• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Zeiss Conquest 10 x 32 or 10 x 42? (1 Viewer)

GeoffWood

Well-known member
I am intending to get a new 10x binocular to back up my 8x32 Nikon HGs
I can't afford/justify top mark bins, so considering the Zeiss Conquest (or possibly Nikon Monarch HG)
Because of Covid restrictions I can't get to try before I buy.
I like the idea of the compactness/lighter weight of the 32s but not sure what I would lose in optical performance compared with the 42's
Most of my birding is done in Northwest England, where grey sky days are the norm!!
Any practical advice will be appreciated
 

mwhogue

Registered User
Supporter
Because of where you live (grey and very wet

Geoff,

My guess in the meantime is: Paskman is advising that you go with a 42 because of the weather/light in your area, especially since you want a 10x. If my guess is correct, I would agree with him. As others have posted elsewhere, 42 objective has @2x the surface area of 32.

Mike
 
Last edited:

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
You have to decide how you use your binoculars. A 10x42 will bring in 40% more light than a 10x32 and will have easier eye placement and be more resistant to glare, whereas, the advantage of the 10x32 is its smaller size and weight which is very important if you do a lot of hiking. If you use your binoculars primarily in the daytime and you hike a lot the 10x32 probably would be the best choice but if you are going to use them at dawn or dusk and you prefer easier eye placement and more comfort the 10x42 would be a better choice. If you do choose a 10x32 get a good one preferably an alpha because they are more difficult to make than a 8x42. I would personally avoid the EL 10x32 because it showed a lot of glare for me.
 
Last edited:

Paskman

Registered User
Supporter
Geoff,

My guess in the meantime is: Paskman is advising that you go with a 42 because of the weather/light in your area, especially since you want a 10x. If my guess is correct, I would agree with him. As others have posted elsewhere, 42 objective has @2x the surface area of 32.

Mike
Thanks Mike, that it exactly what I was trying to say. I am not sure why the rest of the post didn't appear. Sorry, I was recommending the x42s.
 
Last edited:

GeoffWood

Well-known member
Thanks for the replies. Most of my birding is in open country usually in the mornings and always on foot.
Here in the Peak District we get many cloudy days so the light gathering of the 10x42 would be advantageous but so would the 135gm reduction in weight of the 10x32s.
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
Thanks for the replies. Most of my birding is in open country usually in the mornings and always on foot.
Here in the Peak District we get many cloudy days so the light gathering of the 10x42 would be advantageous but so would the 135gm reduction in weight of the 10x32s.
You have to decide. Do you want light or bright?
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
Thanks for the replies. Most of my birding is in open country usually in the mornings and always on foot.
Here in the Peak District we get many cloudy days so the light gathering of the 10x42 would be advantageous but so would the 135gm reduction in weight of the 10x32s.

It’s really a question of priorities as you can tell. In my experience the difference between the 4.2mm exit pupil and 3.2mm is more about viewing comfort than brightness outside of the worst, marginal low light conditions.

The brightness differences between binoculars are often exaggerated for real world use. You’ll hear people note the 10x42 has a 70% larger lens + exit pupil (not 2x) but that does not imply a 70% difference in perceived brightness, certainly not when your own pupil is constricted to <3mm which should be the case during daytime (even in overcast conditions).

But the 10x42 is “easier”, the larger exit pupil makes for a more relaxed view and is less fussy. But I doubt if you’ll see a meaningful brightness difference in morning use in open country. And honestly I think the 3.2 vs 4.2 isn’t a big difference, I really only notice the difference when I get to 5mm+ (8x42 or 7x42).

I’ve had the 10x32 Conquest and it’s really very good, extremely sharp and quite bright, and I found eye placement to be non problematic in the field. Even in mediocre overcast conditions.

So the question is whether the extra size and bulk of the 42 is worth it to you to tote around for a bit of extra viewing comfort. There’s no right or wrong answer, it’s not like a lamp magically comes on between 3mm and 4mm, it’s just a bit of trade off of one benefit vs another (reduced size and weight). Although note the weight gap is more like 165g, not 135g. But if you’ll wear them on a harness that may not matter as much.
 

eitanaltman

Well-known member
Another thought.... If weight is a big concern and you decide that’s the main priority, consider going with the 10x30 Monarch HG instead, it’s MUCH smaller and lighter than the Conquest 32. Or if you don’t want to spend that much for a secondary / backup bin, there’s the Kite Lynx 10x30, or Opticron Traveler ED 10x32, both of which are VERY light and very good optically.
 

cottonbase

Well-known member
If brightness is the priority, you might also consider the new Hawke APO 10x42, if you don't mind a bit of trail blazing.

Compared to the Conquest, wider FOV, slightly lighter and change from £600 - what's not to like!
 

[email protected]

Well-known member
Supporter
If brightness is the priority, you might also consider the new Hawke APO 10x42, if you don't mind a bit of trail blazing.

Compared to the Conquest, wider FOV, slightly lighter and change from £600 - what's not to like!
The 71 degree AFOV on the Hawk APO 10x42 is impressive. I would look at that one too. Also, you might look at the Swarovski CL 10x30 if you want a light binocular.
 
Last edited:

GeoffWood

Well-known member
I am marginally in favour of the 10x32 at the moment, but in no hurry.
May wait to see what Black Friday brings.
 

cottonbase

Well-known member
Ah, I was thinking of the HG rather than the monarch HG as that is a 32mm rather than the monarch''s 30mm.

I think we probably got confused as well - sorry! Thought the OP had a MHG 8x30.

Regardless, having compared a Hawke Frontier ED X 8x42 with mid range 10x32s in similarly overcast conditions to what the OP experiences (ie not twilight), I can honestly say the 42 provides much better colour pop and contrast.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top