The 10x32 Conquest HDs are Zeiss’ smallest
and cheapest European 10x model, competing on price with much less prestigious
brands. Can they deliver?
Zeiss 10x32 Conquest HD
Review
The 8x32 Conquest HDs are a recent best buy and one of
my all-time favourites: great in almost every way and for a modest price, they
lose to the SFs in terms of field width and absolute perfection in the view and
hold, but actually beat them in ease of view and eyepiece comfort.
Here I investigate the 10x32 Conquest HDs to see if they are
similar to the 8x32, or if (like the SFs) they are actually a very different
binocular to the lower-powered model.
At A Glance
|
Magnification |
10x |
|
Objective Size |
32mm |
|
Eye Relief |
15-16mm measured |
|
Actual Field of View |
6.9° (118m/1000m) |
|
Apparent field of view |
~63° |
|
Close focus |
~1.2m measured |
|
Transmissivity |
90% |
|
Length |
132mm |
|
Weight |
625g measured |
Data from Zeiss/Me.
What’s in the Box?
The Conquest range
all share the same the glossy, fold-out presentation box with an arty wildlife
photo. No cut-price packaging here.
Design and Build
The
Conquest HDs are Zeiss’ broadest range in terms of magnification and aperture.
They’re the upper mid-market equivalent of Leica’s Trinovid HDs, but with much more
variety - all the way from 8x32 to 15x56, with all the standard birding and
hunting sizes in between.
All the
Conquest models seem to share a similar style and approach, with rugged
made-in-Germany build (some of the ad’s show a bruised and muddied pair that’s
just been run over by a truck to prove it) and wide fields for their class.
Both the
32mm and 42mm Conquest HD models are fairly standard roof prism binoculars,
with nothin’ fancy – no special prisms like the
HTs, no innovative optical and mechanical design like the SFs. And whilst the
56mm models are large for their spec, these 10x32s are a normal compact size.
The
Conquest HDs certainly seem like ‘proper’ Zeiss, but whether ‘Made in Germany’
means fabricated or merely assembled, I don’t know. In either case, Zeiss are
likely to support them for service and repair in a way only the European brands
do in my experience.
Body
Zeiss’
32mm Conquest HDs share a look and feel with the other members of the range, a
more conventional design than the premium SF models: an armoured hinge and the
focuser at the back, rather than the double-link open bridge and huge
central focuser on the SFs.
Like the
SFs, the Conquests lack thumb cut-outs. But here there isn’t the innovative
rear-biased handling to compensate by taking weight off your wrists.
Whilst these
10x32 Conquest HDs have similar optical spec’s to Zeiss’
older premium model, the 10x32 Victory FLs, the Conquests are a bit heavier and
longer: 132mm vs 115mm and 625g vs 550g. Those differences may not sound much,
but are noticeable. Unlike the SFs, the 10x32 Conquest HDs are identical in
size and weight to the 8x32s.
The
Conquests are covered in a thick, two-texture anthracite-black armour. That
armour looks similar to the SFs’, but it’s not the same: unlike the SFs’, it
smells rubbery and is worse for attracting prints and fluff. It reminds me of
sticky rock-boot rubber.
To me the
look and feel of the whole binocular isn’t as refined as Swarovski’s or (esp.)
Leica’s mid-market models, with a rugged utilitarianism that’s typical Zeiss
and attractive in its own way.
Independent
tests have found Zeiss to be tops on ruggedness and the Conquests look it, though
I’m not about to repeat the mud test, let alone the truck-crush test, to
confirm it. They’re purged and fully waterproof to 4m like most quality roofs
these days.
Focuser
Most of the Conquest models I’ve reviewed have had very workmanlike,
smooth and accurate focusers, if not the kind of twirly perfection you get with
SFs. Unfortunately, the focuser on this pair has a problem: the dioptre drifts
as you focus. Usually, a bit of focusing in and out does end up with both
barrels properly focused, but the act of focusing itself is uncomfortable as
one eye blurs out of sync with the other. This is likely due to rocking or play
in the mechanism of one or both barrels and is a fault on this pair.
The focuser turns on an inner axle, which may or may not be
greaseless (I found a trace of grease on an earlier pair of Conquest HD 10x42s).
