• 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.

New Zeiss Conquest HD (1 Viewer)

ceasar said:
Schott glass is manufactured very close to where I live. Most people who know of it here think that it is used thusly.B :)

As an implement for drinking Boiler Makers. And properly spelled "Shot" glass.
Click to expand...

Do the drinks taste different depending on the refractive index and Abbe number of the glasses that they are poured into ? ;)
 
Just to clear up a point which a number of people on the forum have been questioning.

The Conquest HD does use ED glass.
 
I have looked through them, side by side comparison with the new trinovid (and even had a look through both of the Swarovision x32 models)

I am not in the mood for an elaborate story, but they're good.
They feel better, look better and focus better than the previous Conquest. They even focus better than a good focussing pair of Victories, I would say they focus a lot like good Nikons.
The price the importer advises is somewhere between 8-900 euro.

In short:
For the price, they are a bargain.

The Trinovids where also nice and they felt a little sturdier than the ultravids so they are really well built, but the advice price is 1300 euro. I can only guess how much they will cost in the shops.

The Swarovisions where as expected, no surprises for whoever have tried the x42 Swarovisions, and the old x32 ELs).

some more info about the new 'thing' to come out on the zeissexperience website (the one with 95% transmission):
- info will be available around 10th of March on the site.
- the 95% is indeed from front to back of the binocular. (95% of light over the visible spectrum can reach the eye).

Due to field flattener lenses, Swarovisions only reach an average of 90% over the visible spectrum (and Leica HD even less), while Zeiss already reached that with their Victory about 9 years ago... (comparing 10x42 models).
 
About now, Gary is likely regretting telling us anything at all. He’s probably supplied all the information he’s at liberty to give out. Besides, knowing exactly which of the few ED glass types in the Schott catalogue is in the Conquests wouldn’t tell us anything very useful. Any of them (combined with the proper mating glasses) should improve the longitudinal CA, but at binocular magnification lateral CA is what really counts and I don’t know any way to predict that from the glass types, unless you are an optical engineer.

I’m not sure I buy the idea that “competition” prevents Zeiss, or anybody else, from revealing what kind of ED glass they use. The optical companies can’t really keep their glass types a secret from the competition because they’re all equipped with optics labs that can measure the characteristics of the glass in a competitor’s binocular. In contrast to the way most binoculars makers keep their glass a secret from consumers it’s quite common in the world of astronomical APO refractors to include the ED type right in the specs of a telescope, especially if it’s Ohara FPL53, the gold standard. As you can see from the catalogue, none of the Schott ED types look all that impressive if you're hoping for an Abbe# above 90, but binoculars really don't need a Fluorite equivalent glass. I imagine in this case Zeiss are stingy with real information in an effort to protect themselves from the mischief we see on the internet when a little knowledge falls into the hands of folks who partially digest it and then run amuck
 
Last edited:
henry link said:
About now, Gary is likely regretting telling us anything at all. He’s probably supplied all the information he’s at liberty to give out. Besides, knowing exactly which of the few ED glass types in the Schott catalogue is in the Conquests wouldn’t tell us anything very useful. Any of them (combined with the proper mating glasses) should improve the longitudinal CA, but at binocular magnification lateral CA is what really counts and I don’t know any way to predict that from the glass types, unless you are an optical engineer.

I’m not sure I buy the idea that “competition” prevents Zeiss, or anybody else, from revealing what kind of ED glass they use. The optical companies can’t really keep their glass types a secret from the competition because they’re all equipped with optics labs where the characteristics of the glass in a competitor’s binocular can be easily measured. It’s quite common in the world of astronomical APO refractors to include the ED glass type in the specs of a telescope, especially if it’s Ohara FPL53, the gold standard. As you can see, none of the ED types in the Schott catalogue look all that impressive if you're hoping for an Abbe# above 90, but binoculars really don’t need a Fluorite equivalent. I imagine in this case Zeiss are stingy with real information in an effort to protect themselves from the mischief we see on the internet when a little knowledge falls into the hands of folks who partially digest it and then run amuck
Click to expand...

Henry,

It seems you are now whistling a different tune. On the "When a new Zeiss binocular?" thread, you wrote in response to Rick's comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RJM
I wish Zeiss would just get on with it!

"Me too! If they want to create some kind of viral marketing buzz they need to be a bit less stingy with information. Give us something to work with, Zeiss."

So I ask for "something to work with" about the "HD" glass, and now you recant? It was your post that inspired me to dig deeper.

