A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids. (1 Viewer)

[[email protected]]

I tried a bunch of different aperture binoculars a while back, and I came to the conclusion that the bigger the aperture, the better quality view you are going to get. So for the binoculars I don't use for hiking, I decided I liked an 8x56 and 10x56 the best. I bought an SLC 8x56, and optically it is one of the best binoculars I have ever used.

It doesn't have the huge FOV of the NL or SF, but it has better contrast, you can see into the shadows better, there are less optical aberrations because you are just using the sweet spot of the larger objective lens, it has much easier eye placement with the bigger EP and way fewer blackouts because of this, and it handles glare much better because with the bigger exit pupil because the glare never reaches your eyes which for me anymore is a priority. Even with the optical advancements of the NL and SF, they can't overcome the laws of physics and optics that stipulate a larger aperture is going to perform better than a smaller aperture.

Since I liked the SLC 8x56 so much I considered buying an SLC 10x56, but they are $2500 and not discounted too much, so accidentally I came upon a LNIB Zeiss Conquest HD 10x56 on eBay for $800 which is a great deal considering they retail for $1800. So I bought it, and frankly I wasn't expecting it too even compare with the SLC, but it surprised me how good it is. It is like a Zeiss Conquest HD 10x42 on steroids.

Everybody knows how good a Zeiss Conquest HD is, but the the 10x56 takes it to another level. It is shockingly bright, sharp and the contrast will knock your socks off. I almost think it is sharper on-axis than the SLC, although the SLC does have slightly sharper edges. Some reviewers have said the SLC has better CA control, but I think the Conquest HD is every bit as good at controlling CA.

It has an excellent smooth focuser, it is well-balanced and it is BRIGHT. The amazing thing about these big aperture binoculars is how they handle glare. You don't see ANY glare even near the sun. They are incredible the way they handle glare. These are not binoculars for the birder who does a lot of hiking, but they are more for static birding or when you walk a short distance to a stand or blind. You could carry them with a harness if you wanted to, and they wouldn't be too uncomfortable.

I had the Swarovski NL 10x42, and it has huge very good view and I paid about $2500 for mine discounted. The Zeiss Conquest HD 10x56 costs me $800, and it is bigger and heavier than the NL 10x42, but other than FOV and edge sharpness the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x56 beats the NL 10 x42 in ever other optical category including contrast, fewer optical aberrations, way better glare control, easier eye placement with fewer blackouts, it sees into shadows better, it has a more transparent and cleaner image, and it performs much better in low light.

I will say one thing once you get used to the view through these big apertures it is hard to go back to even a 42 mm.

" A basic and immutable law of optics is that, all other things being equal, (magnification, quality, engineering, etc.) bigger objective lenses will give you a brighter, more satisfying view than smaller lenses. They will yield more detail and better color rendition than you can possibly obtain from smaller objectives. Big objective lenses allow you to see more detail in deep shadows."

Size Matters: The Case for Really Big Binoculars

Size Matters: A Case for Really Big Binoculars Contrary to what some of us would like to believe size really does matter. Flight, for example, imposes strict limits on size. Ostriches...

www.audubon.org

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Paultricounty]

Lets be clear these are your opinions based on your eyesight , and each individual eyes are different, so these blanket statements just don’t hold that much water for everybody. I myself and a few others in my circle have compared the SLC 10x56 with NL’s, EL’s, SF’s and conquests , all in 42, side by side. During the day in sunny weather, the SLC were not as you describe, superior to the 42’s. The big difference only becomes evident when the lights get low, and that’s exactly what these are meant for, imo.

On the statement, if all things are equal, larger objective will be superior, I agree with. But in this case and example, things are not equal between SLC, NL’s and EL’s.

If the Conquests were the 8x56 I’d take them off your hands.

Paul

 

[Swedpat]

This topic is discussed before, and I can admit larger exit pupil is more comfortable for the eye replacement. And I cannot comment about other people's experience of different binoculars. We like different characteristics.
But the theoretical resolution of different sizes of apertures is hardly noticeable at handheld binocular magnifications.
I don't find a 8x56 being sharper than a 8x25 of same quality. At least there is no chance you really see more details with a 8x56 than a 8x42 of same class in bright conditions. That is surely imagination and not reality.

 

[[email protected]]

This topic is discussed before, and I can admit larger exit pupil is more comfortable for the eye replacement. And I cannot comment about other people's experience of different binoculars. We like different characteristics.
But the theoretical resolution of different sizes of apertures is hardly noticeable at handheld binocular magnifications.
I don't find a 8x56 being sharper than a 8x25 of same quality. At least there is no chance you really see more details with a 8x56 than a 8x42 of same class in bright conditions. That is surely imagination and not reality.

Talk to Henry Link about that, he disagreed in one of the best posts I have ever seen on Bird Forum because it was very creative and very true. Henry was correct, and it is really a groundbreaking revelation. I have verified it myself. There is no doubt in my mind after extensive comparisons that a bigger aperture binocular like the FL 8x56 or SLC 8x56 is better than a smaller aperture one.

There are less optical aberrations with a bigger objective lens because you are just using the sweet spot of the objective. Try it your self. Compare the best 8x32 and 8x42 you have to a Zeiss FL 8x56 or Swarovski SLC 8x56 and see if you don't change your mind. From Henry Links post.

"Now, does any of this matter when you simply look through the binoculars at 8x? To my delight, the answer is yes. In daylight, he 8x56 FL produces the sharpest, cleanest and most transparent image I’ve yet seen in a binocular. It’s very obvious comparing it to other binoculars tripod mounted, but even hand holding I’m always aware that the image is unusually fine by binocular standards. I wouldn’t have expected any binocular to make the 8x42FL, Nikon 7x50 Prostar and 8x32SE look mushy and dull in sunlight, but the 8x56 FL does it."

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Ries]

Your font seems stuck on cursive. Does not make very pleasant reading.

 

[Swedpat]

S

Talk to Henry Link about that, he disagreed in one of the best posts I have ever seen on Bird Forum because it was very creative and very true. Henry was correct, and it is really a groundbreaking revelation. I have verified it myself. There is no doubt in my mind after extensive comparisons that a bigger aperture binocular is better than a smaller aperture one. Try it your self. Compare the best 8x32 and 8x42 you have to a Zeiss FL 8x56 or Swarovski SLC 8x56 and see if you don't change your mind. From Henry Links post.

"Now, does any of this matter when you simply look through the binoculars at 8x? To my delight, the answer is yes. In daylight, he 8x56 FL produces the sharpest, cleanest and most transparent image I’ve yet seen in a binocular. It’s very obvious comparing it to other binoculars tripod mounted, but even hand holding I’m always aware that the image is unusually fine by binocular standards. I wouldn’t have expected any binocular to make the 8x42FL, Nikon 7x50 Prostar and 8x32SE look mushy and dull in sunlight, but the 8x56 FL does it."

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

Some of my experiences are:
Conquest HD 8x32 vs 8x42. 8x32 is sharper.
Leica Ultravid 8x20 and Swarovski Curio 7x21.
I have not compared them against each other, but both belong to the sharpest binoculars I have tried. They are sharper than as well Leica Trinovid 8x42 HD and Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42.
Yes, some of these models are not considered to be in the same league, but still that 20 and 21mm apertures can beat 42mm is still remarkable. The comparison is actually between compacts in the high end level and full sized in the level close below.
My experience of all the binoculars I have tried during more than 30 years does not confirm any detecheable relation between aperture and sharpness.
It's a fact that larger aperture has higher resolving power. But that is mainly because larger aperture allows higher magnification without image breakdown. So I would say it's hardly the case when it comes to magnifications of handheld binoculars, when the magnification is far below the limit of the resolving power of the optics.
And that it provides higher brightness in low light conditions, which can provide more details.
But not in bright condition when your eye's pupil is smaller than the exit pupil of both the compared binoculars.
At daylight I actually often perceive compact binoculars sharper than full sized because the smaller exit pupil makes the image less blinding.

 

[[email protected]]

S

Some of my experiences are:
Conquest HD 8x32 vs 8x42. 8x32 is sharper.
Leica Ultravid 8x20 and Swarovski Curio 7x21.
I have not compared them against each other, but both belong to the sharpest binoculars I have tried. They are sharper than as well Leica Trinovid 8x42 HD and Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42.
Yes, some of these models are not considered to be in the same league, but still that 20 and 21mm apertures can beat 42mm is still remarkable. The comparison is actually between compacts in the high end level and full sized in the level close below.
My experience of all the binoculars I have tried during more than 30 years does not confirm any detecheable relation between aperture and sharpness.
It's a fact that larger aperture has higher resolving power. But that is mainly because larger aperture allows higher magnification without image breakdown. So I would say it's hardly the case when it comes to magnifications of handheld binoculars, when the magnification is far below the limit of the resolving power of the optics.
And that it provides higher brightness in low light conditions, which can provide more details.
But not in bright condition when your eye's pupil is smaller than the exit pupil of both the compared binoculars.
At daylight I actually often perceive compact binoculars sharper than full sized because the smaller exit pupil makes the image less blinding.

Compare your Leica Ultravid 8x20 and Curio 7x21 to a Zeiss FL 8x56 or Swarovski SLC 8x56 in daylight with a resolution chart. What you think is sharpness in the 8x20 and 7x21 is an illusion caused by the small EP. What people don't get is a big aperture is not only better in low light, it is better in daylight also.

"Yes, the 8x56 SLCs are amazingly bright, but how much brightness do you actually need? For most birding needs, mid-sized binoculars (8x32) are more than adequate. In fact, when I started birding, 7x35 was pretty much the standard configuration. Full-sized binoculars (7x42 or 8x42) will allow you to see incredible detail in very dimly lit environments. But keep in mind that you can only use as much brightness as your eye will admit, so any binocular whose exit pupil is larger than your eye’s pupil (if you are over 50 your eye only opens to 3 or 4mm while a 7x42 binocular has a 6mm exit pupil) is probably providing more brightness than you can use -- even at night. So why bother schlepping these monsters around? Because it isn’t only about brightness. It’s about the quality of the image, and Swarovski’s 8x56 SLC offers perhaps the best image that I have seen in any binocular. Despite their considerable weight, I found them almost impossible to put down."

 

[Paultricounty]

Talk to Henry Link about that, he disagreed in one of the best posts I have ever seen on Bird Forum because it was very creative and very true. Henry was correct, and it is really a groundbreaking revelation. I have verified it myself. There is no doubt in my mind after extensive comparisons that a bigger aperture binocular like the FL 8x56 or SLC 8x56 is better than a smaller aperture one.

This is getting ridiculous, I keep getting sucked back in with all the contradictions on a regular basis.
The only thing that is clear here, is that you have confirmed your own subjective opinion to yourself.

There are less optical aberrations with a bigger objective lens because you are just using the sweet spot of the objective. Try it your self. Compare the best 8x32 and 8x42 you have to a Zeiss FL 8x56 or Swarovski SLC 8x56 and see if you don't change your mind. From Henry Links post.

I’m sure you’re taking something out of context and twisting it a bit. I did do the comparisons, Unlike you mine were side-by-side comparisons , and in different lighting conditions with multiple observers. Binoculars are low power and the differences with stopped down exit pupal, the differences are not there. The only slight differences have more to do with the opts than the objective size.

"Now, does any of this matter when you simply look through the binoculars at 8x? To my delight, the answer is yes. In daylight, he 8x56 FL produces the sharpest, cleanest and most transparent image I’ve yet seen in a binocular. It’s very obvious comparing it to other binoculars tripod mounted, but even hand holding I’m always aware that the image is unusually fine by binocular standards. I wouldn’t have expected any binocular to make the 8x42FL, Nikon 7x50 Prostar and 8x32SE look mushy and dull in sunlight, but the 8x56 FL does it."

That has more to do with you and your eyesight than the objective size. I’m sure you’ll be telling us all the problems with big eye binos after sold.

World's Best 8X42: The Zeiss 8X56FL

The image provided by the best current binoculars looks so good that it’s easy to fall into the assumption that binoculars are now so close to optical perfection that further improvement wouldn’t accomplish anything as it would be invisible to the eye. Every now and then I disabuse myself of...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Swedpat]

Compare your Leica Ultravid 8x20 and Curio 7x21 to a Zeiss FL 8x56 or Swarovski SLC 8x56 in daylight with a resolution chart. What you think is sharpness in the 8x20 and 7x21 is an illusion caused by the small EP. What people don't get is a big aperture is not only better in low light, it is better in daylight also.

"Yes, the 8x56 SLCs are amazingly bright, but how much brightness do you actually need? For most birding needs, mid-sized binoculars (8x32) are more than adequate. In fact, when I started birding, 7x35 was pretty much the standard configuration. Full-sized binoculars (7x42 or 8x42) will allow you to see incredible detail in very dimly lit environments. But keep in mind that you can only use as much brightness as your eye will admit, so any binocular whose exit pupil is larger than your eye’s pupil (if you are over 50 your eye only opens to 3 or 4mm while a 7x42 binocular has a 6mm exit pupil) is probably providing more brightness than you can use -- even at night. So why bother schlepping these monsters around? Because it isn’t only about brightness. It’s about the quality of the image, and Swarovski’s 8x56 SLC offers perhaps the best image that I have seen in any binocular. Despite their considerable weight, I found them almost impossible to put down."

If you are right here, why stay at 56mm? Conquest HD 56mm series are beasts for the aperture and there are 70 and 80mm binoculars not much bigger and heavier.
According to your conviction you should consider 10x70 or 11x80 as even more superior to 8x56. Ok, the magnification may be too high for handhold use, but if you mount these and compare them to 8x56 the sharpness should be even better. Or take it even further with some 100mm aperture. There are 14x100 and 25x150.
These should be even more sharper!
I have looked through some 100 and 110mm optics and there is simply not an improvement over smaller aperture when it comes to sharpness.
They are of course superior in low light with same magnification, though.

 

[[email protected]]

If you are right here, why stay at 56mm? Conquest HD 56mm series are beasts for the aperture and there are 70 and 80mm binoculars not much bigger and heavier.
According to your conviction you should consider 10x70 or 11x80 as even more superior to 8x56. Ok, the magnification may be too high for handhold use, but if you mount these and compare them to 8x56 the sharpness should be even better. Or take it even further with some 100mm aperture. There are 14x100 and 25x150.
These should be even more sharper!
I have looked through some 100 and 110mm optics and there is simply not an improvement over 56mm when it comes to sharpness.
They are of course superior in low light with same magnification, though.

It is not only about sharpness. The 8x56 format gives you a lot of other advantages over even an 8x42. The bigger EP of 7 mm is what elevates the 8x56 above and 8x42 in performance. It eliminates glare in the daytime because if there is any glare it never reaches your eyes.

"In the daytime, you are essentially using a stopped down binocular with an 8x56, so you are just using the center part of the objective instead of the edges where aberrations come from or the sweet spot. The 8x56 gives you a higher quality, cleaner, more transparent image for those reasons, even in the daytime. From Henry's post.

"At 56mm: Star test is similar to the 8x42. Perhaps the 8x56 has a little more chromatic and spherical aberration. I suspect the 56mm objective is faster than the 42mm, maybe f/3.2-3,4 vs f/3.5-3.7. There is plenty of CA in both, but in fact much less than a conventional binocular. There is also lots of SA, maybe 1.5 waves under correction in the 8x42, 1.5-2 waves in the 8x56. Very bad for a telescope, but typical for binoculars. Resolution is about 2.5 arc sec for the 8x56 using the USAF 1951 test pattern. Very good for a binocular, but actually no better than when it’s stopped down to 50mm. The 64x image looks a little cleaner and sharper when the objective is stopped down to 50mm because the aberrations are lower.

Stopped down to 42mm: Things get interesting. Now, the 8x56 is clearly superior to the 8x42. Measured resolution is excellent for both, about 2.9 arc sec, but the 64x image looks better in the 8x56. It’s cleaner, with higher contrast and visibly less chromatic aberration. The star test shows improved correction for spherical aberration in the 8x56 to probably better than 1 wave. The improvements are explained by the change in focal ratio. The stopped down 8x56 is now operating at around f/4.5 instead of below f/3.5

Stopped down to 32mm: Both stopped down binoculars have about 3.9 arc sec resolution, and both show improvements in the 64x image quality. The 8x56 is better. Its 64x image now looks quite respectably clean and contrasty with very little chromatic aberration. Spherical aberration in the 8x56 improves to perhaps 1/2 wave. Now, its optics are operating at about f/5.8. The stopped down 8x42 is operating at about f/4.8.

Stopped down to 24mm: Now the 8x56 becomes quite a good f/7.5 telescope, almost a true APO with about 1/4 wave SA..

The point of all this is to show that the 8x56 really has no better (perhaps slightly worse) optics than the 8x42 when they are compared at full aperture, but when the 8x56 is stopped down to 42mm and below it shows significantly lower aberrations than the 8x42 (at the same aperture) simply because the 8x56 focal length is longer. If the 8x42 had the same focal length, it would certainly perform just as well."

 

[Scott98]

If you are right here, why stay at 56mm? Conquest HD 56mm series are beasts for the aperture and there are 70 and 80mm binoculars not much bigger and heavier.

I have done this! Cheap 11x80mm and 10x70 binoculars came out in the 80's, Celestron, etc, I had a pair of 11x80's for astronomy and used them many times for day use and birds. My smaller, easy-carry binos were 8x56 Dialyt T*. Basically, I did far more astronomy than birding and I couldn't afford any more binoculars, so I used the 56mm and 80mm's for everything. They even went into sports stadiums with me a few times as I recall.

Those 56mm Conquest are beautiful, I'd love them. I went with the SLC in 10x56 mostly for lighter weight. Financially the Conquest would have been a more sensible purchase for my use. The only reason the Swaros are acceptable to me is I keep my hands down near the lenses and never touch the thumb-grooves.....and the SLC don't have fieldpro.

The quality of the optics in all these is fantastic for astronomy, they are incredible instruments for stargazing from a dark site. The optics in binos typically used for astronomy do not rise to the quality level of the big guys from Zeiss and Swaro.

 

[Swedpat]

It is not only about sharpness. The 8x56 format gives you a lot of other advantages over even an 8x42. The bigger EP of 7 mm is what elevates the 8x56 above and 8x42 in performance. It eliminates glare in the daytime because if there is any glare it never reaches your eyes.

"In the daytime, you are essentially using a stopped down binocular with an 8x56, so you are just using the center part of the objective instead of the edges where aberrations come from or the sweet spot. The 8x56 gives you a higher quality, cleaner, more transparent image for those reasons, even in the daytime. From Henry's post.

"At 56mm: Star test is similar to the 8x42. Perhaps the 8x56 has a little more chromatic and spherical aberration. I suspect the 56mm objective is faster than the 42mm, maybe f/3.2-3,4 vs f/3.5-3.7. There is plenty of CA in both, but in fact much less than a conventional binocular. There is also lots of SA, maybe 1.5 waves under correction in the 8x42, 1.5-2 waves in the 8x56. Very bad for a telescope, but typical for binoculars. Resolution is about 2.5 arc sec for the 8x56 using the USAF 1951 test pattern. Very good for a binocular, but actually no better than when it’s stopped down to 50mm. The 64x image looks a little cleaner and sharper when the objective is stopped down to 50mm because the aberrations are lower.

Stopped down to 42mm: Things get interesting. Now, the 8x56 is clearly superior to the 8x42. Measured resolution is excellent for both, about 2.9 arc sec, but the 64x image looks better in the 8x56. It’s cleaner, with higher contrast and visibly less chromatic aberration. The star test shows improved correction for spherical aberration in the 8x56 to probably better than 1 wave. The improvements are explained by the change in focal ratio. The stopped down 8x56 is now operating at around f/4.5 instead of below f/3.5

Stopped down to 32mm: Both stopped down binoculars have about 3.9 arc sec resolution, and both show improvements in the 64x image quality. The 8x56 is better. Its 64x image now looks quite respectably clean and contrasty with very little chromatic aberration. Spherical aberration in the 8x56 improves to perhaps 1/2 wave. Now, its optics are operating at about f/5.8. The stopped down 8x42 is operating at about f/4.8.

Stopped down to 24mm: Now the 8x56 becomes quite a good f/7.5 telescope, almost a true APO with about 1/4 wave SA..

The point of all this is to show that the 8x56 really has no better (perhaps slightly worse) optics than the 8x42 when they are compared at full aperture, but when the 8x56 is stopped down to 42mm and below it shows significantly lower aberrations than the 8x42 (at the same aperture) simply because the 8x56 focal length is longer. If the 8x42 had the same focal length, it would certainly perform just as well."

I don't object about the things you describe here with stopped down aperture. I know it impacts.
But I just question the noticeable differences between aperture sizes when the magnification is several times lower than the limit for the resolution.
My personal experience is that I find no relation between aperture and resolution when using the same magnification as long as it's bright enough even with the smallest aperture to provide a clear image. According to your conviction an 8x56 is better than a 8x42, which is better than a 8x32, which is better than a 8x25, which is better than a 8x20. And so on. Even in full daylight when the eye pupil contracts to 2,5mm or so.
Comfortability with easy eye placement YES.
But about seeing more details I have not experienced it. If you during a certain daylight situation compare a 8x42 to a 8x56 and your eyepupil in both cases contracts to 3mm, I do not believe it matters whether the exit pupil is 5,25 or 7mm. Ok, it's your feeling but I am doubtful. I understand the possible advantage to avoid using the outermost part of the exit pupil and that 7mm would mean an advantage compared to 2,5mm. But 5,25mm compared to 7mm: your eye pupil will not cover the entire exit pupil in any case.

 

[tenex]

Dennis, I share your (current) enthusiasm for 56mm models and consider FL/SLCs a sort of sweet spot for relatively manageable size -- though a Conquest is heavier and has poorer correction of the outer field, making it a strange choice for one who has previously owned better big glass without complaining about cost.

The daylight performance advantage is about focal length rather than aperture itself (the "seeing better into shadows" thing is mythical, like the claim of better color on the old BVD site, sloppy inferences from astronomy) but it simply stands to reason that if a 20mm pocket bin is a serious optical compromise, a 30 or even a compact 40mm is a somewhat lesser one. But there's the catch in the argument that 50-56mm is ideal for a handheld bin, apart from the bulk: just how noticeable is the difference? Henry examines with a tripler, has unusually good eyesight, and wants to minimize aberrations in the outer field as well as maximize resolution, so at least until recently was willing to carry FL 8x56. (Now he makes do with NL 42... will you return to one too?) These days I carry as large a bin as I'm willing to under the circumstances, for ease of view as well, but it's always a trade-off. Even I wouldn't have a 56 as my only binocular... but I do enjoy them when I can, and could wish you'd kept yours long enough to also.

I keep wondering whether the sweet spot isn't really 50mm instead. Obviously I need to get one and find out...

 

[[email protected]]

I have done this! Cheap 11x80mm and 10x70 binoculars came out in the 80's, Celestron, etc, I had a pair of 11x80's for astronomy and used them many times for day use and birds. My smaller, easy-carry binos were 8x56 Dialyt T*. Basically, I did far more astronomy than birding and I couldn't afford any more binoculars, so I used the 56mm and 80mm's for everything. They even went into sports stadiums with me a few times as I recall.

Those 56mm Conquest are beautiful, I'd love them. I went with the SLC in 10x56 mostly for lighter weight. Financially the Conquest would have been a more sensible purchase for my use. The only reason the Swaros are acceptable to me is I keep my hands down near the lenses and never touch the thumb-grooves.....and the SLC don't have fieldpro.

The quality of the optics in all these is fantastic for astronomy, they are incredible instruments for stargazing from a dark site. The optics in binos typically used for astronomy do not rise to the quality level of the big guys from Zeiss and Swaro.

I went with the Zeiss Conquest HD 10x56 for the price. I just spent $2000 on the Swarovski SLC 8x56, so I had to economize. The SLC would have had sharper edges and as you say they are a few oz. lighter, which can help when you are pushing 3 pounds! I couldn't pass up that low $800 price tag, and I am not sorry that I bought the Conquests. They surprised me how good they are.

 

[[email protected]]

I don't object about the things you describe here with stopped down aperture. I know it impacts.
But I just question the noticeable differences between aperture sizes when the magnification is several times lower than the limit for the resolution.
My personal experience is that I find no relation between aperture and resolution when using the same magnification as long as it's bright enough even with the smallest aperture to provide a clear image. According to your conviction an 8x56 is better than a 8x42, which is better than a 8x32, which is better than a 8x25, which is better than a 8x20. And so on. Even in full daylight when the eye pupil contracts to 2,5mm or so.
Comfortability with easy eye placement YES.
But about seeing more details I have not experienced it. If you during a certain daylight situation compare a 8x42 to a 8x56 and your eyepupil in both cases contracts to 3mm, I do not believe it matters whether the exit pupil is 5,25 or 7mm. Ok, it's your feeling but I am doubtful. I understand the possible advantage to avoid using the outermost part of the exit pupil and that 7mm would mean an advantage compared to 2,5mm. But 5,25mm compared to 7mm: your eye pupil will not cover the entire exit pupil in any case.

I think a lot of the optical advantage is because the 8x56 is stopped down, you are reducing the optical aberrations caused by the outer edge of the objective because you are using the sweet spot of the objective rather than increased resolution. This results in a cleaner, more transparent view, and I really noticed this when I compared the 8x56 to smaller 8x32 and 8x42 binoculars.

When I went from the 8x32 and 8x42 binoculars to an 8x56, it was almost like a film had been removed from the view and I was on another higher level of contrast and clarity. The film on the smaller binoculars almost seemed like veiling glare, which was gone when I used the 8x56.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis, I share your (current) enthusiasm for 56mm models and consider FL/SLCs a sort of sweet spot for relatively manageable size -- though a Conquest is heavier and has poorer correction of the outer field, making it a strange choice for one who has previously owned better big glass without complaining about cost.

The daylight performance advantage is about focal length rather than aperture itself (the "seeing better into shadows" thing is mythical, like the claim of better color on the old BVD site, sloppy inferences from astronomy) but it simply stands to reason that if a 20mm pocket bin is a serious optical compromise, a 30 or even a compact 40mm is a somewhat lesser one. But there's the catch in the argument that 50-56mm is ideal for a handheld bin, apart from the bulk: just how noticeable is the difference? Henry examines with a tripler, has unusually good eyesight, and wants to minimize aberrations in the outer field as well as maximize resolution, so at least until recently was willing to carry FL 8x56. (Now he makes do with NL 42... will you return to one too?) These days I carry as large a bin as I'm willing to under the circumstances, for ease of view as well, but it's always a trade-off. Even I wouldn't have a 56 as my only binocular... but I do enjoy them when I can, and could wish you'd kept yours long enough to also.

I keep wondering whether the sweet spot isn't really 50mm instead. Obviously I need to get one and find out...

The Conquest HD 8x56 does have softer edges than the SLC, but it has a much larger AFOV, so you don't notice it that much. I don't agree that the seeing into shadows is "mythical" because when I compared the 8x56 to several 8x32 and 8x42 higher end binoculars like the Nikon SE and Habicht I could definitely see deeper into the shadows even in the daytime with the 8x56.

I think Henry still prefers his FL 8x56 over the NL 8x42 for the more transparent, cleaner on-axis view. I just use the 8x56 when I am not hiking too far or from a blind or stand. I use a Nikon HG 10x25 if I am going to hike more than 1/4 of a mile.

I did a ten binocular shoot out between $1000 binoculars a while back and my top pick was the Zeiss Conquest HD because it is very bright, and it is god awful sharp on-axis and that is how the 8x56 Conquest HD is. It surprised me how bright and sharp it was on-axis.

I think it is even sharper than my SLC 8x56 on axis. Zeiss always impress me with how sharp they are on-axis. They are one of the sharpest around. That is why the Conquest HD is one of the most popular binoculars at its price point.

 

[CharleyBird]

Well congratulations Dennis on owning two nice 56mm binoculars.

In what ways are you using them?

Obviously they are far too big & heavy to carry for birding, hiking, or holidays. You have other bins for those activities.

Wondering how I'd make use of them...
Do you live under dark skies where they're suitable for astronomy?
Is your house in woodland so you can sit outside to make use of them in low light?
Or maybe you're planning to use them as a second binocular to take on cruises i.e. I imagine they'd be good on a ship when sitting on deck, especially in the evenings for sunsets and stars at sea?

Of course we don't have to have a practical reason to justify buying stuff (to wit, today a friend was showing me his collection of film cameras from the 1970's, 6 rollei, 4 leicas, a pentax lx, canon f1 and numerous nikons).
If I had the spare cash I'd probably buy both Nikon WX models just to have the best
😉

 

[[email protected]]

Well congratulations Dennis on owning two nice 56mm binoculars.

In what ways are you using them?

Obviously they are far too big & heavy to carry for birding, hiking, or holidays. You have other bins for those activities.

Wondering how I'd make use of them...
Do you live under dark skies where they're suitable for astronomy?
Is your house in woodland so you can sit outside to make use of them in low light?
Or maybe you're planning to use them as a second binocular to take on cruises i.e. I imagine they'd be good on a ship when sitting on deck, especially in the evenings for sunsets and stars at sea?

Of course we don't have to have a practical reason to justify buying stuff (to wit, today a friend was showing me his collection of film cameras from the 1970's, 6 rollei, 4 leicas, a pentax lx, canon f1 and numerous nikons).
If I had the spare cash I'd probably buy both Nikon WX models just to have the best
😉

I use the 8x56 SLC and 10x56 Conquest HD when I am not hiking too far, say less than 1/4 mile. They are great for hides, stands or blinds or when just static birding, especially coastal or seabirds.

I use them a lot when I am in the National Parks like Yellowstone because you there are many pullouts where you can just pull the car over and sit and watch a huge valley like the Lamar Valley which stretches for miles and observe wildlife, as well as, all kinds of birds like Eagles and Osprey.

A lot of times I will get up early in the morning to observe wolves in the Lamar and Hayden Valleys, and the low light capabilities of the 8x56 and 10x56 really come in handy. If I am hiking say over 1/4 mile I really go light with a Nikon HG 10x25 that weighs about 10 oz. and I have found to be one of my favorite compact binoculars. It is very tough and waterproof.

 

[Swedpat]

I think a lot of the optical advantage is because the 8x56 is stopped down, you are reducing the optical aberrations caused by the outer edge of the objective because you are using the sweet spot of the objective rather than increased resolution. This results in a cleaner, more transparent view, and I really noticed this when I compared the 8x56 to smaller 8x32 and 8x42 binoculars.

When I went from the 8x32 and 8x42 binoculars to an 8x56, it was almost like a film had been removed from the view and I was on another higher level of contrast and clarity. The film on the smaller binoculars almost seemed like veiling glare, which was gone when I used the 8x56.

Your description actually reminds of the feeling of having sufficient eye relief. Which usually lacks with smaller aperture binos, when using eyeglasses. That because the ocular has shorter focal length in order to provide the same magnification with a shorter focal length objective. Usually 8x32 lacks the open view with eyeglasses 8x42s have. And 8x56 usually have even longer ER. Apart from that I don't know. As well my and other's experience is still there is no true noticeable relation between aperture and sharpness for binoculars, and definitely not between such as small difference as between 42 and 56mm.
The important thing is that we are satisfied with the binocular we use. If you find it worth to carry around those heavy and bulky Conquest 8x56 they really has to be good. But can the improvement you experience be related to the prisms? The 56mm have higher light transmission than the smaller, if I am right.

 

[ReinierB]

I keep wondering whether the sweet spot isn't really 50mm instead. Obviously I need to get one and find out...

Well, I have the EL 10x50 and am wondering this as well. I have the SLC 8x42 and recently got the SLC 10x42 too. The last one is in Austria now, because the focuser came loose. So no experience with it yet.
I have no experience with a 56 either. In brightness there isn't much difference between the SLC 8x42 and the EL 10x50. I actually think the 8x42 is just a bit brighter in dim light. I love the 5mm exit pupil of both. It just makes the view more enjoyable and easy. In bright daylight I prefer the view through the EL 10x50. Very little glare and if it occurs, it is just at the edges. The SLC 8x42 has just a bit more, although the exit pupil is a bit larger. But it still doesn't bother me, because it is still at the edges.

I think, if I would have been be a 8 power person, a 8x42 would be the sweet spot for me. Being a 10 power person, I don't know yet, if it is going to be a 10x42 or a 10x50. Maybe the latter, but I really like the comfort of the compactnes of the SLC 42.
I would love the SLC 10x56, that's for sure... but thinking about putting it on a tripod gives my shivers. I just don't like tripods. Now I wear the EL 10x50 with a ryo harness and I like that. The size of a EL 50 isn't too big either. I think walking around with a SLC 56 would be a bit "much", a bit overdone. I might feel a bit ashamed when I am walking together with others who aren't nature enthousiast like me . A 56 is more specialized, a 50 is more allround. However, I don't now yet if the step between a 42 and a 50 is big enough to justify having both. Having a 10x42 and a 10x56 sounds more logic to me, at the moment.
I might swap the EL 10x50 for a 12x50 one day, but I don't know yet. I like the exit pupil of 5 mm .

A 56 has Abbe-König prisms which supposed to be something special.
Maybe a modern SLC 10x50 with Abbe-König prisms and 93% transmission would be the sweet spot for me.