Zeiss Conquest vs. Kowa Genesis. (1 Viewer)

[Pepitogrillo]

Hello,
Since these two "almost-alpha" have a very similar price, in your opinion and at a general level is there any clear advantage of one over the other?
All this for an observer who does not use glasses to observe...,
How is the issue of blackouts in them?
After sales service..?
kind regards
Pepito

 

[Dennis Mau]

I have had them both and compared them closely, and I preferred the Zeiss, although these two are very close, and it would be best if you tried them yourself. I personally liked the Zeiss better because it has sharper edges, and it handles glare better than the Kowa. The Kowa's edges are softer, and I noticed them more than the Zeiss. I didn't have any issues with either as far as blackouts, but if you did have issues with the Zeiss, you can contact them, and they will send you longer eye cups free of charge. After sales service is pretty good with both Kowa and Zeiss in my experience.

 

[Tringa45]

Do you mean 32/33 or 42/44?
I have an 8x33 Genesis and while I would admit that the edge sharpness is not particularly good, its central colour correction is outstanding, just no detectable longitudinal CA.
As regards glare, I compared six binoculars available to me, a Meopta Meostar, four Swarovskis and the Genesis, which I considered to be marginally the best.

John

 

[has530]

I prefer the kowa but mainly because the eyecups of the zeiss did not fit my face at all and made eye placement a pain (they also had superior correction of CA and a better focusing mechanism). I would agree that trying both would be the best option.

 

[eitanaltman]

Kowa Genesis is slightly better optically, the extremely bright and neutral colors and near complete lack of false color put it a notch above the (still excellent) view of the Conquest HD. The build of the Kowa is slightly more premium as well.

All of this is to be expected considering the list price of the Genesis is a decent bit higher.

In the 42/44mm format the Zeiss has a size/weight advantage, but in 32/33mm format the Kowa wins (the Zeiss is slightly chunkier and about 5% heavier).

I find eye placement easy on both in 8x32/33 format, they both have large soft eyecups and good extension.

IMO the Kowa 8x33 Genesis is the very best “reasonably priced” binocular in this format. You have to spend quite a bit more to get something better. A used 8x32 Leica Ultravid should be considered as well if you want to minimize size/weight even more.

 

[Dennis Mau]

If you like sharper edges and a bigger sweet spot, I think you will prefer the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 over the Kowa Genesis HD 8x32 and even though the actual FOV of the Kowa and Zeiss are similar in size, the actual usable FOV of the Zeiss is much larger. Only 73% of the Kowa Genesis FOV is sharp, whereas, 84% of the Zeiss Conquest HD FOV is sharp. That is 11% larger, and it makes a big difference in actual viewing. The softer edges of the Kowa Genesis made me prefer the Zeiss Conquest HD much more, but it depends on how much you value a larger usable FOV. IMO, the softer edges of the Kowa can be distracting. Kowa would have been better off designing the binocular with a smaller FOV with less blur at the edge.

Kowa Genesis 8x33 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Carl Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 - binoculars review - AllBinos.com

The best binocular tests on the net. The comprehensive database of binoculars with their parameters and users opinions. Interesting articles and comparisons.

www.allbinos.com

Kowa Genesis 8x33

Blurring at the edge of the FOV	The blur occurs in the distance of 73% +/- 5% from the field of view center.	4/10.0

Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32

Blurring at the edge of the FOV	The blur occurs in a distance of 84% ± 5% from the field of vision center.	6.5/10.0

"The Kowa binoculars feature a huge field of view, even a bit wider than those officially declared 8 degrees – in fact, it is a record-breaker in this class, among contemporary produced roof prism instruments. Once again, though, too much emphasis was put on the big field of view and with small dimensions and vignetting prisms, we get the edge not as sharp as we would expect as a result. The Kowa would be probably better off with the field of view of about 7.8 degrees. Nobody could criticize it for it being too narrow, but its edge would look definitely better."

 

[has530]

Not to turn this into yet another field flatness debate, but I think definitions of "usable FOV" are subjective. To me the fall off in neither was objectionable (and I may point out that the allbinos test although sounding rather scientific, is not. Saying when blur starts is not a very sensible thing to measure given it comes in continuously and may rapidly deteriorate or just result in image softening. Also with their error bars the difference between the two could be as little as 1%). I tend to just keep my eyes centered in the center of the FOV and given that the eye has far better color perception than visual acuity in the peripheral, I find CA at the edge resulting in flashes of color far more distracting than image softness. If the sweet spot is wide and sweet and the edges are good enough to see what's there that's all I need. But I digress, both are fine instruments sure to satisfy their users and it ultimately comes down to personal preference.

 

[Troubador]

These are both fine binoculars and IMHO the most significant difference between them is that the Conquest has a significantly faster focuser. I find this very useful when visiting habitats and locations where there are many species of butterflies and dragonflies as well as birds, that are new to me.

 

[Tringa45]

These are both fine binoculars and IMHO the most significant difference between them is that the Conquest has a significantly faster focuser. I find this very useful when visiting habitats and locations where there are many species of butterflies and dragonflies as well as birds, that are new to me.

Well, the Conquest must be exceptionally (too?) fast.
When I posted my initial impressions of the 8x33 Genesis in 2012 I had the false impression of shallow depth of field. This was probably due to the focus snap and that the focusser was faster than other binoculars to which I was accustomed.
I later measured it at 10,4°/dioptre Focus Overtravel (compatibility for the near-sighted), which I still think is rather fast.

John

 

[Troubador]

Well, the Conquest must be exceptionally (too?) fast.
When I posted my initial impressions of the 8x33 Genesis in 2012 I had the false impression of shallow depth of field. This was probably due to the focus snap and that the focusser was faster than other binoculars to which I was accustomed.
I later measured it at 10,4°/dioptre Focus Overtravel (compatibility for the near-sighted), which I still think is rather fast.

John

Conquest is fast, but 'exceptionally'? Not really. Other binos with very similar focus speeds include Kowa ED II 6.5x32 XD, Eden XP 8x32, Opticron Traveller BGA ED 8x32, Opticron Discovery WP PC 8x32, and Opticron Verano BGA VHD 8x32.
Personally I don't find this too fast at all and when in France and surrounded by birds, butterflies and dragonflies that were new to me I found Conquest's focus speed ideal for getting views of these often fast-flying unfamiliar species.
BTW I use the focusing technique that Zeiss used to recommend a couple of decades ago and that is to not try to go straight to the point of best focus, but to quickly rotate the focus wheel past the point of focus then stop and slowly turn the focus wheel back to the point of best focus.

 

[Upland]

Both are great sub alphas. The Zeiss has better sharpness to the edges. However the Kowa has better build quality and DOF.

 

[Canip]

the Kowa has better build quality and DOF.

DOF?

 

[etudiant]

Conquest is fast, but 'exceptionally'? Not really. Other binos with very similar focus speeds include Kowa ED II 6.5x32 XD, Eden XP 8x32, Opticron Traveller BGA ED 8x32, Opticron Discovery WP PC 8x32, and Opticron Verano BGA VHD 8x32.
Personally I don't find this too fast at all and when in France and surrounded by birds, butterflies and dragonflies that were new to me I found Conquest's focus speed ideal for getting views of these often fast-flying unfamiliar species.
BTW I use the focusing technique that Zeiss used to recommend a couple of decades ago and that is to not try to go straight to the point of best focus, but to quickly rotate the focus wheel past the point of focus then stop and slowly turn the focus wheel back to the point of best focus.

Is there anyone who has tried to assess the relative benefits of fast vs slow focus? Anyone proposed some objective tests?
My Canon 10x42 IS has super slow focus, 3 3/4 turns lock to lock, wonderfully precise, just a nudge to get the eye lashes into proper focus.
Of course, also lots of frantic turning if a raptor pops up far away....
For all the alphas, focus speed is apparently invariable, yet iirc, some manufacturer, possibly Kowa or Pentax, had a variable speed focus that slowed down when turned slowly, but sped up when turned fast. That seems a useful innovation. Does anyone have actual experience with such?