you), BUT if you love a fast focus speed... you'll go with the Conquest HD for that! Always trade-offs. Perhaps you don't need to adjust your eyecup position much, at all, anyway. Or, perhaps you prefer the fast focusing speed of Conquest HD. You've got options.

All in all... it's quite obvious throughout this forum that a vast majority of Conquest HD owners love having made that particular choice of binoculars, and recommend them for others to strongly consider. But, like any binocular model, Conquest HD may not be THE perfect choice for everyone.

 

[Conndomat]

Some of us find Conquest HD eyecups perfectly satisfactory, not a problem. Others do not. This kind of thing (quibbles about one aspect or another) apply to any binoculars you can name.
All in all... it's quite obvious throughout this forum that a vast majority of Conquest HD owners love having made that choice of binoculars, and recommend them for others to consider. But, like any binocular model, Conquest HD may not be THE ideal choice for everyone.

Hi Don,

how true, I think you can overstrain the topic too!

In fact, the Conquest eyecups are not of very high quality, but once they are set they do their job!
I have had a 10x32 Conquest for years and have never had any problems.
There are just a lot of people who wear glasses out there, and one aspect that is forgotten when recommending binoculars is that the Conquest really (mostly) fit well here.
The Kowa Genesis very beautiful binoculars but a no-go for many people who wear glasses, not every glass fits everyone ...

Andreas

 

[ZDHart]

Hi Don,

how true, I think you can overstrain the topic too!

In fact, the Conquest eyecups are not of very high quality, but once they are set they do their job!
I have had a 10x32 Conquest for years and have never had any problems.
There are just a lot of people who wear glasses out there, and one aspect that is forgotten when recommending binoculars is that the Conquest really (mostly) fit well here.
The Kowa Genesis very beautiful binoculars but a no-go for many people who wear glasses, not every glass fits everyone ...

Andreas

Indeed... and isn't it great that we have so many wonderful options to choose from, at a wide variety of price points. There is something for (pretty much ?) everyone.

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi Don,

how true, I think you can overstrain the topic too!

In fact, the Conquest eyecups are not of very high quality, but once they are set they do their job!
I have had a 10x32 Conquest for years and have never had any problems.
There are just a lot of people who wear glasses out there, and one aspect that is forgotten when recommending binoculars is that the Conquest really (mostly) fit well here.
The Kowa Genesis very beautiful binoculars but a no-go for many people who wear glasses, not every glass fits everyone ...

Andreas

In 8x32’s, Conquest with 16mm is good and genesis at 15mm ER is bad ?

 

[Troubador]

In 8x32’s, Conquest with 16mm is good and genesis at 15mm ER is bad ?

Could be when spectacles are involved. I wear spectacles and don't have any problems with my Genesis 8x33 but over the last 10 years my spectacle prescription has changed twice and each time the new spectacles have required eyecup adjustments to most of my binos so it looks like I have been lucky it hasn't affected my use of the Genesis. Other folks with other spectacles may have different experiences.

Lee

 

[Conndomat]

In 8x32’s, Conquest with 16mm is good and genesis at 15mm ER is bad ?

Hi Paul,

yes the 1mm. can decide whether to see or see less!

As Lee says, it also depends on the eyeglasses and face shape, but which aspect is often forgotten, faresight eyeglasses users usually need a longer EP. able as nearsighted user.
I am affected by binoculars under 16mm. I don't need to use EP position at all, only from 16mm. it becomes possible and here, too, there are differences. At the Conquest I was always able to see the field without any problems, with the FL 8x32 (EP.15.5mm) it is no longer really possible.
Nearsighted eyeglasses users often come with 15mm. clear.
As an eyeglasses user in particular, you should examine binoculars carefully, often it just doesn't fit, the manufacturer's information is not always entirely reliable

Andreas

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi Paul,

yes the 1mm. can decide whether to see or see less!

As Lee says, it also depends on the eyeglasses and face shape, but which aspect is often forgotten, faresight eyeglasses users usually need a longer EP. able as nearsighted user.
I am affected by binoculars under 16mm. I don't need to use EP position at all, only from 16mm. it becomes possible and here, too, there are differences. At the Conquest I was always able to see the field without any problems, with the FL 8x32 (EP.15.5mm) it is no longer really possible.
Nearsighted eyeglasses users often come with 15mm. clear.
As an eyeglasses user in particular, you should examine binoculars carefully, often it just doesn't fit, the manufacturer's information is not always entirely reliable

Andreas

I understand both you and Lee. It’s a shame, but then you guys still have so many good choices that have ample eye releif. Im blessed (so far) with not needing glasses at 62. I have two Swaro Habicht’s 14 & 12mm of ER and even there i had a few alterations to extend slightly for comfort. 🙏🏼

merry Christmas

 

[Maljunulo]

When folks talk about "needing glasses" they are talking about a whole host of things.

If you only have refractive errors (no severe astigmatism etc.) you should be able to compensate for this when you focus the binocular.

How many are using eyeglasses with binoculars who really don't need to?