Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Zeiss Conquest HD Binoculars: What a Top-Notch Binocular Can Do For a Hunter

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Gun Nuts
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

December 07, 2012

Zeiss Conquest HD Binoculars: What a Top-Notch Binocular Can Do For a Hunter

By David E. Petzal

So, there I was, sitting in a box blind in Maine 10 minutes before last shooting light, looking through my scope at a hillside with a whitetail on it, trying to decide whether the creature had horns or not. This was complicated by the fact that the whitetail was already in deep shadow, and that the hillside was backlighted by the setting sun, and by the fact that it (the deer, not the sun) had its buttocks toward me and its head down in an infernal tangle of branches, weeds, and other annoying plant life.

I was looking at the critter through a Zeiss Conquest rifle scope and, good as the scope is, I was unable to tell if it was time to pull the trigger. Finally, since the light was running out, I said the hell with it and picked up a Zeiss 10x42 Conquest HD binocular (a loaner; sent it back yesterday) and saw at a glance what I could not see through the scope—that the beast was a doe and that the day was over.

That is what a top-notch binocular can do for you. There are probably half a dozen medium- and low-priced rifles that will shoot about as well as custom guns, but the same does not hold true for binoculars. Top of the heap glasses will show you things that less expensive ones—and there are some marvelous ones out there—can’t.

Zeiss Conquest HDs are the high-definition version of the Conquest binocular line, which is priced below that company’s Victory models by about $500-$600, glass for glass. There are four of them: an 8x32, 10x32, 8x42, and 10x42. All are very light, very compact for full-size instruments, have excellent ergonomics, and good hardware (straps, caps, etc.). The real-world price for the 10x42 is $999, which is less than the cost of a top-rate factory rifle or riflescope.

When Zeiss says “high definition,” they’re not tossing the term around like a beach ball. On paper, the Conquest HDs are probably a click below the Victory line, but unless you have eyesight like the late Ted Williams, you’re not going to be able to tell the difference. One looks through them and says, “Oh boy, how long has this been going on?”

Click here carlzeiss.com for the complete specs.

Comments (63)

Top Rated
All Comments
from deadeyedick wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I suppose that if I had a hidden room full of cash I would run right out and buy them, but really, my budget would not allow such a purchase. Altho I'm sure they are everything you say they are. Sooo I'll just have to make do with what I have.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

The new HD lines of several manufacturers have got me wanting a new pair. I've looked at these and some others, and 'wow' comes to mind.

The good news is that these HD lines are better than what you could have bought 10 years ago at any price, and they cost about half of what the best did at that time.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Dave:
Which do you prefer: 8x42 or 10x42? I've had a pair of 10x42 but recently looked through a different make/model in 8x42 and felt as I could see a bit better through them. The 10x magnification seemed to really amplify any unsteadiness in my hands, which resulted in less clarity than the lower magnification, though I've not been able to try identical models side by side. Any thoughts?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Mr Petzal,

I know the Zeiss binos cost twice as much, but how do the new Monarch 7 binos compare to the Zeiss models?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

When I miss the easy shot at a flushing rooster, I can pick up my Ziess Binos, and see exactly where he landed.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

There are two distinct advantages of using binoculars over a riflescope. First of all using a riflescope as a spotting scope is dead right out wrong and the extra movement spokes game. Second and the most critical of all, you can use your binoculars like X-Ray vision by focusing past/through trees and brush and getting a pretty good view what’s well beyond the clutter you would only see in a riflescope. Friend thought I was crazy looking at a rush only a few feet in front of me. When I showed him to focus on the clutter then focus past it, it was like nothing in front of us blocking our view and the critters had now clue of our presence. As for the Zeiss, I’ll just have to stick with my Leupold 10x42mm BX-2 Cascades Binoculars for now until I win the lottery or somebody drops one out in the woods. If you want to find free gear, go to Chicken Alaska a cruse the ATV trails especially on Taylor Mountain during Caribou season.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Since we are discussing high end binocs, how does Zeiss compare to Swarovski and Leica? I guess it may be not appropriate for you to contrast.

Dave, which shows will you be attending?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

It seems the entire world has been duped into buying these overpriced roof prism binoculars.

A Porro prism binocular of the same price could be made...

A) Sharper
B) Brighter
C) Lighter
D) Equally waterproof
E) With a greater 3D effect

At half the price a Porro prism binocular could be made to equal these expensive roof prisms in all respects.

Few if any of the world's military use roof prism binoculars for obvious reasons.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I find kudukids observation very, very interesting, but am entirely unqualified to comment. Dave? Anybody?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Wonder if Dave received a free pair of Zeiss binos? They are at the top along with those mentioned by Happy Miles. Kudo's observation "that the world got fooled?" No, that doesn't happen. Folks that buy Zeiss, and Sworovski's don't get fooled...they highly scrutinize, and know what they are getting.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

The expensive roof prism binoculars being built by the big names today are very fine instruments. They would be both better and cheaper if they were Porro prism designs instead.

The roof prism design is very expensive to manufacture, requiring far tighter tolerances,silvering of the prisms and phase corrected coatings just to compete with Porro's design. and these firms get to charge very high prices for them and, therefore, provide themselves considerably greater profit.
So yes, the buying public has been duped.

To repeat, I know of no military of any country that purchases roof prism binoculars.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

kudu. You seem to have a point when it comes to value. Porro's do have good contrast. I don't know binos for Jack, BUT...I did look up, and see the comparison between the two..the market has been won over by the Roof Makers for one big reason....and I quote...
"Porro prism binoculars were standard until the 1960's, when the Zeiss and Leitz companies introduced roof prism binoculars, whose objective lenses were straight in line with the eyepieces. Roof prism binoculars were compact, light, and comfortable to hold. They made the offset, zig-zag shape of the Porro prism design look as old fashioned as propeller-driven aircraft."

