Nikon Edg vs Pentax ED vs Zeiss Conquest HD (1 Viewer)

[absolut_beethoven]

I've been watching your posts and find them interesting. Holger Merlitz has a recent
review of 8x32 optics, and he found the Nikon EDG at the top. He placed the Pentax
much lower at #7, and in the mid range.
The Zeiss Conquest HD looks like a nice new optic, and as a 8x42, it would be
hard to make a direct comparison with the others.

Jerry

Hi Jerry, I have read Holger's review and I do agree with him overall in that I wouldn't place the Pentax ED equal to the Nikon Edg. However, if you don't take into account the whole picture (which is not really possible for most people), but just concentrate on the *sweet spot* then the Pentax more than holds its own against the Nikon. As I pointed out in my review above, are you willing to pay a lot more for the extras that the Nikon offers? If you aren't, IMHO you're not giving up a lot if you keep the Pentax's shortcomings in mind. A *sweet spot* that's a lot smaller than the Nikon's, a little more distortion, and sharpness that begins to fall off around the 80% mark, versus the Nikon's 90% to 95%.

As far as the Zeiss HDs are concerned, on the surface this may not appear to be a fair comparison due to the latter's larger 42mm ∅ objective compared to the Nikon and Pentax with their smaller objectives. On the other hand I believe it’s more than fair when the price of these binos is taken into consideration. The Zeiss can be found for only $100 to $200 more than the Pentax, and probably less than half of the cost of the Nikons. So price wise this is more than fair as the bottom line for most customers is to get the best view for their dollars. And this is the whole point of my review in the first place.

 

[FrankD]

AB,

What you were referring to in your first paragraph is something I tried to describe in a post I started a few months ago. To correlate the two, your comments about centerfield performance was something I wanted to call "Object Performance". In other words when we are focused on a specific object then issues such as apparent centerfield sharpness, contrast, brightness, etc... all tend to outweigh other optical performance parameters such as edge performance and also, to a lesser extent, the size of the sweet spot (the latter depending on how much of the field of view the object takes up in the image).

What the EDG would excel at is not only object performance which would certainly equal that of the Pentax but also "Overall performance" or "Full Field performance" since it is much sharper to the edge of the image.

From personal experience I think there are several bins that have first rate object performance but fall short of the Alphas in terms of Full Field performance.

 

[absolut_beethoven]

A few small clarifications after extensive additional testing outdoors on the tripod only.

FWIW all tripod tests were carried out on The Dolica Proline tripod that I discovered via Ken Rockwell's photo site. It offers outstanding value for money at only $40 on Amazon. Ball head and bubble level included.

http://www.amazon.com/Dolica-AX620B100-62-Inch-Proline-Tripod/dp/B001D60LG8/

Firstly, a new day and freshly rested eyes actually managed to find a winner in the sharpness/resolution comparisons. I cannot stress enough how minuscule these differences are, but I can now see them consistently on certain high resolution targets. I still couldn't detect any difference between the two on the tiny print mainly because the print a tiny bit smaller than the smallest I could read just didn't have the clarity needed for this test - i.e. it was too much smaller and it couldn't be read clearly with either. On the other hand those tiny patterns on the dollar bill, especially the swirls above the pyramid on the left and the intricate patterns around the number "One" in the same area were a hair sharper and easier to delineate with the Nikon than with the Pentax. This is not easily seen and definitely would not be seen handheld under any circumstances. But if you're into star gazing and mount the Nikon on a tripod, there's no doubt in my mind that most astute and careful viewers will see this tiny difference.

I also did further extensive testing in the color department and honestly couldn't see any differences between the two except for the marginally better contrast of the Pentax. The one exception was, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the most difficult color of all and that is white. Having the bright matte white cardboard close enough so that I could do quick comparisons to my naked eye, made it very easy for me to see these differences. Less critical eyes might not pick up these subtle differences so easily, but I have been doing these type of optical comparisons since age 12 when photography first captured my imagination. And yes, I did have my own darkroom (actually our blacked out bathroom) shortly after that.

