Some of you may have read posts of mine in the past where I was critical of the Conquest, specifically the depth of field. The last pair of 8x32s I had, had very little and this had nothing to do with the focus speed as I would remove my finger when testing dof. Recently I had the opportunity to buy a used pair in excellent condition for a very reasonable price and decided to try them again. Well there are no issues with dof with this pair. I can only assume my last pair had some sort of alignment issue. So now I see why so many of you are enamored with this little gem! I was definitely wrong about them so if I offended any of you feel free to throw some jabs.
-
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.
Conquest Confession (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Upland
- Start date
YEP!!!
The more I use the Conquest HD 8X32, the more I like it... I've been birding practically all weekend...I used a new EDG II 8X32 and Conquest HD 8X32 literally back to back....used those two all weekend except for the SLC 8X42 yesterday afternoon/evening. I really like that little Conquest HD and it really competes with the best.
Attachments
marcsantacurz
Well-known member
I've been using the Conquest 8x32 and Kowa Genesis 8x33. The focus speed of the Conquest is seductive, but I think I like the feel and view of the Kowa more. There's something about how it fits me that makes the Kowa easier on my eyes and I think it does a slightly better job with glare. But I agree the Conquest is a really nice package.
Exactly my impressions of these two fine binos too. The Conquest excels when a fast focus speed is required and easily 'out accelerates' the Meopta but in other circumstances the Meopta is the stronger performer. Taking everything into account they are close rivals and yet have quite different personalities.
Lee
WJC
Well-known member
Hi, Upland:
While it is certainly not uncommon to see folks complain about depth of field in the brand or model of their binocular, it really shouldn’t be so. Depth of field is not caused by those who manufacture and market the product. It is related to magnification, which has nothing to do with those things. It can also be affected SOMEWHAT by our own focal ratio. Wide open (in low-light situations), your eyeballs work at around f/4; in sunlight, they are stopped down by the iris to about f/11. This is just one of many situations in which physiology affects the performance of what is often seen as the purely opto-mechanical. :cat:
Cheers,
Bill
Last edited:
The Conquest's are good binoculars but IMO they are weak in three areas. The eye cups are very hard to adjust and rough in movement and contrast and CA control are not as good as some other binoculars at their price point. They also have a cooler color tint compared to other binoculars IMO.
I couldn‘t agree more with you guys!
Chuck, I am sure you were making sure no one could approach your binos so casually placed at the edge of a railing above what looks like a little lake or pond ....
HEHE! I usually keep one eye toward the back of my head!
When out birding, there really are VERY few spots where I can take a side to side picture of binoculars so I try to take advantage of it when I can. This looked like a good spot that I hadn't used before..
Eye cups....I have to admit mine were terrible when I first got the 8X32....would unscrew the whole assembly most times during adjustment...but with patience and working the eyecups all the way in and all the way out many times....now they are really good!
I have never tried a Conquest that had these hard-to-move eyecups although James had this trouble too. The ones I have tried have been like my own: free moving and reliable. I fitted the extra length eyecups when I changed my spectacles and these moved and adjusted reliably too.
This is one of my favourite binos for reasons I have explained before.
Lee
I always, and still do, think the eyecups are a strong point of the Conquest. They are a little tighter than most to extend but when they are extended they snap into place and have no slop whatsoever. Sloppy loose eyecups are my pet peave with binos and it’s amazing how many including expensive ones have them. The only fault I found was that the eyecups were slightly short. I called Zeiss and they are sending me a longer pair fo free.
marcsantacurz
Well-known member
In my pair of 8x33, when I first got them them eyecups were very stiff and I couldn't get them to extend all the way with what I thought was enough force. After working them for a while, it loosened up some. They are still strongly engaged in the detents and stiffer than anything else I've used, but they do work ok now that I know I need to give them a bit of a twist.
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I'm sensitive to CA and find the 8x32 to be excellent in this regard, just a bit well off-centre, never obtrusive on flying birds etc., just a smidge more than my HT.
The contrast thing, lately, you have mentioned about a dozen times yet [when you briefly owned them] I recall you comparing them to your Swaro 8x32 and noting they had ''great / excellent'' contrast [? can't find the exact quote]
I asked before and will again - what changed your mind?
Last edited:
I recently compared the Zeiss Conquest's HD 8x32 to the new Swarovski 8x30 CL's and that is what changed my mind. I really have grown to appreciate and notice good contrast in the last year and it has become one of my favorite attributes of a binocular. In the past, if a binocular was bright it impressed me but now it is contrast I look for. The Zeiss had a bigger FOV than the Swarovski but the Swarovski had sharper edges with less distortion, better contrast and warmer more vibrant colors. So overall I preferred it. It is all in what you prefer. No binocular is perfect.
Last edited:
I'd agree that CA control is the weakest part of the Conquest; hand to hand with the T*FL, Genesis, and even the Euro HD made that obvious. That isn't to say it is bad in this respect, but I'd have it at just average and probably closer to models in the mid tier, e.g. Endeavour/BX4/Viper HD.
If your sensitive to CA buy a Zeiss FL or Nikon EDG. Those are the two best I have used. The FL is probably a smidgen better. The FL is the "King" of CA control. I wonder why? Good glass? A lot of Fluorite Ions maybe?
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
I think we need to be a bit more model specific here - I find the 8x32 very good for CA but have read some reports of the 8x56 HD where CA is quite a bit more apparent. Different apertures are likely to produce somewhat different results.
Chuck,
I have both the original eye-cups and the longer replacement eye-cups. Each was difficult/terrible to extend up or down and like yours would often unscrew the eye-cup. I settled for leaving them fully extended all the time which really wasn't an issue for me and never thought otherwise.
Never occurred to me to think of a break-in period for eye-cups. I just ran my eye-cups up & down 300 times each. They are noticeably improved!!! Not what I would call refined, but now no issues with putting the eye-cups down if I so choose.
Great tip buddy!!!!:t:
Now, a fix for those ultra cheap objective covers????
CG
Last edited:
I picked this glass up when it first came out and posted on here that I felt the contrast was a hair less than many other popular binoculars despite seeing/reading numerous posts by others about what great contrast they have.
Nowadays, I'm still feeling the same but wondering if it is a hair less contrast or a hair less color saturation or a combination of both??? (scratching head emoji)
They are not on par with alpha top tier glass in this regard and lack the vibrancy in the view... but they are darn good!!!!!
The focuser on my unit just may be my favorite... even edging out the EDG.
CG
"Nowadays, I'm still feeling the same but wondering if it is a hair less contrast or a hair less color saturation or a combination of both???"
I think it is a combination of both. And you are correct in that they lack vibrancy but they are good. I think part of it is the cooler color spectrum of the Zeiss versus the warmer spectrum of say a Swarovski. I had the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 when I was comparing them. I saw a pair of Zeiss Conquests HD 8x32 go for about $350.00 on Astromart once. I thought the objective covers were kind of cheap at first but after awhile I kind of grew to like them. They are removed and installed in one movement instead of two like the separate ones.
I think it is a combination of both. And you are correct in that they lack vibrancy but they are good. I think part of it is the cooler color spectrum of the Zeiss versus the warmer spectrum of say a Swarovski. I had the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 when I was comparing them. I saw a pair of Zeiss Conquests HD 8x32 go for about $350.00 on Astromart once. I thought the objective covers were kind of cheap at first but after awhile I kind of grew to like them. They are removed and installed in one movement instead of two like the separate ones.
Last edited:
