10x42- What is Next Step in Quality/Price Above Zeiss Conquest HD? (1 Viewer)

[tenex]

However, I’m not sure how it’s possible, but the focus is even worse on these than the prior generation I just sold. It might be the worst focuses on the binocular I’ve ever had. It’s not smooth at all. Grabs then lurches way past the intended position. Horrible asymmetry too. However, there’s got to be something wrong with it. I can’t imagine Swaro putting out something this bad.
Also, the armoring is extremely cheap feeling. It has a tackiness and looks like it has already substantially deteriorated in its short life. I don’t know what they made it out of, but it just looks like it’s falling apart.
I still got a great deal on them so I think they will be headed back to SONA to be worked on. If I can get the focus or fixed and some new armor for not too much money, I think I’ll be very happy with them.

I do hope both problems can be solved, neither of which my pre-owned 10x42 HD had. The armor should feel firm, even hard. The focuser is inherently a bit asymmetrical, as ELs were too due to the internal spring, but mine is very smooth. It was actually the later simplified version (2014) whose focuser had more frequent complaints.

 

[Dennis Mau]

In summary, the SF 10x42 is IMO the clearly better binocular!
Whether the additional price is justified remains an individual decision.

Andreas

Not IMO. The SF 10x42 is not worth $2000 more than the HD 10x42, unless you think a .2 degree bigger FOV and slightly better CA are worth $2000. For that bigger price tag, you also get more glare and more green tint included at no extra cost.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I do hope both problems can be solved, neither of which my pre-owned 10x42 HD had. The armor should feel firm, even hard. The focuser is inherently a bit asymmetrical, as ELs were too due to the internal spring, but mine is very smooth. It was actually the later simplified version (2014) whose focuser had more frequent complaints.

None of the other SLC's including the 10x42 SLC and 8x56 SLC have the focuser problems. For some reason, it is isolated to the SLC 8x42. The 8x56 SLC has an excellent smooth focuser.

 

[dorubird]

Not IMO. The SF 10x42 is not worth $2000 more than the HD 10x42, unless you think a .2 degree bigger FOV and slightly better CA are worth $2000. For that bigger price tag, you also get more glare and more green tint included at no extra cost.

Yes, the price is subjective for each person, as he said Conndomat " Whether the additional price is justified remains an individual decision.".
Yes, the Conquest HD 10x42 is a very good binocular and very close to the top, but not quite the top. Personally, a few years ago I swapped the HD for the Victory SF for the optical and mechanical advantages of the latter.


I have had these two binoculars for a long time together and have had countless opportunities to compare them!
Regarding glare and colour diferrences, I had a different experience. The HD 10x42 is a very glare-resistant binocular but the SF 10x42 is even more resistant. I tested them with all kinds of light sources: in the frame or outside the frame, during the day and at night with a street lamp or the Moon. The SF was at least as good as the HD. The only time when the HD had a slight advantage was with reflections from behind me or to the side. Since I wear glasses, the larger eyepieces of the SF caught a bit more reflections if the light was strong from the side/back near my glasses. And green tint colour was the same in both, having a similar light transmission signature!




Besides the better-managed chromatic aberrations and the slightly wider sharpness at the edges, They differ in a few other optical aspects that, in my opinion, make the most difference experience in front of the eyepieces of these binoculars:
in Victory, the field of view is a bit larger with an immersive porthole effect, and the more pronounced presence of the stereoscopic effect.
When it comes to ergonomics, comfort and mechanics, Victory stands out "victoriously". But Conquest has a more compact body and costs half of Victory. So the quality-price ratio is clearly won by Conquest because it has the general impression of brightness and clarity on the center of FOV similar to Victory. But Victory is a pair of binoculars with advantages noticed and appreciated only by an eye accustomed to binoculars and who has "tasted" the "fruit" of performance. Is it worth double the price if it only has small improvements in just a few sectors? Everyone has their own answer here. For me, these small optical and mechanical improvements, added together, make the Victory SF indisputably more pleasant and easy to use and provide a more comfortable and spectacular image!

 

[Rg548]

It's always the same argument.
We all know the Conquest is exceptional value for money. It's actually all anyone 'needs'. They are superb!!
But Zeiss would not make a binocular more than twice the price with NO gains.... its ludicrous to suggest that.

