10x42- What is Next Step in Quality/Price Above Zeiss Conquest HD? (1 Viewer)

[Winchester44]

Hi All, I'm curious what you might recommend as the next step up from the Zeiss Conquest HD in 10x42 on the gently used/demo market. With the new HDX I'm seeing the older HD going for half off what they were a year ago. I'm just wondering what might be something similar but just a bit better maybe one generation back that would be a step up in the $900-1,200 price range? Maybe the Leica Trinovid HD, Mavn B, Nikon Monarch HG? I'm seeing older Swarovski SLC 10x42 WB Habicht in that price range, but believe these are non-HD glass. Or would I really need to get up to the $1,200-$1,400 range (Meopta Meostar, Leica Ultravid, Late model SLC or EL Swaro, Zeiss Victory) to do appreciably better than the Zeiss Conquest HD.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/2969876361...93L86CjEKZdiNv8aEPFBsmTSE=|tkp:Bk9SR-74wrSnZQ

 

[N7XW]

My advice would be the Maven B 1.2. I currently have the B 5 in 12x56 and the Swaro EL 12x50. The Maven holds its own against the EL. Optically, they are extremely close. Given the Maven has 25% more light gathering, but the price difference is substantial.

 

[Owene]

I quite regularly use my conquest HD despite owning NL pures. The pures are definitely ‘better’ but I’d be surprised if anything below them in price would be much of an upgrade on the zeiss

 

[mjh73]

Depends how you judge step up.

I upgraded from 10x42 Conquests to 10x40 SFL.
The image quality was not significantly different to my eyes at least and initially I thought 'what have I done!'
After 3 weeks heavy use in Colombia I was super happy to have that optical quality in a noticeably less heavy unit.

 

[Owene]

Yes. My swaros are 32x for just that reason

 

[Winchester44]

My advice would be the Maven B 1.2. I currently have the B 5 in 12x56 and the Swaro EL 12x50. The Maven holds its own against the EL. Optically, they are extremely close. Given the Maven has 25% more light gathering, but the price difference is substantial.

Wow I have the 12x50 EL as well and they are amazing. Substantial step up for the conquest HD. That is a strong endorsement for the Mavens!

 

[Winchester44]

I quite regularly use my conquest HD despite owning NL pures. The pures are definitely ‘better’ but I’d be surprised if anything below them in price would be much of an upgrade on the zeiss

Yes they really are excellent binos for the price. I bought 8x42 Conquest after selling Leupold BX4 and was incredibly impressed for the minor price difference.

 

[Winchester44]

Yes. My swaros are 32x for just that reason

???

 

[Owene]

???

???

Just saying that weight can be an improvement all on its own. Meant x32. Not 32x

 

[Winchester44]

Depends how you judge step up.

I upgraded from 10x42 Conquests to 10x40 SFL.
The image quality was not significantly different to my eyes at least and initially I thought 'what have I done!'
After 3 weeks heavy use in Colombia I was super happy to have that optical quality in a noticeably less heavy unit.

Ahh I have not gotten a chance to try those l, they are nice and compact though. I think I’m looking for something more medium size though. I have 10 and 12x50 as well as 8 and 10x30. I have an 8x42 , but think I’d be happier with a 10x42. Love the extra magnification to 10 and 12x50 offer however those do get a bit heavy after awhile.

 

[Winchester44]

Just saying that weight can be an improvement all on its own. Meant x32. Not 32x

Ahh got it, yes that is very true! Especially if you end up brining them va not bringing them on the hike! My Leica 8x30 BN have been around the world. Compact yes, light no!!! Good advice

 

[Winchester44]

I should mention that the main reason I would like to go from 8 to 10 X is based on two recent trips where I was the one person using eight X versus everyone else using 10x. Well, I appreciate the relaxed wide view. Others were spotting significantly more than I was an id’ing much better than I was.

 

[Paultricounty]

Hi All, I'm curious what you might recommend as the next step up from the Zeiss Conquest HD in 10x42 on the gently used/demo market. With the new HDX I'm seeing the older HD going for half off what they were a year ago. I'm just wondering what might be something similar but just a bit better maybe one generation back that would be a step up in the $900-1,200 price range? Maybe the Leica Trinovid HD, Mavn B, Nikon Monarch HG? I'm seeing older Swarovski SLC 10x42 WB Habicht in that price range, but believe these are non-HD glass. Or would I really need to get up to the $1,200-$1,400 range (Meopta Meostar, Leica Ultravid, Late model SLC or EL Swaro, Zeiss Victory) to do appreciably better than the Zeiss Conquest HD.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/296987636154?_skw=10x42+binoculars&itmmeta=01JMXMGQHBXCY61DMFNYT6S3T6&hash=item4525d7b1ba:g:ZyMAAOSwzkBnn368&itmprp=enc:AQAKAAAA0FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1f0PJMHgpv5ehSMMizo8RG7N2S+oC+wmAtjQfrlnfCpRK6xc7o7cZB8qonGTdHuJhcTO17uV+xGDP9w8vmY7sTfyUq3Fl3QqrirrdI8xn/QM1PyJiC3eYoHsHEolMnmEwIt8jEAQ1Dp5eOuF4gqn7WPlyS/3HyAXXpN08dHIyR/OhtGL1GH7JmBu+nf5yGzlFwHuTmVTCcgfCfqCRUk9l+duWDzHx/qjmQbWKKvEL93L86CjEKZdiNv8aEPFBsmTSE=|tkp:Bk9SR-74wrSnZQ

The MHG, Trinovid HD, older SLC and Mavens are all about at the same level.

Swaro EL, Leica UVHD+, Zeiss FL, HT and SFL and Swaro SLC. Most of these are solid noticeable good upgrades to the Zeiss Conquest. But I’d say the Conquest at around $500 is about as good as it gets for the best bang for the buck.

 

[Winchester44]

The MHG, Trinovid HD, older SLC and Mavens are all about at the same level.

Swaro EL, Leica UVHD+, Zeiss FL, HT and SFL and Swaro SLC. Most of these are solid noticeable good upgrades to the Zeiss Conquest. But I’d say the Conquest at around $500 is about as good as it gets for the best bang for the buck.

This is more or less what I understood. I wanted to make sure I was not overlooking something. The Conquest seem to be top of the pole the QPR (Quality Price Ratio). I've been extremely happy with mine for the $600 I paid for 8x42 at B&H on a demo pair.


Anyone have any experience with Zeiss HT? It looks like these can be found used for +/- $1,100

 

[Hermann]

Anyone have any experience with Zeiss HT? It looks like these can be found used for +/- $1,100

There are dozens of threads in the Zeiss forum.

Hermann

 

[Dennis Mau]

I would stop at the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 or Nikon HG 10x42. You are going to pay twice the price for a 5% improvement if you buy an HT, SF, EL, NL, SFL, or Noctivid. The alphas are not really worth the big difference in price for the small increase in performance IMO. The $1000 price point represents the best QPR.

 

[Rg548]

This is more or less what I understood. I wanted to make sure I was not overlooking something. The Conquest seem to be top of the pole the QPR (Quality Price Ratio). I've been extremely happy with mine for the $600 I paid for 8x42 at B&H on a demo pair.


Anyone have any experience with Zeiss HT? It looks like these can be found used for +/- $1,100

Yes... I had 8x42 Conquests, and now own 8x42 HT's.
Loved the conquests, I really rate them, and great value..but the Zeiss AK HT's are CONSIDERABLY better.... (a lot more than 5% as mentioned above!!!)
My mate sold his 8x42 Conquests, actually my old ones, and bought a mint FL8x42 for the same money.... and these ALSO outperform the Conquest.
The Zeiss HT's are 890g.... but I have never had such a great all round binocular as these are. Superb in ANY light, bitingly sharp, and just an absolute treat every time I use them. They hold their own to this day (other than a modern huge FOV) and offer great glare control. Beautiful build quality, made in Germany, they are hard to fault.
I bought my mint, just serviced HT's, for £950 from a dealer..... and I consider that to be great value.

 

[Rg548]

If you can find a Meopta HD 10x42.... they also outgun the Conquests... I've had them both side by side.
I rate those alongside Ultravids for optical quality.
Great bins, but harder to find.

 

[Paultricounty]

Yes... I had 8x42 Conquests, and now own 8x42 HT's.
Loved the conquests, I really rate them, and great value..but the Zeiss AK HT's are CONSIDERABLY better.... (a lot more than 5% as mentioned above!!!)
My mate sold his 8x42 Conquests, actually my old ones, and bought a mint FL8x42 for the same money.... and these ALSO outperform the Conquest.
The Zeiss HT's are 890g.... but I have never had such a great all round binocular as these are. Superb in ANY light, bitingly sharp, and just an absolute treat every time I use them. They hold their own to this day (other than a modern huge FOV) and offer great glare control. Beautiful build quality, made in Germany, they are hard to fault.
I bought my mint, just serviced HT's, for £950 from a dealer..... and I consider that to be great value.

That is very accurate and extremely well said imo. There is a considerable optical quality jump from these former alpha-level binos in comparison to the upper mid-level choices. It can't be measured by simple subjective percentage numbers, especially by those that have visual impairments, aging eyes or people that are much more sensitive to the optical characteristics that they like or dislike. Wider FOV is nice on a few of the latest alpha binos, but the majority of people rarely say FOV is to small on these older options. And that's not even taking into consideration the better eye box comfort compared to the newer options with the more complicated ocular designs.

 

[Dennis Mau]

Yes... I had 8x42 Conquests, and now own 8x42 HT's.
Loved the conquests, I really rate them, and great value..but the Zeiss AK HT's are CONSIDERABLY better.... (a lot more than 5% as mentioned above!!!)
My mate sold his 8x42 Conquests, actually my old ones, and bought a mint FL8x42 for the same money.... and these ALSO outperform the Conquest.
The Zeiss HT's are 890g.... but I have never had such a great all round binocular as these are. Superb in ANY light, bitingly sharp, and just an absolute treat every time I use them. They hold their own to this day (other than a modern huge FOV) and offer great glare control. Beautiful build quality, made in Germany, they are hard to fault.
I bought my mint, just serviced HT's, for £950 from a dealer..... and I consider that to be great value.

No, it is all in your mind. You expect the HT to be better because you paid more for it, but actually it isn't that much better than an HG or Conquest HD. When you expect something to be better simply because it is more expensive, it's called the "price quality heuristic" or sometimes referred to as the "cost-quality assumption"; essentially, assuming higher price equates to higher quality. All three are separated by less than .5 of a point on Allbinos which is less than .30% difference, but yet you paid twice as much for the HT. It is easy to see which one has the higher QPR.

Binoculars rankings - 10x42 - AllBinos.com The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons. www.allbinos.com 6 Carl Zeiss-Victory HT 10x42 156.8 82.53 8999 Specifications Review 7 Nikon-Monarch HG 10x42 156.7 82.47 3900 Specifications Review 8 Carl Zeiss-Conquest HD 10x42 156.3 82.26 4500 Specifications Review