Roger Vine’s review of the Conquest 10x42 HD (1 Viewer)

[John A Roberts]

Roger has just posted a review of the above, see at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissConquest10x42HD.htm
Usefully, it includes direct comparisons to the Leica Trinovid HD. Both are currently listed by B&H Photo at US $999

Roger has also separately reviewed the Leica, along with the Nikon Monarch HG ($996 at B&H Photo),
see at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/BinoReviews.htm


John

 

[Silent Observer]

Could anyone that owns a Conquest HD 10x42 comment on the reliability of these binoculars, specifically over a period of 2-3 years in terms of.

1. Hinge Tension variation
2. Any focussing related issues
3. Diopter drift
4. Eye cup reliability
5. Any other issues

Just trying to gauge if this binocular is mechanically sound and would potentially provide trouble free service throughout it's service life...

Many thanks.

 

[Canip]

I had my Conquest 10x42 HD since 2014 and nevet had an issue at all under points 1. - 4. of your post # 2 (I always found the clickstops on the eyecups a bit flimsy, but they haven‘t failed and seem to be more sturdy than I anticipated).

As to point 5.: for some reason, the rubber of the armour on some of my binoculars develops a greyish coating over time (I suspect it is those with a relatively high natural rubber content), and the 10x42 HD is one of them (the 8x42 too, the 15x56 not). Not a big deal, I can easily wipe it off with a soft cloth, so just a small nuisance.

Canip

 

[Silent Observer]

Hi Canip, Thanks a lot for sharing this info, sounds re-assuring, I will be receiving the 10x42 tomorrow to evaluate over the weekend... may end up getting one if it suits me.

 

[b-lilja]

I haven't ever used the 10x42s but have owned the 8x32s for almost a decade. What he doesn't say but you might get a sense of - the Conquest HDs are fully alpha in their view. Absolutely superb. And the build quality on mine is great.

 

[John A Roberts]

. . . and also the Conquest HD 8x42

Roger has just added a review of the 8x42 version at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissConquest8x42HD.htm

In the review Roger includes detailed comparisons to the Zeiss Victory SF 8x42, which raises interesting considerations in terms of value

Currently the BH Photo site lists the HD at US $1k and the SF at $2.7k. So in terms of the price/ performance trade-off,
what gains do you get for nearly three times the price?


John

 

[b-lilja]

This will be a highly controversial statement, but because of the color shift I found in the 8x32 SFs, I prefer my Conquest HDs, which have a color shift but not to the same degree - the Zeiss coatings have gotten very aggressive (my Conquests are 2012s). And the resolution of my Conquest HDs is as good as anything I own or have tried, and that is the most important thing to me.

 

[dries1]

What was mentioned in the post from Canip regarding the rubber armor. Regarding Zeiss, I have only heard about the grayish residual occurring on some Conquest models, from others also on CN. Perhaps the later model 15X56 Conquest has resolved the problem. I had this problem with a Leica 10X50 BA, had to clean it off periodically. I sent them to Leica for internal cleaning, (Dust), and they replaced the armor free of charge.

Andy W.

 

[CSG]

This will be a highly controversial statement, but because of the color shift I found in the 8x32 SFs, I prefer my Conquest HDs, which have a color shift but not to the same degree - the Zeiss coatings have gotten very aggressive (my Conquests are 2012s). And the resolution of my Conquest HDs is as good as anything I own or have tried, and that is the most important thing to me.

This is a little outside the two binoculars being discussed but I owned and returned the 8x42 Conquests which I bought after really liking the 8x32 Conquests I already owned. Through a remarkable act of customer service (my experience with the 8x42s was documented here some years ago), Zeiss provided me with a pair of the then new 8x42 HTs at the price I'd paid for the Conquests. I own both still today (the 8x32 Conquests and the 8x42 HTs). As good as the 8x32 Conquests are, the difference in clarity, resolution, color correction, usage, and on and on, the HTs are considerably better binoculars and the difference is quite noticeable. Now, that said, had I never looked through HTs, I would have thought the Conquests were about as alpha as one could get. My pair of the 8x42 Conquests were fine optically but there were mechanical issues with the eyecups which couldn't be resolved.

Just another perspective between their midline bins and top of the line bins. To be fair, however, I have not yet even seen a pair of the SFs much less looked through them. I still don't know why Zeiss dropped the HTs in 8x42. I have yet to see a binocular that is optically better or easy to use (I have seen and used the best of Swaro's offerings save for the NL and Leica's Noctivids.

 

[Conndomat]

I still don't know why Zeiss dropped the HTs in 8x42.

Hi,

I think the HT were primarily made for hunters, that the 8x42 was a smaller and lighter alternative for the 54s.
Since hunters are increasingly turning to thermal imaging cameras and night vision devices, the demand for hunting binoculars is decreasing.
Let's see how long the 8 /10x54/56 can keep on the market.

