Zeiss CHD 8x32 vs Nikon MHG 8x42 (1 Viewer)

[nikitasius]

Hi folks!
These days during the sales these 2 models almost cost the same (CHD just 10€ cheaper).
I googled and found the topics ( SLC, Monarch HG, Conquest or Trinovid ? & Nikon Monarch HG or Zeiss Conquest HD ) where lot of positive votes went to Nikon.
Weight difference (guess ~200g) aren't important for me.

Whats important:

• reduced/removed internal reflections
  • afraid that during sunny day it will be amplified
• great fov
  • just move my eyes and keep bino as much as distortion or blurring allow it
• image contrast
  • i have some old komura retro lenses which are beauty that dies under sun due old and outdated coating (but feels awesome when it's cloudy)
  • i have old fujinon lenses also which have awesome coating and produce juicy pictures w/ my DSLR
  • so coating is pretty important for good binos for me
• lowest distortion
  • to let me see beaty of nature as is
• corrected astigmatism
  • nature & moon/star 3% plans

I plan to use them:

• 70% outdoor sunny/cloudy days, to enjoy the paysage, animals, birds (beach, rocks, "opensky" parks)
• 20% inside the "forest" but during the day seeking for birds for photos or for observation
• 7% sunrise at the lake
• 3% watch the stars & moon if sky is clean

I live in humid climate and spend free time at salted air (some parks are close to seawater and beaches are just in).
Budget: up to 900€ (and luckily these 2 are cheaper)

 

[nikitasius]

and also thisone where Zeiss CHD (but the 8x42 and not 8x32) pops

$1K binoculars experiences - Conquest HD, Monarch HG, Tract Toric, GPO Passion HD, Trinovid HD

I was inspired to write this post after reading @Gdavis248's post here. I also started with and own a Monarch M7 --> tried NL pure and Zeiss SF --> decided to upgrade --> settled on a sensible (for me) budget at $1K. Unless otherwise noted, all are 10x42 configurations. After testing the...

www.birdforum.net

 

[pbjosh]

It's been a while since I looked through both of these but my recollection:

• The MHG is a richer, more saturated, more contrasty view with a larger FOV and a better focuser
• The Conquest HD is a hair sharper and has less chromatic aberration
• I didn't have particular glare problems with either but don't remember them well enough to provide a direct comparison at this point

If you could find a deal on an SFL it would give you the best of both worlds (great color, great sharpness, great contrast, very little CA, good FOV, light weight, low glare) and is, from what I've seen, a good step up from either of those two. With some hunting they can be found for about 1300-1400EU, perhaps a bit less, and sometimes used for about 1200-1300.

Good luck!

 

[KaterinBortle9]

MHG 8x42 for the night time requirement. Your plan of usage is similar to mine with me having a weight consideration due to going out with a 60mm scope and tripod. Started with MHG 10x42 but downgraded to a MHG 8x42 (local price 740€ equivalent) now. Only briefly handled a CHD 8x32 indoors in a local shop and it seems to be also a solid choice but its weight for a 8x32 and handling ergonomics dissuaded me from further testing.

Glare and internal reflections are very well handled in the 8x42 and 10x42 models. When pointed near the sun or bright flood lights at night, only a thin bright arc affects the view. Image is not flat, despite having a "field flattener" and the image starts to soften at about 75% towards the edge. I don't notice the softening in actual use in the field. No noticeable astigmatism until about 80-85% towards the field when looking at stars. 8.3° FOV is nice and adequate.

There is this person's video recording through a MHG 8x42 on UT for distortion and CA:

 

[nikitasius]

It's been a while since I looked through both of these but my recollection

Thanks for the reflections! But if i will target Zeiss SFL i could target also Leica. it's bit beyond my start budget.

There is this person's video recording through a MHG 8x42 on UT for distortion and CA

Wow really good video! I will try to google the same about 8x32 Zeiss for the curiosity purposes.

 

[nikitasius]

Btw what i'm worried about Zeiss are:
• mechanical issues (dioptries & collimation, seen at least 2 threads here about that)
• crappy "blackened" internal surfaces

About internal painting:

Ziess CHD 8x32 from that video looks like Zeiss Jena 50/2.8 M42 which i had once, ± same poor painting inside, but Jena was even better (and guess 60y+ older). Need to find the parts at home.
Nikon also could be better inside (from the video from the previous message), but finishing is superior to Zeiss.