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

That a design as useful and practical as that of Mr. Porro should be abandoned because it looks "old fashioned" is simply silly.

That Porros are clumsy or heavy is incorrect. I have small hands and use Porro binoculars exclusively. My 8x30 Alpin weighs 14 ounces and the 10x40s by the same manufacturer comes in at 17 ounces. Both are very compact, comfortable to hold and extremely sharp and contrasty. There is no roof prism binocular that will touch them for weight.

The buying public has indeed been duped for many years now.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

NO, the roof prisms won over the market because of their COMPACTNESS, and LIGHTNESS, COMFORT of handling! That is the case in lots of different products...folks willing to pay for those features because they have other things to carry, and do not want bulkiness! I looked up MILITARY BINOCULORS and quickly STEINERS popped up in front of me..roof prism binos. Here is another copy/paste....

Vortex Viper R/T 8x28 Tactical Binocular
The Viper R/T tactical binocular combines award-winning optics and required military features to create a tough, durable roof prism binocular-reliable in the worst conditions. XD (extra-low dispersion glass) objective lenses further enhance resolution and deliver the true-to-life color accuracy so essential for identifying targets. Soldiers and hunters can range objects of known dimension with the R/T Ranging reticle, which features four human silhouettes to serve as a secondary ranging aid." Being silly is in the mind of the consumer. That design won over consumers 52 years ago! I did the math.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

"Being silly is in the mind of the consumer. That design won over consumers 52 years ago! I did the math."

The Steiners you mentioned are a Porro design. They are tough, waterproof and weigh 18 ounces.

I agree, it's in the mind of the consumer. That doesn't make it a good choice. MS-DOS was also "in the mind of the consumer".

Can anyone report any military adoption of a roof prism binocular? I don't believe the Vortex R/T 8x28 Tactical Binocular is in use by any military.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Very interesting dialogue guys! I have spent much of my life living with binoculars hanging off me, and as I recall I chose roof prisms (after using poro's for some years)because they did seem handier in many ways. My eyes really could not detect the difference optically, even though it may in fact exist. Anyway, I am keeping a open mind. Yes, I find the military observation of interest. Dave, will you weigh in on this?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Since Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica are heavy investors in F&S advertising, it would not be wise for a very sage Mr. P. to give any comment that might harm that relationship and I wouldn't blame him in the slightest for not jumping into these deep and troubling waters.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

That is why I don't give product reviews by outdoor writers much credence..they get too many freebies for good reviews.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

There is likely some truth in your last although it may be more likely that if something is a poor performer such offerings would simply not get any review at all on the advise that, "If you can't say anything nice about a person (offering), it's better not to say anything at all."

I would guess the Zeiss binocular in question is probably a fine optic and would give excellent service. Zeiss doesn't put their name on junk.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

There sure are a lot of Zeiss haters out there. I own three of their scopes and will never buy another Leupold product. You get a lot more for your money with Zeiss, every time.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Dr. Ralph,
Are you referring to anyone in this particular blog? I didn't notice any Zeiss haters.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Med neither. In fact I was very surprised at the Zeiss luvers! For the most part posters on these threads want something on the cheap, and make fun of expensive product like guns and flyrods.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I am speculating that Dr. Ralph was speaking from general observation over a length of time and not limited to just this particular blog.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I don't make fun of expensive products however I have observed mid range equipment perform as well as and be as durable as more high end stuff.
It also depends upon need. Sometimes one does not need the high end stuff.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

As the wise chief said,"everybody think like me, everybody want my squaw." You pays your money and you makes your choice. No bone to pick with that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from haverodwilltravel wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

We don't "need" a lot of things to take game.
However, one should always go with the best gear you can afforded (without of course hurting your familys lifestyle).
Often times you can buy a high quality gun (binocular,knife,bamboo fly rod, etc...)use it and it's superior performance for half a lifetime, sell it for a new one and make money.
It's like good boots. You can buy 5 new pairs at WalMart for what you'd pay for a great pair of quality boots. They'll both last the same amount of time...the differance will be your feet.
Nope...I never knock quality gear at any price...because without the leaders developing quality, the trickle down would never occur.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I would love to hear about some of you older ladies and gentlemen about investing in some lasik. It seems to me that the advances of eye surgeries are worth looking into if you are in need. On another note, I do not like the front post on "ghost ring sights." They are fine for paper, but for moving beast I will be upgrading to a Marble brass front bead. Troy from customer service has returned my call several times to point me in the right direction as far as size goes, and look forward to hearing him out. Cheers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

For AJMcClure:

The best information on iron sights is probably found in Burrard's - Notes on Sporting Rifles - Chapter VI. It even has an illustration of a front "bead".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

JohnR.. I am with you. There does come a point for me on many products where I decide cost vs. quality, and my needs. I use my binocs for flyfishing from a boat, and like to view the bugs on the water, and especially what fly that guy has hanging from his rod some distance down the river after he has landed a nice fish. My problem with binocs is the threat of losing them. I tend to lose things.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

AJMMcClure: I am 80 yrs. old and have worn hard contacts since I was 23. They have given me perfect vision and still do so. However around 6-7 years ago, after having observed very good results from laser surgery among my friends, I decided that I would get it done myself. I was informed that I was an "ideal" candidate. The appointment for the procedure was made and I was all ready to go. But at the last minute I was given my final instructions telling me what I might expect, part of which was that perfect 20-20 vision was not guaranteed and that there might be some other undesirable side effects, such as "halo effect" while night driving. At that point I got "cold feet" and decided that risking the excellent vision that my contacts already gave me was not worth it. What if my 20-20 vision was somewhat reduced, which was a real possibility? If so, would I then have to STILL wear corrective lenses to make up the difference? Could I? So I think that the minor inconvenience of using contacts is worth putting up with. All this being said, I have no dramatic reason to recommend against Lasik. I have heard nothing but positive reports from all those who have had it done.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

For clinchnot:
A good one for your fishing that you wouldn't have to worry much about losing...and they're waterproof.
Leupold BX-1 Yosemite Porro 6x30 Binocular at around $90. Probably Chinese, but at that price who cares.

