The new ZEISS Conquest HDX Binoculars - The ideal premium all-rounder (2 Viewers)

[Ignatius]

Seems very un-Teutonic to now have three different ERs for the 32s/42s

 

[jgraider]

...so, i have to ask: how much 'better' can they make them (than 'old' Conquests), before they make the upcharge for SFL threaten that market?

My thoughts exactly. The Conquest HD offered a nice package at $800 or so, so time will tell if these new improvements are worth moving it to the $1200-$1500 range. There are several really nice offerings in that range or slightly less, so it will be interesting to see how they perform.

 

[A2GG]

the HDX looks to be priced the same as the original was (before they were discounted).
The 32s are around $980 USD and the 42s about $1,000. these are the prices showing on the B&H site now.

 

[A2GG]

shows 'designed by Zeiss' on top of the focuser

 

[[email protected]]

Need to find someone to check if the 10% weight reduction will affect the proven robustness of the old model.. including shotgun resistance ;-)
Wouldn’t expect too much spec change, don’t want to overlap with other models, give the customer clear options.

Peter

I doubt if the robustness will be affected. The big change was going from an aluminum frame to magnesium frame to save weight. Magnesium is actually stronger than aluminum.

 

[[email protected]]

shows 'designed by Zeiss' on top of the focuser

And hopefully MIJ under the hinge. I haven't seen any pictures where I could see under the hinge.

 

[[email protected]]

But what about the eyecups?

And 'X'? Yet another more or less meaningless letter in the acronym jungle that is the modern marketing mumbo-jumbo?

It says smooth, durable, and replaceable eye cups. Hopefully that means they are improved. It depends on their definition of smooth. Maybe they thought the older Conquest HD were smooth also.

 

[[email protected]]

I wonder whether they'll fix the dreadful CA on the 15's. They were otherwise a decent binoculars at a good price.

Depends on if they upgrade the glass and the coatings or not. I bet they won't because the price point is almost the same as the older Conquest HD's, and it would cost considerably more to upgrade the glass and coatings, and then they would be cannibalizing SFL sales.

 

[[email protected]]

Bar weight, the specs look pretty similar to the previous iterations if the data on BH are correct (see links below). Bit of a shame the 8x42 hasn't gained more FOV. On the other hand, the 8x42 seems to have been on a more effective diet than its 8x32 sibling.

8x32 HDX
8x42 HDX

The 8x32 HDX hasn't lost any weight at all, but the 8x42 HDX has lost a couple of oz. which is weird. It surprised me that they didn't increase the FOV on the 8x32 HDX or 8x42 HDX at all. I thought they would at least have increased it to 8.3 degrees to compete with the Nikon MHG 8x42. That makes me significantly less interested in them.

The only upgrade optically is flat field, and flat field to Zeiss doesn't mean the same thing as flat field to Swarovski, so they will have some field curvature. I bet they didn't upgrade the glass either at the $1000 price point, so they will still have the same CA on the edge the older Conquest HD had. The glass and coatings are still not going to be at the FL level, so I have kind of lost interest in them. I think I will keep my FL 8x32.

 

[A2GG]

The 8x32 HDX hasn't lost any weight at all, but the 8x42 HDX has lost a couple of oz. which is weird. It surprised me that they didn't increase the FOV on the 8x32 HDX or 8x42 HDX at all. I thought they would at least have increased it to 8.3 degrees to compete with the Nikon MHG 8x42. That makes me significantly less interested in them.

The only upgrade optically is flat field, and flat field to Zeiss doesn't mean the same thing as flat field to Swarovski, so they will have some field curvature. I bet they didn't upgrade the glass either at the $1000 price point, so they will still have the same CA on the edge the older Conquest HD had. The glass and coatings are still not going to be at the FL level, so I have kind of lost interest in them. I think I will keep my FL 8x32.

should definitely have new coatings to improve color accuracy which they mention (this is very good). If they made the FOV much wider and sharp all the way to the edge this would be too competitive with SFL and even SF. HDX is an upgraded or 'refreshed' model, not a radical change and this is sort of what I expected.

 

[A2GG]

The glass and coatings are still not going to be at the FL level, so I have kind of lost interest in them. I think I will keep my FL 8x32.

