I tried a slug of $1K roof-prism binoculars and I think the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 is still the best for the money! (3 Viewers)

[Paultricounty]

YOU have to decide how much you are willing to pay for the small differences in binoculars as you move up in price. Frankly, anymore I find a $1K binocular performs well enough for my birding uses, and I don't have to baby it or worry about somebody stealing it it as much as a $2.5K binocular.

Many here might disagree with your opinion that it’s a small difference between a $1000 upper mid grade binocular to the best of the best. As I stated in another post , it’s the whole package, not just the optics. Certainly you don’t have to baby the NL or any other Alpha, they are made tough and backed by the manufacturer . I’m sure that the Viper would’ve also performed well enough for you as it has for many other users and that would’ve only cost $500. As a birding tool even a diamond back will cover your bases.

Merry Christmas



So as we can see here that it’s all relative. A lot of guys spend big bucks to get what we concluded its worth the money to have the best.

 

[Paultricounty]

Paul, there is no denying some folks have got Conquest HDs with eyecups that are difficult to screw up and down to the different positions.

The Conquest's eyecups consist of at least two components and they are made by injecting plastic into two different moulds. I have one set of regular Conquest HD eyecups and one set of the extended length eyecups and both of these eyecups are easy to screw up and down. It is inconcievable that the two sets of moulds used by the manufacturer to produce these eyecups were only used to produce mine. There will be Conquest HDs out there fitted with eyecups produced by the same moulds as mine and therefore that do not have the problem that you describe.

Therefore, no matter how common the problem is, by definition it is not universal.

I also find it hard to believe that by some fluke of good fortune I have two sets of eyecups produced off the only two sets of moulds that turn out easy-to-screw Conquest HD eyecups, so I am inclined to expect there are other mould sets producing equally easy-to-screw eyecups too.

Lee

Hi Lee,

I wasn’t specifically speaking or comparing the differences of the factory eyecups and the extended optional ones. Nor was I eluding to the molding process. They both work the same as far as I’m concerned, the extended ones just help a bit if that little extra eye releif is desired.

We can go back and forth with our descriptions or opinions about what is easy. My point was the inherent design , let’s say weakness, not to offend conquest lovers. Easy wasn’t the point here, I’m not contending they don’t work on most examples. They worked on every one I used , just not mostly the same 😏.

My point was in comparing them to other (even much less expensive binoculars) that have a superior feel , Zeiss could’ve done much better job here, and they know it. I’ve had multiple conversations with Zeiss concerning this shortcoming, if you will. It’s also apparent that this design is not used on any other Zeiss binoculars.

We’re in a discussion forum talking about the Zeiss conquest value and I’m just voicing an opinion on one aspect of build Quality.

So this process is inherent in the Zeiss conquest line, therefore universal can be used in a description.

Paul

 

[cycleguy]

I don't have a concrete answer, really. I've had 3 FL 8x32 over the years and I still don't really know why I sold them. I think my old Swaro CL 8x30 simply felt better to hold and use despite the FL's better optics and nicer focuser. So, I stuck with the CL and got rid of the most recent FL back then. I don't even remember the reason for selling the previous 2. Later, I tried the Monarch HG and decided the Nikon is a better birding bino than the CL. I probably should have kept the CL as a secondary binocular though.

I'm pretty happy with the MHG so things worked out OK. I enjoy using it. I'm keeping things as they are now to avoid another mistake LOL.
I really need an assistant who tells me "buy this one, don't buy that, etc" when it comes to certain things, as I have difficulty making the right decisions sometimes.

I'm in this camp. Sometimes you just feel things or know intuitively, and are unable to mentally explain. You might figure it out in time and other times you don't. It is also referred to as "trusting your gut". Works for me 99.9% of the time. I wonder if all of us are blessed with this gift?

CG

 

[Maljunulo]

I wonder if all of us are blessed with this gift?

Sadly, looking around at the mess that so many manage to make of their life, not all are given this very basic and very valuable attribute.

 

[A2GG]

The Trinovids and Leicas in general are one of the warmest glasses around. They have an almost yellowish, red tint to their view, and I am not saying that in a bad way. When you look through a Leica they are different from a Zeiss or Swarovski which are colder and more color neutral. You either like it or you don't, but it is there.

Yes Leicas are on the warm side. The Ultravid HD+ appeared less warm (very subtle yellowish) compared to the MHG (yellow to my eyes) and the CL looked neutral compared to the other two; It did not have any touch of yellowish. I was able to compare all 3 directly back in 2020.

When I had the CL and FL together about 3 yrs ago the CL looked neutral compared to FL which had a subtle touch of greenish. I noticed it more clearly once on a dim overcast day with little light. I felt the FL had a very slight cold image in general. Overall I preferred the colors in the CL.

These color biases are more noticeable in direct comparisons.

