• 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.

Which sub-alpha bino (1 Viewer)

ailevin said:
Blasphemy! You doubt Zambuto's deity?|8.|
Click to expand...

Nope! I’ve known the sucker since he was a puppy scurrying from one experienced ATM on Table Mountain to another trying to pick up any scrap of useful knowledge concerning mirror making he could. He learned well and very quickly. Because of him, I was fortunate ... twice. He sold me a 12.5-inch f/4. But working more than 40 hours a week for Captain’s, having an 80-mile daily commute in the nation’s 3rd or 4th worst traffic, and trying to see to familial/military responsibilities and publish a magazine in my so-called “spare time,” it was impossible for me to have the time to mount it. After sitting UN-OPENED in its box for a bit over 3 years, Carl was kind enough to buy the thing back.

Today, I am in the outback (with very dark skies) of southern Idaho, my dynasty of telescopes is gone, and, with my good salary long gone too, I will never be able to afford a Zambuto mirror, again. I have tried to spend my life helping others—frequently when they probably wished I wouldn’t—but sometimes I wish I could have been just a bit more selfish. All I have left is one 4-inch apo, a 6-inch of my design, optics for the 6-inch Houghton I wrote about in ATMJ #4, optical stuff I’m trying to get rid of, and the MEMORY of some great toys. Some were even, drum roll, please .......... “ALPHAS!” Others have shared their envy at what I HAVE enjoyed. But, on those tolerably warm winter’s nights, I am bitten by the bug of self-pity. And while having to remove at least one shoe to count beyond 10, I could never be great in the field I love, I can at least take solace in that many of the real greats send me cards at Christmas. :cat:

Bill
 
Last edited:
Upland said:
James: if you are sure that what I experienced was the fast focus effect please explain this to me: I would get many objects at varying distances in perfect focus and then look at nearby objects both fore and aft. These objects would be out of focus. I was not touching the focus wheel after I got the initial object in focus. As I said this happened at all distances near and far. I don’t get that with my other glasses.
Click to expand...

Upland
I wonder if your Conquests have a better perceived sharpness (combination of resolution and contrast) than your other binos. If so, one might expect the transition point of the image you see through the Conquests where it goes from sharp (within the depth of field) to unsharp (outside the dof) to be more noticeable. And if your other binos were a bit softer of sharpness/contrast this transition wouldn't be as noticeable as the image wouldn't transition from sharp to unsharp but from not-quite-sharp to less sharp.

What do you think? If correct this would support your observation while not challenging what is known about the relationship between magnification and size of depth of field.

Lee
 
If anything I think it might be the opposite. The Conquests surprised me in not having the best contrast and sharpness I’ve seen. So perhaps they do lose it more rapidly at other distances as well (for my eyes that is). I don’t doubt depth of field is the same by magnification but it’s also true that all optics don’t have the same sharpness and contrast. Therefore it makes sense that some will have less apparent depth of field. Having said that I know the Conquests are a high quality glass and many of you that are far more experienced with fine optics think highly of them. Perhaps they just don’t suite my eyes and vision that well for whatever reason. Maybe it was the fit to my face or the width or length of the eyecups. Perhaps there was stray light coming in because of one of those things. Not sure but I’m sure they must be great binos as that is the consensus here. I’m not trying to argue that and am going to abstain from any more discussion on this thread as it doesn’t seem to be adding anything of value anymore.
 
I forgot one thing. When I had the Conquests they didn’t have as much contrast as I thoygh they would. So I contacted their customer service to see if they had ED glass. They told me in no uncertain terms that they did not. I know several have been told differently by Zeiss. Perhaps I had an earlier version that didn’t have it and now they do so the contrast is enhanced.
 
..we are trying to discuss things here that have been settled long ago - the HD's have ED glass.

Maybe you just have a poor sample.....or, maybe you are referring to the old Conquest, pre-HD nomenclature, as they didn't have ED glass?
 
Last edited:
Troubador said:
Since depth of field in binos is governed by their magnification all 8x binos have the same depth of field.
Click to expand...

Hi all - just wondering whether differences in the focal ratio (f-number) are sufficient to affect depth of field between binoculars of similar configuration? For instance, Henry Link has noted in his comparison of Nikon 8x30 and 8x32 binoculars that the 8x30 E is about f/3.7, and the 8x32 SE about f/4.0 (the full thread is here: https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=38202).

Cheers
patudo
 
Upland said:
I forgot one thing. When I had the Conquests they didn’t have as much contrast as I thoygh they would. So I contacted their customer service to see if they had ED glass. They told me in no uncertain terms that they did not. I know several have been told differently by Zeiss. Perhaps I had an earlier version that didn’t have it and now they do so the contrast is enhanced.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the Conquests contrast not being it's strongest point and I did have the HD model. I think of the three binoculars being discussed the SLC and the Nikon HG both have better contrast.
 
James: I’m not sure why you are arguing with me about the ED glass Twice I’ve asked Zeiss if the Conquest has ED glass and twice I’ve been told that they do not but rather have what they call an HD optic system of lenses. HOWEVER if you Read my post you will see that I acknowledged that others have been told differently by Zeiss. Please read before you are pejorative! I will say if they do have ED glass I don’t know why they don’t advertise it. Regardless I’ve owned two pairs, both the HD model, and neither had the contrast or “pop” as I call it of binos that are definitely made with ED glass. Again if you read my post thoroughly you will see that I also acknowleged that the Conquests are highly thought of by others who are more experienced with high quality binos. I do think I’m entitled to my opinion based on personal experience that they don’t have the apparent depth of field I see in other binos. It seems this thread has strayed quite a bit from the original posters question and I’m probably the most to blame. My vote is the SLC if money isn’t an object, the Toric as the best value. That’s my opinion and that’s what OP asked for.
 
Upland,

I'm not sure but I think that we concluded back some time in the past that one companies HD lenses were another companies ED lenses.

Or do I have that backwards?:brains:

Bob
 
Last edited:
I think that is true. I’m merely telling you the response i got from Zeiss Twice. My suspicion is that at some point they may have added ED glass to the HD model. I’m also quite sure that many customer service people really don’t know anything more than they read on their own website so it’s quite possible I got the wrong answer. BTW one of the reasons I asked the second time was because I was told on this forum that it was already determined that there was ED glass in the Cinquest. Not so according to Zeiss both times I inquired. Who knows I’m just telling you what Zeiss told me.
 
To be honest i could care what kind of glass they have. You guys seem to have reading comprehension problems. I’m not telling you they don’t have ED glass only reporting what Zeiss has told me. However since were discussing it I’ll add some fuel to the fire: I went to a local shop and took out a pair of Terra, Conquest, and Victory all in 10x42. I also brought along my 10x42 Torics just for fun. Took them all outside. Very nice sunny day today. The Conquest was superior to the Terra in all aspects except for, you guessed it, contrast. The Victory of course outclassed all but the Toric also had noticeably sharper contrast than the Conquest. My experience has been that even cheap Chinese ED glass has enhanced contrast even if it falls short in all other aspects. The manager who accompanied me thought the same. Then he told me something interesting. He said the Zeiss rep had stopped by awhile ago and told him the Zeiss riflescopes had a new ED glass in them but Zeiss hadn’t put it in the binos because they didn’t want to have the Conquest approach the Victory in optics. They wanted the Conquest to remain mid tier so people would have a reason to buy the Victory. As I said I don’t really care if they have ED or not but I’m glad all this silliness led me to compare them all and realize how much my eyes prefer the Toric. To each his own and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Now I’m going to leave this discussion permanently and get out birding. Plenty of Bullocks, Tanangers, Peregrines and Eagles still around and it will be much more fun than trying to get people to actually read and comprehend my posts. I’ll let all you internet experts sort it out.
 
OK I guess this answers the question and the Conquest does have ED glass after all.
Click to expand...

The lesson is simple: never believe what CS representatives tell you; most of those people are clueless....As illustrated by this discussion they don't even read info on their own website.
 
I agree with that although sometimes a CS rep does now their products well. Some companies have seminars where they explain the details of their products in depth to their staff. I’m guessing Zeiss does not 😉

FWIW there may some truth to what I heard about the glass in the Conquest riflescopes being better than in the binos. Zeiss did recently upgrade the glass in their riflescopes and may have decided there was no need to in the binos as they felt the ED lens they have in their HD system was adequate for a sub alpha.

Finally if the OP or anyone else has decided on the Monarch HG, LL Bean is running a 20% off sale that includes them.
 
My question is, when is Zeiss going to make a quality premium glass that costs near $3,000 and will be sturdy like the FL.

Andy W.
 
dries1 said:
My question is, when is Zeiss going to make a quality premium glass that costs near $3,000 and will be sturdy like the FL.

Andy W.
Click to expand...

Andy:

Zeiss has the Victory SF, it is better than the FL in many ways.

I have experience with both, and don't play favorites, what is your issue?

Now I hope you don't have the lame excuse you have been reading too much
into the subject on the internet. :smoke:

Jerry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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

C
which 10x42 : Nikon HG / GPO Passion HD / Maven B1.2 / Vortex Razor HD ?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Ratal
Ratal
N
Zeiss CHD 8x32 vs Nikon MHG 8x42
Replies
17
Views
2K
Andy Gan
A
yarrellii
Just how good is the 8x32 Opticron Verano BGA VHD? (Comparisons)
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Upland
U
N
Monarch HG 8x42 vs Save for NL Pure
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ratal
Ratal
chill6x6
Birding after surgery...
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
hopster
hopster

Users who are viewing this thread

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