Mighty Midgets: Terra 32 vs Conquest 32 vs CL 30 (1 Viewer)

Troubador said:

Hya Bob

Thanks for stopping by!

I haven't tried the Terras in low sun conditions but looking up from a sea-shore towards a cliff with nesting seabirds and in the general direction of the sun, I didn't encounter significant glare.

I agree the CL feels well made and that this feels in keeping with the price.

I am surprised that your Terra's eyecups feel mushy. Mine certainly don't.

By the way you imply that you move your eyecups up and down each day and I am wondering why you would do that. Perhaps you are sharing the bins between someone wearing spectacles and someone who doesn't?

I know what you mean about not feeling too guilty when putting the Terras under a mild degree of risk. We took Terras on our moderately risky, clambering about on rocks next to the sea for the same reason.

Lee

Click to expand...

I always close the eye cups on my binoculars when I'm not planning to use them very shortly. I started doing this after I left a binocular on the window sill of the cathedral window in my bedroom and left the room for a while. When I came back they were on the floor with an eye cup which was "out of kilter" so to speak not far from a cat with an innocent look on his face. Fortunately I was able to adjust it back into place which pleased me greatly. I don't push my luck any more.

Bob

ceasar said:

I had a long review on the 8x42 when it first came out.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2742950&postcount=1

I couldn't find much to criticize about it at its price point. Zeiss compromised on its FOV but that doesn't bother me. I have good words for its glare resistance and its large sweet spot. Its eye cups have a soft feeling but they snap into place when fully extended unlike the ones on the 8x32. It also has a variety "false pupils" in the oculars which I didn't pay much attention to at the time but I noticed they were also in the oculars of the 8x32 and there were more of them. They must be outside the cone of vision but I've never seen any binoculars with as many of them as these 2 Terra EDs (especially the 8x32) have.

The veiling glare in the 8x32 is at its worst in the evening just after the sun has gone below the horizon and I am looking along the tree line with them. The CL doesn't show any in that situation.

One thing more about this statement above in your post: "My Terra 8x42 handles glare better than an FL.... ." Is that your quote about your Terra 8x42 or are you attributing it to me?

I just went over my review of the 8x42 Terra ED and I did not say anything like that. I did discuss comparing it with my 7x42Victory FL on a number of issues but not on glare as you can see in the link above.

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob:

I agree with many of your points, the CL is a very nice binocular, and being
small and compact is one of its best points. It is very bright, and is brighter
than the latest 8x30 SLC. It is Swaro. quality all the way, with proper eyecups, and not a lesser plastic type, found on both the Terra and the Conquest HD, which I own and use. Those do not lend any long term confidence at all.

I have handled a Zeiss HT 10x42 last summer, and am waiting to try the
new SF model. I do hope they have a better metal eyecup system, rather
than the ones on those mentioned. Plastic does not cut it, at the highest level.

I rate the 10x42 Conquest HD, and the 8x42 Terra both well at
their price points. The Swaro. CL 8x30 does well also, as it has
the high quality of build and view of a Swarovski.

Jerry

james holdsworth said:

If what you say is true, then the CL is 60% overpriced. I have a Terra, I like the Terra but the optics are distinctly mid-tier. If the CL is similar, then it is worth 300 - 400 bucks tops.

Click to expand...

Interesting..!!!

I know there are those that do like them, but I'm one of those on the side of the fence that doesn't...

I'll confess I've never had the opportunity to handle one outside the store, but have handled them in the store on multiple occasions. Each time saying I just don't get it.

I've asked myself how much would I be willing to pay for the CL, halved the price and asked myself the question again... and keep coming up no.

I think your simple analysis has placed them where I would value them; build quality sets them apart.

CG

Okay, let me see if I can recap your review and rank the three bins in the proper order.

1. Zeiss 8x32 Conquest HD
2. Zeiss 8x32 Terra ED
10. Swarovski 8x30 CL

I followed this review more easily than I did the HT/SF comparison. One sentence, however, did confuse me: The CL’s focuser is “smooth and luxurious but is so stiff that I had a hard time getting a focus on even moderately fast birds.”

The words "smooth and luxurious" and "so stiff that I had a hard time getting a focus on even moderately fast birds" in the same sentence seems like an oxymoron (you thought only Arthur knew how to use $10 words!).

I think we can conclude that the CL has yet another "wonky" Swaro focuser. No surprise, but at least it's "smooth and luxuriously wonky."

RE this observation: The CL is a most attractive instrument and in the hand feels worth every penny of the asking price, which makes its modest specifications all the more puzzling.

The modest specs relate to the need to keep the weight down, or at least that's what someone from Swaro (or a Swaro "insider") once wrote. But really, would adding a 1/2 degree FOV make the prisms that much larger as to negate the bin's "companion" travel appeal? It would still fit in the overhead compartment of a plane or in a glovebox of a car. It wouldn't, but it doesn't matter, because the CL wasn't made for birders, so FOV wasn't a priority. I've concluded from the dozens of reviews of the CL I've read that it's a hunter's bin, not a birder's.

If you hunt and want lightweight, diminutive binoculars to find a deer and count how many "points" on the buck's antler, the CL will work just fine. If you want to find birds and look for subtle field markings, not so much. But it wasn't made for that, so comparing the CL to the TED and HD was apples and venison. But it is in the same configuration category and similar price point as the Conquest, so I understand why you included it.

Interesting that you mentioned who might buy the CL, and came to the same conclusion I did not long after the bin's release, namely, those who already own a full sized or midsized Swaro. From the CL owners who posted on these forums, this seems to be the case, though according to Swaro's marketing, that's not the target market CLs were designed for, but rather as an entry binocular to Swaro's "family of optics." Didn't seem to work out that way, but it did work as a "companion" bin for existing Swaro owners, so it was appropriately named.

I'm impressed that you could see more feather detail with the CHD that you could with the TED since the TED is no slouch in the resolution dept., at least the 8x32 model.

Bob and I never see eye to eye with our eyes. I haven't tried a CL but if the CL's edges are better than the 8x32 TED's, then the CL must be sharp to the edge, because the 32 TED has a very big sweet spot, or at least the sample l have right now, and it has .7 a degree more FOV than the CL. The edge sharpness held up in a star test, not quite as good as during the daytime, but better than the other roofs I compared it with, which all have smaller fields of view (8x42 P7, 8x42 M5, 8x42 TED).

I've been using the 32 TED mostly in the backyard, but yesterday I had to drive to the other side of town. On the way back, I stopped at a park at the base of Mount Nittany (where the Penn State football team's mascot's ancestors once lived).

I took some peanuts with me because I feed the crows at the park. They recognize my car and start gathering as soon as they see me pull into the parking lot. I walked up the hill near the ball field and watched as the crows swooped down and took peanut after peanut from the parking lot and hid them in the nearby grass. I couldn't detect any CA watching the black colored birds against the blue sky.

I also watched BOP riding the thermals above the mountain ridge and didn't see any CA around them either. I've also tested the TED with the white soccer goals on the field across from the house and saw very little CA. Not bad even off axis.

The view is very "transparent," and that was particularly noticeable yesterday looking at farther distances where the fast focuser was not an issue. For the price, I could live with the focuser, which isn't as fast as the ultra-fast 8x42's, and would probably be "just right" if it had as much stiction as the 8x42's.

I was disappointed with the 8x42 TED, but surprised and pleased with the 8x32 model.

If I were King of the Forest (head of product development at Zeiss), I'd drop both models and ask the design team to make an 8x36 model with the optics and ergos of the 8x32, focuser stiction of the 8x42, increased focus range from 1.5 to 1.8 turns, use the color and smooth lines of the 8x42, beveled eyecups like the Conquest HD, the better working click-stops of the 8x42 (the 8x32s are "mushy" and don't "click" in place), polycarb body of the 8x32, and throw in the Cordura case of the 8x42 model (no plastic display cases please, I don't have a curio cabinet!).

The 8x36 configuration is a neglected niche. Hawke has one, which has the same design as the ZR 7x36 ED2. You nearly get the compactness of an 8x32 and nearly the light gathering of an 8x40. Best of both worlds.

But alas, I'm not King of the Forest, nor duke, nor prince, nor direct debit and membership and professional development stock and credit administrator, so the configurations will stay as they are and you pays yer money, you takes yer chances. My money (in bit coins) is on the 8x32 TED.

Tomorrow, Steve's coming over with his 8x32 SE "reference standard" and we're going to compare it to the 8x32 TED, 8x42 TED, 8x42 M5, 8x42 P7, and 7x35 Aculon.

Brock

Brock,

The Terra ED is a Chinese binocular. Keep that in mind. Yours might be better than mine is.

My 8x32 Terra ED definitely has a smaller sweet spot than my 8x30 CL Companion has and my CL is not sharp to the edge. And the veiling glare I see in the Terra ED, under the conditions I noted, can't be missed.