Those gains, after the £1000 mark are small, and very difficult to acquire.
So it's marginal gains... which cost... and some will pay, some will not.
I bought a Conquest, after comparing it directly to an SF at Focus Optics.
At that time I couldn't justify the extra cost, but the difference was easily noticeable.

As time has moved on, I've strived for that 'best view' and achieved it with a second hand HT, for the price of a Conquest.
And It's hard to go back to the £1000 mark, just as it's hard to jump up to the £2000 mark.

But my old Conquests just can't compete with the HTs or SF's .... as good as they are.

Who wants to spend what???

 

[Rg548]

The SF 10x42 has better CA control, a slightly bigger FOV and slightly sharper edges than the HD 10x42. But the HD 10x42 handles glare better, and has a slight green tint, but it is not nearly as green biased as the SF. I just looked at the edges on my HD 10x42, and I was amazed how tack sharp they are right to the edge. I wonder if Zeiss made some improvements in them. Furthermore, I can't see how the SF 10x42 could have sharper edges.

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

This is comedy gold....
A few weeks ago, you told me catagorically that I couldn't tell the difference between Conquests and my HTs.... saying I 'wanted' to see a difference because I had shelled out for them....
Yet here you post up one of your beloved Allbinos reviews.... where they say that the overall image of the SFs, (let alone the Conquests) is not as good as the HT's.
Mate, you've got to read these reports and at least align your posts with them, or it just looks a bit daft.
No offence intended, enjoy your day 😄

 

[hopster]

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has already been discussed but buying new the Opticron 10x42 is pretty good and the Meopta B1+ HD 10x42 is excellent. Also, the Zeiss HT 10x42 second-hand if you aren't troubled by the glare from low sun. I had one and it was generally very nice though it had to go back for water-sealing issues. Nikon EDG 10x42 is meant to be excellent though I haven't used one.

 

[hopster]

Oh, and the Kahles 10x42 which is a clone of the later Swaro SLC in ugly brown and orange.

 

[hopster]

Yesterday, I had my first ever viewing with a Noctivid, side by side with my Zeiss HT's. A kind gentleman allowed me 10 minutes with his pair as he used his scope.
I won't be swapping. I prefer the HT's, even though I'm a self confessed Leica fan.
I have to say, I was tad disappointed in the Nocts.... I expected more wow factor for the money they cost.
Beautiful build and feel as you would expect.
So that's Pures, and Noctivids now off my desire list since I found the HTs. Neither would tempt me to change.... which is good news i guess.

I also love the HTs though I think the 8x42 is the better model; my 10x42 suffered quite badly from glare with low sun at the side and eventually started letting in moisture with no guarantee from the repair guy that this could be stopped.

 

[hopster]

Thank you very much! How is the color and contrast on the HT? I have a pair of Leica ultra vids. While the edge quality is no contest better on zeiss and Swarovski, the color and contrast is on the Leica’s is better vs the other Germans.

HT's lack a little at the red end but apart from that very good; nothing really compares on colour or contrast with the Leicas.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes, the price is subjective for each person, as he said Conndomat " Whether the additional price is justified remains an individual decision.".
Yes, the Conquest HD 10x42 is a very good binocular and very close to the top, but not quite the top. Personally, a few years ago I swapped the HD for the Victory SF for the optical and mechanical advantages of the latter.
View attachment 1633759
View attachment 1633763
I have had these two binoculars for a long time together and have had countless opportunities to compare them!
Regarding glare and colour diferrences, I had a different experience. The HD 10x42 is a very glare-resistant binocular but the SF 10x42 is even more resistant. I tested them with all kinds of light sources: in the frame or outside the frame, during the day and at night with a street lamp or the Moon. The SF was at least as good as the HD. The only time when the HD had a slight advantage was with reflections from behind me or to the side. Since I wear glasses, the larger eyepieces of the SF caught a bit more reflections if the light was strong from the side/back near my glasses. And green tint colour was the same in both, having a similar light transmission signature!
View attachment 1633760
View attachment 1633762


