Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 vs. Kowa Genesis 8x33 (1 Viewer)

[Chris 37]

During the last few days I compared the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 with the Kowa Genesis 8x33 and would like to share my impressions of those, as it may be of interest to some of you.
Over the last several months I was looking for new binoculars that would be good company for my Zeiss Conquest and I tried quite a few, both at home and in shops/stores.
At first I tried more inexpensive ones but wasn´t satisfied with them and also noticed that, unfortunately, I´m not able to use binoculars with different directions of focus. So that diminished the choice considerably.
The Kowas were beyond my budget, at the beginning. But now more deals seem to be available. Probably it has to do with the new “KR Coating” (http://www.kowa-prominar.com/product/binoculars/genesis/index.html), similar to Zeiss´ LotuTec, that is on the latest models (but not available in Germany yet).

Of course, this is only my personal view of the two samples I have at the moment and also please keep in mind that I´m no optic-expert.

Kowa Genesis 8x33:
FOV: 140m/420ft, Weight(naked): 593g/20.9oz, Focus: clockwise 1.5 turns(stop to stop), 0.8 turns-3m to infinity(stop), Close focus: 1.4m (IPD must be adjusted), Eye relief: 15mm,
IPD: 56-73mm, Temp.-range: no specification

Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32:
FOV: 140m/420ft, Weight(naked): 633g/22.3oz, Focus: clockwise 1.2 turns(stop to stop), 0.6 turns-3m to infinity(stop), Close focus: 1.4m (IPD must be adjusted), Eye relief: 16mm
IPD: 54-74mm, Temp.-range: -20/+63°C, -21/+140°F


Ergonomics & Handling:
Both seem very well built, you see and feel the quality. The armor of the Zeiss is softer to the touch. The height of both is the same. Both feel very good in my hands, the Kowa seems a little more secure when holding in one hand – perfect grip! The Zeiss is 40g/1.4oz havier and feels just a little bulkier.
The eyecups on both are very comfortable and both have 4 resting positions. On both I use the first click-stop-position along with the well-known MOLCET-technique.
Central hinge tension on the Zeiss is perfect. Kowas tension is a little too loose for me.

Focus:
The focus-knob on both is perfectly positioned and both have a very smooth action. Kowas focus-knob is made from metal, really nice, has a very light action(almost too light!) and it has a little bit more focus resistance in anticlockwise direction than clockwise. It´s focus operation is very precise, free of play and with 1.5 turns strikes a nice balance between speed and accuracy.
On the Zeiss the tension is perfect and equal in both directions, but my sample has some free play when turning direction. Its 1.2 turns seem just a tiny bit too fast for me and is a bit less accurate than the Kowa. Both turn in clockwise direction from near to far.
Diopter adjustment in both is on the right eyepiece, Kowa´s is lockable.


Optics:
Both have a nice, wide, clear and brilliant view with “wow”-factor I think most would be happy with.

Sharpness of both is very good, but not perfect (until now I haven´t found a real sharp binocular). They both seem equal. I don´t know how you guys do it, but I just can´t give you any percentage from where the blurring starts. I would definitely need a tripod (maybe a booster too) and a chart and even then it would be difficult. I always find that the blurring starts so quickly, way before the 60 to 80 percent that some write about – no matter what company – Zeiss, Swarowski, Leica, Kowa, Meopta. Of course I´m not saying that´s how it is, but that´s how my eyes see it.

Brightness and Contrast seem excellent in both, brightness is about the same, but the Kowa has a little advantage in the contrast department.

Low-light ability in both is astonishingly good. I looked at dusk (and later at night) into big trees and thought they still revealed a lot of details – it was a moonlit night. Zeiss had a tiny, tiny advantage here.

Resolution and the ability to reveal fine details is again very good in both. Kowa is just a tiny bit better.

Colors of both are vibrant and pleasing to the eye. It is a joy to look at birds, flowers and trees. Everything seems quite alive. Kowas colors are absolutely neutral, Zeiss has a slightly warm tone to it. Looking at a white piece of paper from the objective side I could clearly see the Zeiss having a little beige/creamy tone to it while the Kowa has none.

Chromatic Aberration(CA) is almost absent for me, really. It´s quite astonishing. I looked at dark birds flying overhead, or other objects in front of a bright sky and couldn´t see any. But I´m not overly susceptible to it and don´t try hard to really see it (focus action and sharpness create enough trouble for me already!)

Glare/Stray Light are handled beautifully by Kowa and Zeiss. At first I thought there was no difference at all and with the sun high in the sky and looking up almost into the sun, there wasn´t. A real difference I saw when I later looked into trees with a very low, setting, sun just above. With the Zeiss I thought it handled this very difficult light real good, but only when I took the Kowa and went back to the Zeiss, I saw that the Zeiss produced a slight, but clearly visible, haze over the whole view. The Kowa was just amazingly clear and still revealed all the fine details in the trees. That was maybe the biggest difference I saw between the two.
At night by looking at street lights and the moon they were both equally good again. Maybe those little beams of light that emanate from street lights at night were a tiny bit better handled by the Kowa.

Pin Cushion is very low in the Zeiss, only a little at the edge of the field, no problem at all. Here again the Kowa has really almost none.

Other distortions are difficult to evaluate for me as I have not enough knowledge and experience to do that.



Fazit:
If I could wish for a perfect binocular I would choose the following:

I would take the body of the Kowa, compact and light, perfect in my hands, but with the armouring of the Zeiss. The eyecups I´d take again from the Zeiss, but the eyecup-mechanism and ease of eye positioning of the Kowa. I would choose the Focus-knob of the Kowa with the tension of the Zeiss. The speed of focus I´d take again from Kowa but the hinge tension of the Zeiss.
From the Kowa I´d choose the overall optical quality, but the tiny low-light advantage of the Zeiss. Some might also go for the slightly warmer color-bias of the Zeiss.
Well, you get the idea!


Now, I have to say that both binoculars seem very, very similar to me. I really would be happy to own both - maybe I will? |;| (although I had some trouble with the Zeiss lately)

The differences I perceived were very small, really. The Kowa is usually a little more expensive. So that might be a decisive factor. If you are in the market for that format of binocular and in that price range it could be really worthwhile to have a look at both.

A real important factor to keep in mind is sample-variation! It exists on all levels! I was quite amazed (sometimes shocked) at just how common it is.

One thing that bothers me a bit is that Kowa is quite unknown in terms of quality of customer service. They give only, at least in Germany, 5 years of warranty for parts and labor plus 5 years for parts only. I wish they would extend that a little. At least for their premium line.
What´s more is I talked to the person responsible for Kowa Sports Optics in Germany on the phone and asked him about the temperature range of the Genesis and whether they would tighten the hinge tension of my sample, his answer was that he didn´t know about the temperature and would have to ask in Japan and that they could adjust the hinge tension, but that would cost me 35 Euros. I was really surprised. He didn´t even say, they would have to look at it and then decide. Well, for me this is a Premium binocular and not exactly a cheap one. The hinge is too loose for me and it shouldn´t be any problem to tighten it – free of charge.
When I buy such an instrument, I would like to have a very good and reliable customer service as part of the whole package, even if the price of the binocular is a little higher at the end. But here it really sounded like they would charge even for new ocular protection cups – just for anything. They also don´t have their own repair facility but give it somewhere else. If it is as they say and they want to have a bigger share of the sports optics market, I really think they have to give their (maybe-)customers the feeling of a good service after the purchase.
So, that is the only thing that worries me a bit. Other than that – goood biiino!!!


So, is this comparison apples to apples? For me – yes. They seem very similar and it is almost impossible for me to decide which one I like better.

 

[typo]

Chris,

An excellent report. I've tried and liked them both, and, like you thought the Kowa had the edge on apparent resolution, but the 8.5x44 was better still IMO. I really didn't spend enough time with them to consider the other points so that's really usefull. It's a pity they don't produce a Vortex Razor HD 8x32. I think it might make an interesting 3 way shoot out.

David

 

[John Russell]

Chris,

Many thanks for the excellent comparison. I have no experience with the Conquest but would not dispute any of your findings on the Kowa.

However, it does show that each user has his/her individual priorities. I was very pleased with the smooth focussing action on my Kowa (it prompted me to send my SV back to Absam for a tune-up) but I must confess to not having noticed the difference in torque, clockwise/anticlockwise. It is as you say slight and is a small price to pay for synchronous movement of the focussing elements and a lack of play.

I initially received a 10x33 in error and this had a rather loose central hinge (as did an 8x42 Conquest HD I handled at my dealer), so I took the trouble to collect my 8x33 at Kowa Optimed in Düsseldorf. Although there is no reference to KR coating on the box, mine has hydrophobic coatings on objectives and oculars. Its serial no. is 331200xx.

Veiling glare has been attributed to some Zeiss bins on other threads. It was quite bad on a 12x45 Conquest I once owned and was present to a lesser extent on a 10x42 Victory FL, but as you say it is virtually absent on the Genesis.

I do feel, however, that the overriding merit of the Genesis is its lack of CA. All bins will have some lateral CA but the central image is cleaner than any I have seen. My SV is really very good in this respect but nevertheless takes second place to the Kowa.

John

 

[Chris 37]

Thanks David & John!

David,
I´d love to have a look at the Kowa Genesis 8.5x44. I read only good things about them, except their heaviness.
A Vortex Razor HD 8x32 should be interesting. I really like how the latest version of the HD 8x42 looks.
(only, I´d wave my magic wand and change the way they focus)

John,
yes, everyone has his/her priorities. I have to say that the difference in torque, clockwise/anticlockwise, in the Kowa Genesis was not bothersome to me, it was very slight. I just noticed it.
It´s amazing how different these focus mechanisms work. They are both very smooth but "feel" so different. The total absence of veiling glare was truely astonishing! It was also interesting that I didn´t see that slight haze in the Zeiss before looking through the Kowa. It tells me that I cannot evaluate a binocular without a comparison, a point of reference.

I´m glad, you`re enjoying your binos.

 

[cycleguy]

Chris 37,

I read your review with much interest as I'm a recent owner of a Conquest HD 8x32.

My only awareness of the Kowa is the Allbino's review which may have left it under-rated. But, from your post and my experience with the Zeiss I think it gives me a good sense of the Kowa and now I hope to get an opportunity with it someday.

I'm very happy with the Zeiss and think it is an exceptional binocular optically and a very good one ergonomically (eyecups/relief fit my face well enough but not perfectly so really just a minor cry). Like you, I found it to have a bit less contrast than many other bins I've tried. I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing as I like the HD as it is. I'm wondering if the cost of the brightness was giving up a hint of the contrast??? I didn't find the warm in the color but I've been comparing it side by side with a Nikon HG LX. The HD seems very neutral to me but I might say it goes ever so slightly to the cool gray vs ever so slightly to the warm gray.

So far, I'm thinking the Conquest HD 8x32 just may pan out to be one of my better binocular purchases.

CG

 

[Chris 37]

Chris 37,
I read your review with much interest as I'm a recent owner of a Conquest HD 8x32.
My only awareness of the Kowa is the Allbino's review which may have left it under-rated. But, from your post and my experience with the Zeiss I think it gives me a good sense of the Kowa and now I hope to get an opportunity with it someday.
I'm very happy with the Zeiss and think it is an exceptional binocular optically and a very good one ergonomically (eyecups/relief fit my face well enough but not perfectly so really just a minor cry). Like you, I found it to have a bit less contrast than many other bins I've tried. I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing as I like the HD as it is. I'm wondering if the cost of the brightness was giving up a hint of the contrast??? I didn't find the warm in the color but I've been comparing it side by side with a Nikon HG LX. The HD seems very neutral to me but I might say it goes ever so slightly to the cool gray vs ever so slightly to the warm gray.
So far, I'm thinking the Conquest HD 8x32 just may pan out to be one of my better binocular purchases.
CG

Hi CG,

yes the Kowa Genesis is very similar to the Zeiss Conquest and it´s very interesting to compare them both, but as I see in the US it also costs US$260.00 more than the Zeiss. So you have to pay quite a lot more for a (very)small advantage in the optics.
For me, only a deal that brought the price much closer to that of the Zeiss, made me consider it.