Close focus is an area where mid-price bino’s often fall
short. Not here: it’s an amazing (esp. for this price point) 1.2m. From there
to infinity takes just less than a turn: considering how close they focus, that’s
super-fast too.
Dioptre adjustment is by a ring under the right-hand eyepiece
in traditional style. Given the fault noted above, there’s nothing wrong with
it – smooth, precise and well-weighted.
Optics - Prisms
These 32mm Conquests
have modern-standard Schmidt-Pechan (a.k.a. Roof) prisms, not the
high-transmission Abbe-König prisms found in Zeiss’ HT range and in the 56mm
Conquests. Still, transmission is claimed at 90% - up there with most modern
roofs and the same as the 32mm SFs.
Optics - Objectives
From a laser test, the objectives appear to be a
modern-typical triplet, consisting of a crown/flint doublet and a separate
crown behind that. Then there’s a focusing lens in front of the prisms. The
‘HD’ label indicates at least one crown element of high-fluoride glass to curb
false colour and increase resolution and definition in high-contrast situations.
Coatings are pink and ‘T*’ but noticeably more reflective
than the very dark T* version applied to the premium SFs (see below).
Baffling looks top-class, with a ridged lens ring and
focusing carriage and a single knife-edge baffle too.
Optics - Eyepieces
The Conquest range share eyepieces of similar appearance,
with large (24mm diameter on both 32mm models), quite flat and deeply recessed
eye lenses. I presume they’re some kind of modified Erfle, likely with five
elements. The eye lens coatings are completely different from the SFs’, which
have much pinker hued coatings to match their objectives.
Good eye relief is quite hard to achieve on a 10x32.
Nonetheless, I measured eye relief from the tall rim of the eye cup at an
excellent 15-16mm. That’s identical to the 8x32 model and really top-notch - enough
to see the whole field with specs at this field width. With a shallower cup
profile, it could’ve been even more generous.
Field of view is a standout feature of the Conquest HD range.
Here, an actual field of view of nearly 6.9°
is more than most 10x32s and almost a degree more than my old 10x reference
standard, Nikon’s 10x42 SEs.
Very significantly, these 10x32 Conquests avoid the 10x32 SFs’
annoying blackouts too: significant because it makes them much more comfortable
than the SFs when panning.
The eye cups are not the 10x32 Conquests’ best feature,
though – there’s only one click-out position and the action is
a bit stiff, just as it was for the 8X32s I reviewed previously.
Zeiss’ 32mm SFs (top)
have completely different coatings from the Conquests.
Accessories
The
Conquests get Zeiss’ usual neoprene strap, which fits standard lugs. Even the
high-end SFs get the same (no equivalent of Swarovski’s Field Pro at Zeiss).
But simple does mean light weight and cheap to replace.
The case
is much the same as Zeiss used to ship with their FL models and is similar to
the 32mm SFs’ (but not the 42mm SFs, which get a fancier design). It’s
plain black Cordura, but likely to be rugged and protective.
The eye
cap is soft rubber. It’s easy to push on and it stays there, but threading the
strap through it is a pain. The end caps are moulded in one and hang off a pair
of lanyards for attachment to the strap lugs.
In Use – Daytime
Ergonomics and Handling
These are
a fairly generic binocular in terms of construction and so handling is fine, if
basic. By that I mean that there are no thumb cutouts or
double-bridge; no specially sculpted barrels to help with a snug fit, no
SF-style ErgoBalanceTM concept.
The barrels of the 42mm models felt quite chunky to my smallish hands, but
these 32mm Conquests are just right.
Similarly,
the focuser wheel and dioptre adjust are standard fare (no fancy
integrated-bridge design here) but again work just fine (excepting the
individual fault on this example noted above). The dioptre ring is smooth and
accurate and together with the snappy focus, it makes finding your best setting
easy.
The fast focus and excellent snap make viewing birds in
flight a huge pleasure with these smallest Conquests. I didn’t notice any
stiffening of the focus action in sub-zero temperatures and icy winds (of which
there were a lot during my review).
Eyepiece
comfort is excellent, especially for a 10x32, a size that is often challenged
in this respect. There is sufficient eye relief for specs, but no significant
blackouts as you pan or look around – a big difference from the 10x32 SFs which
have problems in this area. The eye cups are comfy if you view without specs,
even if their action is slightly stiff and unrefined.