They get very good reviews.

At something under $200 look for a vintage Nikon 8X30 8.5 degree or, even better, the 8.3 degree later model. These Nikons are all excellent but not waterproof.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Thanks kudo..And I don't mind a little heavier, or bigger because they go in the boat, or the car during bird season. I seldom carry them. Could be carried to a HS football game. And I don't mind China made anymore. A lot of our companies are setup over there, and reputable companies create the quality control needed.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

LOL clinchknot - I just can't seem to convince you they're not heavier or bigger.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

As I have posted before, I got a pair of Brunton Echo 8x42 at a bargain price on advice from a birder. Proved to be excellent optics and have survived 3 seasons of high country elk hunting in rain and snow. They are not Zeiss or Swarovski quality, nor do they carry their price tags. Waterproof and pretty rugged, although I would like to have a pair of those Zeiss!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I feel like an uneducated hick, having never heard of Mr Porro before these interesting comments. WAMs mention of "birders" brings to mind my forty year association with professors of ornithology. Intelligent, analytical folks who mostly move nickels like manhole covers, yet as I recall most carried expensive binoculars, claiming long hours behind a spotting scope or binocs looking for minute detail prompted saving those nickels and plunking down big bucks for optics. Can not wait to discuss this information with a few of them.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Dave must not have read Heavey's column this month. You want an 80 pound doe that is a year and a half tops. Shoot the doe. You can shoot three a day right here right now. For another month...

And I guess I do have a chip on my shoulder. Everyone I know seems to use Leupold and hates my scopes. I have a Kahles that cost more than my Zeiss's and I don't like it as well. Wish I could say I knew more about Swarovski or Leica or Schmidt & Bender. I hear they make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Happy Myles,

Ornithologists have been duped as much as anyone/everyone else.

With the exception of the Questar which is an oddball among spotting scopes, all of your ornithologist friends use spotting scopes in which the image is corrected left-to-right and up-and-down by use of Mr. Ignazio Porro's prism system. If a roof prism system worked better, these manufacturers (virtually all of them) would be using it.

From an optical perspective, the roof prism is a pain in the arse that only works with considerable corrective measures.

When Leica's Trinovids came along they were very expensive due to the difficulties dealing with their roof prism system. Because they were so expensive the public assumed, incorrectly, that they must be better; after all why would Leica build them if they weren't better. The rest has been a rather sad history.

Rather than checking with ornithologists regarding optics it might be better to check with some optics designers. I'll listen to the ornithologists regarding birds.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

kudu..OK, not heavier, or bigger. I look up BINOCS on the Inernet, and see some good prices, waterproof, attractive descriptions, but from makers I'm not familiar with. Wonder if some of these makers make acceptable binocs. Can't remember now the one I saw a lot. Steiner I surely have heard of, and am always impressed by German made tech stuff.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Clinchknot,
I believe Steiner 8X30s are used by the U.S. military although not absolutely certain. I personally don't care for the shape which feel a bit clunky in my hands. I haven't looked through any either, although they would have to meet some pretty stringent performance tests to be accepted by any military.
Fujinon's Meibo 8X30s are waterproof and splendid optically.
Whichever way you head with this make sure you are aware a lot of waterproof Porro binoculars are individual eye focus.
If you find something you think might like you can do an internet search to find out if they have performed well for others. If they're no good it will be apparent very quickly from those individual reports.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Thanks, I have a cheap pair now that are individual eye focus, and I'd prefer not to have that...I am now reminded.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wgp wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

For what any one guy's opinion and experience is worth, I have many binoculars from $50 to about $250, porro- and roof-, but a couple of years ago a local sporting goods store was going out of business and there was a pair of 8x42 Conquests for about half-price. I figured if I was ever to own such a glass that was the time. I have used them now for a couple of deer seasons and they are absolutely the best, clearest and brightest binos I have ever used and they are hands-down better than all my less-expensive binos (including a Steiner 7x50 Military/Marine). A joy to use -- probably worth it even at full price.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Most of the birders I have been in conversation with (I can honestly say none of my friends are birdwatchers) have pretty good optics and choose them for optical quality and don't pay much attention to weight or design. If a birder tells you thus and such are good optics, one might do well to take a peek. Many of their optics cost more than most folks' rifle, scope, binos, and rangefinder combined....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

@kudo kid you call customer service to make certain that the bead is the right height, and the screw fits your gun, not for a breakdown of what style, or material your front bead is the web site explains all that, but thinks for the reference. So I want to wish all of you the best during the holidays, and want to let you know you are worth the BEST products money can buy, but since you strive to be better outdoorsmen I sincerely hope you can make do with what your friends and family can afford, and in the spirit of out flint spear chunking ancestors-get as close as possible. Cheers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

AJMcClure,
Burrard was/is quaint in his Englishman's general preference for double rifles but IMHO his analysis of iron sights is the best ever done by anyone.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Indeed Kid Kudo, and I might add that in tritium you can get the post, but not the front sight with a bead at the correct height for the Marlin SBL's Ghost Ring (which is too big, but you can get a smaller "ring" or "peep".So there is room for more shot show additions, just not in time for this Christmas. Salut.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Merry Christmas to all!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

About the lazik, been there, done that. My vision was initially so good I easily read the tiniest letters on the eye chart. Think it was 20/15 or so. Anyway my eyes are constantly dry-have to use high quality eye drops daily. Bright lights cause problems and then there is that halo effect at night. Sometimes I drive with shades on then. Two years ago I noticed a floater in my right (dominate) eye. It was a torn retina which was repaired by lazer but some vision was lost in that eye. Now I can't see open sights well enough to shoot to my standards. Fortunately scopes cure that problem but can't put one on my flintlock long rifle.

If you want very good glass on the cheap buy them used on Ebay and send them back to the factory to be refurbished. Did that with my Swarovski's and they sent back what looked like brand new binocs with no charge. Total cost was about $600 including postage.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I bird hunt an area that is habitat for many birds of prey. I stopped and asked a college class what this bird of prey was that I had observed while hunting. They had optics on tripods, but I didn't ask them their preference for optics. This property is bordered by a huge marsh that is full of coots. During hunts I'd see black, wreath like figures on the ground..nothing in the middle, and black feathers circled around the outside....birds of prey that dined on coots I eventually realized.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

just ordered a pair of binocs, and some ineresting observations by my internet contact expert regarding styles...this thread wouldn't let me post it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

The only time I ever noticed a difference in clarity of binoculars was when a friend handed me his zoom binoculars to check out a distant deer. I picked up the deer at the lower magnification and then zoomed up to the max. Wow!
It had nothing to do with the quality of the glass, which might be important in maybe one tenth of one percent of the time while hunting.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I left my old school Zeiss on my bumper and drove away last year. Bought those through the Cabellas Guide program back in my single days for $750. Gone are the days of good optics for me..

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Ahh, the ol bumper trick. I swore off putting items on top of my car after losing a shotgun that I laid on top, but the bumper then took up the slack.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

To all: Very sorry to get behind in my comments, but I've been in Kansas, and out of touch. Anyway, to cases:

To Hermit Crab: I am an absolute believer in 10X over 8X. The only place where I use 8X glasses is Africa, where most shooting and glassing is at pretty short range. You'll find that if you use the 10X glasses for a while, you get steadier.

To jjas: I didn't have the Zeiss and the Monarch 7 glasses at the same time and couldn't couldn't compare them back to back, but I can tell you that the Monarchs are a damned marvel, and I would feel perfectly happy with them if I couldn't buy the Zeiss binos.

To Happy Myles: The truth is that all three are so good that it's strictly a matter of personal preference. I will be at both SHOT and SCI in Reno. I think it's time we met.

To Tom Warner: Kudu Kid is correct. Porro prisms are greatly underappreciated, but people just don't like the bulk.

TO clinchknot: As I said, I sent them back.

To Kudu Kid: Time for a reality check. Go through any issue of F&S and see how many ads, and how large, are taken out by Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica. Pretty scarce and pretty small, ain't they?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Here is a confirmation I got FROM A very knowlegeable source..BUY roof prisms for the durability factor. Says they are far more durable than the purro prisms because of the angled lenses in the purros.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Surprised to see the number of posts this blog generated over the weekend! Lots of people looking for a good-looking Christmas present for themselves? (Pun intended.)

Jjas, I've looked closely at the Monarch 7s. They are great! In fact, I recently conducted a resolution test comparing the 8x42 to my one of my favorite carry pieces, a 1994 pair of top-line Leica 7x42. Even without the extra power, I'm sure the new Monarch would still have out-defined my Leicas. And if memory serves, I paid just north of $1,500 for the Leicas.

The new lens coatings are what makes the difference. There are only a few manufacturers of top glass worldwide. Any real difference is in the quality of, and number of, lens coatings on each glass surface.

The price fix is on for the two new Nikons. No matter where you look, the price is the same ($475 for the 8, $499 for the 10). For people who need something a little less expensive, have a look at the new Bushnell Legend HD binoculars. Some of the on-line photo stores have them as low as $232 (there's a $50 rebate this month, too). These might be the current best buy in very good binoculars. Not top of the line, but excellent, and affordable.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Best affordable that I saw, and got excellent reviews were Zhumells 10 x 42 regular barrel $139. and compact shorter barrel for $119. The regular length barrel has bigger field of view because of barrel length. Waterproof, center focus, roof prism making them more durable! They are 70% off the suggested retail, plus you get another $10 off for XMAS order PLUS free shipping PLUS no TAX !!!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dick mcplenty wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

Kudukid is about as full of sh!t as you can get. Militaries have been using roof prism Zeiss Jena binoculars since the 1960's,Americans stationed in germany were buying these Zeiss binoculars dirt cheap before the wall fell.Steiner is garbage.The NATO countries in Europe used roof prism binocs extensively.
Porro prism binocs lack the durability of roof prism. Porro's fall out of alignment much easier also and porro's are never as water proof as roof prism

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

That is exactly what I found out when talking to a binocular REP. This guy knew his facts. Said the biggest thing going for ROOF PRISMS is durability!...much more durable than the porros. And today, there are a lot of roof prisms that do not cost that much.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

Just got my binocs in the mail, and I think I will luv them! They look just like the ones in the picture..10 x 42's. Waterproof, roof prisms, center focus, caps fit perfect, nice case, tripod strap, as well as a nice neck strap. $599.00 suggest retail for $139.00 (70% off) take another $10 for holiday order, and free shipping! and NO tax!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wingshooter54 wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

Swarovski Habicht (these are still available in Europe where porro prism binos are preferred) 7x42 for the creek bottoms, Swarovski Habicht 10x40 everywhere else with a pair of Zeiss Conquest 12x45 for backup. An dealer in NY imports the Swarovski porro binoculars and will let a buyer do a layaway....that's how I got mine and would'nt trade them for a basket of porro-prisms. (the Zeiss were a gift; never look askance at a gift) I personally do not find them uncomfortable as to bulk or weight and rate them above any Zeiss Conquest HD.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wingshooter54 wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

#@@!!!@###%!! typos......I wouldn't trade my Swarovskis for a basket of ROOF-PRISM binos. Sorry about that mistake in typing; think it's time for new trifocals.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

wingshooter,
Now that you have been so emphatic about porros please tell us why you prefer them, and why Europe would prefer them! I've been made a believer that roofs are far more durable, and who wants to spend a bunch of money, and drop a pair of porros, and have them ruined?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tuna0410 wrote 1 year 16 weeks ago

Can someone tell me or is there a reliable article about the differences between the expensive binos and the cheap ones? I hear people talk about it but can never get a honest answer why one is better than another.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from deadeyedick wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I suppose that if I had a hidden room full of cash I would run right out and buy them, but really, my budget would not allow such a purchase. Altho I'm sure they are everything you say they are. Sooo I'll just have to make do with what I have.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

The new HD lines of several manufacturers have got me wanting a new pair. I've looked at these and some others, and 'wow' comes to mind.

The good news is that these HD lines are better than what you could have bought 10 years ago at any price, and they cost about half of what the best did at that time.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I am speculating that Dr. Ralph was speaking from general observation over a length of time and not limited to just this particular blog.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

When I miss the easy shot at a flushing rooster, I can pick up my Ziess Binos, and see exactly where he landed.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Since we are discussing high end binocs, how does Zeiss compare to Swarovski and Leica? I guess it may be not appropriate for you to contrast.

Dave, which shows will you be attending?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

That is why I don't give product reviews by outdoor writers much credence..they get too many freebies for good reviews.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

There is likely some truth in your last although it may be more likely that if something is a poor performer such offerings would simply not get any review at all on the advise that, "If you can't say anything nice about a person (offering), it's better not to say anything at all."

I would guess the Zeiss binocular in question is probably a fine optic and would give excellent service. Zeiss doesn't put their name on junk.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

There sure are a lot of Zeiss haters out there. I own three of their scopes and will never buy another Leupold product. You get a lot more for your money with Zeiss, every time.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from haverodwilltravel wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

We don't "need" a lot of things to take game.
However, one should always go with the best gear you can afforded (without of course hurting your familys lifestyle).
Often times you can buy a high quality gun (binocular,knife,bamboo fly rod, etc...)use it and it's superior performance for half a lifetime, sell it for a new one and make money.
It's like good boots. You can buy 5 new pairs at WalMart for what you'd pay for a great pair of quality boots. They'll both last the same amount of time...the differance will be your feet.
Nope...I never knock quality gear at any price...because without the leaders developing quality, the trickle down would never occur.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Del in KS wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

About the lazik, been there, done that. My vision was initially so good I easily read the tiniest letters on the eye chart. Think it was 20/15 or so. Anyway my eyes are constantly dry-have to use high quality eye drops daily. Bright lights cause problems and then there is that halo effect at night. Sometimes I drive with shades on then. Two years ago I noticed a floater in my right (dominate) eye. It was a torn retina which was repaired by lazer but some vision was lost in that eye. Now I can't see open sights well enough to shoot to my standards. Fortunately scopes cure that problem but can't put one on my flintlock long rifle.

If you want very good glass on the cheap buy them used on Ebay and send them back to the factory to be refurbished. Did that with my Swarovski's and they sent back what looked like brand new binocs with no charge. Total cost was about $600 including postage.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Dave:
Which do you prefer: 8x42 or 10x42? I've had a pair of 10x42 but recently looked through a different make/model in 8x42 and felt as I could see a bit better through them. The 10x magnification seemed to really amplify any unsteadiness in my hands, which resulted in less clarity than the lower magnification, though I've not been able to try identical models side by side. Any thoughts?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Mr Petzal,

I know the Zeiss binos cost twice as much, but how do the new Monarch 7 binos compare to the Zeiss models?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

There are two distinct advantages of using binoculars over a riflescope. First of all using a riflescope as a spotting scope is dead right out wrong and the extra movement spokes game. Second and the most critical of all, you can use your binoculars like X-Ray vision by focusing past/through trees and brush and getting a pretty good view what’s well beyond the clutter you would only see in a riflescope. Friend thought I was crazy looking at a rush only a few feet in front of me. When I showed him to focus on the clutter then focus past it, it was like nothing in front of us blocking our view and the critters had now clue of our presence. As for the Zeiss, I’ll just have to stick with my Leupold 10x42mm BX-2 Cascades Binoculars for now until I win the lottery or somebody drops one out in the woods. If you want to find free gear, go to Chicken Alaska a cruse the ATV trails especially on Taylor Mountain during Caribou season.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

It seems the entire world has been duped into buying these overpriced roof prism binoculars.

A Porro prism binocular of the same price could be made...

A) Sharper
B) Brighter
C) Lighter
D) Equally waterproof
E) With a greater 3D effect

At half the price a Porro prism binocular could be made to equal these expensive roof prisms in all respects.

Few if any of the world's military use roof prism binoculars for obvious reasons.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I find kudukids observation very, very interesting, but am entirely unqualified to comment. Dave? Anybody?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Wonder if Dave received a free pair of Zeiss binos? They are at the top along with those mentioned by Happy Miles. Kudo's observation "that the world got fooled?" No, that doesn't happen. Folks that buy Zeiss, and Sworovski's don't get fooled...they highly scrutinize, and know what they are getting.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

The expensive roof prism binoculars being built by the big names today are very fine instruments. They would be both better and cheaper if they were Porro prism designs instead.

