New Zeiss Conquest HD (1 Viewer)

[Torview]

Its funny how impressions vary amongst us all, I felt quite the opposite about the new Conquest, in fact I tried the new Opticron DBA Mg at the same time, they could have been made in the same factory to me.

I`ll wait to try the Victory HT, with any luck it will sum up "Zeissness" as it appears to me.

 

[James Bean]

If you see me toting a Buck Rogers ray gun with a small blue badge on it, indubitably it'll be an original ('classic') Zeiss Conquest. It couldn't be anything else. If I'm carrying a Zeiss BGAT, 10x25 Victory, Nikon SE or HG, it'll not be difficult identifying these either (if you care about such things). The point I'm trying to make is that lots of stuff these days looks like lots of other stuff. I like to be different, so I'm drawn towards things which don't resemble things most other people are using. I don't doubt the new Conquest will be competent, since it's a Zeiss, but to my eyes it doesn't look like a Zeiss , it's too... bland. The new HT seems to have a bit more about it, 'sharply distinctive' and not at all like a Swarovski, Leica or Nikon. But, arguably, if the Conquest HD had been launched with no identifying name or marks, would you have guessed it's a new Zeiss?
I wouldn't. But then, that's just my opinion...

 

[Torview]

If you see me toting a Buck Rogers ray gun with a small blue badge on it, indubitably it'll be an original ('classic') Zeiss Conquest. It couldn't be anything else. If I'm carrying a Zeiss BGAT, 10x25 Victory, Nikon SE or HG, it'll not be difficult identifying these either (if you care about such things). The point I'm trying to make is that lots of stuff these days looks like lots of other stuff. I like to be different, so I'm drawn towards things which don't resemble things most other people are using. I don't doubt the new Conquest will be competent, since it's a Zeiss, but to my eyes it doesn't look like a Zeiss , it's too... bland. The new HT seems to have a bit more about it, 'sharply distinctive' and not at all like a Swarovski, Leica or Nikon. But, arguably, if the Conquest HD had been launched with no identifying name or marks, would you have guessed it's a new Zeiss?
I wouldn't. But then, that's just my opinion...

Eloquently put James.

How`s the reunion going with the 8x30.

I`m loving the 8x40ABK, its always a pleasure to find something that just works for oneself

 

[james holdsworth]

I tried these today......they may just need a recall on this model. As several others have noted, even with the eyecups fully extended, it is not possible to find a comfortable view, without blackouts. I'm not sure if this is excessive eye relief or not enough?

The only way to use these is on an angle or with the eye-pieces held out from the face. Uncomfortable and irritating. The view, though, was nice. Bright, sharp and with a much improved sweetspot.

 

[James Bean]

I'm enjoying my re-acquaintance with the 'old' 8x30 Conquest. It's a later version of the one I used to have up to about a year ago. The only obvious difference is this recent one has a stylised 'Z' on the front hinge cap, whereas my earlier model was plain (blank). I like the lightness, compared to a Nikon 8x42 HG, even though that load "... doesn't weigh me down at all, it ain't heavy..." (it is, actually, but the trick is in not minding). The Conquest has its good points, which in my view (literally) outweigh its shortcomings. It seems few of my binoculars perform as well as they used to, but I apprehend the fault lies with my ageing eyes rather than the ever-faithful binoculars. Yet, some models still appear to suit me better, such as the Zeiss 10x40 BGAT, which always gives a pleasing view for some reason I can't explain, rather like Torview's affinity with the 8x40 ABK. On the other hand, the new Conquest HD may have some way to go in pleasing most of the people most of the time, if it's to become a 'comfortable fit'. Perhaps like the Nikon SE?

 

[David Swain]

Interesting how quickly this binocular faded in interest here. I recently had a chance to try out a pair, along with some Vortex 8x42HDs, along with my 8x30EIIs.