The only
less than top-flight aspect of the Conquests’ handling is their size and weight.
Similar in many ways to the old Victory FLs - long a Scope Views best buy
despite their high price - the 10x32 Conquest HDs feel like a bigger, heavier
binocular.
The
Conquests look quite plain and lack the panache of Leica’s Trinovids (to me
anyway, you might disagree), but are small and unobtrusive to wear.
The View
The finish and mechanicals of the Conquest range is in the
‘just good enough’ category. As usual, it’s the optical quality and view you’re
paying for here.
So, their view is every bit as top-drawer as the 8x32 model:
sharp, extra wide, bright, full of high-resolution detail and flat for a
binocular that boasts no field flatteners. It’s a typically Zeiss view too –
noticeably brighter and cooler in tone than a typical mid-range Leica or
Swarovski.
Meanwhile the 10x32 Conquest HDs are pin-sharp and have the snappy
focus that’s a sure sign of good optical quality. There’s no mid-market
softness or fuzziness here.
High resolution is a defining characteristic of the view. I
can easily ID small birds in the top branches of a tree 100m away – telling
Goldfinch from Dunnock, Robin from Great Tit, with plumage colouration picked
out even in partial silhouette.
Overall, it’s a great view - as good, I’d suggest, as the old
premium Victory FL’s (though I didn’t have a pair to hand for direct
comparison).
Flat field?
The field
isn’t perfectly flat, though in use you likely won’t notice because it’s not
far off it. Off-axis blurring only really starts in last 20% of field width,
from where the numbers on a metre ruler blur progressively, just into
unreadability at the very edge. That blur can be focused away and so seems to
be just mild field curvature, but a more critical test on a star (see below)
reveals a trace of astigmatism too.
What
does that mean in practice? The very edge of the field is completely usable,
you could likely ID a bird there even without re-focusing. That mild field
curvature, along with a trace of pin-cushion distortion, makes panning
completely comfortable – no nauseating ‘rolling ball’ effect with these, at
least for me.
I never
found myself wishing for field flatteners when using them, but that gradual
off-axis softening means they don’t quite have the ‘wow’ factor of a high-end
pair with a truly wide and flat field (think SFs, NL Pures or even good old
ELs).
FOV
softens from ~80% width, but remains usable to the edge.
Chromatic Aberration
These
10x32 Conquests may suffer slightly more from false colour than the 8x32s, but not
much. Focusing through or panning around silhouetted branches produces minimal
fringing. Viewing birds at high-contrast, even the jet-black plumage of a soaring
crow, never produces a wash of purple that destroys resolution and contrast. Even
at 10x, the 32mm Conquests have lower false colour levels than many other ‘HD’
binoculars.
In Use – Dusk
Dusk performance of a modern, high-transmission 10x32 is
better than most would give it credit for. The shadows in the understory of the
copse opposite knit into darkness more readily than for a pair of 10x42s, but
otherwise Conquest 10x32s work well into dusk. I didn’t notice more than a
fleeting touch of veiling flare under a bright dusk sky.
In Use – Observing the Night Sky
Stars distort a little from about 50% field width, but what
distortion there is seems to be field curvature with a touch of astigmatism.
You can focus the blur away, but doing so turns a star into a tiny cross
towards the field edge. Still, my usual test of putting a whole asterism (in
this case the Hyades) in the field makes for only mild distortion of the outer
stars.
Stray light and ghost suppression is good. A brilliant, close
security light generated some faint ghosts and four long faint prism spikes,
but this is an extreme and unnatural test. Viewing around a bright streetlamp
revealed no significant flare.
The Moon
The Conquest 10x32s gave
me an excellent view of a first-quarter Moon - a hard white and grey marble
with bright highlands, brilliant rays, dark maria; and with no significant
ghosting, flare or false colour.
Mars
The only
bright planet around showed no nasty spikes or flare.
Deep sky
testing the 10x32 Conquest HDs from my lane.
