I don't underestimate them in the slightest. They give a very nice viewing experience. But for my search, they were off the list immediately as being too big. I ended up with my Zeiss FLs because they were (just barely) within my size requirements (which were and are very real) and even then I had to give a touch of latitude. One thing I found which seems (?) to be true is that you can make a physically short roof-prism 8x32, or an optically good one(*) - but it seems hard to make one which is both without having to hit a very high price-point.Yeah, I'm with Chuck. Don't underestimate the Zeiss Conquest HDs. They are awesome. Sharp, beefy, well made, awesome design aesthetics, handle super well. What do you mean due for an update? Classic all the way.
Yeah, I'm with Chuck. Don't underestimate the Zeiss Conquest HDs. They are awesome. Sharp, beefy, well made, awesome design aesthetics, handle super well. What do you mean due for an update? Classic all the way.
I have thought about the EDG, the upcoming SF, Ultrvid, EL etc...but I wasn't going to go there in terms of price point this time around.Incidentally, topic 8x32, have you already thought about a Nikon EDG, these binoculars are still among the best 8x32 and will continue to be after the introduction of the SF 8x32, because field of view is only one aspect ...
I agree with you on the Zeiss Conquest HD. Bulky, smallish FOV especially on the 8x42 and although they are bright their contrast is not up there with something like a Swarovski. You can really see it when you side by side the two. It seems that contrast is one thing that set's the higher end more expensive binocular's apart from less expensive binoculars and I think it has to do with the quality of the coating's and probably glass quality.I think they are too bulky as I pick them up...just not the look I was looking for this time around so a personal thing in that sense. Otherwise, the FOV is not good. Looking at the bins coming out now the trend and I think rightfully so to a point is to go with more FOV like the recent NikonHG 430 ft / 131m, the upcoming SF 450/137m, even the Swaro a few years back upped it's FOV to 395/120mbut not enough in my thinking. I see a lot of $400 style bins like the Mavens, Opticron, Hawke etc...all over 400 /122m FOV. The Conquest I believe is still 370 feet /112m. Even 10x power will approach that.
Again...keep in mind, I had to draw the line someplace, right? So based upon the criteria I had, that was one line drawn in the sand.
Andreas. I really agree with everything you said here. The big FOV on the Nikon HG's come with a cost and that cost is aberration's. Sometime's I think the huge FOV of the Nikon EII 8x30 is almost too much to take in. I would rather have a slightly smaller more optically perfect FOV.Hello Imans66,
I agree with Chuck, the Conquest 8x32 is really a great glass, very close to the Victory 8x32, but the case and the mechanics are a bit below the Victory!
Fields of vision are only one aspect off many others, a large field of view is becoming increasingly difficult to construct, image errors occur more often, I also like the Swarovski 8.5x42 better than the SF 8x42, the image is harmonious and something is more immersive.
Binoculars with an AFOV of 60 ° are enough for me, with the size I never have the feeling that it should be more, in addition I have found that binoculars with a large field of view often have a somewhat more nervous insight that the eye is always looking for support.
I think large fields of view are now becoming a hype and the most important aspect of binocular optics, see the discussions about the MHG, here is almost always reflexively referred to the large field of view, so that one tries to cover up the aberration.
Incidentally, topic 8x32, have you already thought about a Nikon EDG, these binoculars are still among the best 8x32 and will continue to be after the introduction of the SF 8x32, because field of view is only one aspect ...
I should have mentioned this earlier...
FOV of some common 8X32(30) in ft/1000yds:
CL B- 396
Trinovid HD- 372
Conquest HD- 420
Terra ED- 405
Monarch 7- 435
Monarch HG- 435
Meopta B.1- 416
Passion ED- 410
Maven B.3- 430
Throw out the Trinovid HD and the FOV of the rest is pretty close...within 20ft or so with a few exceptions.
I've never thought to myself that 435ft was too much FOV. Though certainly sufficient, I have thought 370ish ft was not quite as much as I'd like to have though. So having both the 8X42 HG and the 8X30 M7 and used both A LOT I'd certainly come to the conclusion that 435ft is not too much. In fact I really like it. For a birding binocular I find the extra FOV comes in handy locating movement and finding birds...
BTW....OPTICALLY??....I sure don't find the Conquest HD to really take a back seat to anything. Contrast? That thing SMOKES! For sure I get it about ergonomics if it isn't ones cup of tea. It's a pretty dang good binocular.
I think they are too bulky as I pick them up...just not the look I was looking for this time around so a personal thing in that sense. Otherwise, the FOV is not good.... The Conquest I believe is still 370 feet /112m. Even 10x power will approach that.
I am saddened to think of the time, money, effort I have spent over the years looking for that nonexistent perfect pair of binoculars/optics instead of just using that almost perfect pair I already have.
I think the FL 8X32 will still be very popular even after the SF 8X32 arrives in the hands of many. In the coming months there will be more on the market. If you could be patient, save some more $$ and stretch the budget a bit more, say $1,200, you would have a glass for life.
All these things are likely true, but the 1st seems truer than the others (at least for me).The new 8x32SF may be the "bees knees", but the Swaro 8x32SV will still outsell it 10:1.
I sure don't find the Conquest HD to really take a back seat to anything. Contrast? That thing SMOKES! For sure I get it about ergonomics if it isn't ones cup of tea. It's a pretty dang good binocular.