 

[nikitasius]

Regarding this video Nikon have much better finishing

 

[Paultricounty]

Niki, don’t read too much in to some of these videos, they are nice to watch and see what the reviewer likes and dislikes. And I love those Optica exoctica reviews , Ion is a charactor but there are more contradictions in some of his reviews than inconsistencies in the Allbino reviews. It really comes down to price point, both of these binos and all the other $1000+/- a few dollars are all about the same level. Some are slightly better at one trait , and another is slightly better at some other trait. It comes down to what image you might prefer and how they feel in your hands. Optical they’re both exceptional, and more than anybody would ever need in a binocular, and I might add this $1000 price point in my opinion is the sweet spot for optical performance and build quality.

Of these two being considered id go with the Nikon 42 over a Conquest 32. The Nikon is a little nicer or refined on the build imo, and the 42 is a better all around choice. It gets a little bit more difficult of a choice if you were comparing the Nikon MHG 42 to the conquest 42. I still picked the Nikon.

Paul

 

[nikitasius]

Thanks for all feedbacks folks!
i digged deeper into tech parts and binos as is (how it's made, how was before, important moments) and took Meopta MeoPro Air 8x42 .
I will share review in next week guess. It's awesome

 

[GrampaTom]

Btw what i'm worried about Zeiss are:
• mechanical issues (dioptries & collimation, seen at least 2 threads here about that)
• crappy "blackened" internal surfaces

About internal painting:

View attachment 1518869

View attachment 1518870

Ziess CHD 8x32 from that video looks like Zeiss Jena 50/2.8 M42 which i had once, ± same poor painting inside, but Jena was even better (and guess 60y+ older). Need to find the parts at home.
Nikon also could be better inside (from the video from the previous message), but finishing is superior to Zeiss.

AK47? Phooey

 

[skahde]

I also looked into a lot of reviews three years ago before I decided to buy a pair of MHG 8x42. As of today I'm very happy with them and I can not find any real fault on them. Honestly I think they are really on a sweet spot. Compact, light, great optics, wide view, very nice focussing, affordable... As an optics-conaisseur I still prefer the view through a Leica but used as tool for the task, the MHG is hard to beat.

 

[nikitasius]

I also looked into a lot of reviews three years ago before I decided to buy a pair of MHG 8x42. As of today I'm very happy with them and I can not find any real fault on them. Honestly I think they are really on a sweet spot. Compact, light, great optics, wide view, very nice focussing, affordable... As an optics-conaisseur I still prefer the view through a Leica but used as tool for the task, the MHG is hard to beat.

Well, try Meopta. The image is pretty good.
Stars are great, during the day i don't see CA.
Distorsion ? Well i will make tests w/ a special target.
Also for colors i have colorchecker.
Meopta is awesome 😁
This night was sitting on a balcon and watching stars. There are lights in a city.. seen birds flying on night sky 😁

 

[skahde]

I will definitely give the Meoptas a try If I have the chance. 👍

 

[nikitasius]

Once at home i will use tripod and my dslr for colors teste. But actually it's pretty nice.
Distorsion is low (at the edges), almost no CA. Pretty good binos.
Some photos from hands & my phone

 

[dries1]

Once at home i will use tripod and my dslr for colors teste. But actually it's pretty nice.
Distorsion is low (at the edges), almost no CA. Pretty good binos.
Some photos from hands & my phone

You are being monitored by the white seagull? in first photo looks like he is about to enter through the window, the last one he is observing you. Nice to gather some info on the new Air models, not much out there.

 

[nikitasius]

You are being monitored by the white seagull? in first photo looks like he is about to enter through the window, the last one he is observing you. Nice to gather some info on the new Air models, not much out there.

I wanna review thisone, but need to build a demostand 🤔
I have tripod, but for photocam. Need to see how to use it w/ that binos (it have a hole).

Also how to take legit photos via my dslr. To compare colors & colorchecker. Also find good CA and distorsion examples from IRL (targets i can always print).
And finally how to film nicely 4k via phone.

 

[nikitasius]

In fact i have a friend which is in ukraine army, so we was chatting about binos and "way to go". Cause modern models lost lot of good features that old binos had (example is the "step" inside which is less strong and that increase internal réflections & color/contrast loss).
Also coating questions.. well, meopta pretty good in case of engineering.

P.S. army don't use binos, they use drones. Much more effective for mil usage.

 

[Andy Gan]

• The MHG is a richer, more saturated, more contrasty view with a larger FOV and a better focuser
• The Conquest HD is a hair sharper and has less chromatic aberration

What about "eyes positioning" (ease of look through it and avoid blackouts)??
I heard that Zeiss CHD 8x32 have some problems with blackous...