Besides the better-managed chromatic aberrations and the slightly wider sharpness at the edges, They differ in a few other optical aspects that, in my opinion, make the most difference experience in front of the eyepieces of these binoculars:
in Victory, the field of view is a bit larger with an immersive porthole effect, and the more pronounced presence of the stereoscopic effect.
When it comes to ergonomics, comfort and mechanics, Victory stands out "victoriously". But Conquest has a more compact body and costs half of Victory. So the quality-price ratio is clearly won by Conquest because it has the general impression of brightness and clarity on the center of FOV similar to Victory. But Victory is a pair of binoculars with advantages noticed and appreciated only by an eye accustomed to binoculars and who has "tasted" the "fruit" of performance. Is it worth double the price if it only has small improvements in just a few sectors? Everyone has their own answer here. For me, these small optical and mechanical improvements, added together, make the Victory SF indisputably more pleasant and easy to use and provide a more comfortable and spectacular image!
View attachment 1633764

The SF definitely has a stronger green tint than the HD. Have you ever had your vision checked for color blindness? The SF shows more glare than the HD
because of the distinct reflections beyond the eyepiece diaphragm, which in my case created an orange ring around the FOV. Many other birders have noticed it also and have verified it with pictures. The CA is slightly better in the SF, but I think Zeiss has improved the edge sharpness in the HD because the new HD I just bought is tack sharp to the edge and just as sharp as the SF I had. Have you tried a brand new HD lately? They are definitely improved.

There is no way the SF has more stereoscopic effect because the objective separation on the SF and HD are almost identical and stereopsis is entirely determined by objective separation. Both the HD and SF have equally good transmission, so the brightness is equal, and actually the HD is sharper on-axis than the SF. The HD is known for being one of the sharpest binoculars around, on-axis. I have compared these two binoculars closely back to back and in fact I sold the SF because of the orange ring of glare around the FOV which is caused by reflections beyond the eyepiece diaphragm. Here are some photos below of the orange ring in the SF caused by reflections beyond the eyepiece diaphragm and an explanation of what causes it. From Allbinos.

"During this test I had as many as six 10x42 instruments available on my shelf: all the current line-up Zeisses (the Terra ED, the Conquest HD, the Victory HT and SF), the Swarovski SLC and the Leica Ultravid HD Plus. Many times I looked through them from my balcony in order to check how they perform in reality. After some period of time, I realized that I was choosing the Conquest more often than the rest. Why? The Terra ED optically lagged behind the whole group, the Victory SF annoyed me with the reflections behind the diaphragm, and the Victory HT had a narrower field of view.

To sum up, the Conquest HD 10x42 is so good that personally I find it rather pointless to spend significantly more money on such models as the Leica Ultravid HD Plus, the Swarovski SLC or even the Victory HT. Of course, different customers have different preferences; I admit that e.g. the casing of the Conquest HD is not as shapely and handy as that of the Leica and the Victory HT corrects the chromatic aberration better. For many people, such details might be decisive. Still they cannot change my personal opinion that among the aforementioned pairs of binoculars belonged to the premium class, the Conquest HD features the best price/quality ratio."

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF 524223 REVIEWS?

Funny how some worry about the outer 5% of the FOV of binoculars, yet dismiss veiling glare that will affect contrast and image quality across the entire FOV at all times. James. Yes, I do worry about it and it bothers me when that outer 5% of the FOV is an ORANGE RING. I do not dismiss veiling...

www.birdforum.net

The Green ghost ( Zeiss SF 8X42 )

Green cast......is like absinthe for me, a pleasure to drink but not to see. Today i went to Madrid's largest photography store and I was playing with a Black SF 8X42 Serial number 4372227 for one hour and a half,I am lucky because I am a friend of the owner so I also took the binoculars to...

www.birdforum.net

 

[hopster]

The SF definitely has a stronger green tint than the HD. Have you ever had your vision checked for color blindness? The SF shows more glare than the HD
because of the distinct reflections beyond the eyepiece diaphragm, which in my case created an orange ring around the FOV. Many other birders have noticed it also and have verified it with pictures. The CA is slightly better in the SF, but I think Zeiss has improved the edge sharpness in the HD because the new HD I just bought is tack sharp to the edge and just as sharp as the SF I had. Have you tried a brand new HD lately? They are definitely improved.

There is no way the SF has more stereoscopic effect because the objective separation on the SF and HD are almost identical and stereopsis is entirely determined by objective separation. Both the HD and SF have equally good transmission, so the brightness is equal, and actually the HD is sharper on-axis than the SF. The HD is known for being one of the sharpest binoculars around, on-axis. I have compared these two binoculars closely back to back and in fact I sold the SF because of the orange ring of glare around the FOV which is caused by reflections beyond the eyepiece diaphragm. Here are some photos of the orange ring in the SF caused by reflections beyond the eyepiece diaphragm and what causes it.

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Zeiss Victory 8x42 SF 524223 REVIEWS?

Funny how some worry about the outer 5% of the FOV of binoculars, yet dismiss veiling glare that will affect contrast and image quality across the entire FOV at all times. James. Yes, I do worry about it and it bothers me when that outer 5% of the FOV is an ORANGE RING. I do not dismiss veiling...

www.birdforum.net

For me Zeiss have never improved upon the HT 8x42 unless you really do need a big, flat FOV. Better colours and contrast than the SF in my opinion, and the Conquests I have looked through never seem particularly special at all.

 

[Dennis Mau]

For me Zeiss have never improved upon the HT 8x42 unless you really do need a big, flat FOV. Better colours and contrast than the SF in my opinion, and the Conquests I have looked through never seem particularly special at all.

The trouble with the HT 8x42 is the puny 7.75 degree FOV. The Nikon HG 8x42 is less expensive and has an 8.3 degree FOV, which is very helpful in finding and following birds. The small FOV was why the HT was discontinued and replaced by the SF. Nobody bought any. A big FOV sells binoculars because birders and especially hunters value a large FOV for finding game. It reduces your glassing time when trying to find birds or game.

 

[hopster]

The trouble with the HT 8x42 is the puny 7.75 degree FOV. The Nikon HG 8x42 is less expensive and has an 8.3 degree FOV, which is very helpful in finding and following birds. The small FOV was why the HT was discontinued and replaced by the SF. Nobody bought any. A big FOV sells binoculars because birders and especially hunters value a large FOV for finding game. It reduces your glassing time when trying to find birds or game.

I am not in the slightest concerned about small differences in FOV, especially when the image quality is degraded as a result of chasing this target.

 

[Dennis Mau]

I am not in the slightest concerned about small differences in FOV, especially when the image quality is degraded as a result of chasing this target.

I find the bigger FOV, the easier it is to find and follow birds. I think it is the most important criteria to the majority of birders and hunters when choosing a binocular. A big FOV sells binoculars, and that is why the Zeiss HT went the way of the Dodo bird. The image quality is not degraded in the SF or NL, and they have a huge FOV. In fact, they have much less distortion and astigmatism than the HT. The main emphasis on all the new alpha binoculars is a huge FOV with sharp edges because that is what the majority of the people want. If you're happy with a mediocre FOV and more distortion with softer edges, you are in the minority. To maximize profit, the manufacturers make what sells the best.

Carl Zeiss Victory HT 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Victory SF 10x42 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

 

[Rg548]

I also love the HTs though I think the 8x42 is the better model; my 10x42 suffered quite badly from glare with low sun at the side and eventually started letting in moisture with no guarantee from the repair guy that this could be stopped.

I do have the 8x42s and I think the glare resistance is very good with these.

 

[adhoc]

...I have tried my HD’s against the HDX’s and there are undoubtedly differences. Some good, some not quite so good but I am more than happy with my HD’s, will not upgrade...

PatR, did you try HD 10x42 against HDX 10x42 (/also)?

 

[PatR]

PatR, did you try HD 10x42 against HDX 10x42 (/also)?

No my beloved would have killed me as I have the NL Pure 10x42.

However, it did very well in this test:

26 Best Binoculars For Hunting | Backwoods Pursuit

Looking for the best binoculars on the market and aren't quite sure which ones to purchase? Maybe you are looking for the best binoculars for hunting or the

backwoodspursuit.com

and to some it is the gem of the HD range.

 

[Rg548]

No my beloved would have killed me as I have the NL Pure 10x42.

However, it did very well in this test:

26 Best Binoculars For Hunting | Backwoods Pursuit

Looking for the best binoculars on the market and aren't quite sure which ones to purchase? Maybe you are looking for the best binoculars for hunting or the

backwoodspursuit.com

and to some it is the gem of the HD range.

I simply can't believe they DARED to use the term ALPHA when describing the top tier.
I'd like to see them try and do that on here.....

WAY out of line
Just awful!!!

 

[PatR]

I simply can't believe they DARED to use the term ALPHA when describing the top tier.
I'd like to see them try and do that on here.....

WAY out of line
Just awful!!!

Just think how they laughed knowing how a posse of indignant Alphaists would react. Devil words I tell you, Devil!