While I realize that Gary is restrained by his "masters" (as you called them), and I don't blame him personally for the vaguely worded phrase "a brand new high quality Schott glass," neither do I accept that it is not "marketing mumbo jumbo" even if it's coming from an engineer.

My point is knowing that your closest competitors (Swaro and Leica) use the term "HD" to mean "ED glass" and then not allowing your rep to post whether or not "HD" is some type of ED glass is purposefully deceptive.

It's not about the matching elements or Abbe numbers or the final image at the EP, which remains to be seen except for a few who have looked through the Conquest HDs, it's about truth in advertising.

More than that, it's the expectation that while we can expect all sorts of marketing shenanigans from other optics companies, we should hold alpha companies to a higher standard in their marketing and branding just as we do with their engineering and optical quality.

Brock
 
Brock,

That complaint was in reference to the still unspecified "thing" coming in March. In that case Zeiss hasn't seen fit to even acknowledge that the thing is a binocular, much less what kind of glass is used in it. But, I mostly agree with you that the marketing poop for the Conquest HD has set a new standard for being uninformative. I read through the "everything you want to know" section and encountered about three substantive bits of information among the fluff.

BTW, my use of the word "masters" was a direct quote from one of Gary's posts, not my term and not intended to be derogatory. I would characterize Zeiss as unforthcoming rather than deceptive. I don't detect any outright misinformation in the Conquest literature, just a lack of the sort of design information we geeks like to know about.

Henry
 
Last edited:
brocknroller said:
My point is knowing that your closest competitors (Swaro and Leica) use the term "HD" to mean "ED glass" and then not allowing your rep to post whether or not "HD" is some type of ED glass is purposefully deceptive.



Brock
Click to expand...

As I said earlier today...........the Conquest HD uses ED glass.

In no way do I see that as being purposfully deceptive !!!!

No one has told me what I am allowed to say on Birdforum. In all my time here I have tried to give impartial advice to fellow members - whatever brand they are using.

If I think a new Leica, Swarovski, Nikon or Hawke binocular is fantastic I will say so. At the moment, however, I think the new Conquest HD is a stunning binocular for the price.

Unfortunately some people take exception when I cannot give certain information and accuse me of hype.

Perhaps from now on I should keep quiet !!
 
Last edited:
Gary,
You are a valuable member, as a former Leica and present Zeiss technical person. Although that's bound to entail some baggage, we know you are an optics lover at heart, not a salesman. I don't think you are being evasive at all--those are straight answers. I'd like to hear your comments on the new Trinovid too, whenever you can get your hands on one.
Thanks,
Ron
 
garymh said:
As I said earlier today...........the Conquest HD uses ED glass.

In no way do I see that as being purposfully deceptive !!!!

No one has told me what I am allowed to say on Birdforum. In all my time here I have tried to give impartial advice to fellow members - whatever brand they are using.

If I think a new Leica, Swarovski, Nikon or Hawke binocular is fantastic I will say so. At the moment, however, I think the new Conquest HD is a stunning binocular for the price.

Unfortunately some people take exception when I cannot give certain information and accuse me of hype.

Perhaps from now on I should keep quiet !!
Click to expand...

Gary,

Thanks for that update about the ED glass in the Conquests. Took some arm twisting, but I'm glad we finally dragged it out of you. :)

I'm just bustin' chops. I appreciate that you are giving us whatever information you have on Zeiss' new offerings.

Zeiss is one of the (some would say the) top sports optics manufacturers in the world. That's the reason why I think many of us hold them to a higher standard than we would a company such as Vortex, which has more confusing proprietary names for their coatings and glass than Carter has little liver pills (if you caught that reference, you are older than the hills :).

And how about Minox with their BL/BD/BP/BV/HG designations? How about some names for a change?

It's no secret that I like porros for their 3-D view and better ergonomics for my hands. One of my favorite porros of all time was the CZJ 8x50 Octarem.

However, the fact that the Big Three are now producing mid tier roofs at a price that I might even be able to afford at some point is really good news for birding optics junkies on a budget.

So don't stop posting info on the new Conquests or the new FL II (or whatever Zeiss is going to call it).

I weaseled out the info I wanted to know, which reinforced my faith in Zeiss that they wouldn't call the Conquest "HD" if it didn't have ED glass like the Swaro and Leica "HDs".

So keep the clues coming. Nothing like an optics detective story to heighten the suspense of a new bin.

In truth, I've never been that interested in the FL or Conquests, but the photos and reports so far on the newly designed Conquest HD has my interest piqued. I think Zeiss might win some new converts with this model.

Brock
 
Last edited:
I have heard that Zeiss use an alternative to BaK4 in Victory prisms because BaK4 has fairly high absorption and, with the long light paths in prisms, would be detrimental to good transmission values.
However, prisms are not an application for ED glass.
ED glasses usually have a low refractive index but Gary's post #35 inferred that Schott had achieved a minor breakthrough, hence the interest in refractive index and Abbe no.

John
 
henry link said:
I’m not sure I buy the idea that “competition” prevents Zeiss, or anybody else, from revealing what kind of ED glass they use. The optical companies can’t really keep their glass types a secret from the competition because they’re all equipped with optics labs that can measure the characteristics of the glass in a competitor’s binocular. In contrast to the way most binoculars makers keep their glass a secret from consumers it’s quite common in the world of astronomical APO refractors to include the ED type right in the specs of a telescope, especially if it’s Ohara FPL53, the gold standard. As you can see from the catalogue, none of the Schott ED types look all that impressive if you're hoping for an Abbe# above 90, but binoculars really don't need a Fluorite equivalent glass. I imagine in this case Zeiss are stingy with real information in an effort to protect themselves from the mischief we see on the internet when a little knowledge falls into the hands of folks who partially digest it and then run amuck
Click to expand...

Henry.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Lets be honest if you put Ohara glass instead of Schott then most will probably say that its not as good (marketing), however in reality surely the top manufacturers use the best glass and refractive index for a specific purpose, contrary to the glass type and manufacturer?
I am pretty sure that all manufacturers test competitors equipment, but they are unlikely to post the results on a forum.
mak
 
Last edited:
They will not do Ohara FPL53 because it has lead in the mix. Most of the bin makers stepped away of using lead in optical glass some time ago, and are now using fluorite glass (which, I understand, should also be better in terms of optical quality, but more difficult to coat).
In my humble opinion, it's not the glass, but the coating that's important. For a binocular there is simply not too much improvement to be done on the glass part.
 
temmie said:
In my humble opinion, it's not the glass, but the coating that's important. For a binocular there is simply not too much improvement to be done on the glass part.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue that point to an extent but it isn't the coatings that necessarily control issues such as chromatic aberration or spherical aberration...no?
 
temmie said:
They will not do Ohara FPL53 because it has lead in the mix. Most of the bin makers stepped away of using lead in optical glass some time ago, and are now using fluorite glass (which, I understand, should also be better in terms of optical quality, but more difficult to coat).
In my humble opinion, it's not the glass, but the coating that's important. For a binocular there is simply not too much improvement to be done on the glass part.
Click to expand...

temmie,

You've been misinformed again. Ohara S-FPL53 is an "Eco" glass. It contains no lead or arsenic, but it does contain fluoride. Lead is added to glass to increase dispersion, so it's not appropriate for any ED glass. FPL53 would be a costly design extravagance in a low magnification binocular, adding nothing to the optical performance that the eye could see.

Henry
 
henry link said:
temmie,

You've been misinformed again. Ohara S-FPL53 is an "Eco" glass. It contains no lead or arsenic, but it does contain fluoride. Lead is added to glass to increase dispersion, so it's not appropriate for any ED glass. FPL53 would be a costly design extravagance in a low magnification binocular, adding nothing to the optical performance that the eye could see.

Henry
Click to expand...

I was talking about Ohara FPL53 and not Ohara S-FPL53 like you do. I wasn't aware of Ohara producing eco glass, but my point is that these days bin makers like Zeiss already use fluoride glass, so no big improvements to be made and no need for something like Ohara 53 as you also said.
 
temmie,

FPL53 is fluoride glass and it has never contained lead because lead would ruin it. I omitted the "S" prefix originally just for brevity. In the Ohara catalogue "S" has simply been added to all glass types that are made without arsenic or lead.

Henry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

W
Questions about Conquest HD 8x42 binoculars replacement longer eye-cups
Replies
6
Views
1K
Wilbr
W
D
A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids.
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
ArchStanton
A
S
Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 nightmare
Replies
18
Views
4K
Swedpat
S
C
The Zeiss SFL 8x30 compared with select current 8x30/8x32 roof binoculars
15 16 17
Replies
324
Views
53K
Maljunulo
M
Samolot
Conquest HD 8x42 - Some thoughts.
2
Replies
24
Views
6K
Samolot
Samolot

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top