Anyhow, it was this test that alerted me to the slight reddish bias of the Pentax, as the Nikon, while not looking 100% like the original white, was more accurate to my eye with no real discernible bias, but very slightly cream/ivory colored in comparison. I probably wouldn't even have noticed the bias of the Pentax without this particular test.

I'll post part two of this review within the next few days after I get a chance to put the new Zeiss Conquest HD through its paces.

 

[absolut_beethoven]

AB,

What you were referring to in your first paragraph is something I tried to describe in a post I started a few months ago. To correlate the two, your comments about centerfield performance was something I wanted to call "Object Performance". In other words when we are focused on a specific object then issues such as apparent centerfield sharpness, contrast, brightness, etc... all tend to outweigh other optical performance parameters such as edge performance and also, to a lesser extent, the size of the sweet spot (the latter depending on how much of the field of view the object takes up in the image).

What the EDG would excel at is not only object performance which would certainly equal that of the Pentax but also "Overall performance" or "Full Field performance" since it is much sharper to the edge of the image.

From personal experience I think there are several bins that have first rate object performance but fall short of the Alphas in terms of Full Field performance.

Frank, you never miss what you've never had, but once you've enjoyed the large sweet spot of the Nikon Edg for a while, it does become addictive and something that a lot of people will deem necessary now that they've seen that edge to edge sharpness is attainable.

Of course this "extra" doesn't come cheaply!

It will be interesting for me to see how the Zeiss Conquest HD , measures up as edge to edge sharpness is not a priority of theirs.

 

[[email protected]]

Frank, you never miss what you've never had, but once you've enjoyed the large sweet spot of the Nikon Edg for a while, it does become addictive and something that a lot of people will deem necessary now that they've seen that edge to edge sharpness is attainable.

Of course this "extra" doesn't come cheaply!

It will be interesting for me to see how the Zeiss Conquest HD , measures up as edge to edge sharpness is not a priority of theirs.

"Frank, you never miss what you've never had, but once you've enjoyed the large sweet spot of the Nikon Edg for a while, it does become addictive and something that a lot of people will deem necessary now that they've seen that edge to edge sharpness is attainable."

Exactly that's why the EDG is better than the Zeiss FL and the Pentax ED. Why wouldn't you want a full field of sharpness when you can have one? I don't understand Steve's preference for the Zeiss FL. It's like I like blurry edges because it makes me appreciate the sharp centerfield. Maybe they could make a bigscreen TV for Steve that has fuzzy edges like the Zeiss FL. He would be in hogheaven! If you don't want a TV with fuzzy edges why would you want a binocular with fuzzy edges? Stupid reasoning to me.

 

[steve@37n84w]

"Frank, you never miss what you've never had, but once you've enjoyed the large sweet spot of the Nikon Edg for a while, it does become addictive and something that a lot of people will deem necessary now that they've seen that edge to edge sharpness is attainable."

Exactly that's why the EDG is better than the Zeiss FL and the Pentax ED. Why wouldn't you want a full field of sharpness when you can have one? I don't understand Steve's preference for the Zeiss FL. It's like I like blurry edges because it makes me appreciate the sharp centerfield. Maybe they could make a bigscreen TV for Steve that has fuzzy edges like the Zeiss FL. He would be in hogheaven! If you don't want a TV with fuzzy edges why would you want a binocular with fuzzy edges? Stupid reasoning to me.

Just curious where someone posted they preferred the FL to the EDG. I own both and am interested in any direct comparisons. I know it isn't me since I've always posted that my EDG is my favorite all around roof....as I posted several months ago when you maid a feeble attempt to skewer me since the FL was your darling then.
The less than perfect edge performance of the FL (or EII) doesn't bother me in the least in terrestrial use but as I've always stated I always prefer a bino with field flatteners for all around use. Obviously I've missed a post where someone expressed their preference for the FL over the EDG. As i'm very interested in both these roofs would you please point out the post, would like to read it.

Steve

 

[newfie ghost]

Steve, I think it comes down to personal preference. I like the EDG better than the FL, but my wife likes the FL better than the EDG. I've tried most of them, but own 8x32EDG and 10x42 FL. FL's are the brightest out there, have great center sharpness and color is very accurate. The cons for me is the distortion and lack of edge sharpness, glare, as well as the unbalanced design. EDG has exaggerated color (which I prefer), great edge sharpness, great glare control and well balanced. The cons are no repellant coatings. Others are complaining about diopter shift, but I haven't had that problem. I do see rolling ball, but rolling ball doesn't bother me too much. The ca control in both fl and EDG is the best out there IMO.

I've seen the hd and while it is better than the original conquest, I don't think it is as good as the EDG. I will be interested in hearing the review today or tomorrow in this post.

 

[[email protected]]

Steve, I think it comes down to personal preference. I like the EDG better than the FL, but my wife likes the FL better than the EDG. I've tried most of them, but own 8x32EDG and 10x42 FL. FL's are the brightest out there, have great center sharpness and color is very accurate. The cons for me is the distortion and lack of edge sharpness, glare, as well as the unbalanced design. EDG has exaggerated color (which I prefer), great edge sharpness, great glare control and well balanced. The cons are no repellant coatings. Others are complaining about diopter shift, but I haven't had that problem. I do see rolling ball, but rolling ball doesn't bother me too much. The ca control in both fl and EDG is the best out there IMO.

I've seen the hd and while it is better than the original conquest, I don't think it is as good as the EDG. I will be interested in hearing the review today or tomorrow in this post.

I agree perfectly with what you said. My feelings exactly! Good summation.

 

[steve@37n84w]

Steve, I think it comes down to personal preference. I like the EDG better than the FL, but my wife likes the FL better than the EDG. I've tried most of them, but own 8x32EDG and 10x42 FL. FL's are the brightest out there, have great center sharpness and color is very accurate. The cons for me is the distortion and lack of edge sharpness, glare, as well as the unbalanced design. EDG has exaggerated color (which I prefer), great edge sharpness, great glare control and well balanced. The cons are no repellant coatings. Others are complaining about diopter shift, but I haven't had that problem. I do see rolling ball, but rolling ball doesn't bother me too much. The ca control in both fl and EDG is the best out there IMO.

I've seen the hd and while it is better than the original conquest, I don't think it is as good as the EDG. I will be interested in hearing the review today or tomorrow in this post.

Still can't believe you haven't tried an SE since the optical properties you prefer in the EDG perfectly describe the SE (exaggerated color, great edge sharpness,and great glare control). If you get an EDG get one of the newer models with ECO glass as they have a warmer color balance than earlier versions that employed leaded glass. Most people don't notice the subtle difference but I do and id I remember correctly Brock mentioned he found the ECO glass versions to have a warmer bias.

As far as the diopter problem on the EDG which judging from some later posts isn't just an EDG I problem I was lucky enough to get a trouble free EDG I. Over two years of much use and no problem what so ever. The current report of users experiencing problems with the EDG II version makes me wonder how Nikon will address the problem. They have no EDG III to simply replace them with so maybe they will actually have to hire some qualified techs to repair them.

Steve
Steve

 

[newfie ghost]

Still can't believe you haven't tried an SE since the optical properties you prefer in the EDG perfectly describe the SE (exaggerated color, great edge sharpness,and great glare control). If you get an EDG get one of the newer models with ECO glass as they have a warmer color balance than earlier versions that employed leaded glass. Most people don't notice the subtle difference but I do and id I remember correctly Brock mentioned he found the ECO glass versions to have a warmer bias.

As far as the diopter problem on the EDG which judging from some later posts isn't just an EDG I problem I was lucky enough to get a trouble free EDG I. Over two years of much use and no problem what so ever. The current report of users experiencing problems with the EDG II version makes me wonder how Nikon will address the problem. They have no EDG III to simply replace them with so maybe they will actually have to hire some qualified techs to repair them

Steve
Steve

Good summary Steve. I want to try the SE but none of the stores around here carry them. Will probably order one anyway but I have my sights on the SV first and maybe an HT if I like it.

 

[newfie ghost]

I agree perfectly with what you said. My feelings exactly! Good summation.

Thanks Dennis, the EDG 8x32 is a fine piece of glass for sure.