By the way, look into the oculars and see if yours has the "false pupils" I mentioned.


Bob

Brock

I am sure Swaro-loving hunters buy CLs but your suggestion that hunters don't put any value on field of view is puzzling. I am not a hunter but over here I believe there are two sorts of deer hunts.

In lowland areas often with dense woodland, scrub, marshland there is hunting for smaller deer species and I dare say FOV isn't much help.

But Red Deer hunting on open or sparsely wooded and convoluted Scottish hillsides takes place in big, wide landscapes. I would have thought a big FOV would be very desirable in these circumstances. Don't you have hunting for deer and goats in these circumstances?

Lee

brocknroller said:

I've concluded from the dozens of reviews of the CL I've read that it's a hunter's bin, not a birder's.

Brock

Click to expand...

Brock

This is how Swaro promote the CL:


Lee

ceasar said:

I had a long review on the 8x42 when it first came out.

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2742950&postcount=1

I couldn't find much to criticize about it at its price point. Zeiss compromised on its FOV but that doesn't bother me. I have good words for its glare resistance and its large sweet spot. Its eye cups have a soft feeling but they snap into place when fully extended unlike the ones on the 8x32. It also has a variety "false pupils" in the oculars which I didn't pay much attention to at the time but I noticed they were also in the oculars of the 8x32 and there were more of them. They must be outside the cone of vision but I've never seen any binoculars with as many of them as these 2 Terra EDs (especially the 8x32) have.

The veiling glare in the 8x32 is at its worst in the evening just after the sun has gone below the horizon and I am looking along the tree line with them. The CL doesn't show any in that situation.

One thing more about this statement above in your post: "My Terra 8x42 handles glare better than an FL.... ." Is that your quote about your Terra 8x42 or are you attributing it to me?

I just went over my review of the 8x42 Terra ED and I did not say anything like that. I did discuss comparing it with my 7x42Victory FL on a number of issues but not on glare as you can see in the link above.

Bob

Click to expand...

The Terra / FL comment was mine. And, it was my confusion that you were discussing the 32 rather than the 42.

I would love to hear some more reviews of the 32 mm Terra, as it seems [in many ways] quite different from the 42.

Brock mentions a big sweetspot in the 32 [small in the 42], no CA [moderate in the 42], Bob mentions glare in the 32 [very low in the 42] etc. - all opinions of the 42 are my own...

james holdsworth said:

The Terra / FL comment was mine. And, it was my confusion that you were discussing the 32 rather than the 42.

I would love to hear some more reviews of the 32 mm Terra, as it seems [in many ways] quite different from the 42.

Brock mentions a big sweetspot in the 32 [small in the 42], no CA [moderate in the 42], Bob mentions glare in the 32 [very low in the 42] etc. - all opinions of the 42 are my own...

Click to expand...

James

I will get a chance to compare the 32s and 42s at Bird Fair.
Lee

At the risk of being trite, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Having had both the Terra 8x42 and 8x32 and made more than casual comparisons, I'm not willing to talk about sweet spots in terms of size (even though I once did).What is one person's sweet spot often cannot be replicated by another with any real meaning. So if my buddy thinks the sweet spot covers 90% of the FOV, who am I to dispute what he sees?

I compared two Terra 8x42s side by side. I could detect a very slight difference in resolution (perched on a tripod under favorable viewing conditions). Evidently, quality control in lens and prism making can vary oh so slightly. I prefer the 8x32 Tera for ergonomic reasons, and the more rapid focus of the 8x42 is not to my liking, but to other, it is just fine.

The eye cups of the CL are too small for me as is the focusing knob. It is a quality piece for sure, but the old saying, "six of one, half a dozen of another" applies to it when compared to the Terra. The CL is IMO one that many persons with small hands would prefer.

John

Troubador said:

Brock

This is how Swaro promote the CL:

ALWAYS BY YOUR SIDE

Whether you’re traveling, watching wildlife in your own country, casting an expert eye, or gaining experience – the compact dimensions of the CL Companion binoculars mean that you can always have them close to hand. They accompany nature lovers and birders covering every range of experience, in every situation, combining proven SWAROVSKI OPTIK precision with exceptional cost-effectiveness.​

Lee

Click to expand...

Check out this CL promo video and advance to 2:50 minutes. Here's what the rep says:

Like we've talked about, this is a great introductory binocular for the consumer who hasn't had the chance to kinda jump into the Swarovski family, so to speak.

