• 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.

Thoughts on Primes (1 Viewer)

Kammerdiner

Well-known member
Just a few thoughts on the 8x42 Prime that I won in last month’s contest.

First, thanks once again to Charles for this generous contest and opportunity! Perhaps subsequent winners (and all other users) can add their thoughts to this thread as well.

The Primes arrived while I was out of town so this is just a few preliminary notes. I’ll try to compare them in more depth to the Zen 8x43 ED2 and the 8.5 SV in more situations but here goes.

They are bigger than I thought they’d be. Cups down they are only ¼ inch shorter than the 8.5 SV. They are 5/8 inch shorter than the ED2. They are the heaviest of the bunch, however. I weighed them on a digital scale and got 840 gm, 29.6 ounces. Getting up there, and noticeably heavier than the ED2. Diopter and hinge tension are both just right. Overall, a real solid feel to them.

Hey, a nice case I’ll actually use. It’s simple, and you can either use a separate strap on it or (my much preferred route) just leave the binocular strap outside the case and carry it that way.

Eyecups. Some have had issues with the large eyecups. As an eyeglass wearer that’s not an issue for me and I wonder if the larger size might actually block more sidelight. I did try them without glasses and with my 63-64mm IPD and average nose I had no trouble. In fact I thought it was nice not to have the eyes and the view crowded by the cups. A big, open feel and it seemed very comfortable to me.

The view is really nice! Superb contrast, rich color, very little CA, sharp to the edges (if not quite on par with the SV in that regard). The color of both Zens is warmer, a little yellowy, compared to the SV’s, which are the most neutral I’ve seen, but without a side-by-side you might not notice. Not quite the easy “roam around” view of the SV, either, but better than the ED2. Glare control is especially nice, excellent really, and a solid improvement over the ED2. The pincushion of the ED2 has also been nicely tamed in the Prime—a welcome improvement in that regard. The Primes seem a little brighter, crisper, more contrasty than the ED2, and frankly very close to the SV.

The close focus spec is 2m, but this one goes down to about 4 feet—neat! Focus knob is very smooth with a small bit of slack when changing directions. Not really noticeable in use, to me anyway. CCW to infinity is a bit of an adjustment (all my other binos are CW to infinity). But my full-size scope is also CCW so I’m used to making that adjustment.

Eye relief is impressive. The Prime and SV are both rated at 20mm but with cups down and wearing glasses I get some flickering blackouts on the Prime. If I back the cups out 2mm or so they more or less disappear. Again, not quite the “slap ‘em on your face” view of the SV, when following a bird let’s say, but still a nice big, full-sized view. I might put a pair of o-rings in there but the eyecups hold an intermediate position quite well even when taking off the rainguard.

So overall I’d say the improvements over the ED2 (I haven’t seen the ED3) make the Prime a definite and worthwhile upgrade! I could easily use these as my primary birding binocular. In fact, I think they’ll get a lot of use. Big thumbs up for these. :t:

Mark
 
Nice summation Mark. I agree, and still think that way after having mine for a year. Kinda hard to get much more for the money.
 
Yep the Primes are good, my 10x Primes are definitely keepers for me. They are still a joy to look through for me after a year and a half but definitely BIG after using smaller objective binoculars like a 32mm.
 
I havent gotten them yet, but when I do, I will post some thoughts

Bill,

Then we'll find out if you really don't know the difference between a $100 bin and a $500 one (let's make that $200 and $600). Of course, you do scientifically, but I mean qualitatively.

Btw, I enjoyed your guest appearance on "The Big Bang Theory" last season. You beat the pants off Professor Proton. :t:

Brock
 
Bill,

Then we'll find out if you really don't know the difference between a $100 bin and a $500 one (let's make that $200 and $600). Of course, you do scientifically, but I mean qualitatively.

Btw, I enjoyed your guest appearance on "The Big Bang Theory" last season. You beat the pants off Professor Proton. :t:

Brock

My name is Shaniqua but my friends call me Aloysius. Anyway, on a bright well lit day I have a hard time telling my Yosemites from my Conquest. My wife says she can see a pretty good difference, but for me, no. If I change my eye position just a smidgen I have to refocus no matter what. On a dark evening, it's easier to see some difference, but a bright day, they all work well for me.

Gimme eye relief, yeah, thats the ticket, eye relief.

Yours Truly
Lasagne
 
;)
My name is Shaniqua but my friends call me Aloysius. Anyway, on a bright well lit day I have a hard time telling my Yosemites from my Conquest. My wife says she can see a pretty good difference, but for me, no. If I change my eye position just a smidgen I have to refocus no matter what. On a dark evening, it's easier to see some difference, but a bright day, they all work well for me.

Gimme eye relief, yeah, thats the ticket, eye relief.

Yours Truly
Lasagne

Ciao! Lasange (aka Shaniqua, aka Aloysius),

Oh, I thought from your signature that you were Bill Nye, the Science Guy. It would be cool to have a celebrity on BF. We might have some, but they probably keep their true identifies secret so they aren't barraged with requests for e-autographs. ;)

I gather from what you wrote about having to refocus with either bin when you move your eye position, you don't see a difference in depth perception between the Porro and roof? To me, that's the most obvious difference when switching from one prism type to the other. I usually need to refocus more with roofs, though it also depends on the speed of the focuser.

The shallowest depth perception (and fastest focuser west of the Pecos) goes to the Zeiss Terra ED, and that was the 8x42 model. The 10x42 model, which has less actual DOF, would probably be worse.

If you have the 6x30 model, the Yosemite should give you ample ER. It's too much for me, I have to hold the bin an inch or so away from my face to avoid image blackouts. Some Conquest HD owners reported the same issue with the 42mm model, for which Zeiss made longer eyecups.

The general rule of thumb is that lower power bins have greater ER and so do full size bins vs. midsized, but there are exceptions.

Ciao! Bragioli
 
;)

Ciao! Lasange (aka Shaniqua, aka Aloysius),

Oh, I thought from your signature that you were Bill Nye, the Science Guy. It would be cool to have a celebrity on BF. We might have some, but they probably keep their true identifies secret so they aren't barraged with requests for e-autographs. ;)

I gather from what you wrote about having to refocus with either bin when you move your eye position, you don't see a difference in depth perception between the Porro and roof? To me, that's the most obvious difference when switching from one prism type to the other. I usually need to refocus more with roofs, though it also depends on the speed of the focuser.

The shallowest depth perception (and fastest focuser west of the Pecos) goes to the Zeiss Terra ED, and that was the 8x42 model. The 10x42 model, which has less actual DOF, would probably be worse.

If you have the 6x30 model, the Yosemite should give you ample ER. It's too much for me, I have to hold the bin an inch or so away from my face to avoid image blackouts. Some Conquest HD owners reported the same issue with the 42mm model, for which Zeiss made longer eyecups.

The general rule of thumb is that lower power bins have greater ER and so do full size bins vs. midsized, but there are exceptions.

Ciao! Bragioli

Dear Bragi, I notice no difference in DOF, really no difference in color or clarity in the Yosemite and the Conquest. I can tell the difference in either of these and a pair of Bushnell 8X42 nature views in resolution and color clarity. Eye relief works for me on the conquest just fine, depending on the glasses I am wearing I leave them up one notch or all the way down. What I do notice with the conquest is a smooth and solid feel.

Sincerely
Willard
 
Last edited:
Dear Bragi, I notice no difference in DOF, really no difference in color or clarity in the Yosemite and the Conquest. I can tell the difference in either of these and a pair of Bushnell 8X42 nature views in resolution and color clarity. Eye relief works for me on the conquest just fine, depending on the glasses I am wearing I leave them up one notch or all the way down. What I do notice with the conquest is a smooth and solid feel.

Sincerely
Willard

Willard,

Given that you cannot discern any optical differences between a $100 porro and a $900 roof, $800 seems like a rather stiff premium to pay for a "smooth and solid feel," don't you think?

Scott
 
Last edited:
Willard,

Given that you cannot discern any optical differences between a $100 porro and a $900 roof, $800 seems like a rather stiff premium to pay for a "smooth and solid feel," don't you think?

Scott

Would be for me, but if I were to be taking a trip of a life time to gaze upon the assorted wildlife the knowledge that the thing wont lay down on me would be welcome. But as 50% of my gazing upon wildlife is in my backyard and the 0ther 50% is in a bar where I cant use binoculars, then yep, $900 is too much. Unless I suddenly make a big windfall.


Salvador Estaban Guajardo Gracia de la Ramirez
 
These are nice glasses. Heavy as hell is about the only down side. Eye cups are smooth, really much better than the Conquest, I cant tell any difference between them and the Conquest in use. I would say thats not really a suprise since they list pretty close to each other. Outstanding color clarity and resolution, looking without my glasses, the Conquest have a very very slight edge but once I put my glasses on, dead even.

I will have to ask my wife to look through them tonight as I am a bit color challenged.
 
Perterra .... Did you end up going with the 8X42 or the 10X42 Prime HD? Do you notice any differences in ease of eye placement or "blackouts" between your Zeiss Conquest and he Prime? Also, what model is the Conquest?

Thanks.
 
Perterra .... Did you end up going with the 8X42 or the 10X42 Prime HD? Do you notice any differences in ease of eye placement or "blackouts" between your Zeiss Conquest and he Prime? Also, what model is the Conquest?

Thanks.

Went with 8X42, my Conquest is the HD. I dont really have issues with blackouts on the conquest, but I do keep them screwed out a notch, I use the primes the same, no black outs on either for me. No CA on the primes. Just a good solid binocular.
 
Good to hear you like the 8X42 Prime HD. Thanks for the info.

Is your Conquest HD the 8X, 10X42 or the 8X, 10X32? I view without glasses and checked out the Conquest 8X32 a few months ago, but found the eye cups to short for me. I get the impression the fit varies between Conquest models. I also have some Zen-Rays that I like a lot, but I wish the eye cups were just a little longer. However I do ok by using the technique Bob mentions of holding them a little higher toward the eyebrows.
 
Good to hear you like the 8X42 Prime HD. Thanks for the info.

Is your Conquest HD the 8X, 10X42 or the 8X, 10X32? I view without glasses and checked out the Conquest 8X32 a few months ago, but found the eye cups to short for me. I get the impression the fit varies between Conquest models. I also have some Zen-Rays that I like a lot, but I wish the eye cups were just a little longer. However I do ok by using the technique Bob mentions of holding them a little higher toward the eyebrows.

My Conquest are 8X42. I really like the conquest, they are a really great binocular, the Primes seem equally as good. I doubt I could tell the difference in a blind test of the two.
 
Thanks for the follow-up.

I did have a Prime 10X from the very first production run, but we were not a good match for fit, thus my question on the 8X. I am under the impression the 8X is more forgiving for someone like me.

The 10X Prime did provide a most excellent view. The differences I would have expected to see between the 8X Prime and your Conguest is a larger center view in the Prime due to the flat field view and a little brighter view in the Conquest because of the potential of less lens surfaces (no flat field) and well, because it is Zeiss. It can take some time to get used to a binocular, so you may start noticing subtle differences in the view over time.
 
Thanks for the follow-up.

I did have a Prime 10X from the very first production run, but we were not a good match for fit, thus my question on the 8X. I am under the impression the 8X is more forgiving for someone like me.

The 10X Prime did provide a most excellent view. The differences I would have expected to see between the 8X Prime and your Conguest is a larger center view in the Prime due to the flat field view and a little brighter view in the Conquest because of the potential of less lens surfaces (no flat field) and well, because it is Zeiss. It can take some time to get used to a binocular, so you may start noticing subtle differences in the view over time.

They are good enough I think it will take some time to see the difference
 
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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top