The Zeiss is a very nice package: solid, well constructed (if a trifle "plasticky"), with a very smooth focuser. I was immediately struck with the vibrant, bright centerfield view, which I felt delivered some "pop." A pleasure to look through, until I allowed my eyes to stray toward the edges, where I encountered significant CA in the outer 20% of he FOV. I am not sensitive to CA, and had I been in a forest I would not have noticed it, but I found this band of lateral color pretty objectionable.

As others have noted, the eyecups are a soft rubber. I wear glasses, and I found that they were so tacky that they gripped the surface of my glasses so well that they bent in at the rim, creating a very annoying kidney-beaning effect. At first I simply thought I had the ER set wrong (the eyecup detent click was pretty tenacious, and didn't favor my setting them shorter or longer), but at every setting I was still getting something interfering with the outer edges of the FOV. Then I realized how easily the shape of the eyecups deformed with finger pressure. The rubber formulation is simply too soft, and I imagine in hot weather this will create significant problems, particularly for eyeglass wearers.

Overall, I had somewhat mixed feelings about this binocular. The centerfield view was terrific, but the amount of CA and the difficulty I encountered with the eyecups would make living with it difficult for me.

A quick note on the Vortex Viper HD: I really liked how this binocular handled, and while its FOV was a bit restricted, it showed no significant CA, was bright and sharp well toward the edge (80%?), focuser had good tension, and everything worked well together. It just lacked any excitement in the view.

Both, of course, were brighter than my EIIs, and because it was cloudy the Conquest HD seemed to show a bit more centerfield detail simply because it was brighter (and clean!).

Lately I've had an itch for a pair of roofs in a different configuration than the 8x30s for birding in cold or rainy conditions. Neither of these exactly "blew the doors" off my EIIs. That phrase I'd reserve for the 8x32 SVs I tried next!

David

 

[brocknroller]

I have the SE and I don't experience image blackouts unless I dig my eyes into the eyecups to see the full FOV and get too close to the EPs or if I quickly move my eyes toward the lateral edges. I also see "flickering" when I pan with the SEs due to my eyes darting ahead in the direction of the movement.

The "blackouts" are due to spherical aberration of the exit pupils, which makes eye placement critical.

http://www.telescope-optics.net/eyep...erration_2.htm

It's possible but odd that Zeiss would design EPs with SAEP when the older Conquests nor any other Zeiss bin that I recall had such a design.

What you describe reminds me of my experience with the Leupold 6x30 Yosemite, which has a listed 18.5mm ER.

It was as if the eyecups weren't long enough. I had to hold the bins away from my face in order to avoid image blackouts. I never read any reports about SA of the exit pupil with the Yosemites. But to use them comfortably, I would need to extend the eyecups a few more mm.

Users have also reported this problem with the Pentax DCF SP 8x43, which has a listed 22mm ER. Good for most eyeglass wearers, but problematic for some non-eyeglass wearers.

It remains to be determined whether SA of the exit pupil is the culprit with the Conquest HDs or if they simply need to design a longer eyecup to accommodate those of us who experience blackouts with long ER EPs, which seems to be a fairly common issue.

If Zeiss did make longer eyecups, the question would then be: Could you see the entire FOV the eyecups extended another stop or two?

Having said that, I've read discussions (or I should say debates) on Cloudy Nights over what causes image blackouts in long ER bins. Some argue that it's always SAEP, and that bins with long ER make SAEP more noticeable. This is mentioned at the end of the SAEP section in the link posted above.

If this is true, then some people who for whatever reason are extra sensitive to image blackouts (could be an offset eye, that is, one eye is farther from center than the other whereas EPs are always equidistant from center, could be one eye is deeper set than the other), will never be able to see the full FOV w/out some image blackouts in long ER bins.

I will leave it for the experts to delve deeper.

Brock

 

[David Swain]

Brock,

I was not experiencing image blackouts or typical kidney-beaning. I'm familiar with the SA issue with SEs, and this was nothing like that. Simply put, I could not get comfortable with the eyecups, partly because their soft texture made it difficult to actually position them carefully on my glasses. I could certainly induce blackouts if I deliberately set the eyecups all the way in or too far out. I wear close-fitting glasses, and on my Yosemite 6x30 typically back them out 3-4 mm; the first click-stop was about 4mm, but perhaps not quite perfect.

David

 

[Torview]

I posted earlier that I experienced blackout unless I held the HD away from my face, however this was only on the 8X42 not the 10 which was fine, but I`m not a 10X person.

 

[absolut_beethoven]

The Zeiss is a very nice package: solid, well constructed (if a trifle "plasticky"), with a very smooth focuser. I was immediately struck with the vibrant, bright centerfield view, which I felt delivered some "pop." A pleasure to look through, until I allowed my eyes to stray toward the edges, where I encountered significant CA in the outer 20% of he FOV. I am not sensitive to CA, and had I been in a forest I would not have noticed it, but I found this band of lateral color pretty objectionable.

Quoted from what I wrote in the Zeiss Victory HT thread the other day...

"I reviewed the new Zeiss Conquest HD and compared it extensively with the Nikon Edg and Pentax DCF ED. The focusing knob on mine was too tight and uneven, but optically I thought they were excellent value for the money.

Nobody else that has tried them had any issues with uneven or tight focusing.

The only area I felt that should have been better optically, especially considering Zeiss expertise in this area, is that I felt CA control should have been better. Although it is worse than I expected for a Zeiss product, I didn't find it intrusive because the color fringing was very pale in color, so it didn't draw attention to itself. But is easily seen if you look for it."

I was greatly impressed with the centerfield sharpness and resolution and the fact that it covered almost 90% of the FOV, but like you I was disappointed in the amount of CA, especially as Zeiss have achieved excellent results in their other binos in that area.

The detail seen at twilight and in the shade was exceptionally good too. These are very bright binos.

I found the eyecups very comfortbable and had zero problems with blackouts, but then I don't wear eyeglasses and brace them firmly just under my eyebrows.

Bino eyecups are very personal, it either works for you or it doesn't, and obviously not every design is going to work well for every person who tries them.

 

[brocknroller]

Brock,

I was not experiencing image blackouts or typical kidney-beaning. I'm familiar with the SA issue with SEs, and this was nothing like that. Simply put, I could not get comfortable with the eyecups, partly because their soft texture made it difficult to actually position them carefully on my glasses. I could certainly induce blackouts if I deliberately set the eyecups all the way in or too far out. I wear close-fitting glasses, and on my Yosemite 6x30 typically back them out 3-4 mm; the first click-stop was about 4mm, but perhaps not quite perfect.

David

David,

I was referring mainly to James Holdsworth's comment about "blackouts" with the Conquest HD, but I believe some others mentioned this problem as well.

Your close-fitting eyeglasses might put your eyes closer to the EPs than my close-fitting glasses would, because my eyes are deep set.

The ideal for eyeglass wearers would be continuously adjustable twist-ups that could be set wherever the user needed them rather than where the click stops are. However, the more click stops, the more choices.

The soft eyecups on the Conquests were probably designed to give non-eyeglass wearers more comfort, but I can imagine how that could create an issue for eyeglass wearers who have to push harder against the eyecups.

The addition of more click stops or perhaps a harder eyecup option for eyeglass wearers are possible solutions.

Brock

 

[David Swain]

The ideal for eyeglass wearers would be continuously adjustable twist-ups that could be set wherever the user needed them rather than where the click stops are. However, the more click stops, the more choices.

The soft eyecups on the Conquests were probably designed to give non-eyeglass wearers more comfort, but I can imagine how that could create an issue for eyeglass wearers who have to push harder against the eyecups.

The addition of more click stops or perhaps a harder eyecup option for eyeglass wearers are possible solutions.

Brock

Well put. I'd agree that the ER was a bit tricky, and in the short while I used them I did not get quite comfortable with it. Speaking of the Yosemites (the original model), one of the features I like best is the continuously adjustable eyecups.

David

 

[Kevin Purcell]

Speaking of the Yosemites (the original model), one of the features I like best is the continuously adjustable eyecups.

The first set of eyecups on the Zeiss FL (at least ... I'm not sure about the second version of "rounder" eyecups) work as continuously adjustable eyecups.

The Yosemites too

One of my favorite features of these bins as my two eyes require different eye relief. I wear glasses and have a lot more negative correction in my right eye giving it a longer effective ER.

I'm not sure why continuously adjustable eyecups have not been adopted by more companies.

 

[absolut_beethoven]

The soft eyecups on the Conquests were probably designed to give non-eyeglass wearers more comfort, but I can imagine how that could create an issue for eyeglass wearers who have to push harder against the eyecups.

I don't use eyeglasses with binos, but I was convinced that the soft eyecups on the Zeiss HD's would be a positive for them, especially considering the extra millimeter or two of give that they have when lightly pressed, thereby bringing the glass closer to the ocular with virtually zero chance of scratching either.

 

[Nessus]

I have a trick for getting a better view and fixing blackouts on the old conquests. My 8x30 and 12x45 have a rubber fitted outer cup and it's not glued on. You just pull it up on the bottom and let it give you an extra quarter inch of viewing space for ER and voila, the view is instantly way better. At least for me and I have to do this with both bins or they don't come out far enough.

 

[idaho john]

and...

just tested the new Conquest HD in 10x42 at my local Cabela's. The view through them was quite nice. I looked for the reported softness at the edge of the field and could not see it. In side by side comparison with a Victory T* FL the Conquest HD was not as bright - to my eyes anyway. Regardless it was a quality view...for me.

Addressing some recent complaints or concerns - the diopter ring was easy to move and I did not experience any rough spots as noted by others. The focus wheel was smooth through the whole range - again no sense of uneveness in movement. The eye cups and eye relief works for me - I wear corrective lenses - but eye placement was not intuitive (that is, I had to work with it to find the best match with my eyes) on this binocular and found that it impacted my ability to utilize the full field of view. I like the glass except...

One issue that I notice with the Conquest HD and have had with other binoculars is a period of nausea when attempting to get the diopter set (adjusting the diopter...not a reaction to the price |<|). I don't know if this is related to not having the IPD adjusted before trying to set the diopter. When this happens it is rather pronounced and has caused me to pass on other binoculars in the past...and may influence me to seriously reconsider purchasing a Conquest HD 8x32.

To be fair - attempting to use a binocular inside a store is a poor test of its utility. But in order to give the Conquest its due, I would have to buy it and I don't happen to have the cash just handy to do a more thorough test.

Cabela's is going to have the 8x42 model on hand in a month and I plan to try them again and see what my reaction is to that configuration.

John

 

[Nessus]

AF coating's color (yellow-green) is quite different than FL's T*.

I know this is an odd request but I'd love to see a picture of a flashlight shined into the objective so you can see many levels down of lens reflection. The FL had a different color on almost every lens, it would be cool to see how the new one's reflect.

Ohh and congratulations on your purchase!

Thihs is the type of thing I'm talking about. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/coatingsfinalsmall.jpg/

 

[garymh]

Sorry but I am totally lost here !!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is the recent fascination with shining torches into binocular objectives.

Surely if the image is good when looking through the eyepieces (the way a binocular is designed to be used) then that is all that matters.

 

[brocknroller]

Don't have either of these, but I thought it would be interesting to make some Nikon nebulae. Since my camera doesn't have a macro lens, the patterns are even more nebulous than the photos in the link posted, but you can see the distinction in colors between them.

The first photo shows reflections off the 10x35 EII, the second, the 10x42 SE.

Note the blue in the EII and the pink in the SE, and also the subtle but noticeable difference in the shade of green. EII is close to lime green whereas the SE is close to shamrock green.

<B>

 

[mosschops]

Bonkers verging on the sad.......

(BTW I have done this with my Ultravids and found the results most interesting, seeing all the different colours relecting off each piece of glass!)