I assume the FL should still have slightly better resolution than the new Conquest HDX.
Only thing I think may be better in the HDX will be improved colors which is important to me.

 

[MiddleRiver]

The 8x32 HDX hasn't lost any weight at all, but the 8x42 HDX has lost a couple of oz. which is weird. It surprised me that they didn't increase the FOV on the 8x32 HDX or 8x42 HDX at all. I thought they would at least have increased it to 8.3 degrees to compete with the Nikon MHG 8x42. That makes me significantly less interested in them.

The only upgrade optically is flat field, and flat field to Zeiss doesn't mean the same thing as flat field to Swarovski, so they will have some field curvature. I bet they didn't upgrade the glass either at the $1000 price point, so they will still have the same CA on the edge the older Conquest HD had. The glass and coatings are still not going to be at the FL level, so I have kind of lost interest in them. I think I will keep my FL 8x32.

Have you had a chance to LOOK through them?

 

[Canip]

Have you had a chance to LOOK through them?

Look THROUGH them? Why???

 

[quincy88]

Go Zeiss! Looking forward to learning more about these new Conquests. The old/current generation are awesome, so I have high hopes that these will be too.

 

[Maljunulo]

Look THROUGH them? Why???

No need.

All you need to do is read the AllBinos review, and the spec sheet, in order to be fully qualified for discussion and debate. 🙄🤪

 

[NDhunter]

I wonder whether they'll fix the dreadful CA on the 15's. They were otherwise a decent binoculars at a good price.

I found nothing wrong with CA on the 15x, compared to others in that size. And I have tried them all.
Jerry

 

[Richard D]

I found nothing wrong with CA on the 15x, compared to others in that size. And I have tried them all.
Jerry

I tried most of the 15s available (ended up with the SLCs) and found the HD's particularly bad to my eyes. As I said in other respects I thought the HDs were quite decent. If the HDX has better CA control they could be a good option for someone.

 

[adhoc]

So Zeiss continue with 15x56! The decreasing of objective diam. at ~15x mag by Swaro. and GPO (so far, to 50-52) is not followed. Did Zeiss decide that the benefit of 15-25% extra light will hold sales of this mag at this heavier, larger configuration, or did they just "miss the bus" with the timeline of the new range!

Administrator (the OP here): shouldn't this thread be in the Zeiss subforum?

 

[Cavendish]

I doubt I'm alone in finding the field of view (FOV) of the 8x42 Conquest HD/X weirdly small compared to its siblings and cousins. For most equivalent sizes the SFL and HD/X models have pretty much the same FOV, with the SF model typically having a a decent amount of extra view. However this relationship does not hold true with the 8x42 HD/X and it really lags behind the equivalent models.

I wonder why the anomaly? I can't believe it would be a deliberate decision to downgrade the specs in this one model (like I believe Swaro did with the latest EL models) so my assumption is there's a technical reason behind it. Am just stumped as to what that could be!

 

[A2GG]

I doubt I'm alone in finding the field of view (FOV) of the 8x42 Conquest HD/X weirdly small compared to its siblings and cousins. For most equivalent sizes the SFL and HD/X models have pretty much the same FOV, with the SF model typically having a a decent amount of extra view. However this relationship does not hold true with the 8x42 HD/X and it really lags behind the equivalent models.

I wonder why the anomaly? I can't believe it would be a deliberate decision to downgrade the specs in this one model (like I believe Swaro did with the latest EL models) so my assumption is there's a technical reason behind it. Am just stumped as to what that could be!

View attachment 1597411

my thoughts on this ...

8x30 SFL vs 8x32 HDX - the SFL here is significantly smaller and lighter. the 30mm SFL could be considered a true compact binocular in comparison. People who want or need small and light weight will spend the extra money and choose SFL over HDX here.

8x40 SFL vs 8x42 HDX - the SFL is now only a few ounces lighter than the new Conquest. HDX also has a field flattener now. If Zeiss widened the FOV in the HDX matching or coming close to SFL you'd have more people deciding to buy the cheaper Conquest. IF FOV matched the only advantages for SFL would be the smart focus and just a few ounces less weight. Quality of image may be too close for many to notice.

The new HDX seems to be a 'Plus' edition IMO , just an upgrade and not a complete re-design. They don't want it competing with SFL. The specs are very similar to the original model.