Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32 vs. 8x42 for birding (1 Viewer)

[Paultricounty]

I would like to share how sorry I feel for you that it is Spring Migration and you are pathetically counting my posts. That is so sad. Are you in an Iron Lung and cannot get out to bird?
I am frustrated, angry, and annoyed with these Zeiss Conquest binoculars. I wish to tell the WORLD about the lousy product Zeiss made for $1000.

Hi Alicia,

We understand your disappointment with your binoculars, and many here can sympathize as we've all had one issue or another over the years with our optics, but you've made your point multiple times in multiple discussions and we get it. Many here (with lots of experience) have offered advice and suggestions numerous times to you. This is not a good way to start off as a new member attacking someone who makes a small (and humorous) quip after you repeated yourself in multiple discussions on the forum. I for one thought the iron lung thing was funny, but it date you

As you'll find out if you stick around that this forum is about the best place to go for information on multiple topics, and most of all the members are good people who love to share their knowledge and some lack thereof every day with anybody. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don’t, sometimes we bicker at each other, but we always come around with one another every day, like one big dysfunctional happy family 😜.

At this point the only thing I can say is you’ve gone the extra yard, I should say a few football fields in attempting to remedy the situation to no avail , it’s time to move on. Buy new binoculars, give the conquest away or sell with at a discount with an explanation, someone will buy them at the right price.

Good luck

Paul

Replies:

 

[tenex]

I would like to share how sorry I feel for you that it is Spring Migration and you are pathetically counting my posts. That is so sad. Are you in an Iron Lung and cannot get out to bird?
I am frustrated, angry, and annoyed with these Zeiss Conquest binoculars. I wish to tell the WORLD about the lousy product Zeiss made for $1000.

Close, I'm recovering from pulmonary embolisms... but actually can get out to bird now, which would indeed be a better use of time than reading your posts.

 

[Paultricounty]

Close, I'm recovering from pulmonary embolisms... but actually can get out to bird now, which would indeed be a better use of time than reading your posts.

Eric, wishing you a full speedy recovery. Stay off those inclines and don't try opening the iron lung door by yourself. 🙏

 

[Paultricounty]

I only saw ONE helpful tip - Donate the Lemon Zeiss bins to local Audubon chapter. The rest of the ideas were NOT helpful and y’all were nasty and unkind.

I was seeking help out of desperation & frustration & have learned that this is NOT the place for help.

I don’t understand, there are multiple posts with members making suggestions, and you just keep going on and on. Then somebody points out that you’ve made your point multiple times in multiple discussions and you take offense and make derogatory remarks and then complain people are making derogatory remarks. How can we help any more? At this point you continue to bash and complain about the binoculars and then moved on the complain about the members. After 11 years and 8 attempts , come on man, move on!

 

[dries1]

That was a lot of birds there, LOL.

 

[tenex]

Eric, wishing you a full speedy recovery.

Thanks, but let's not lose sight of what really matters here...

 

[Paultricounty]

I’ve opined on this a few times before, I feel the 32 and 42 are the sweet spot of all the different objective size options for birding. A good 32 can do just about anything a 42 can do 90%+/- of the time. I don’t feel we’re giving up much with a 32. That being said if the binoculars are the only piece of equipment I’ll be carrying , then I generally prefer 42’s. But if I’m doing some mountainous or rougher terrain and or carrying a spotter and camera equipment, then I go 32 just about all those times. I think anytime a few onces/grams matter, then the 30/32 is all one needs to do some serious observing.

 

[Anderlfs]

I can't understand the reason for this Zeiss Conquest 8x32 because it has the weight of a good quality 8x42, with dimensions more similar to a full-size than a mid-size. There many options for a few grams more, better FOV, eye relief... Of course, I have never used a Conquest, so I imagined that the technology built in it would make up for it, but from the initial topic, it seems not. If someone could say something about, I’m thankful.

 

[Paultricounty]

I can't understand the reason for this Zeiss Conquest 8x32 because it has the weight of a good quality 8x42, with dimensions more similar to a full-size than a mid-size. There many options for a few grams more, better FOV, eye relief... Of course, I have never used a Conquest, so I imagined that the technology built in it would make up for it, but from the initial topic, it seems not. If someone could say something about, I’m thankful.

I think you should take another look at the conquest stats. Might be slightly on heavy side for
32’s , but definitely more compact than most 42’s. It is also a good step up optically from the two you mentioned, probably two separate from the Oberwerk.

 

[Anderlfs]

Ok. I just reread an Oberwerk’s review and didn’t remember the reviewer (a forum user) even made a comparison with the Conquest (probably with the 8x42): “Sport ED 8x42 has that crystal clear clarity reminiscent of high-end European binoculars like the Zeiss Conquest HD but with a significantly larger field of view.” I mean, it's 41 grams heavier, 1cm taller, 0.8cm wider, with a 42cm objective, less likely to present the light limitation OP’s described. And like this, there are others from other brands. I write this to receive counterarguments, but I'll do my best to investigate further in other conquest stats. It is truly in my best interest.

 

[tenex]

I can't understand the reason for this Zeiss Conquest 8x32 because it has the weight of a good quality 8x42, with dimensions more similar to a full-size than a mid-size. There many options for a few grams more, better FOV, eye relief...

32 vs 42mm can be a difficult question for a variety of reasons:

• people worry too much that 32mm has limited use in low light, but 42 isn't dramatically better (go to 50 or 56 if you really need this)
• both vary enough that there is some overlap in size, which may defeat the purpose of 32 for some
• some 42s make optical compromises to avoid being larger still, resulting in reduced FOV, close focus, etc vs the 32

In any case, if Conquest 32 isn't appealing to you, you're not crazy, just choose something else. (GPO? MeoStar? Trinovid? SFL?)

Ok. I just reread an Oberwerk’s review and didn’t remember the reviewer (a forum user) even made a comparison with the Conquest (probably with the 8x42): “Sport ED 8x42 has that crystal clear clarity reminiscent of high-end European binoculars like the Zeiss Conquest HD...

Reminiscent is a vague weasel-word that may well mean less to you than to this reviewer, who is well known for singing the virtues of cheap bins vs higher-end ones. But variations in resolution, contrast, color (and mechanical quality) do matter more to some than to others, so you really need to make such a comparison yourself and find out which camp you're in before making your choice. (If you don't have local shops, perhaps you can just find people with bins at different price points to compare?)

 

[Anderlfs]

Actually, Conquest 32 is appealing to me. It has one of the best usable eye relief in the category and probably a snappy focus, edge’s sharpness and so on, although I'm still starting the research, which is why I came here. Good tip, I'll try to find a local group, while I can only stay in the theoretical field and It has been a good learning experience for me. Thanks.

 

[LucaPCP]

I recently bought a pair of Zeiss Conquest HDs in the 8x32 format. For me, this is a near-perfect binocular. It has a large FOV at 420 ft and a large AFOV at 64 degrees which provides a very immersive image. It handles well, focuses quickly and smoothly, feels great in the hand, is built like a tank, accommodates my rather narrow IPD, eye relief is perfect for me (I do not wear glasses), it focuses nice and close for nearby feeder viewing... I can go on! It is a very well-balanced instrument. However, one evening I was out birding in a forested marshy area following a storm. I was tracking a nighthawk and a few other birds by sound. It was about 1 hour before sunset. Conditions were fairly dim under the forest canopy. I scanned up into the tree tops and could make out some detail, but not well enough to discern tree bark from a stationary bird. I am young and have good vision. I think I may have run into the low-light performance limitation of the 32mm lens + 4mm exit pupil, despite the high-transmission glass found in this bino. I go birding at all hours of the day, including after work and well into twilight. Given the great things I had read on the forum about the CHD 8x32, including some folks mentioning that it could be used in low-light situations better than one might expect, and all the positive things I mentioned above, I really wanted it to work out! I ended up returning it after a few days due to the less than desired low-light performance.

So now, I'd like to try out the CHD in the 8x42 format because the 42mm objectives and 5.25mm exit pupil should let in more light for the conditions I bird in. I haven't been able to test one locally, but I have been able to test it in a store in the 10x42 format. It is also an amazing bino for the same reasons the 8x32 is, and it has an even larger AFOV at 66 degrees. I am reasonably sure that ergonomically, the 8x42 format will work for me, though I may need to get the longer eye cups from Zeiss.

The reason I have not already bought them, however, is because of the model's stated FOV and AFOV. Where the 8x32 and 10x42 have quite large FOV and AFOV (near the top of their class at this price point), the 8x42 has a rather "normal" FOV of 384 ft and AFOV of 59 degrees. My worry is that after experiencing the 8x32, whose FOV is 40 ft wider and AFOV 5 degrees wider, am I going to feel like I'm staring through a tunnel in the 8x42 format? Do other folks on the forum have experience with these specific models who could comment on this? Can folks explain why the 8x32 and 10x42 CHD have such large and immersive AFOV while the 8x42 seems to be more narrow? Does it actually feel narrow? Do the views actually feel quite similar between the 8x32 and 8x42? I'm guessing the 8x42 might be my goldilocks bino but would love to hear about other people's experiences with them. I hope I've not ruined other binocular views after experiencing the 8x32! Thanks for any insights and happy birding!

For these conditions, I would likely use my 7x42: bright and a large field of view to search for birds. Not the best in open landscapes for IDing distant birds, but very good for birds under canopies and when light is suboptimal.
My 8x42 are a bit better than 8x32 but not enough to make a large difference.
My 3 most used formats are:

• 8x32 for long hikes
• 10x42 for open landscapes (likely my favorite binos right now)
• 7x42 for birding in the woods and with bad light.