The monarch HG has a somewhat similar type of view to Ultravid and I think this may be why I like it so much. However, the color tones between the two are different and overall I do prefer the colors in the Ultravid HD+.

I haven’t yet disliked completely the colors in any binocular I’ve looked through. I haven’t found one which made me feel like ‘oh the colors are so off and I don’t like it’. That’s because these warm or cold biases or color ‘tints’ are very mild really and aren’t usually noticed when simply using them out in nature.

 

[cycleguy]

... The objective covers work good, ...

I purchased an 8x32 Conquest HD in August of 2013. They came with these things for objective covers (see pic). Obviously by the way I worded that sentence you should know I don't think too highly of them. Did this change somewhere over the years, or are they still the same?

FWIW, I still own this binocular. I am more of a "go"/"no go" person when it comes to binoculars - does the overall package work or doesn't it? vs this one is a hair better at, or a hair worse at, than this one. It is one of 5 (I'll call them my fab 5) I keep on hand that works well for me. Yep nice optics, yep nice build, yep nice focuser (second best I've experienced and hearing I may have gotten lucky), yep nice raincover, yep nice strap, yep nice case, yep acceptable ergos, yep eyecups that stay up all the time as they aren't so smooth to operate, yep eyecups that have been switched out with second version eyecups to help with fit and blackout. But sorry, the objective covers have always been a fail for me. As you can see they are covered with dust as I gave up trying to use them long ago.

CG

 

[Ratal]

I did just this for my latest 8x42s.

Some were good, some were great, but all had that little something I just knew would have me selling them on sooner rather than later.

Until I tested a set of Opticron Aurora 8x42.

I knew right there after a day in the field that they were my permanent bin. Still feel that way 6 months later.

 

[Troubador]

Hi Lee,

I wasn’t specifically speaking or comparing the differences of the factory eyecups and the extended optional ones. Nor was I eluding to the molding process. They both work the same as far as I’m concerned, the extended ones just help a bit if that little extra eye releif is desired.

We can go back and forth with our descriptions or opinions about what is easy. My point was the inherent design , let’s say weakness, not to offend conquest lovers. Easy wasn’t the point here, I’m not contending they don’t work on most examples. They worked on every one I used , just not mostly the same 😏.

My point was in comparing them to other (even much less expensive binoculars) that have a superior feel , Zeiss could’ve done much better job here, and they know it. I’ve had multiple conversations with Zeiss concerning this shortcoming, if you will. It’s also apparent that this design is not used on any other Zeiss binoculars.

We’re in a discussion forum talking about the Zeiss conquest value and I’m just voicing an opinion on one aspect of build Quality.

So this process is inherent in the Zeiss conquest line, therefore universal can be used in a description.

Paul

Guess we just have different conceptions of what 'universal' means.

Lee

 

[Patudo]

I don't have a concrete answer, really. I've had 3 FL 8x32 over the years and I still don't really know why I sold them. I think my old Swaro CL 8x30 simply felt better to hold and use despite the FL's better optics and nicer focuser. So, I stuck with the CL and got rid of the most recent FL back then. I don't even remember the reason for selling the previous 2. Later, I tried the Monarch HG and decided the Nikon is a better birding bino than the CL.

Most of the discussions here center around optical performance/image quality. But for many field users very often it's handling/ergonomics/weight that's more important. I've looked through Swarovski's 8x56 on a number of occasions and thought it was exceptional image-wise, but I'd never go birding with it.

 

[Paultricounty]

Guess we just have different conceptions of what 'universal' means.

Lee

I certainly don’t want argue with you about the definition of the word universal. How about general, across the board, widespread or Inescapable. I was just trying to make a point about the topic of the thread. Seems like if someone has a differing opinion about what someone else bought or believes, that it’s insulting them. I assure you that is not my intention and I mean no disrespect.

 

[Maljunulo]

Will this help keep everyone on the same page?

Definition of universal​

(Entry 1 of 2)
1: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception, especially : available equitably to all members of a society, universal health coverage
2a: present or occurring everywhere
b: existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions, universal cultural patterns
3a: embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind)a universal state, universal practices
b: comprehensively broad and versatile, a universal genius
4a: affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all values of a variable
b: denoting every member of a class, a universal term
5: adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements (as of use, shape, or size)a universal gear cutter, a universal remote control

 

[Paultricounty]

Will this help keep everyone on the same page?

Definition of universal​

(Entry 1 of 2)
1: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception, especially : available equitably to all members of a society, universal health coverage
2a: present or occurring everywhere
b: existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions, universal cultural patterns
3a: embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind)a universal state, universal practices
b: comprehensively broad and versatile, a universal genius
4a: affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all values of a variable
b: denoting every member of a class, a universal term
5: adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements (as of use, shape, or size)a universal gear cutter, a universal remote control

Looks like we got the whole Merriam Webster dictionary definition for the word universal. I did that too but I chose to keep it simple. Must be an attorney 😛. There is no universal healthcare it’s called Obamacare and it doesn’t care to cover everybody universally, no thank you.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Troubador]

I certainly don’t want argue with you about the definition of the word universal. How about general, across the board, widespread or Inescapable. I was just trying to make a point about the topic of the thread. Seems like if someone has a differing opinion about what someone else bought or believes, that it’s insulting them. I assure you that is not my intention and I mean no disrespect.

Paul, no disrespect from my side either. I am content to let my post 78 speak for me.

Lee

 

[Dennis Mau]

Most of the discussions here center around optical performance/image quality. But for many field users very often it's handling/ergonomics/weight that's more important. I've looked through Swarovski's 8x56 on a number of occasions and thought it was exceptional image-wise, but I'd never go birding with it.

I agree. You can't downplay the importance of ergonomics, handling and weight. Also, non-optical criteria like the focuser smoothness and speed are very important when choosing a binocular. I feel the same way about a Nikon WX 10x50 that you do about the Swarovski 8x56. I wouldn't go birding with one, at least without a good harness!

 

[Dennis Mau]

Many here might disagree with your opinion that it’s a small difference between a $1000 upper mid grade binocular to the best of the best. As I stated in another post , it’s the whole package, not just the optics. Certainly you don’t have to baby the NL or any other Alpha, they are made tough and backed by the manufacturer . I’m sure that the Viper would’ve also performed well enough for you as it has for many other users and that would’ve only cost $500. As a birding tool even a diamond back will cover your bases.

Merry Christmas



So as we can see here that it’s all relative. A lot of guys spend big bucks to get what we concluded its worth the money to have the best.

It would just bother me more if I scratched my $3K NL's than my $1K Conquest HD. Warranty or not.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I purchased an 8x32 Conquest HD in August of 2013. They came with these things for objective covers (see pic). Obviously by the way I worded that sentence you should know I don't think too highly of them. Did this change somewhere over the years, or are they still the same?

FWIW, I still own this binocular. I am more of a "go"/"no go" person when it comes to binoculars - does the overall package work or doesn't it? vs this one is a hair better at, or a hair worse at, than this one. It is one of 5 (I'll call them my fab 5) I keep on hand that works well for me. Yep nice optics, yep nice build, yep nice focuser (second best I've experienced and hearing I may have gotten lucky), yep nice raincover, yep nice strap, yep nice case, yep acceptable ergos, yep eyecups that stay up all the time as they aren't so smooth to operate, yep eyecups that have been switched out with second version eyecups to help with fit and blackout. But sorry, the objective covers have always been a fail for me. As you can see they are covered with dust as I gave up trying to use them long ago.

CG

I actually like the Zeiss Conquest HD objective cover because it is only one piece, you can remove it and put it on easier than the tethered objective covers that fit on each objective.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I did just this for my latest 8x42s.

Some were good, some were great, but all had that little something I just knew would have me selling them on sooner rather than later.

Until I tested a set of Opticron Aurora 8x42.

I knew right there after a day in the field that they were my permanent bin. Still feel that way 6 months later.

I have never tried the Opticron Aurora 8x42 because they are not a big seller over here. Being Opticron's best binocular, I imagine they are very good! Their specifications are excellent.

 

[mwhogue]

I purchased an 8x32 Conquest HD in August of 2013. They came with these things for objective covers (see pic). Obviously by the way I worded that sentence you should know I don't think too highly of them. Did this change somewhere over the years, or are they still the same?

FWIW, I still own this binocular. I am more of a "go"/"no go" person when it comes to binoculars - does the overall package work or doesn't it? vs this one is a hair better at, or a hair worse at, than this one. It is one of 5 (I'll call them my fab 5) I keep on hand that works well for me. Yep nice optics, yep nice build, yep nice focuser (second best I've experienced and hearing I may have gotten lucky), yep nice raincover, yep nice strap, yep nice case, yep acceptable ergos, yep eyecups that stay up all the time as they aren't so smooth to operate, yep eyecups that have been switched out with second version eyecups to help with fit and blackout. But sorry, the objective covers have always been a fail for me. As you can see they are covered with dust as I gave up trying to use them long ago.

CG

cycleguy,

The Zeiss 32mm objective covers pictured in your post work very well as light sleek rain guards on Canon 12x36 IS III and 8x25 IS bins.

Mike

 

[Paultricounty]

It would just bother me more if I scratched my $3K NL's than my $1K Conquest HD. Warranty or not.

It would bother me if I scratched either one of them. In each case they’d go in for service. Would it bother you if they were $500 even less than the $1000. We could go all day long with these analogies.

 

[Dennis Mau]

It would bother me if I scratched either one of them. In each case they’d go in for service. Would it bother you if they were $500 even less than the $1000. We could go all day long with these analogies.

On a Vortex Viper HD @$500 I would not care. HaHa!