MiddleRiver
Well-known member
And I thought I was a nerd for making graphs of bino specs, LOL.
Sadly, I love the SFL's but this is making me want to try an 8x32SF!
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
The new ZEISS Conquest HDX Binoculars - The ideal premium all-rounder (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Birdforum
- Start date
Sadly, I love the SFL's but this is making me want to try an 8x32SF!
I totally agree with you re Zeiss wishing to maintain points of difference between the ranges. But what I don't understand is why only the 8x42 version (HD or HDX) is so lacking in FOV? If Zeiss wanted to maintain an artificial difference between the ranges then surely they would have handicapped ALL the Conquest models not just the 8x42?
Last edited:
That's the danger of a long train journey combined with a desire to avoid real work!
Ignatius
Texpat
Also let us not forget, that the 8x40/42 class is probably the most hotly contested class because that is the most used/bought/recommended "standard" size. Those are basically your one-and-done binos. All other sizes are catering to extra requirements such as smallness, longer reach, better lowlight, pocketability etc.
Last edited:
ArchStanton
Well-known member
I bet Zeiss sells more Conquests than SFL’s and increasing the FOV would have increased sales. Maybe it would have required a complete redesign to increase the FOV. Not increasing the FOV is a disappointment to me.
A2GG
Beth
The Conquest HD existed many years before the SFL. I think handicapping the Conquest HDX 32 FOV wouldn't sit well with current Conquest HD owners. I think people would be upset with Zeiss if they gave the new Conquest HDX 8x32 a smaller FOV than the previous version. For Conquest HD owners there wouldn't be any desire to upgrade to the HDX 8x32. So, they needed to at least match the FOV spec of the previous version in all formats. That's how I see it.
Leica handicapped the Trinovid HD so it won't directly compete with Ultravid, but the Trinovid HD didn't already exist before the Ultravid. The previous version Trinovid (pre-HD) matched the Ultravid a bit too closely and Lecia discontinued it only a few years after release.
Now there’s an interesting idea!
tenex
reality-based
Clearly they weren't inclined to do a new design, this is just a refresh of the existing Conquest line. What they really ought to do is a 15x54 HT; that would give the new NL some competition.
Of course it's there too. Zeiss is a sponsor of Birdforum.
Good point Ignatius. I thought (although didn't make real effort to be absolutely sure) the Conquest HD 10x42 had a decent enough sweet spot, but if it now extends all the way to the edge, I'd consider that to be a real improvement.
After trying eg. the Maven 9x45, Kowa Genesis and Vortex UHD I felt, perhaps unfairly, that the Conquest and also the MHG didn't seem as impressive as before - it's clear that more manufacturers have offerings that are performing at that level, if not higher. At the same time Zeiss are hedged in by their product range - improve the Conquest too much and it starts competing with the SFL. The HDX seems like a fairly well thought out step, offering meaningful improvement (unless you're one of those who suffer from rolling ball, which could in any case be mitigated by choosing the right distortion profile, as was done for the SFL) and hopefully addressing known issues such as eyecups etc. without getting too good.
After trying eg. the Maven 9x45, Kowa Genesis and Vortex UHD I felt, perhaps unfairly, that the Conquest and also the MHG didn't seem as impressive as before - it's clear that more manufacturers have offerings that are performing at that level, if not higher. At the same time Zeiss are hedged in by their product range - improve the Conquest too much and it starts competing with the SFL. The HDX seems like a fairly well thought out step, offering meaningful improvement (unless you're one of those who suffer from rolling ball, which could in any case be mitigated by choosing the right distortion profile, as was done for the SFL) and hopefully addressing known issues such as eyecups etc. without getting too good.
Tenex: Maybe I have got carried away in my eagerness for smaller diameter ~15xs after the recent Swaro. and GPO. Focusing on the HDX 15x56 I somewhat overlooked that this line is (apparently) a refresh. But investing in new factory tools for the 15x56, rather than dropping the configuration, also means Zeiss is expecting it to sell, which I doubt will happen, with my idea that 15x56 is now history! For the same reason I would not think about an HT 15x54 but HT 15x50-ish. Well, we'll see in the coming months, what consumers and manufrs. will do!
The thread in the Zeiss subforum with this same title is a different one, with some other, and presently far fewer, posts.
The thread in the Zeiss subforum with this same title is a different one, with some other, and presently far fewer, posts.
Buff1ehead
Active member
Based solely on the specifications, I prefer to sit pat with my Conquest HD 8x32's. Eye relief is just not something I want to compromise on. We keep a couple pairs of 8x32's up at our cabin, and they are bombproof.
Okay, so this is the plan:
- 8x32: Sep 2024
- 10x32: Oct 2024
- 8x42: Nov 2024
- 10x42: Dec 2024
- 8x56: Jan 2025
- 10x56: Feb 2025
- 15x56: Mar 2025
Sorry, Canip. (a) Got a bit giddy and forgot there are all those configurations. (b) Why did you remind me of that: much regret I cannot send you all those and risk damage in the crate.
Very much looking forward to a comparison and compression: comparison of whatever config. you do first, and compression of that timeline!
Very much looking forward to a comparison and compression: comparison of whatever config. you do first, and compression of that timeline!
A demo piece(10x42) I could lay my hands on. The grip is nicer than its previous iteration and the armour should be less of a dust magnet.Nicely balanced and appears to feel a bit lighter than the C- HD. Tethered objective covers need to be gripped on to.
Focuser is not that of the SF/ SFL and not even like my FL. Slow but smooth.
A neutral sharp field and no aberrations that are field relevant - but it is a muggy morning here in western India and its just has been a while.
Not sure if its worth an upgrade. For someone looking to buy a good new binocular- this is an option to consider.
Binocollector
Well-known member
Wait, what -- the objective covers open upwards and you need to hold them in place so they don't fall down and cover the objectives? That sounds like a major design flaw honestly. Can you move them in another position?
On these pics it looks like they open downwards like on any normal bino:
www.outdoorphoto.co.za
On these pics it looks like they open downwards like on any normal bino:
Zeiss Conquest HDX Binoculars launch
We’re excited to announce the launch of the ultimate all-around binoculars for every outdoor enthusiast!
www.outdoorphoto.co.za
Paultricounty
Well-known member
No need to look through them, just wait for the allbinos review. That will tell you if you’ll like them, and everything else you’ll need to know. 🤣Have you had a chance to LOOK through them?
Sc0tty
Well-known member
No design flaw. More like user error.Wait, what -- the objective covers open upwards and you need to hold them in place so they don't fall down and cover the objectives? That sounds like a major design flaw honestly. Can you move them in another position?
On these pics it looks like they open downwards like on any normal bino:
Zeiss Conquest HDX Binoculars launch
We’re excited to announce the launch of the ultimate all-around binoculars for every outdoor enthusiast!
Binocollector
Well-known member
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked