A Zeiss Conquest HD on steroids. (5 Viewers)

[Paultricounty]

No, it's effectively stopped down to around 8x20, but who cares about details? (This is why pocket bins are 8x20.)

Oddly enough, any 8x binocular is stopped down to about 20mm by a ~2.5mm daylight pupil, even that 8x42. Or an 8x32 or 30, or even 8x25. (Do I see smoke rising from your ears?) Whereas a 10x is stopped down only to 25mm, so your 8x56 will be even sharper than my 10x56, right? But at least mine will still show better color? No, wait, why bother lugging a 56 at all if...
View attachment 1538474

You should’ve left in, not you at the end of that first sentence. 🤪

 

[tenex]

You should’ve left in, not you at the end of that first sentence. 🤪

Fixed, thanks. "Details" just wasn't the right word. Anyway, can we get Dennis started on a pocket bin binge now? 180°, no problem...

 

[[email protected]]

Fixed, thanks. "Details" just wasn't the right word. Anyway, can we get Dennis started on a pocket bin binge now? 180°, no problem...

I found my favorite pocket binocular. The Nikon HG 10x25 purchased new off eBay from Japan. It's the best pocket binocular I have used, especially for $450.

 

[[email protected]]

It's not just the f/ratio it's also the fact that a smaller exit pupil means you are using the best part of your eye.
Of course there are trade offs here in the form of floaters but, two eyes show far less floaters than one eye.

I regularly use an exit pupil of 0.5mm when I binoview with a telescope.
A 0.5mm exit pupil in mono telescope mode would be full of floaters { for me }.
This obviously varies with each observer.

Interesting! I never heard that before, but it sounds reasonable.

 

[Swedpat]

Maybe, but true. An 8x56 is not too heavy at all as long as you're not hiking for miles, and even then with a harness it is easily manageable. The only thing better about an 8x42 is the lighter weight. An 8x56 is brighter, has better transparency, easier eye placement, less optical aberrations because of the slower f ratio, and it handles glare better.

An 8x56 takes in almost 2x the light of an 8x42. I understand about weight. I use a Zeiss SFL 8x40 when I am hiking but when I am not, and I want the best view I use my Swarovski SLC 8x56's.

Charley. You should try stopping down your 8x42 as shown in post 156. It is easy to do, and it would open your eyes to what difference a slower F ratio makes and avoiding the aberrations at the edge of the objective. You will be surprised how much sharper your 8x42 is. That is why an 8x56 is better than an 8x42 in the daytime. It is essentially a stopped down 8x42 because your eyes can't take in the 7 mm exit pupil in bright daylight.

Dennis. You persist with your wrong statements.
A 8x56 is neither brighter or sharper than a 8x42 in daylight. Easier eye placement yes. Less abberations, possibly. I have not investigated it. I doubt it's detectable, though. Will even an 8x56 stopped down to 25mm provide better image than equal quality 8x25?
Apart from these things, most of experienced users don't back your statements.
You mean 8x56 has less glare than 8x42. Such an experience is hardly related to the aperture. Otherwise a 8x20 in general would provide more glare than full sized binos. I dare to claim there is no such relation.
When it comes to stopping down the aperture there are some advantage to do that in some situations. Because not only too dim but also too bright decreases contrast, a sunny day a smaller exit pupil can give the impression of sharper and more contrasty image.
For astronomy bright objects like moon, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn will be better with smaller exit pupil on a "normal" binocular.

 

[tenex]

If an argument is still going around in circles after 167 posts, the premise hasn't been stated very well.

 

[Paultricounty]

Dennis. You persist with your wrong statements.
A 8x56 is neither brighter or sharper than a 8x42 in daylight. Easier eye placement yes. Less abberations, possibly. I have not investigated it. I doubt it's detectable, though. Will even an 8x56 stopped down to 25mm provide better image than equal quality 8x25?
Apart from these things, most of experienced users don't back your statements.
You mean 8x56 has less glare than 8x42. Such an experience is hardly related to the aperture. Otherwise a 8x20 in general would provide more glare than full sized binos. I dare to claim there is no such relation.
When it comes to stopping down the aperture there are some advantage to do that in some situations. Because not only too dim but also too bright decreases contrast, a sunny day a smaller exit pupil can give the impression of sharper and more contrasty image.
For astronomy bright objects like moon, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn will be better with smaller exit pupil on a "normal" binocular.

Well said. He completely dismisses anybody’s post that has visually tested the actual binoculars that he’s been harping nonsense post after post. He knows he’s full of it, he just relishes the attention.

BODD!

 

[Paultricounty]

Either you are not reading Henry's post or you are not comprehending it. I didn't say it was brighter, just better. Maybe you are having difficulty with the language?

Your the one who said it was brighter. People are going to continue to call you out. It doesn’t seem your getting away with it like you used too.

"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.

This would normally be considered an opinion with other members. With you it seems like you won’t listen to anybody , so I look at what your saying as a lot malarkey.

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. Besides the reduced longitudinal CA and SA seen in star testing, there is also a reduction in lateral color that is quite obvious in daylight. Lateral color is probably almost always what people are seeing when they complain about “color fringing” in binoculars. There is also a modest but welcome increase in the size of the “sweet spot” compared to the 8x42FL.

Less lateral color and a bigger sweet spot are two more benefits that come from the higher objective focal ratio, because the less steep light cone allows the eyepiece to perform better off-axis. But, alas, edge of the field astigmatism is still this binocular’s weakest performance characteristic, just like the 8x42FL. The 7mm exit pupil also has a benefit in daylight. There is virtually complete freedom from “flare”. When bright reflections from the edge of the objective reach the eye they are out at the edge of a 7mm circle of light, so the flare tends to fall invisibly on the iris rather than entering the eye."

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

 

[ArchStanton]

I found a heck of a deal on a new pair of Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 binoculars. I read your post on this forum and your review on Amazon, and it influenced my purchase decision; however; I’m having second thoughts because I have to tilt the binocular up a little to get a clearer picture and find myself adjusting the focus when scanning in the distance looking for wildlife. Extended eye cups are on the way, which I hope will improve the view. Did you switch to the extended eye cups and if so, did it improve the viewing experience? How much of an improvement are the 8x56’s over the 8x32’s? I have to admit that I liked the view of the 8x42 Conquests over the 8x32’s.

 

[Swedpat]

I found a heck of a deal on a new pair of Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 binoculars. I read your post on this forum and your review on Amazon, and it influenced my purchase decision; however; I’m having second thoughts because I have to tilt the binocular up a little to get a clearer picture and find myself adjusting the focus when scanning in the distance looking for wildlife. Extended eye cups are on the way, which I hope will improve the view. Did you switch to the extended eye cups and if so, did it improve the viewing experience? How much of an improvement are the 8x56’s over the 8x32’s?

[R]Dennis will soon answer.[/R]

I have to admit that I liked the view of the 8x42 Conquests over the 8x32’s.

[R]In which way?
I have had the 8x42 and tried the 8x32. While eye relief of 8x42 is excellent and fully sufficient for my eyeglasses use, eye relief of 8x32 is not.
8x32 has wider field of view and is sharper on axis(super sharp actually), while softer to the edges.[/R]

I tried to put in red text, but it does not work.

 

[ArchStanton]

I tried to put in red text, but it does not work.

I appreciate the reply and comments. I'm going try the extended eye cups and see if they improve the view of the Conquest HD 8x32's. If not, I'm going to return them deal or no deal. I live out in the southwestern US, so maybe I'm better off with a pair of 10x42's, so maybe I'll try those in a Conquest or something comparable. Thank you and have a great weekend!

 

[ArchStanton]

I am sorry the Conquest HD 8x32 doesn't work for you. I would try the longer eye cups and see if that helps. It sounds like the standard eye cups could be too short. An 8x42 or better yet an 8x56 will have easier eye placement because of the bigger exit pupil and for that reason they will be less finicky. That is a big reason I like the bigger apertures but be prepared to carry more weight. If the weight isn't an issue, I think you will like an 8x42 or 8x56 better. even an 8x32 can be kind of finicky, especially if they don't fit you well.

I’m hoping that the extended-eye cups do the trick because I’d like to keep these Conquests but if not, I’m going to try an 8x42 or 10x42. Thank you for the reply!

 

[[email protected]]

I’m hoping that the extended-eye cups do the trick because I’d like to keep these Conquests but if not, I’m going to try an 8x42 or 10x42. Thank you for the reply!

The Conquest HD 8x32 always worked for me, but everybody's eye sockets are different. The 8x42 would have easier eye placement than your 8x32, but the 10x42 would probably be about the same as your 8x32 conquest.

 

[CharleyBird]

I am sorry the Conquest HD 8x32 doesn't work for you. I would try the longer eye cups and see if that helps. It sounds like the standard eye cups could be too short. An 8x42 or better yet an 8x56 will have easier eye placement because of the bigger exit pupil and for that reason they will be less finicky. That is a big reason I like the bigger apertures but be prepared to carry more weight. If the weight isn't an issue, I think you will like an 8x42 or 8x56 better. even an 8x32 can be kind of finicky, especially if they don't fit you well.

Weight is always an issue Dennis. As is size.
Full size binoculars are 8x42 & 10x42.
Even they may be heavy, heavier than what people want to carry for birding and watching nature.

 

[ArchStanton]

The Conquest HD 8x32 always worked for me, but everybody's eye sockets are different. The 8x42 would have easier eye placement than your 8x32, but the 10x42 would probably be about the same as your 8x32 conquest.

I’m

The Conquest HD 8x32 always worked for me, but everybody's eye sockets are different. The 8x42 would have easier eye placement than your 8x32, but the 10x42 would probably be about the same as your 8x32 conquest.

I liked the view of the Conquest HD 8x42’s that I tried at a local Audubon Hawk Watch, but the 8x32’s were on sale and I couldn’t pass up the deal. I wonder if Zeiss is coming out with an updated Conquest, which explains the heavily reduced price.

 

[ArchStanton]

Weight is always an issue Dennis. As is size.
Full size binoculars are 8x42 & 10x42.
Even they may be heavy, heavier than what people want to carry for birding and watching nature.

These Conquest 8x32’s are pretty heavy for small binoculars but really well built.

 

[AndrewC1]

I found a heck of a deal on a new pair of Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 binoculars. I read your post on this forum and your review on Amazon, and it influenced my purchase decision; however; I’m having second thoughts because I have to tilt the binocular up a little to get a clearer picture and find myself adjusting the focus when scanning in the distance looking for wildlife. Extended eye cups are on the way, which I hope will improve the view. Did you switch to the extended eye cups and if so, did it improve the viewing experience? How much of an improvement are the 8x56’s over the 8x32’s? I have to admit that I liked the view of the 8x42 Conquests over the 8x32’s.

I purchased the Conquest 8x32’s about 15 months ago. I found them unusable due to blackouts. Got the extended eyecups and they made all the difference. They are an excellent pair of binoculars.

 

[ArchStanton]

I purchased the Conquest 8x32’s about 15 months ago. I found them unusable due to blackouts. Got the extended eyecups and they made all the difference. They are an excellent pair of binoculars.

I appreciate the information. I looking forward to installing the extended eye cups and hopefully they’ll improve the view. I was looking at a few birds and a couple of deer earlier and couldn’t see too much difference between my Steiner 8x30’s and the Conquest 8x32’s other than a lot less glare looking towards the east and wider FOV with Conquests. Thank you for sharing your experience and have a good day!

 

[[email protected]]

I purchased the Conquest 8x32’s about 15 months ago. I found them unusable due to blackouts. Got the extended eyecups and they made all the difference. They are an excellent pair of binoculars.

Thanks for the feedback! Very helpful.

 

[[email protected]]

These Conquest 8x32’s are pretty heavy for small binoculars but really well built.