 

[absolut_beethoven]

So little time and too many excellent binos to review. What's an opticsholic to do??

Thanks to Eagle Optics excellent service, I did receive my Zeiss Conquest HD today as promised.

As promised, here are a few pics.

Most appropriate that all three contenders are sitting on the current issue of Living Bird magazine - Winter 2012. Note that all eyecups are screwed all the way in.

The last two pics are of the *hot seat* that I used solely for evaluating sharpness and resolution of binos. The Pentax is on the bottom and the Zeiss is sitting on top.

I forgot to mention this before, but it's appropriate to bring it up now. I know that some reviewers use doublers and triplers in order to evaluate the maximum potential resolution and sharpness. But for most people all that counts is will they be able to see the differences in normal use themselves, and so for that reason I didn't use any magnifiers even although I have a whole bunch of watchmakers loupes of varying magnifications that would have served just as well.

Now that I have the Zeiss on hand, you know that I'll keep my word and post part two within the next few days.

 

[henry link]

Congratulations! Looks like you're going to have some fun this weekend.

If you try it you'll find that your loupes won't work for increasing the magnification of the binoculars. For that you'll need a second complete telescope behind the binocular eyepiece. I often just place one binocular behind another.

The real point of boosting magnification is to obtain detailed information about the optics that you can't get any other way. It can reveal substantial flaws in the full aperture performance that may look subtle at low magnification and reduced effective aperture in bright light. For instance, the true resolving power of the instrument (visible only at boosted magnification) tells you how far the optics depart from diffraction limited resolution and a high magnification star test tells you what sort of aberrations and defects are present, including sample defects. Since you like to be meticulous, I think this is something you should to try. It's not really that hard to do.

Henry

 

[absolut_beethoven]

Congratulations! Looks like you're going to have some fun this weekend.

If you try it you'll find that your loupes won't work for increasing the magnification of the binoculars. For that you'll need a second complete telescope behind the binocular eyepiece. I often just place one binocular behind another.

The real point of boosting magnification is to obtain detailed information about the optics that you can't get any other way. It can reveal substantial flaws in the full aperture performance that may look subtle at low magnification and reduced effective aperture in bright light. For instance, the true resolving power of the instrument (visible only at boosted magnification) tells you how far the optics depart from diffraction limited resolution and a high magnification star test tells you what sort of aberrations and defects are present, including sample defects. Since you like to be meticulous, I think this is something you should to try. It's not really that hard to do.

Henry

Henry, thanks for your informative input. Even a newbie (new to this forum) like me didn't take long to find out what a valuable resource you are to this site, and other sites too I'm sure.

I can understand the manufacturers testing their (and their competitors) optics to the limits, but as I mentioned earlier, most people only want to know how it will affect them under their conditions of use.

Having said that though your suggestion has intrigued me and I'll be sure to try your method out.

One question though, by placing one bino behind another one for increased magnification, aren't you in essence now testing the optics of both simultaneously? Even if the faults of the latter aren't magnified as much as the one in front i.e. the bino under test?

 

[henry link]

One question though, by placing one bino behind another one for increased magnification, aren't you in essence now testing the optics of both simultaneously? Even if the faults of the latter aren't magnified as much as the one in front i.e. the bino under test?

The back (examination) telescope has hardly any effect on the quality of the combined image. A few years ago one of the members here did a simulation with lens designing software that showed virtually no deterioration in the Strehl ratio of a scope vs. the same scope combined with an examination scope. The resulting image quality is hardly any different than simply substituting a shorter focal length eyepiece. You can be certain that the diffraction patterns of a star test come entirely from the front scope.

I wouldn't assume that any binocular is defect free, so I do a high magnification star test before anything else. There's no point in going through a complete evaluation of a defective specimen.

Henry

 

[absolut_beethoven]

Nikon vs Pentax vs Zeiss part 2:

Zeiss Conquest HD

At 24mm the Zeiss has the largest EP compared to 23mm for the Nikon and 21.5mm for the Pentax. The 42mm ∅ objective lens of the Zeiss is 10mm larger than the other two binos in this test. That’s a 31.25% increase in diameter, which in turn translates into a 72.26% increase in the light capturing surface area – 804.25mm2 vs 1385.44mm2

Hopefully someone will be able to calculate exactly what the theoretical light capturing capabilities of this larger surface area translates into, assuming the same light transmission for both systems in order to keep it simple.

Theoretically this should provide a much brighter image than its two smaller diameter rivals and will obviously make a much bigger difference during low light conditions such as twilight or stargazing at night than during bright daylight conditions. On the other hand, as I mentioned in an earlier post, one’s night vision through binos is not only limited by the maximum exit pupil of the binos, but also by the maximum dilation ones pupils are capable of, which sadly decreases with age. Another factor to keep in mind is one that I’ve never seen mentioned in any bino forum (probably missed that post), is the sad fact that too many people have very poor night vision regardless of their pupils maximum dilation due to sunburned retinas. Wearing sunglasses with maximum UVA and UVB protection is the best way to safeguard your night vision.

The Zeiss weigh in at 750g but I don’t have my wife’s food scale on hand in order to confirm this. This makes it about 105g heavier than the Pentax and 80g heavier than the Nikon. From the pics I posted one can see that it’s quite a bit longer than the other two and the tube is only slightly larger in diameter than the Pentax.

Looking through the objective one can see that It has a large prism, definitely needed because of the larger ∅ objective, but not as generously oversized as the Nikon’s. Internal baffling is almost on a par with the other two except for the metal ring which holds the focusing lens – it moves as one turns the focus knob. While it has a matte black coating, for some reason the part that faces the objective lens doesn’t match the deep matte black coating as the rest of the inner tube. I’d still rate the lack of internal reflections as excellent and about the same as the other two. Viewing the eye piece from a short distance the perfectly spherical exit image is obviously larger than the Nikon and the Pentax – 5.25mm vs 4mm.

Like the Nikon, the Zeiss focuses clockwise from near to far. Focus past infinity is about ⅕ turn, and the full focus range is about 1⅕ turns.

Enough of the preamble, lets find out how this latest generation of Zeiss binos compares to the best of the other two manufacturers much older designs. The main objective of this review is to help you and I decide which of these delivers the best image for your hard earned dollars. Even if your priorities don’t gel with mine, and even if you disagree with my conclusions, at least you’ll have some idea of what to expect when you get a chance to check out these binos out for yourself.

The central part of the view - the sweet spot - shows that CA is about as well controlled as the Nikons, but only extends to about the 50% mark, the same as the Pentax. Unfortunately CA control outside the sweet spot is not as good as either the Pentax or the Nikon and I’d only rate it medium. As I pointed out in part one above, the latter two also have slightly more CA outside their sweet spots, but theirs is so exceptionally well controlled that I’d rate theirs at very low.

Unsurprisingly, using the same scenario of the tiny print and one dollar bill, the sweet spot sharpness and resolution are better than the Nikon, the winner in that department earlier. I’d be hard pressed to put a value on it, but it was obvious enough that I noticed it immediately without too much effort. Tomorrow I’ll do further tests to see whether this can actually be seen in normal conditions of handheld use.

Probably due to its larger objective lens, depth of field is quite a bit less than the other two.

I only received the Zeiss this past Friday, so in order to more accurately describe color differences, brightness, sharpness and distortion, further testing will be carried out tomorrow. I have quite a good idea about these things already, but additional tests under more varied conditions tomorrow will confirm my findings because I ran out of time and didn’t get a chance to complete all of my tests today.

I’ll post the rest of this review tomorrow evening together with my conclusions and recommendations.

 

[[email protected]]

Zeiss Conquest HD

At 24mm the Zeiss has the largest EP compared to 23mm for the Nikon and 21.5mm for the Pentax. The 42mm ∅ objective lens of the Zeiss is 10mm larger than the other two binos in this test. That’s a 31.25% increase in diameter, which in turn translates into a 72.26% increase in the light capturing surface area – 804.25mm2 vs 1385.44mm2

Hopefully someone will be able to calculate exactly what the theoretical light capturing capabilities of this larger surface area translates into, assuming the same light transmission for both systems in order to keep it simple.