The roof prism design is very expensive to manufacture, requiring far tighter tolerances,silvering of the prisms and phase corrected coatings just to compete with Porro's design. and these firms get to charge very high prices for them and, therefore, provide themselves considerably greater profit.
So yes, the buying public has been duped.

To repeat, I know of no military of any country that purchases roof prism binoculars.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

kudu. You seem to have a point when it comes to value. Porro's do have good contrast. I don't know binos for Jack, BUT...I did look up, and see the comparison between the two..the market has been won over by the Roof Makers for one big reason....and I quote...
"Porro prism binoculars were standard until the 1960's, when the Zeiss and Leitz companies introduced roof prism binoculars, whose objective lenses were straight in line with the eyepieces. Roof prism binoculars were compact, light, and comfortable to hold. They made the offset, zig-zag shape of the Porro prism design look as old fashioned as propeller-driven aircraft."

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

That a design as useful and practical as that of Mr. Porro should be abandoned because it looks "old fashioned" is simply silly.

That Porros are clumsy or heavy is incorrect. I have small hands and use Porro binoculars exclusively. My 8x30 Alpin weighs 14 ounces and the 10x40s by the same manufacturer comes in at 17 ounces. Both are very compact, comfortable to hold and extremely sharp and contrasty. There is no roof prism binocular that will touch them for weight.

The buying public has indeed been duped for many years now.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

NO, the roof prisms won over the market because of their COMPACTNESS, and LIGHTNESS, COMFORT of handling! That is the case in lots of different products...folks willing to pay for those features because they have other things to carry, and do not want bulkiness! I looked up MILITARY BINOCULORS and quickly STEINERS popped up in front of me..roof prism binos. Here is another copy/paste....

Vortex Viper R/T 8x28 Tactical Binocular
The Viper R/T tactical binocular combines award-winning optics and required military features to create a tough, durable roof prism binocular-reliable in the worst conditions. XD (extra-low dispersion glass) objective lenses further enhance resolution and deliver the true-to-life color accuracy so essential for identifying targets. Soldiers and hunters can range objects of known dimension with the R/T Ranging reticle, which features four human silhouettes to serve as a secondary ranging aid." Being silly is in the mind of the consumer. That design won over consumers 52 years ago! I did the math.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

"Being silly is in the mind of the consumer. That design won over consumers 52 years ago! I did the math."

The Steiners you mentioned are a Porro design. They are tough, waterproof and weigh 18 ounces.

I agree, it's in the mind of the consumer. That doesn't make it a good choice. MS-DOS was also "in the mind of the consumer".

Can anyone report any military adoption of a roof prism binocular? I don't believe the Vortex R/T 8x28 Tactical Binocular is in use by any military.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Very interesting dialogue guys! I have spent much of my life living with binoculars hanging off me, and as I recall I chose roof prisms (after using poro's for some years)because they did seem handier in many ways. My eyes really could not detect the difference optically, even though it may in fact exist. Anyway, I am keeping a open mind. Yes, I find the military observation of interest. Dave, will you weigh in on this?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Since Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica are heavy investors in F&S advertising, it would not be wise for a very sage Mr. P. to give any comment that might harm that relationship and I wouldn't blame him in the slightest for not jumping into these deep and troubling waters.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Dr. Ralph,
Are you referring to anyone in this particular blog? I didn't notice any Zeiss haters.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Med neither. In fact I was very surprised at the Zeiss luvers! For the most part posters on these threads want something on the cheap, and make fun of expensive product like guns and flyrods.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JohnR wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I don't make fun of expensive products however I have observed mid range equipment perform as well as and be as durable as more high end stuff.
It also depends upon need. Sometimes one does not need the high end stuff.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

As the wise chief said,"everybody think like me, everybody want my squaw." You pays your money and you makes your choice. No bone to pick with that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I would love to hear about some of you older ladies and gentlemen about investing in some lasik. It seems to me that the advances of eye surgeries are worth looking into if you are in need. On another note, I do not like the front post on "ghost ring sights." They are fine for paper, but for moving beast I will be upgrading to a Marble brass front bead. Troy from customer service has returned my call several times to point me in the right direction as far as size goes, and look forward to hearing him out. Cheers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

For AJMcClure:

The best information on iron sights is probably found in Burrard's - Notes on Sporting Rifles - Chapter VI. It even has an illustration of a front "bead".

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

JohnR.. I am with you. There does come a point for me on many products where I decide cost vs. quality, and my needs. I use my binocs for flyfishing from a boat, and like to view the bugs on the water, and especially what fly that guy has hanging from his rod some distance down the river after he has landed a nice fish. My problem with binocs is the threat of losing them. I tend to lose things.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

AJMMcClure: I am 80 yrs. old and have worn hard contacts since I was 23. They have given me perfect vision and still do so. However around 6-7 years ago, after having observed very good results from laser surgery among my friends, I decided that I would get it done myself. I was informed that I was an "ideal" candidate. The appointment for the procedure was made and I was all ready to go. But at the last minute I was given my final instructions telling me what I might expect, part of which was that perfect 20-20 vision was not guaranteed and that there might be some other undesirable side effects, such as "halo effect" while night driving. At that point I got "cold feet" and decided that risking the excellent vision that my contacts already gave me was not worth it. What if my 20-20 vision was somewhat reduced, which was a real possibility? If so, would I then have to STILL wear corrective lenses to make up the difference? Could I? So I think that the minor inconvenience of using contacts is worth putting up with. All this being said, I have no dramatic reason to recommend against Lasik. I have heard nothing but positive reports from all those who have had it done.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

For clinchnot:
A good one for your fishing that you wouldn't have to worry much about losing...and they're waterproof.
Leupold BX-1 Yosemite Porro 6x30 Binocular at around $90. Probably Chinese, but at that price who cares.

They get very good reviews.

At something under $200 look for a vintage Nikon 8X30 8.5 degree or, even better, the 8.3 degree later model. These Nikons are all excellent but not waterproof.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Thanks kudo..And I don't mind a little heavier, or bigger because they go in the boat, or the car during bird season. I seldom carry them. Could be carried to a HS football game. And I don't mind China made anymore. A lot of our companies are setup over there, and reputable companies create the quality control needed.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

LOL clinchknot - I just can't seem to convince you they're not heavier or bigger.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

As I have posted before, I got a pair of Brunton Echo 8x42 at a bargain price on advice from a birder. Proved to be excellent optics and have survived 3 seasons of high country elk hunting in rain and snow. They are not Zeiss or Swarovski quality, nor do they carry their price tags. Waterproof and pretty rugged, although I would like to have a pair of those Zeiss!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Happy Myles wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I feel like an uneducated hick, having never heard of Mr Porro before these interesting comments. WAMs mention of "birders" brings to mind my forty year association with professors of ornithology. Intelligent, analytical folks who mostly move nickels like manhole covers, yet as I recall most carried expensive binoculars, claiming long hours behind a spotting scope or binocs looking for minute detail prompted saving those nickels and plunking down big bucks for optics. Can not wait to discuss this information with a few of them.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Dave must not have read Heavey's column this month. You want an 80 pound doe that is a year and a half tops. Shoot the doe. You can shoot three a day right here right now. For another month...

And I guess I do have a chip on my shoulder. Everyone I know seems to use Leupold and hates my scopes. I have a Kahles that cost more than my Zeiss's and I don't like it as well. Wish I could say I knew more about Swarovski or Leica or Schmidt & Bender. I hear they make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Happy Myles,

Ornithologists have been duped as much as anyone/everyone else.

With the exception of the Questar which is an oddball among spotting scopes, all of your ornithologist friends use spotting scopes in which the image is corrected left-to-right and up-and-down by use of Mr. Ignazio Porro's prism system. If a roof prism system worked better, these manufacturers (virtually all of them) would be using it.

From an optical perspective, the roof prism is a pain in the arse that only works with considerable corrective measures.

When Leica's Trinovids came along they were very expensive due to the difficulties dealing with their roof prism system. Because they were so expensive the public assumed, incorrectly, that they must be better; after all why would Leica build them if they weren't better. The rest has been a rather sad history.

Rather than checking with ornithologists regarding optics it might be better to check with some optics designers. I'll listen to the ornithologists regarding birds.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

kudu..OK, not heavier, or bigger. I look up BINOCS on the Inernet, and see some good prices, waterproof, attractive descriptions, but from makers I'm not familiar with. Wonder if some of these makers make acceptable binocs. Can't remember now the one I saw a lot. Steiner I surely have heard of, and am always impressed by German made tech stuff.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Clinchknot,
I believe Steiner 8X30s are used by the U.S. military although not absolutely certain. I personally don't care for the shape which feel a bit clunky in my hands. I haven't looked through any either, although they would have to meet some pretty stringent performance tests to be accepted by any military.
Fujinon's Meibo 8X30s are waterproof and splendid optically.
Whichever way you head with this make sure you are aware a lot of waterproof Porro binoculars are individual eye focus.
If you find something you think might like you can do an internet search to find out if they have performed well for others. If they're no good it will be apparent very quickly from those individual reports.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Thanks, I have a cheap pair now that are individual eye focus, and I'd prefer not to have that...I am now reminded.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wgp wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

For what any one guy's opinion and experience is worth, I have many binoculars from $50 to about $250, porro- and roof-, but a couple of years ago a local sporting goods store was going out of business and there was a pair of 8x42 Conquests for about half-price. I figured if I was ever to own such a glass that was the time. I have used them now for a couple of deer seasons and they are absolutely the best, clearest and brightest binos I have ever used and they are hands-down better than all my less-expensive binos (including a Steiner 7x50 Military/Marine). A joy to use -- probably worth it even at full price.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Most of the birders I have been in conversation with (I can honestly say none of my friends are birdwatchers) have pretty good optics and choose them for optical quality and don't pay much attention to weight or design. If a birder tells you thus and such are good optics, one might do well to take a peek. Many of their optics cost more than most folks' rifle, scope, binos, and rangefinder combined....

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

@kudo kid you call customer service to make certain that the bead is the right height, and the screw fits your gun, not for a breakdown of what style, or material your front bead is the web site explains all that, but thinks for the reference. So I want to wish all of you the best during the holidays, and want to let you know you are worth the BEST products money can buy, but since you strive to be better outdoorsmen I sincerely hope you can make do with what your friends and family can afford, and in the spirit of out flint spear chunking ancestors-get as close as possible. Cheers.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

AJMcClure,
Burrard was/is quaint in his Englishman's general preference for double rifles but IMHO his analysis of iron sights is the best ever done by anyone.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Indeed Kid Kudo, and I might add that in tritium you can get the post, but not the front sight with a bead at the correct height for the Marlin SBL's Ghost Ring (which is too big, but you can get a smaller "ring" or "peep".So there is room for more shot show additions, just not in time for this Christmas. Salut.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from kudukid wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Merry Christmas to all!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I bird hunt an area that is habitat for many birds of prey. I stopped and asked a college class what this bird of prey was that I had observed while hunting. They had optics on tripods, but I didn't ask them their preference for optics. This property is bordered by a huge marsh that is full of coots. During hunts I'd see black, wreath like figures on the ground..nothing in the middle, and black feathers circled around the outside....birds of prey that dined on coots I eventually realized.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

just ordered a pair of binocs, and some ineresting observations by my internet contact expert regarding styles...this thread wouldn't let me post it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

The only time I ever noticed a difference in clarity of binoculars was when a friend handed me his zoom binoculars to check out a distant deer. I picked up the deer at the lower magnification and then zoomed up to the max. Wow!
It had nothing to do with the quality of the glass, which might be important in maybe one tenth of one percent of the time while hunting.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

I left my old school Zeiss on my bumper and drove away last year. Bought those through the Cabellas Guide program back in my single days for $750. Gone are the days of good optics for me..

