Buying Help (1 Viewer)

Hi All,
I am in the market for a new set of 8x42 binoculars.
The plan is that they will be with me for a long time.
I am in the tier two category and have tried to do as much research as I can.
I am looking at the Zeiss Conquest or Nikon Monarch HG. The Swarovski is not out completely of the picture but might be a little bit out of reach price-wise

Anyway my issue is Brisbane, Australia doesn't seem to have the stock that will allow me try before I buy.

Any suggestions as to what I should do or just take a punt on a set?

Cheers
Brendan

Try an internet seller with a good returns policy. Discuss with them that you would like to order both and return the one that doesn't suit you. Folks on here have done this before.

If you want advice on the actual models to consider you really need to tell us what you plan to use them for.

Lee

Thanks Lee.

I will only have one set of bins so I wanted a decent pair for both stationary and walkabout for local sites as well as something for hiking in the bush.
I am quite new to birdwatching so research lead me to the below models
I have a Televue 60 scope so will use that too.

In Australia the Zeiss is a couple of hundred AUD cheaper than the Nikon

Brendan

You dont mention which Swarovski model may be in your choice? Anyhow, the two models that are shortlisted - either will suffice for your requirements. Just go for the best you can afford as it is a one time purchase. Personally, for hiking I would prefer an 8 x 32 but stick with your decision and order them asap. As suggested, choose a reputable store with a good returns policy. With the Zeiss I'm presuming you're considering the Conquest HD alongside the latest Nikon Monarch HG?

Sorry, no I didn't. It's the SLC 8x42

And yep, the Conquest HD and the latest Monarch HG

Thanks for the advice. I will probably do more local watching than hiking.
We have wetlands here in Brisbane that also have open paddocks beside them.
Species range from large waterbirds to small finches.

So far 4 stores, 3 have restocking fees and 1 only issues store credit

This might be a tough search haha

What about contacting the companies directly? Zeiss Australia will sell directly to you or maybe send out a demonstration unit for evaluation? Take a holiday to the UK perhaps, might offset the trip if you save a few dollars.

PYRTLE said:

Take a holiday to the UK perhaps, might offset the trip if you save a few dollars.

Click to expand...

The Ashes is coming up........hmm

Hi,

both are good bins - the Monarch HG 8x42 is very small and light for an 8x42 plus offers a very wide field of view. Despite the fact that a field flattener is touted in the adverts, the field is not as flat as with alpha models like Nikon EDG, Zeiss SF or Swaro EL. But due to the wide field it's still very usable. The eye relief is around 17mm which might not be enough for some users with glasses on.
The Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42 is well know for being one of the few bins with too much eye relief - if you intend to use it without glasses, you might need a pair of extra long eyecups which Zeiss provides for free upon request. But if you wear bulky glasses, this is exactly what the doctor ordered. It's also known for class leading performance around 1000 USD for many years and being incredibly rugged - Zeiss made some nice torture videos...

Of course buying bins (or rather optics) in person is much preferred - try to buy the example you tested - bonus points if you can get it cheaper as a demo unit ;-)
So if you plan to go to britain anyways, a visit in some well stocked optics store or two might be a good idea...

Joachim

Good tips, I'll add another option for you to consider: swaro 8/10x32 CL You will appreciate the lower price and the lower weight in the long run. I've got the 8,5x42 EL and find it often too heavy, it only has a big advantage over the other one I have (pocket 8x25CL) during low light / twilight / early dawn, very overcast days. So in the end the smaller one gets a lot more use. I'm now even considering selling the 8,5x42 to get an 8x32 EL. The pocket is here to stay for us.
Anyway whichever model you end up with, take your time and try out every candidate. It's a one time purchase so make it count.

Thankyou. A bit to consider.
It's interesting to me being a newbie that 8x32 has been suggested where so many websites push 8x42 etc as the go to for birding.

Well the 8x42 gives you more light, so it's overall more versatile because it's longer functional during bad light conditions.