Theoretically this should provide a much brighter image than its two smaller diameter rivals and will obviously make a much bigger difference during low light conditions such as twilight or stargazing at night than during bright daylight conditions. On the other hand, as I mentioned in an earlier post, one’s night vision through binos is not only limited by the maximum exit pupil of the binos, but also by the maximum dilation ones pupils are capable of, which sadly decreases with age. Another factor to keep in mind is one that I’ve never seen mentioned in any bino forum (probably missed that post), is the sad fact that too many people have very poor night vision regardless of their pupils maximum dilation due to sunburned retinas. Wearing sunglasses with maximum UVA and UVB protection is the best way to safeguard your night vision.

The Zeiss weigh in at 750g but I don’t have my wife’s food scale on hand in order to confirm this. This makes it about 105g heavier than the Pentax and 80g heavier than the Nikon. From the pics I posted one can see that it’s quite a bit longer than the other two and the tube is only slightly larger in diameter than the Pentax.

Looking through the objective one can see that It has a large prism, definitely needed because of the larger ∅ objective, but not as generously oversized as the Nikon’s. Internal baffling is almost on a par with the other two except for the metal ring which holds the focusing lens – it moves as one turns the focus knob. While it has a matte black coating, for some reason the part that faces the objective lens doesn’t match the deep matte black coating as the rest of the inner tube. I’d still rate the lack of internal reflections as excellent and about the same as the other two. Viewing the eye piece from a short distance the perfectly spherical exit image is obviously larger than the Nikon and the Pentax – 5.25mm vs 4mm.

Like the Nikon, the Zeiss focuses clockwise from near to far. Focus past infinity is about ⅕ turn, and the full focus range is about 1⅕ turns.

Enough of the preamble, lets find out how this latest generation of Zeiss binos compares to the best of the other two manufacturers much older designs. The main objective of this review is to help you and I decide which of these delivers the best image for your hard earned dollars. Even if your priorities don’t gel with mine, and even if you disagree with my conclusions, at least you’ll have some idea of what to expect when you get a chance to check out these binos out for yourself.

The central part of the view - the sweet spot - shows that CA is about as well controlled as the Nikons, but only extends to about the 50% mark, the same as the Pentax. Unfortunately CA control outside the sweet spot is not as good as either the Pentax or the Nikon and I’d only rate it medium. As I pointed out in part one above, the latter two also have slightly more CA outside their sweet spots, but theirs is so exceptionally well controlled that I’d rate theirs at very low.

Unsurprisingly, using the same scenario of the tiny print and one dollar bill, the sweet spot sharpness and resolution are better than the Nikon, the winner in that department earlier. I’d be hard pressed to put a value on it, but it was obvious enough that I noticed it immediately without too much effort. Tomorrow I’ll do further tests to see whether this can actually be seen in normal conditions of handheld use.

Probably due to its larger objective lens, depth of field is quite a bit less than the other two.

I only received the Zeiss this past Friday, so in order to more accurately describe color differences, brightness, sharpness and distortion, further testing will be carried out tomorrow. I have quite a good idea about these things already, but additional tests under more varied conditions tomorrow will confirm my findings because I ran out of time and didn’t get a chance to complete all of my tests today.

I’ll post the rest of this review tomorrow evening together with my conclusions and recommendations.

"Unsurprisingly, using the same scenario of the tiny print and one dollar bill, the sweet spot sharpness and resolution are better than the Nikon, the winner in that department earlier"
That's doesn't make sense! You can't tell that without a doubler. Both binoculars are resolving beyond what you can see. It is probably contrast that you are seeing but not sharpness.

 

[absolut_beethoven]

"Unsurprisingly, using the same scenario of the tiny print and one dollar bill, the sweet spot sharpness and resolution are better than the Nikon, the winner in that department earlier"
That's doesn't make sense! You can't tell that without a doubler. Both binoculars are resolving beyond what you can see. It is probably contrast that you are seeing but not sharpness.

Sorry Dennis, I cannot comment on what you can or cannot see.

I only comment on exactly what I can see and the circumstances of the test - i.e. NO doubler and the use of a tripod.

Personally, if I were you, I'd try this out first myself before assuming and commenting on what others can and cannot see.

FWIW more about whether this can be seen in actual handheld use is in part two.

 

[absolut_beethoven]

Zeiss Conquest HD Part 2:

Carefully comparing the CA again to its rivals under the very bright early morning sun today confirmed most of what I wrote earlier with one small revision. Using distant trees and silver lamp posts, both near and far, I could clearly see that CA kicked in a little earlier than the Pentax which kicked in around the 50% mark. I’d guestimate that it became clearly noticeable around the 40% to 45% mark. There is virtually zero CA in the sweet spot, but once it becomes apparent, especially to someone like me who notices these things immediately, it’s quite a bit worse than its rivals. Not terrible, but even after more critical tests I’d still rate it medium – about 2 to 3 grades lower than the Pentax and Nikon which I rated at very low.

For all the hoo-ha about Zeiss deeming only the sweet spot important as far as sharpness and resolution are concerned, I didn’t have high hopes for the new Zeiss Conquest HD in that department. What a pleasant surprise to find out how wrong I was. I couldn’t believe my eyes and did numerous tests, both near and far and just as many comparisons to the Niikon Edg in order to confirm exactly what I was seeing. The clearest example was a *No Parking* sign about 100m away – sharp black lettering on a white background gave a clean high contrast test target. Putting the sign into sharp focus and then slowly sweeping across until it was right up at the edge of my field of view confirmed my initial findings that sharpness extends a little further out than the Pentax’s 80% but not quite matching the Nikon as it's only about 85% to 90%. To say that I was stunned by this is not an exaggeration, especially in light of its less than stellar CA control outside the sweet spot.

Like the Pentax, pincushion distortion kicks in at about the same point that CA does. Which is about the 40% to 45% mark vs 50% for the former. Unfortunately the pincushion distortion is a little worse than the Pentax, I’d guesstimate it to be about 5% to 10% worse than the latter, and this is easily seen by the exaggerated curve of lamp posts, telephone poles and electric pylons at the outer edge of the FOV.

Brightness – does the larger ∅ objective translate into anything useful during bright sunny conditions like I experienced this morning? An easy thing for me to see, but very difficult to translate my thoughts into written words that our forum members can understand. First off, IMHO the Zeiss do NOT look any brighter than its rivals under these conditions, which are well known to be outstanding in that regard. Having said that though, thick dark foliage and any part of the view bathed in shadows etc, looks to me as if someone Photoshopped the scene with the “shadow/highlights” control and jacked it about 15% to 20%. This is easily seen and enjoyable to behold. What I’m trying to say is that bright well lit subjects don’t look any brighter through the Zeiss vs the Nikons, but one can clearly see and appreciate the extra brightness that seems to bathe the shadows and less well lit scenes.

Twilight and night viewing was a very difficult test for me. Not because I couldn’t see that the Zeiss was clearly a little bit brighter than its rivals in these conditions, but because, try as I might, I couldn’t translate this into anything useful – i.e. there wasn’t anything that I could see, read or distinguish with the Zeiss that I couldn’t also resolve with the other two. Sure it took a little bit longer and a tiny bit more effort but it didn’t make as large a difference as what I expected it to.

Colors are exceptionally well rendered and the seemingly slightly highlighted shadows and dark foliage add an extra vividness to the view. The whole is very relaxing and pleasing on the eye. I would rate the color bias about as close to neutral as the Nikon’s, that is exceptionally accurate. There was no clear winner in the bright matte white cardboard test. Neither looked as white as the original because both made it look very slightly cream/ivory colored in comparison. After a very careful and thorough evaluation and extensive switching back and forth between the Zeiss and the Nikon the only conclusion that I could possibly come to is that they each presented a marginally, absolutely tiny different shade of cream/ivory color. Clear enough for me to see that it didn’t match the original, but this difference was so insignificant that I’d rate their rendering of white as a tie.

As I mentioned earlier, I have a feeling that the larger ∅ objective results in less depth of field. As before, I evaluated it by perfect focus on infinity and then seeing how close I could observe before I needed to readjust the focus. While DOF was only a little less than the Nikon in this particular test, the actual DOF decreased rapidly as the point of focus was brought closer and closer. When I reduced the point of focus to the trees outside my front door, about 10m to 15m away, DOF was greatly reduced in comparison to the other two under identical circumstances.

Zeiss specifies the FOV at 128m vs 136m for the Nikon and 131m for the Pentax at 1000m - 384' vs 408' and 393' at 1000 yards. Either they made a mistake or maybe they're just being overly conservative because in actual use I honestly couldn't see any differences in the FOV between the Zeiss and the Nikon. I tried different points along the horizon focused at infinity and the same but focused as close as 30m, and I still couldn't see any discernible difference.

I have already discussed the superiority of the Zeiss sharpness and resolution over the Nikon and I was keen to see if this would be noticed in normal outdoor handheld use. Try as I might, I honestly couldn’t see any difference in sharpness or resolution under those circumstances. Of course it’s there, but unless one mounts the binos on a tripod, one obviously won’t be able to enjoy this small extra. And I’m sure that this would make an even bigger difference to our star gazers if they do likewise too. Something that I personally couldn’t try out as there’s just way too much light pollution out here in the Dallas Fort Worth area.

 

[absolut_beethoven]

Conclusions and recommendations:

First off, I have to say that I am exceptionally disappointed in the fit and finish of my Zeiss Conquest HD compared to its two rivals. I have read that some people have had problems with their eyecups. Fortunately I haven’t had any hassles with mine, but they do feel very gritty turning them up and down. Setting them in and out about 30 to 40 times did ease the grittiness some, but still didn’t eliminate it. Secondly, I’m not crazy about the way they implemented the lock system for the different settings. The Pentax and the Nikon move smoothly and click smoothly into place for the different settings. The Zeiss seems to have a system of two closely spaced bumps (or two indentations) so that the eyecup has to first click over the first bump before it's locked and held in place by the second. Coupled with the gritty feeling lends a low quality feel to it.

Finally, the focus tension on the focusing ring and diopter, which doesn't lock into place, is not only as tight as the Pentax, it’s also very jerky and uneven due to excessive “sticktion”. FWIW there was a lot less sticktion on the diopter ring. IMHO the tension of the Pentax is a little excessive, but I can live with it because it’s very smooth, feels the same in both directions and starts and stops with zero sticktion or backlash. The excessive sticktion on the Zeiss requires much more effort to start it moving, and when it does, it jerks along, stopping and starting, thereby making critical focusing very difficult and time consuming. Notwithstanding their other outstanding attributes, these binos were not a joy to use, but a major pain because of this major defect. Hopefully this bad sample is a one off and not indicative of the others. The bottom line for me is that I’ll be returning these ASAP.

The fit and finish on the Nikon Edg exudes Rolls Royce quality and workmanship. These binos aren’t cheap and the build quality is commensurate with the price. Focus is oil slick smooth with zero free play or backlash. Everything about them shows a well thought out and executed design, notwithstanding their small design flaw concerning the diopter which only became apparent for many after much use. A flaw that they acknowledged and most generously corrected.

Fit and finish of the Pentax ED is also exceptionally good IMHO. Not close to the Nikon’s Rolls Royce quality, but solid, firm, smooth and everything works exactly the way it should.

For those who demand the best, the Nikon Edg is an easy, confident but expensive recommendation. After all this switching back and forth among these contenders I still highly recommend the Pentax ED for its outstanding value for money, its solid build quality, the outstandingly sharp high resolution and low CA and low distortion view that it offers, coupled with its exceptionally generous “No Fault Lifetime” warranty.

I cannot in good faith recommend the Zeiss until these teething problems with this new design have been sorted out. If you are one of those who is very sensitive to CA, then even with all those faults taken care of, these binos are probably not for you. Under most normal conditions of use I didn’t find the CA excessive or intrusive, but I must admit that for this kind of money I had expected better from Zeiss in that regard. In all other respects optically they exceeded my expectations and hope they can sort out these minor defects quickly.

Now if nobody minds, I’m going to kick off my shoes (and loupes) and relax with a nice cold one B