Hey, as I also see, you guys have as usual the much(!!) better warranty!
In this case a "Kowa Limited Lifetime Warranty", whatever that means. But it sounds a lot better than 5 years for parts & labor, plus 5 years for parts only!

The color-bias of a binocular is checked quite easily when you take a big pure-white sheet of paper, lay it on the ground and under enough natural light look at it, with some distance from the eye, but from the lens side, not the ocular side. By just looking through a bino it may not be visible.

.

 

[Dorian Gray]

The color-bias of a binocular is checked quite easily when you take a big pure-white sheet of paper, lay it on the ground and under enough natural light look at it, with some distance from the eye, but from the lens side, not the ocular side. By just looking through a bino it may not be visible.

Although this test tells you what a white object looks like through the binocular, it doesn’t necessarily tell you what other colours look like.

It’s a bit like viewing things in the light of two lamps: an incandescent lamp and a compact fluorescent lamp. A piece of white paper might look the same under them, while a green object, or a blue object, or a brown object, might look quite different. That’s because the spectral power distribution differs between the lamps.

Likewise, two binoculars can have overall transmissions rendering white objects the same, while having transmission differences at particular wavelengths that cause them to look quite different with coloured objects.

None of which is to say your test isn’t useful. Clearly it is.

The rest of your review was interesting too. Thanks! But the Kowa seems quite a bit more expensive than the Zeiss in France or the UK.

 

[John Russell]

Although this test tells you what a white object looks like through the binocular, it doesn’t necessarily tell you what other colours look like.

But white light (sunlight, not fluorescent lighting) is a mixture of all visible wavelengths, so the test is a very valid one.

John

 

[Dorian Gray]

But white light (sunlight, not fluorescent lighting) is a mixture of all visible wavelengths, so the test is a very valid one.

The test shows the white rendition of the two binoculars, and in that sense is useful.

I’m just saying you can’t extrapolate from that to say the binocular that renders a warmer white, for instance, will render all colours at the red end of the spectrum brighter (or for that matter all blues darker). It might render simultaneously a warmer white and a darker deep red than the other binocular.

Alternatively, the two binoculars might render white identically but produce different renditions of other colours. In an (unlikely) extreme case, one binocular might transmit almost no light at 540 nm, and yet still appear perfectly normal to your eye when viewing a white object. But if you used it to look at an object of just the right shade of green, the object would appear black!

My point is that binoculars filter the component wavelengths of sunlight differently, and our eyes, not being spectrometers, are unable to gauge the transmission at all wavelengths merely by looking at an object that, on balance, appears white.

 

[John Russell]

Binoculars don't have notch filters and transmission curves are usually fairly smooth with values generally in excess of 70% between the violet and the red for the better ones.

If a bin transmitted "almost no light" at 540 nm it would be useless, as that is close to the wavelength where the human eye is most sensitive.

If we don't have the means to do a spectral analysis the paper test is the best method of detecting colour balance. AFAIK it was first postulated by Walter E. Schön, a physicist and technical journalist.

John

 

[Chris 37]

Thanks John and Dorian,

I don´t know much about this stuff. But I think this simple paper test can give you at least a very rough idea
about a possible color-bias of your binoculars.
In this case I saw the slightly warmer colors in the Zeiss before doing the little test.
_

 

[cycleguy]

I always thought images were considered cool or warm or neutral ... didn't think they could be cool, warm, and neutral all at the same time. So confused. :C

CG

 

[Chris 37]

I always thought images were considered cool or warm or neutral ... didn't think they could be cool, warm, and neutral all at the same time. So confused. :C

CG

Hey CG,

I think it isn´t that bad. We can leave that wavelength-nm-stuff to the experts.|;|
Just see for yourself whether you like the colors or not.
_