Deep Sky
I was
lucky to catch a run of clear spring nights with the Conquest HD 10x32s, so I
did more astronomy with them than I usually would with 32mm binoculars (many
wouldn’t consider 32s for astronomy at all). And in fact, a modern pair of
quality 10x32s like these are better on the night sky than you’d think.
The
obvious stuff looked good. The Pleaides were nice and sparkly. The Double
Cluster and nearby Stock 2 resolved plenty of stars and in a rich and wide
field, though with a ring of mild blurring around the edge. Panning across into
Cassiopeia, I found lots of smaller clusters.
The larger
open clusters in Auriga – M35, M36 and M38 all started to resolve with direct
vision, once my eyes had adapted. Only M37 remained star-mist. The Beehive open
cluster was dimmer than I’m used to, but showed all the major stars in their
distinctive pattern and I easily found a much smaller cluster nearby, M67.
I was
surprised to be able to find the Crab Nebula with averted vision. The Conquest
10x32s readily pulled one smaller galaxy, M51 in Ursa Major, out of its surrounding
star field too and I might have spotted others as faint patches in and around
Canes Venatici.
I easily
discovered bright globular cluster M3 by tracking up from Arcturus in Boötes. Even when still at low altitude, the
10x32 Conquests pulled it out from the background better than the 8x32s because
they higher power better supresses sky-glow.
Overall,
the Conquest HD 10x32s work well for a bit of casual star gazing, though of
course I wouldn’t choose any 10x32 specifically for astronomy.
Zeiss 10x32 Victory
SF vs Zeiss 10x32 Conquest HD
These 10x32
Conquest HDs are an excellent binocular by any standards. Meanwhile, the
range-topping 10x32 SFs are almost three times the street price. So what extra do the SFs give you for your money?
·
The SFs are larger but lighter
·
The SFs’ long barrels and
rearward balance makes for a comfier hold
·
The SFs have nicer armour – less
rubbery and fluff attracting
·
Centre field view is very similar
·
The SFs may have
slightly higher resolution centre field, but not by much
·
The SFs have a wider, better
corrected field with more ‘wow’ factor
·
The SFs appear to have much
better coatings, especially on the internal elements
·
The SFs have a little more eye
relief, but much worse blackouts that mean lower overall eyepiece
comfort
·
The SFs focuser feels much nicer,
even though the Conquests is good by general standards (individual fault aside
- see above)
·
Zeiss quote identical 90%
transmission and indeed brightness seems about the same
·
False colour levels are very low
in both, with a small advantage to the SFs
I found
the 10x32 (as opposed to any other model in the range) SFs' blackouts
sufficiently intrusive that I actually prefer the Conquests (though the 10x32 SFs
unquestionably have a better focuser and a finer static view).
Summary
At the start I asked if these are as
good as the 8x32 model. In most respects, they are. They have a bright, vivid
and sharp view with almost no false colour, just the same. Apparent field of
view is similar to the 8x model and the field is slightly flatter, but I did
find the higher power model slightly less comfortable (as 10x bino’s often
are).
So, in terms of the view, these are
a near ideal small 10x birding bino’: it just doesn’t seem like a mid-range
view. The focuser on this pair had a minor fault, but was otherwise fast and
accurate for following birds in flight and focuses extremely close if
your viewing extends to butterflies or other insects.
All this daytime goodness
translates well to good astronomy performance too. For quick views of the Moon,
or the odd brighter DSO they work really well, surprisingly so for such a small
aperture, proof of really excellent optical quality.
In terms of their physical build,
the 10x32 Conquests aren’t as perfect. The armour is rubbery, markable and
fluff attracting. The eye cups are stiff and rough. Finish is tough but
utilitarian. The lens coatings boast T*, but it’s not the same T* as the SFs’.
None of this really detracts from using them, though. The only real downside is
that their size and weight is a bit up on the most compact premium 10x32s. But
overall, for their price, the 10x32 Conquest HDs are unbeatable.
If pressed I’d recommend the 8x32
model for its easy view and comfort, but if you like the higher power these
10x32s are a great buy.
For a travel or lightweight birding binocular these 10x32mm
Conquests are a Best Buy, just like the 8x model: you’re mostly paying for the
really top-notch optics and view, but they’re rugged too. They work
outstandingly well for birding, nature viewing or even a spot of casual
astronomy.