CL Promo Video

Although Swaro might be marketing it for birding as well as hunting, you, yourself, questioned the FOV (quoted for the second time):

The CL is a most attractive instrument and in the hand feels worth every penny of the asking price, which makes its modest specifications all the more puzzling.

This is a birding bin forum, so too modest for birders would be the implication.

If you look at reviews in hunting magazines (Steve loaned me half a dozen magazines that had reviews in them), most of the bins reviewed are 10x, which have a smaller FOV than their 8x counterparts (though only marginally at the entry price level – 6.3* vs. 6*).

If you visit a hunting supply shop, you will find mostly 10x bins in the display cases. I concluded from this that magnification is more important to hunters than FOV.

However, as you mentioned in your other post, there are different types of hunting – hunting from a blind or tree stand and “stalking.” A 10x56 might work fine for the first two types, but a smaller, lighter, more compact 8x midsized bin with a wider FOV might be preferably for the latter.

Even stationary hunters might prefer a lighter 8x bin so they don't have to carry as much weight in their packs since they are already carrying their tree stand, ammunition, gun, rifle scope, a case of beer, and a stack of Archie comic books. B

Steve (mooreorless) uses his 8x30 SLCnew for hunting, and he's not a stalker despite what Angelina Jolie has said about him in the tabloids.

John Barsness, author of Optics for the Hunter, preferred the bin Steve used to have, the 7x30 SLC, but in his book, he wrote that most hunters prefer 10x bins. Also in the book was a photo of a hunting optics reviewer named Micheals, who compared the 8x56 and 10x56 Night Owls by holding one on top of the other (he must have had strong arms), and he concluded, "The eights are better," which Steve quoted in his signature for quite a while.

Of course, the eights were better, holding over 80 oz. must have fatigued his arms in short order and made the image through the 10x look shaky! Had he used a tripod, the test results might have gone differently.

Brock

kkokkolis said:

Thank you very much for the review. That's my recent dilemma, Terra or Conquest (and 8x or 10x). According to your review the Conquest deserves its price tag, if budget is available. But weight is a relative disadvantage too, no?

Click to expand...

I'm sure Lee will chime in, but the 8x32 Conquest HD only weighs 22.2 oz., which is not much. I find the 8x32 TED a bit too lightweight @ 17.5 oz. Twenty ounces used to be my bare minimum weight requirement for bins (although ergonomics plays a significant role, which is my concern with the long closed bridge Conquest). Now being older and shakier, I prefer a minimum of 22 oz. The 8x32 SE is 22 oz. and the weight, balance and ergos are perfect for me.

If you are on a tight budget, get the 8x32 Terra ED, the optics are really good for the money (if you get one with a huge sweet spot like the sample I'm using). I don't think you'd miss much by not spending 3x more on the Conquest unless you intend to run the bins over with a truck, tie it to the back bumper and drag it over a dirt road, and then shoot it with a shotgun.

IOW, for most birding situations, the 8x32 Terra ED will work fine, for hunting, the Conquest HD would be preferable. The Conquest HD is for advanced birders who really want to see fine details to distinguish difficult field markings, but for simple bird IDs, and casual birding, the Terra ED will work fine.

My tighter budget has moved me from an optics obsessive to a more practical birder/nature watcher. If it feels good in the hand, is pleasing to the eye, and has a focuser I can live with, that's the bin I use regardless of the price point or brand name.

Brock

brocknroller said:

Although Swaro might be marketing it for birding as well as hunting,

Brock

Click to expand...

Thing is, on the Swaro website, they don't market it for hunting at all.

Its a traveller's companion, apparently.

And apparently travellers can't be that ambitious about how much country they get to see each time they pick their CL up.

Lee

John Dracon said:

At the risk of being trite, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Having had both the Terra 8x42 and 8x32 and made more than casual comparisons, I'm not willing to talk about sweet spots in terms of size (even though I once did).What is one person's sweet spot often cannot be replicated by another with any real meaning. So if my buddy thinks the sweet spot covers 90% of the FOV, who am I to dispute what he sees?

John

Click to expand...

Dead right John and it's why I have stopped trying to estimate the size of sweet spots.

Lee

Troubador said:

Thing is, on the Swaro website, they don't market it for hunting at all.

Its a traveller's companion, apparently.

And apparently travellers can't be that ambitious about how much country they get to see each time they pick their CL up.

Lee

Click to expand...

Hunters are Swarovski's chief customers, so they don't need to market it to them, they are trying to reach beyond their base. If I'm not mistaken, most of the members on BF who have owned or still own CLs are hunters. Annabeth was the only member I recall who bought her CL exclusively for birding, and she didn't have it that long before she sold it and bought an 8x42 Trinny and 6x32 Katmai.

My point again being that the CL doesn't seem to be the "introductory bin to the Swaro family" that the rep mentioned in the video and another rep repeated at an optics show. OTOH, the Terra ED is an introductory bin to the Zeiss family of optics because it's affordable. At $900, I think the CL fails at that mission, but I don't think that Swaro cares to limbo any lower.

As to being a traveler's companion, the 8x25 CL Pocket is even better suited. Fits more easily in a carry bag, or you can carry it in your pocket. But not everybody likes double hinged roofs so for them, there's the CL. For birders on tight budgets, we can be "introduced" to the respective brands with the Zeiss 8x32 TED or the Nikon 8x30 M7. I suspect Zeiss and Nikon sell a lot more TEDs and M7s than Swaro sells CLs, so if the mission is to get them into many hands to make lifelong customers, Zeiss and Nikon have a better approach.

Brock

james holdsworth said:

The Terra / FL comment was mine. And, it was my confusion that you were discussing the 32 rather than the 42.

I would love to hear some more reviews of the 32 mm Terra, as it seems [in many ways] quite different from the 42.

Brock mentions a big sweetspot in the 32 [small in the 42], no CA [moderate in the 42], Bob mentions glare in the 32 [very low in the 42] etc. - all opinions of the 42 are my own...

Click to expand...

I think that these Terra EDs will show more variances in performance within them because they are Chinese made and were designed to be low priced to begin with. Their manufacture may be overseen by Zeiss but they probably do not get the kind of scrutiny of their manufacture that the Swarovski CLs get or that Zeiss gives to the Conquests.

IMO the Swarovski CL would not be getting nearly the amount of criticism it gets if it was designed to have a FOV of 7.6º (399'@1000yds which is the same as the 8x30 Habicht) or more rather than the 7.2º 378'@1000yds) it has.

Bob

ceasar said:

I think that these Terra EDs will show more variances in performance within them because they are Chinese made and were designed to be low priced to begin with. Their manufacture may be overseen by Zeiss but they probably do not get the kind of scrutiny of their manufacture that the Swarovski CLs get or that Zeiss gives to the Conquests.

Bob

Click to expand...

I am sure you are right Bob, but Jan says that the Terras are made by Kamakura's China factory and I am sure he is right since Kamakura's Japan factory is Zeiss's partner for the Conquest HD project. Kamakura has an excellent reputation for building high quality bins in Japan so they know what they are doing.

No doubt they have the challenge of building the skills base at their China plant and the Zeiss Terra partnership will benefit them too.

Lee

Troubador said:

I am sure you are right Bob, but Jan says that the Terras are made by Kamakura's China factory and I am sure he is right since Kamakura's Japan factory is Zeiss's partner for the Conquest HD project. Kamakura has an excellent reputation for building high quality bins in Japan so they know what they are doing.

No doubt they have the challenge of building the skills base at their China plant and the Zeiss Terra partnership will benefit them too.

Lee

Click to expand...

Lee

I agree with that. Past posts here from Zeiss, if my memory is correct, stated that they had some of their own people in the China factory overseeing the Terra manufacturing process. They probably don't need as many in Japan to oversee the Conquests manufacturing process.

Bob

ceasar said:

Lee

I agree with that. Past posts here from Zeiss, if my memory is correct, stated that they had some of their own people in the China factory overseeing the Terra manufacturing process. They probably don't need as many in Japan to oversee the Conquests manufacturing process.

Bob

Click to expand...

From my understanding from people who have had facilites in China that is required. If the production line is running, you better have people there, because the second you dont, little "mistakes" are made. As they tell me, it's a game management plays to see if they can get away with it.

perterra said:

From my understanding from people who have had facilites in China that is required. If the production line is running, you better have people there, because the second you dont, little "mistakes" are made. As they tell me, it's a game management plays to see if they can get away with it.

Click to expand...

That's my understanding too, which is why I am glad that its a Kamakura factory first and foremost and that they have their own reputation to support. And, second that Z has oversight of their product.

There are three Terra 8x32s in our family and they are all the same with regard to feel and performance, which is confidence-inspiring.

Lee