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Ahh, the ol bumper trick. I swore off putting items on top of my car after losing a shotgun that I laid on top, but the bumper then took up the slack.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from davidpetzal wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

To all: Very sorry to get behind in my comments, but I've been in Kansas, and out of touch. Anyway, to cases:

To Hermit Crab: I am an absolute believer in 10X over 8X. The only place where I use 8X glasses is Africa, where most shooting and glassing is at pretty short range. You'll find that if you use the 10X glasses for a while, you get steadier.

To jjas: I didn't have the Zeiss and the Monarch 7 glasses at the same time and couldn't couldn't compare them back to back, but I can tell you that the Monarchs are a damned marvel, and I would feel perfectly happy with them if I couldn't buy the Zeiss binos.

To Happy Myles: The truth is that all three are so good that it's strictly a matter of personal preference. I will be at both SHOT and SCI in Reno. I think it's time we met.

To Tom Warner: Kudu Kid is correct. Porro prisms are greatly underappreciated, but people just don't like the bulk.

TO clinchknot: As I said, I sent them back.

To Kudu Kid: Time for a reality check. Go through any issue of F&S and see how many ads, and how large, are taken out by Zeiss, Swarovski, and Leica. Pretty scarce and pretty small, ain't they?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Here is a confirmation I got FROM A very knowlegeable source..BUY roof prisms for the durability factor. Says they are far more durable than the purro prisms because of the angled lenses in the purros.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Surprised to see the number of posts this blog generated over the weekend! Lots of people looking for a good-looking Christmas present for themselves? (Pun intended.)

Jjas, I've looked closely at the Monarch 7s. They are great! In fact, I recently conducted a resolution test comparing the 8x42 to my one of my favorite carry pieces, a 1994 pair of top-line Leica 7x42. Even without the extra power, I'm sure the new Monarch would still have out-defined my Leicas. And if memory serves, I paid just north of $1,500 for the Leicas.

The new lens coatings are what makes the difference. There are only a few manufacturers of top glass worldwide. Any real difference is in the quality of, and number of, lens coatings on each glass surface.

The price fix is on for the two new Nikons. No matter where you look, the price is the same ($475 for the 8, $499 for the 10). For people who need something a little less expensive, have a look at the new Bushnell Legend HD binoculars. Some of the on-line photo stores have them as low as $232 (there's a $50 rebate this month, too). These might be the current best buy in very good binoculars. Not top of the line, but excellent, and affordable.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Best affordable that I saw, and got excellent reviews were Zhumells 10 x 42 regular barrel $139. and compact shorter barrel for $119. The regular length barrel has bigger field of view because of barrel length. Waterproof, center focus, roof prism making them more durable! They are 70% off the suggested retail, plus you get another $10 off for XMAS order PLUS free shipping PLUS no TAX !!!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dick mcplenty wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

Kudukid is about as full of sh!t as you can get. Militaries have been using roof prism Zeiss Jena binoculars since the 1960's,Americans stationed in germany were buying these Zeiss binoculars dirt cheap before the wall fell.Steiner is garbage.The NATO countries in Europe used roof prism binocs extensively.
Porro prism binocs lack the durability of roof prism. Porro's fall out of alignment much easier also and porro's are never as water proof as roof prism

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

That is exactly what I found out when talking to a binocular REP. This guy knew his facts. Said the biggest thing going for ROOF PRISMS is durability!...much more durable than the porros. And today, there are a lot of roof prisms that do not cost that much.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

Just got my binocs in the mail, and I think I will luv them! They look just like the ones in the picture..10 x 42's. Waterproof, roof prisms, center focus, caps fit perfect, nice case, tripod strap, as well as a nice neck strap. $599.00 suggest retail for $139.00 (70% off) take another $10 for holiday order, and free shipping! and NO tax!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wingshooter54 wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

Swarovski Habicht (these are still available in Europe where porro prism binos are preferred) 7x42 for the creek bottoms, Swarovski Habicht 10x40 everywhere else with a pair of Zeiss Conquest 12x45 for backup. An dealer in NY imports the Swarovski porro binoculars and will let a buyer do a layaway....that's how I got mine and would'nt trade them for a basket of porro-prisms. (the Zeiss were a gift; never look askance at a gift) I personally do not find them uncomfortable as to bulk or weight and rate them above any Zeiss Conquest HD.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wingshooter54 wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

#@@!!!@###%!! typos......I wouldn't trade my Swarovskis for a basket of ROOF-PRISM binos. Sorry about that mistake in typing; think it's time for new trifocals.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 18 weeks ago

wingshooter,
Now that you have been so emphatic about porros please tell us why you prefer them, and why Europe would prefer them! I've been made a believer that roofs are far more durable, and who wants to spend a bunch of money, and drop a pair of porros, and have them ruined?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tuna0410 wrote 1 year 16 weeks ago

Can someone tell me or is there a reliable article about the differences between the expensive binos and the cheap ones? I hear people talk about it but can never get a honest answer why one is better than another.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs