Roger Vine’s review of the Zeiss Conquest 8x56 HD (2 Viewers)

[SUPPRESSOR]

Thumb indents are wonderful, if they fit your hands.

Thumb indents are wonderful, if they fit your hands.
Horrible if they don't.

 

[henry link]

Hi Henry,

I referred to your BF review of the 8x56 FL earlier about why a good quality 8x56 can beat a good quality 8x42 even during the daytime. Do you still use the 8x56 FL as your main birding bin or did you replace it with an 8x54 HT or Swaro 8x56 SLC HD?

Or did you find a smaller aperture bin that corrects axial aberrations as well as larger aperture bins?

Brock

Hi Brock,

I still have the 8x56 FL, but these days I use a Swarovski 8x42 NL more for birding. The FL is still the best I have for center field sharpness in daylight. I thought I was going to replace it with the 8x54 HT when that first appeared, but the HT turned out to be a dud. For the last few months I've been really enjoying sometimes using an old Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 B (1968-78 version). It has turned out to be very impressive, certainly the best of the Oberkochen Porros.

I found an 8x32 over 25 years ago that corrects axial aberrations better and is closer to diffraction limited at its full aperture than any larger aperture bin I've tried. You've got the same one.

Henry

 

[ReinierB]

Good call. That's a photo of 10x56 (smallest oculars of the three).

Here you see the differences in size. They are huge on the 8x56. Must suck you into the view I can imagine.

 

[brocknroller]

I've not found much variation in Swaro focusers (apart from Habicht which I'll admit is slow) in those I own or have borrowed - Yes they're a fraction slower closer focusing than focusing past, but like Troubadour I was taught you focus past then fine tune back, but they've all been pretty consistent and smooth enough. I'm possibly less bothered by focusers than some though and just adjust - old fashioned greased focusers in my vintage Zeiss do slow down below freezing, but still work fine and I've been happy with Nikon focusers in the past. I thought the SF focusers were okay - nothing special, a little too fast but not terrible - the only focuser I really disliked was on a borrowed pair of Terras. Conquest focusers seemed 'okay'.

Either you've been lucky or I've been unlucky with Swaro focusers, because except for one Swaro (10x42 SLC HD), the difference in turning in one direction than the other has been quite stark. Even the SLC 10x42 SLC HD had that issue but not so severe that it might not have bothered me, particularly with a 10x where I'm usually focusing a long distance and not focusing as much as I would with an 8x (though it was for first version 10x42 SLC HD that focused down to 6 ft,. so I could have). For some reason, Swarovski made the close focus longer on the second iteration. Perhaps it was too alpha-like for second tier?

I completely agree about the Terra's faster-than-a-speeding-bullet focuser. It was so loose I could turn it with my tongue. Gene Simmons would have liked it.

Who taught you that in birding you must focus past then fine tune back? A Zeiss rep? I had to do that with the Terra and Conquest, and it made me feel like Daffy Duck, because it drove me mad, mad, mad, I tell ya!

If you want to see what it's like to get on the bird without overshooting and turning buttery smooth movement in both directions, try a Nikon EDG II.

Nikon totally screwed up on the focuser on Nikon EDG I but they went back to the drawing board (like Clyde Crashcup and Leonardo) and got it right the second time around. There was one BF member who recently said his EDG focuser tension was tight, so sample variation even happens with the best of them, but I was fortunate to get two EDG focusers that were purrrrfect. So nice to forgot about the focuser and just focus on the bird.

Brock

 

[dries1]

The focus on the SLC 56 models is better than on the 42 SLC models. Both are long but I find the focus perfect on the 56 whereas the 42 is inconsistent clockwise and counterCW.
This could have to do with a larger bridge and a more robust focus system on the 56 SLCs.

 

[[email protected]]

I test drove a Rolls-Royce the other day but concluded it was really no better than my SMART.

John

The Habicht 8x30 is like a Ferrari and the SLC 8x56 is like an SUV.

 

[[email protected]]

Thumb indents are wonderful, if they fit your hands.
Horrible if they don't.

That is why Swarovski designed the NL with adjustable thumb indents.

 

[brocknroller]

Hi Brock,

I still have the 8x56 FL, but these days I use a Swarovski 8x42 NL more for birding. The FL is still the best I have for center field sharpness in daylight. I thought I was going to replace it with the 8x54 HT when that first appeared, but the HT turned out to be a dud. For the last few months I've been really enjoying sometimes using an old Zeiss Oberkochen 8x30 B (1968-78 version). It has turned out to be very impressive, certainly the best of the Oberkochen Porros.

I found an 8x32 over 25 years ago that corrects axial aberrations better and is closer to diffraction limited at its full aperture than any larger aperture bin I've tried. You've got the same one.

Henry

Glad to hear you still have the old FL workhorse but are also happy birding with the "latest and greatest" 8x42 NL, which for $3,299 damned well better have a "Pure" image!

I guess the HT was a dud with most birders since it seems to have faded fast and didn't become successor to the FL that Zeiss had expected. It did get good reviews from hunters.

I'm also glad to hear that like me you appreciate old porros. If only Zeiss had continued to follow Horst Koehler rather than trying to beat his arch rival, Ernst Leitz, perhaps porros would have gotten internal focusers and ruled the world instead of roofs.

I do admit that for close-in birding, I prefer the 8x32 EDG over the 8x32 SE, so I don't have to cross my eyes or adjust the IPD. And in terms of image quality, the 8x32 EDG doesn't seem to give up much to its venerable predecessor. The increasing cases of balsam separation in the SEs does have me concerned about the classic's long-term survival.

Have you tried Kevin's Obie-Wan Ken SE? I've read rave reviews, most recently by Neil English, who said the OB SE beats the 82xxx 8x30 E2, which has Nikon's best glass and coatings.

Is the "Haute Chinese" optics I wondered about years ago finally come to pass? Or should I pass on them? Awaiting your review.

Binoculars | Neil English.net

Brock

 

[mfunnell]

Have you tried Kevin's Obie-Wan Ken SE? I've read rave reviews, most recently by Neil English, who said the OB SE beats the 82xxx 8x30 E2, which has Nikon's best glass and coatings.
[…]

Binoculars | Neil English.net

No doubt these Wunderbins would be interesting to try, but “out of stock” and a minimum shipping charge of more than US$80 rather puts me off…

…Mike

 

[Troubador]

Perhaps, but in any case it isn't the strap shown included with this Conquest, which has lowercase lettering and remains wrapped.

On the contrary, take a look further down those photos and you reach one showing the Conquest laying down with the contoured strap folded to show the legend ZEISS in capitals.

 

[ReinierB]

I just went to an optician and did an DNEye scan to measure how big my pupils are when it's dark/dawn. It measured 5.2mm for one eye and 5.4mm for the other eye (I am 39 years old). I expected/hoped bigger. Now I doubt if the 10x56 makes really sense for me with the exit pupil of 5.6mm.
But it wasn't really dark, so I wonder if it really is the maximum in size for my pupils. I am afraid the maximum size of my pupil will decrease in years as well, so maybe the 8x42 will be good enough for twilight. If I want higher magnification a 10x50 or a 12x50 will be sufficient. Or maybe even the Habicht 10x40. I am afraid though that I will wear glasses in about 5-10 years. So an Habicht won't be a good choice because of the short eye relief.

I know, a bigger exit pupil gives more comfort in watching as well. But still, It makes me doubt.

 

[[email protected]]

On the contrary, take a look further down those photos and you reach one showing the Conquest laying down with the contoured strap folded to show the legend ZEISS in capitals.

Holy Smokes, that Conquest looks BIG in that picture! 😁

 

[Richard D]

Has anyone compared the Conquest to the old FLs?

 

[brocknroller]

No doubt these Wunderbins would be interesting to try, but “out of stock” and a minimum shipping charge of more than US$80 rather puts me off…

…Mike

Yeah, that sucks. I'm surprised about the added co$t since Australia is over 4,000 km closer to China than the US. The Chinese could drop them off with one of their weather/spy balloons.

 

[brocknroller]

Has anyone compared the Conquest to the old FLs?

Here's a BF thread devoted to that comparison.

Which 8x32: Victory FL or New Conquest HD ?

I'm going to get some Zeiss 8x32 bins. It was going to be a pair of Victory FLs - maybe a second hand pair. But I just found out about the new Conquest HD 8x32 bins, which are a lot cheaper. Now I'm wondering whether to buy a good (ie mint) second-hand pair of FLs or a new pair of Conquest...

www.birdforum.net

 

[Richard D]

Here's a BF thread devoted to that comparison.

Which 8x32: Victory FL or New Conquest HD ?

I'm going to get some Zeiss 8x32 bins. It was going to be a pair of Victory FLs - maybe a second hand pair. But I just found out about the new Conquest HD 8x32 bins, which are a lot cheaper. Now I'm wondering whether to buy a good (ie mint) second-hand pair of FLs or a new pair of Conquest...

www.birdforum.net

Thanks, but it was specifically the 10x56s I was interested in. Optically I quite liked the 8x32 Conquest, but not the 10x42s I tried. I'm tempted by a 10x56 but not sure I can justify the £1800 for the SLC, and wondered where the FLs sat between the Conquest and SLCs.

 

[brocknroller]

Thanks, but it was specifically the 10x56s I was interested in. Optically I quite liked the 8x32 Conquest, but not the 10x42s I tried. I'm tempted by a 10x56 but not sure I can justify the £1800 for the SLC, and wondered where the FLs sat between the Conquest and SLCs.

Since you liked one model Conquest ad not the other, it appears that you can't make generalizations across the entire line. You need a apples to apples comparison. Did you read Roger's review of the 10x56 Conquest HD? He makes a few comparisons to the FL, but most of the comparisons are with the HT.

Zeiss 10x56 Conquest HD Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

You might search hunting optics forums such as Rokslide since this format is used more by hunters than birders.

Brock

 

[Conndomat]

Thanks, but it was specifically the 10x56s I was interested in. Optically I quite liked the 8x32 Conquest, but not the 10x42s I tried. I'm tempted by a 10x56 but not sure I can justify the £1800 for the SLC, and wondered where the FLs sat between the Conquest and SLCs.

Hello Richard,

I think the FL are still on par with the SLC.

The binoculars have slightly different focal points, that SLC is better in terms of balance, insight and edge sharpness, that FL is at least as sharp on the axis, and also in terms of contrast, stray light suppression and chromatic aberration is better in FL.

I wouldn't necessarily swap my FL for an SLC, I don't know that Conquest 10x56.

Andreas

 

[Richard D]

Since you liked one model Conquest ad not the other, it appears that you can't make generalizations across the entire line. You need a apples to apples comparison. Did you read Roger's review of the 10x56 Conquest HD? He makes a few comparisons to the FL, but most of the comparisons are with the HT.

Zeiss 10x56 Conquest HD Review

www.scopeviews.co.uk

You might search hunting optics forums such as Rokslide since this format is used more by hunters than birders.

Brock

The 8x32's are the only Conquests that optically impressed - the 10x42s and 15s I tried had far too much CA for my tastes and edge abberations - decent on axis performance and I could live with the poor eyecups and probably cope with the over fast focusers, but not the optics. Yes I read Roger's review - I don't think the Conquest are for me. Maybe gritting my teeth and looking at Rokslide might be an idea.

Hello Richard,

I think the FL are still on par with the SLC.

The binoculars have slightly different focal points, that SLC is better in terms of balance, insight and edge sharpness, that FL is at least as sharp on the axis, and also in terms of contrast, stray light suppression and chromatic aberration is better in FL.

I wouldn't necessarily swap my FL for an SLC, I don't know that Conquest 10x56.

Andreas

Thanks - it's a whim more than a need. I love the 15x56 SLCs and if money was no object I'd get the 10x56 SLCs on that basis alone, but with excellent condition used FLs half the price of a new pair of the SLCs...

 

[William Lewis]

The 8x32's are the only Conquests that optically impressed - the 10x42s and 15s I tried had far too much CA for my tastes and edge abberations - decent on axis performance and I could live with the poor eyecups and probably cope with the over fast focusers, but not the optics. Yes I read Roger's review - I don't think the Conquest are for me. Maybe gritting my teeth and looking at Rokslide might be an idea.



Thanks - it's a whim more than a need. I love the 15x56 SLCs and if money was no object I'd get the 10x56 SLCs on that basis alone, but with excellent condition used FLs half the price of a new pair of the SLCs...

I had the 10x42 fl briefly - I saw it for sale cheap so bought it to sell - if the '56 is in the same league you wouldn't be missing much compared to the SLC, c.a control off axis I suspect would be superior to the SLC, other off axis aberrations less so. Shop around though.

If it's got a crescent under the 10x56 bit on the bridge it means it's got lotutec - don't just look for the rounded eye cups.

Will