• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

8x56 & 8x54 Brand Comparisons (1 Viewer)

P

Pronghunter

Active member
Dead horse I know. I really want the 8x54 Zeiss HT’s or the Swaro 8x56. Almost all low light to no light observation use. (Don’t care much for the daytime differences here)
But with today’s glass, it seems more affordable glass gets you close if not right there with the big guys. Which brings me to the question. Optics like GPO Passion 8x56 and the Zeiss Conquest 8x56 being a fraction of the price, is there a noticeable difference in resolution and low light when the sun is down? Or even the Meopta 8x56. It’s advertised at only 88% transmission though. Which I realize doesn’t mean everything. I’ve read multiple times where the Zeis HT 8x54 suffer optically compared to say the SLC’s. I’m so lost and my head hurts from reading. I’m really wanting the best I can get, but if the cheaper models are within a very subtle margin or almost impossible to see the difference, then I’d like to go that route. If the big SLC AND Zeiss HT are intact substantially “more better” (as my daughter would say) , then I’d pay the difference. Thank!
 
Last edited:
Pronghunter said:
Dead horse I know. I really want the 8x54 Zeiss HT’s or the Swaro 8x56. Almost all low light to no light observation use. (Don’t care much for the daytime differences here)
But with today’s glass, it seems more affordable glass gets you close if not right there with the big guys. Which brings me to the question. Optics like GPO Passion 8x56 and the Zeiss Conquest 8x56 being a fraction of the price, is there a noticeable difference in resolution and low light when the sun is down? Or even the Meopta 8x56. It’s advertised at only 88% transmission though. Which I realize doesn’t mean everything. I’ve read multiple times where the Zeis HT 8x54 suffer optically compared to say the SLC’s. I’m so lost and my head hurts from reading. I’m really wanting the best I can get, but if the cheaper models are within a very subtle margin or almost impossible to see the difference, then I’d like to go that route. If the big SLC AND Zeiss HT are intact substantially “more better” (as my daughter would say) , then I’d pay the difference. Thank!
Click to expand...
IMO the best 8x56 currently is the SLC 8x56.

I didn't like the Zeiss HT 8x54 at all, it may be very good at dusk, but in daylight it simply has too many aberrations.

The differences between the Swarovski and the mid-range glasses are there, but no one will be able to tell you whether they are big enough for you to make the extra cost worth it, you can only answer such questions yourself.

Hardly anyone will be able to notice a difference in transmission of 3%, but a mid-range glass with a good 90% transmission is practically as bright as the expensive Swarovski, the differences are extremely small.

Andreas
 
Pronghunter said:
I’m so lost and my head hurts from reading. I’m really wanting the best I can get, but if the cheaper models are within a very subtle margin or almost impossible to see the difference, then I’d like to go that route.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the real issue, brain fog. But it's quite simple........champagne taste but beer dollars. Either set a realistic budget and get the best for that amount, or splash out on one of the top tier models......really, you won't regret it in the long run.
But please, if you can, try before you buy as it's also down to handling characteristics as well. Whilst you may be using it for stalking game, (save that for another time), a binocular that feels comfortable and works for you as soon as you raise it to view, is the keeper.
When I was watching crepuscular species one year I used a colleague's Zeiss Victory 8 x 56 FL........rare as rocking horse whatsit but worth looking out for, a good used pair. And upgrade to the better eyecups.
Good luck

EDIT : I've seen in one of your old posts that you had an FL and regretted moving it on. Perhaps time to look again.
 
Last edited:
Pronghunter said:
Dead horse I know. I really want the 8x54 Zeiss HT’s or the Swaro 8x56. Almost all low light to no light observation use. (Don’t care much for the daytime differences here)
But with today’s glass, it seems more affordable glass gets you close if not right there with the big guys. Which brings me to the question. Optics like GPO Passion 8x56 and the Zeiss Conquest 8x56 being a fraction of the price, is there a noticeable difference in resolution and low light when the sun is down? Or even the Meopta 8x56. It’s advertised at only 88% transmission though. Which I realize doesn’t mean everything. I’ve read multiple times where the Zeis HT 8x54 suffer optically compared to say the SLC’s. I’m so lost and my head hurts from reading. I’m really wanting the best I can get, but if the cheaper models are within a very subtle margin or almost impossible to see the difference, then I’d like to go that route. If the big SLC AND Zeiss HT are intact substantially “more better” (as my daughter would say) , then I’d pay the difference. Thank!
Click to expand...
If you want and can afford the best, buy the SLC. That way you’ll never look back and wonder. As far as differences in very low light conditions, you probably won’t notice much of a difference between the GPO and Zeiss vs the Swarovski.
 
Let's see.....If I were wanting a low/no light binocular I'd probably just go ahead and get the SLC 8X56 and be done with it. Ebay has one for $2065. I'd be all over that one. I've bought from 6ave before and have always been excellent.

If I couldn't go the $2065 route I'd go the Zeiss Conquest HD 8X56 for around $1600(demos and open box for less).

That's the two routes I'd go.
 
If it's for viewing fairly static things, then perhaps you could look at the Fujinon FMT's...
I.F..... but that can work well if you are watching, say foxes dens, badgers whatever. Not good for birds in flight, unless they are say more than 20m away, in which case the huge depth of field can work for you.
I had Steiner I.F and they weren't the headache I was expecting.... in certain situations I.F can be advantageous.
In any case, The Fuji's are about 96% transmission, porro design, and the 7x50 will have a huge exit pupil.
Worth a thought at £700.... heavy though !!!!
 
Just come across a Kahles Helia 8 x 56 for around £1300. Not sure how this brand performs nowadays; still underrated? A used Zeiss 8 x 56 FL at my old employers for £1100, described as very good condition.
 
chill6x6 said:
Let's see.....If I were wanting a low/no light binocular I'd probably just go ahead and get the SLC 8X56 and be done with it. Ebay has one for $2065. I'd be all over that one. I've bought from 6ave before and have always been excellent.

If I couldn't go the $2065 route I'd go the Zeiss Conquest HD 8X56 for around $1600(demos and open box for less).

That's the two routes I'd go.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Always appreciate your advice and input.
 
Conndomat said:
IMO the best 8x56 currently is the SLC 8x56.

I didn't like the Zeiss HT 8x54 at all, it may be very good at dusk, but in daylight it simply has too many aberrations.

The differences between the Swarovski and the mid-range glasses are there, but no one will be able to tell you whether they are big enough for you to make the extra cost worth it, you can only answer such questions yourself.

Hardly anyone will be able to notice a difference in transmission of 3%, but a mid-range glass with a good 90% transmission is practically as bright as the expensive Swarovski, the differences are extremely small.

Andreas
Click to expand...
I would echo exactly what Andreas said on the SLC vs. the HT - I compared them and greatly preferred the SLC.

Looking at cheaper alternatives like the Conquest - I'm sure those would be excellent. I think a lot of the extra cost of moving to the SLC from cheaper ones is eliminating that last bit of chromatic aberration from the view. If you're using them in low-light condions and dusk, you'll never notice a tiny bit of false color. With the Conquest specifically I think they're larger and slightly heavier than the SLC too, although I haven't checked the specs lately.

Of course some of the other lower-priced alternatives are cheaper because they're made in countries that are not within the EU or Japan, that's another consideration.
 
You gotta stop reading and start trying them out yourself - ultimately only you can decide whether the differences between brands/models/price points are (a) detectable by yourself and (b) worth the cost given your own financial situation.

You may also get more/better comparisons in those situations you want to use them in in a hunting focused forum. Very few of the replyers here will be in their binoculars for hours trying to spot pronghorn (or other game animals) miles away, or have really spent significant time comparing the models you ask about at the hours you intend to use them in (low light to no light). Seriously, looking for birds at 100 yards or less is very different, and some folks don't even do that.

NB. it may be that something like the Docter 8x56 porro might offer the most bang for the buck (excuse the pun, lol) in that format. But you're not going to have a return policy with those.

Or just get the Swaro. The equation between price and performance looks very different if you are a professional guide spending that much time in the field.
 
Rg548 said:
Oh well.... i guess what I read was wrong then.
Click to expand...
Here are the sobering numbers.

"There are strong stories surrounding this viewer on the internet, among other things. It has been claimed for a long time that the
viewer has a light transmission of 95%. Our measurements were unable to confirm this. The
highest value of transmitted light for daylight viewing in the spectral region where the
eye is optimally sensitive (550-560 nm) is approximately 85% and that is considerably less than the claimed
95%. It should be noted that at a light transmission of 85% the image brightness is noticeable
is less than with a light transmission of 95%."

Andreas
 
I think that you can ask so many questions, receive so much advice and hit so many different answers that the only way you can be truly sure if a bino suits you is to try them and compare. I have the GPO/Geco 8x56's and have tried them against other expensive, and not so expensive glass, and honestly couldn't tell them apart to any marked degree.

Others will point out that brand x is optically, ergonomically and build quality far superior and they are all right. It is what suits them.

I have heard excellent reports on the Meopta Meostar B1 Plus 8x56's but someone will come along and say they are inferior to.......

I bought some 15x56 Meoptas last month and had the opportunity to compare them against some Swaro's on Woodbury Common in Devon yesterday. They were half the price of the Swaro's and if I were to choose twixt them irrespective of price, the Meopta's suit me better and were not second best.
 
PatR said:
I think that you can ask so many questions, receive so much advice and hit so many different answers that the only way you can be truly sure if a bino suits you is to try them and compare.
Click to expand...
Agree, this should be a golden rule whenever possible, as I said above " But please, if you can, try before you buy as it's also down to handling characteristics as well ".

I appreciate that nowadays there are few retail outlets that carry a wide range of optics and facilities for testing so Internet browsing and data plays a part as well as stores that offer an easy returns policy.
 
Even if large exit pupil is comfortable I don't think the extra weight and size of 8x56 is worth it for me 55+ who probably not even have 6mm eye pupil anymore.
I think 7/8x42 or 8x50 is then enough.
 
Good luck finding any Doctors, I was lucky when 2 came up a few months back. Not the largest field of view, can be glarey around sundown, but oh so sharp, almost offensively 3D view and they just keep on working well after others have given up in the dark. They’re not the lightest, but centre focus, well armoured and sealed, so perfectly able to work as “proper birding binos”.

Peter
 

Similar threads

R
New low light weatherproof binoculars
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Scott98
S
D
The case for the 8x56.
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Scott98
S
C
Zeiss conquest 8x56 review
Replies
4
Views
1K
Craig77
C
D
  • Locked
Is the Zeiss SFL 8x40 worth the difference in price over the Nikon MHG 8x42?
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
15K
Jos Stratford
Jos Stratford
J
Do you consider Resale Value/Opportunities due to Brand Recognition?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Patudo
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top