Andreas

Andreas

 

[Swissboy]

. . . and also the Conquest HD 8x42

Roger has just added a review of the 8x42 version at: http://www.scopeviews.co.uk/ZeissConquest8x42HD.htm

In the review Roger includes detailed comparisons to the Zeiss Victory SF 8x42, which raises interesting considerations in terms of value

I find it strange that Roger Vine considers Zeiss color rendition cooler than the Swarovski one. To me, today's Swaros always are a bit too blue. Not much though. I can still accept my Swarovski scope's view.

 

[CSG]

Hi,

I think the HT were primarily made for hunters, that the 8x42 was a smaller and lighter alternative for the 54s.
Since hunters are increasingly turning to thermal imaging cameras and night vision devices, the demand for hunting binoculars is decreasing.
Let's see how long the 8 /10x54/56 can keep on the market.

Andreas

Andreas

While birding is not my only or even primary use for binoculars, these are superlative birding as well as astronomical binoculars. I know they were marketed to hunters but that extra brightness benefited birders equally well in times of lower light.

 

[Conndomat]

While birding is not my only or even primary use for binoculars, these are superlative birding as well as astronomical binoculars. I know they were marketed to hunters but that extra brightness benefited birders equally well in times of lower light.

Hello,

For many astronomers, the HT has too little edge sharpness and Zeiss has the SF for birding!
It was not for nothing that Zeiss advertised the SF as the "best birding binoculars".
In addition, astronomers are a small market and they rarely spend a lot of money on an 8x42 when they invest in tripod-bound binoculars, i.e. large and heavy.


Andreas

 

[Conndomat]

I find it strange that Roger Vine considers Zeiss color rendition cooler than the Swarovski one. To me, today's Swaros always are a bit too blue. Not much though. I can still accept my Swarovski scope's view.

Hi,

Swarovski is not the same as Swarovski, the EL are different from the SLC and they are different from the Habicht.

The EL actually go into the "blue" the Zeiss into the "green", of which I basically agree with your statement.

Andreas

 

[CSG]

Hello,

For many astronomers, the HT has too little edge sharpness and Zeiss has the SF for birding!
It was not for nothing that Zeiss advertised the SF as the "best birding binoculars".
In addition, astronomers are a small market and they rarely spend a lot of money on an 8x42 when they invest in tripod-bound binoculars, i.e. large and heavy.


Andreas

Really? I've never noticed an edge sharpness of note on the HT for astronomy. Of course, I've only been an amateur astronomer for nearly 60 years. And the SF bins weren't introduced until later. The extra brightness of the HTs for birding in darker light surpasses the slight improvement in edge sharpness IMO. And, as an owner of 25x100 astro bins, I almost never use them in favor of smaller, lighter bins or one of my small, portable refractors.

 

[Conndomat]

The extra brightness of the HTs for birding in darker light surpasses the slight improvement in edge sharpness IMO.

Hello,

you have to discuss that with Zeiss, not with me, they made the SF the best birderbinocular and not the HT!
You asked why Zeiss dropped the HT, I told you a couple of options,that doesn't mean that the HT is a bad binocular, which is the best birding glass is always a subjective decision.

Andreas

 

[dorubird]

From Roger's review I learned that the front lens is a triplet. But about the eyepiece he does not specify how many optical elements Conquest 10x42 HD has. Does anyone know? Thank you!

 

[jaymann]

From Roger's review I learned that the front lens is a triplet. But about the eyepiece he does not specify how many optical elements Conquest 10x42 HD has. Does anyone know? Thank you!

just get new meopta meostar 10x42 in limited edition colors and call it a day. Meostar is cheaper and better than conquest in every single way. you will not regret your descision. I have 5 swarovski binos and still recomment Meopta meostar.

 

[dorubird]

thanks jaymann!
But I already have Zeiss Conquest 10x42 and I am very very satisfied optically (very bright, very high resolution in almost all FOV) except for a few chromatic aberrations (you can't have them all). I agree with Roger's review!
I made deep comparisons between Conquest HD 10x42 and other larger binoculars such as APM 10x50 ED APO, Fujinon FMTR SX 10x50 and Meopta Meostar B1.1 10x50 and the little Zeiss won the battle... you can see here my comparisons in romanian (but can be translated with google translate) ...scroll down

Binoclurile mele comparate intre ele

Primul portal de Astronomie din Romania - Forum, Eclipsa partiala de Soare (1 iunie 2011), eclipsa totala de Luna (15 iunie 2011)

www.astronomy.ro

and this page ...scroll down

Binoclurile mele comparate intre ele

Primul portal de Astronomie din Romania - Forum, Eclipsa partiala de Soare (1 iunie 2011), eclipsa totala de Luna (15 iunie 2011)

www.astronomy.ro

I would be very grateful to find out from someone as much as possible about optical formula of this Conquest HD 10x42, especially the eyepieces. Thank you!

 

[GeorgeL]

I purchased the Conquest 10x42 HD last week, had them in my possession for less than half an hour, then sent them right back.
Optically, they were fine.... couldn’t see any difference over my Leupold BX-4 10x42’s. What turned me off were the horrible eyecup actions, play in the diopter ring, sticking/not smooth focus knob, and weak hinge tension. Bad.