But just info from websites (especially reviews that can be paid reviews or just promoted reviews) is not the best place to get your info. Better read about actual user opinions and the why behind their reasoning.

What you have to ask yourself is: how often do you bird in good light, how often in bad light. If you don't go out every weekend you'll probably fall in the "mostly on the good and sunny days" so the benefits of light conditions drop away. And like troubadour asked: it really comes down to what you'll use them for and just as important how you'll use them.

Things that are still important to consider are field of view (you can never have enough) and weight (obviously lower is better). Don't get me wrong, if both binoculars are with me (the 8,5x42 EL and the 8x25 CL pocket) I'll always use the EL over the CL, it's more comfy to use from a holding size point of view, has wider fov and the clarity is better. But like I said, it's a big thing to haul with you (takes in more room) and it's weight gets worse the longer you stay out.

If I would just bird from the car or on safaris where walking around isn't an option it's a clear cut choice towards the x42, heck i'd probably bring the x50 then. But with walking around into the equation the x25 wins every trip, only during serious birding I bother to take the x42 along as well (the wife uses the x25 then)
So yeah like I said I'm seriously considering downsizing to the x32 field

BTW I have glasses, the pocket bin takes a bit more 'precision' to place to get a good view where with the 8,5x42 is always good, lot more room to look through, it's a bit more forgiving to use. So it's not all great with the smaller one.
If I had to choose one now out of the 3 and no other I'd probably go for a x32 since I walk a lot with it. Picking a pair of bins just takes time and a lot of looking through the actual bins, ideally under less optimal conditions (failing light, overcast or rainy days) and where you can compare the models you considers next to another.

Even in a crowded country like the Netherlands there are only a few good shops where you can compare models next to eachother and you don't have salespeople that only want to sell without giving proper advice.
Not very useful advice for you in Australia, but you got to have a few proper stores there I reckon...

Another example where the x25 wins: it's a great piece to bring to a concert or opera. Small enough to hide inside a vest and light enough that you don't even notice you brought it with you. The big one is way too small. Also if I go cycling on the 'sport bike' (tour de france bike) the x25 is small enough to put in the saddle bag so if I want to look at something during my trip I can (and will). Anyway the alternatives x32 / x42 won't be able to and that's still the go to option if you just want one pair of bins.

I've ordered the VAST majority of the binoculars I have sight unseen. Most 8X42s end up working out pretty well.

I'm trying to think of the most issue-free binocular I've purchased. I like the idea of the Nikon Monarch HG 8X42. It has class leading field of view. It's small and lightweight for a 8X42. Really, it's a well thought out binocular. It seems to be problem free for most users and most including myself seem to really like it.

I'd probably skip on the Conquest HD 8X42 for two reasons. One is that the FOV is a little low for a $1000 binocular IMO. Also as mentioned above, there can be an issue with the eye cups/eye relief.

I say punt and go for the Monarch HG 8X42!

Chuck, as previously mentioned, there isn't really any need for you to continue to add photos of your vaste collection of binoculars when replying. We all have access to the internet for images if required. What is the purpose of illustrating the thread with a grey Zeiss Victory SF? It just litters and confuses a straightforward request from my perspective. The poster has invited comments on two, maybe three 42mm binoculars - that's it. Any other issues are very well documented in BF and just need exploring.

Pat

chill6x6 said:

I'd probably skip on the Conquest HD 8X42 for two reasons. One is that the FOV is a little low for a $1000 binocular IMO.

Click to expand...

To be fair it has to be said that 128/1000m or around 130 is actually quite normal for an 8x42 pair - regardless of price. See Swaro EL with 133 or Leica Noctivid or Nikon EDG both with 135.

The notable exceptions are Zeiss SF and now the Nkon MHG with 148 and 145. Those are values normally seen in 8x32 bins.

Joachim

I think the photos give a nice reference and perspective, nothing wrong with that, so now we cannot post pics of binoculars, what next?

Andy W.

Brendan

I would get the Nikon HG 8x42. it is lighter, more compact, has equivalent optics with sharper edges and has a bigger FOV than the Zeiss Conquest. You might check out the Nikon HG 10x42 depending on what kind of birding you are doing. It has a big FOV for a 10x and in more open country the extra magnification is nice. If you don't wear glasses and think you might want to try 10x and try something different check out the Swarovski Habicht 10x40 W Porro. It will have a smaller FOV and softer edges than the HG but it is just as light at about 23 oz. and will be just as bright because of it's high transmission and it will give you a better stereoscopic view than the roof. On-axis it is as good as anything out there including the alpha roof's. Better build quality then the HG also IMO.

PYRTLE said:

Chuck, as previously mentioned, there isn't really any need for you to continue to add photos of your vaste collection of binoculars when replying. We all have access to the internet for images if required. What is the purpose of illustrating the thread with a grey Zeiss Victory SF? It just litters and confuses a straightforward request from my perspective. The poster has invited comments on two, maybe three 42mm binoculars - that's it. Any other issues are very well documented in BF and just need exploring.

Pat

Click to expand...

I'll handle you in a PM as you should have ME.

jring said:

To be fair it has to be said that 128/1000m or around 130 is actually quite normal for an 8x42 pair - regardless of price. See Swaro EL with 133 or Leica Noctivid or Nikon EDG both with 135.

The notable exceptions are Zeiss SF and now the Nkon MHG with 148 and 145. Those are values normally seen in 8x32 bins.

Joachim

Click to expand...

You kinda made my point. 148>145>135>133>128. In most cases(but not always), I shoot for an 8X FOV of 400ft or greater. So the way I look at it the Conquest HD 8X42 has a FOV of 384ft @ 1000yds vs. 435ft @ 1000yds. Pretty big difference. BTW, the EL is 8.5X as I'm sure you know.

dries1 said:

I think the photos give a nice reference and perspective, nothing wrong with that, so now we cannot post pics of binoculars, what next?

Andy W.

Click to expand...

Exactly why I did it!

(I hope not to hijack the thread)
Chuck, since you are talking about the 8x42 MHG, may I ask a question that intrigues me? (I know you don't own a crystal ball to forsee the future). The 8x42 MHG is incredibly light, about the weight of some 8x32 (like the EDG), but from the pictures I've seen (some thanks to you, keep posting as many as you feel like, I find them really helpful!) it does not seem to be particularly short or small, pretty average. So that leaves me wondering two things:
- Doesn't if feel to weak or flimsy?
- Doesn't it point to a less-than-desirable durability in the long term, given that some serious shortcuts must have been taken to reduce weight so dramatically? I've read your comments about how well put together it is (I've only tried the 8x30 MHG, not its bigger siblings).
Thanks for any comments!

yarrellii said:

(I hope not to hijack the thread)
Chuck, since you are talking about the 8x42 MHG, may I ask a question that intrigues me? (I know you don't own a crystal ball to forsee the future). The 8x42 MHG is incredibly light, about the weight of some 8x32 (like the EDG), but from the pictures I've seen (some thanks to you, keep posting as many as you feel like, I find them really helpful!) it does not seem to be particularly short or small, pretty average. So that leaves me wondering two things:
- Doesn't if feel to weak or flimsy?
- Doesn't it point to a less-than-desirable durability in the long term, given that some serious shortcuts must have been taken to reduce weight so dramatically? I've read your comments about how well put together it is (I've only tried the 8x30 MHG, not its bigger siblings).
Thanks for any comments!

Click to expand...

I'm wondering the same thing and in particular the relative merits of the 8x42 MHG vs the Swarovski EL 8x32 SV. Their weight and size is fairly similar and both have wide fields of view. Obviously the EL gives a flatter field, but maybe the MHG has advantages with the larger objectives. Is it a no brainer to go for the ELs if you have the funds or is it worth considering the MHG or are they actually so very different that it's not really worth thinking of them as at all comparable?