I keep struggling with this question and end up having a hard time justifying the high priced glass. Now high price for me is anything over $500-600 - although some of Dougs demos bring some very nice glass to the table for just a bit more. My glassing consists of mostly wide open areas here in Idaho where glassing out to a mile or so is common. I realize that is spotting scope territory, but I already know I will not carry one so that is out. I'm not a trophy hunter and don't really need to see every little sticker at 500yds but I do need enough glass to tell if it is a buck or not. At one time I owned a set of Nikon LX 8X32's which were very nice - something in that class would be excellent. Are the new Monarch 7's comparable? If so I would be satisfied - but if they have flare or blackouts then I'd be disappointed. I am very partial to the 8X30-32 size. They tend to be lighter and sized a little smaller than the full size along with less expensive on average. On my short list are the Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32's, Swarovski 8X30 CL and the new Nikon 8X30 Monarch 7's. These will be my only nice glass and will accompany my truck binos that are Vortex Viper 8X28's. Problem is, I have not been able to compare all of them together - each individually (except the Monarchs) and only indoors. I guess the real question is "Are the Zeiss or Swaro's worth the extra $"? I realize that is a very subjective question but would still like to hear your reasons why or why not. Other options? Thanks.

Mid-tier glass has come a long way and would probably do everything you need it to. But if you have the money there's nothing like looking through top tier glass. You can see that extra 5-10% performance difference (although it comes at a high cost).

Getting a demo bino, a secondhand, or last year's model can be a good way of saving money. There have been some outstanding deals on optics in the classifieds. The great thing about this approach is that you can try them and resell at close to what you bought them for since they're already discounted.

Eric

I don't think the big name binoculars are worth it except of course to show off. However a 'special' binocular might cost more.

I was deer hunting on open land with my 8X Leu. binos. which are good. My eyesight is good.

While does were in season I wanted a buck. I spotted a group of deer across a valley. It was quite far. I could not make out if one was a buck or not.

Thus I found some 7X-12X Switch Power binoculars. They were very expensive. The zoom binoculars I tried have a narrow field of view and are not good for scanning.

You might search here and in other forums for topics on Switch Power binoculars.

I don't know were there is a good deal on some. Mine cost $500 and that was at "half price".

I have some "high end" glass on my primary hunting rifles; but have been VERY satisfied with Pentax DCF SP for my binos; have both 8x32 and 10x50.

I think you'll eventually be let down by something in an 8X30 or 8X32 when you have to use them in low light. In mid day they are fine. The higher end glass can help offset things a bit, but the standard rule of having a front objective 5X greater than the magnification is still in play. I decided to buy some quality binoculars 3-4 years ago and ended up with these from Cameraland.

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/pentax.pl?page=dcfsp8x43

I paid less than $400 IIRC. They have gone up some since then and was offered a display model at a discount.

They are very good, but often get left at home for something more compact. Personally, I'd rather drop the magnification down to a 6X30 in something more compact. Everything is a tradeoff and I'd rather give up some magnification in order to keep things a little brighter at the end of the day if size matters. It is really a shame more 7X35's and 6X30's are not offered. That is a very useful size and power range.

These are now discontinued, but if you can find a pair are great compact binoculars.


http://www.optics4birding.com/leupold-wind-river-katmai-review.aspx


Don't laugh, but for under $100 these are surprisingly good. I keep a pair in the truck and end up using them quite often.

http://swfa.com/Leupold-6x30-BX-1-Yosemite-Binocular-P48061.aspx

centershot,
Although a bit above your projected price range a Swaro SLC 10x42 jus posted in the classifieds, I believe that he is down to around $900 for them. It may be worth consideration. As a disclaimer I do not know the seller, nor do I have any interest in the sale, I am just passing some info here.

drover

I have used leupold and Nikon binos. both 10x42. The leupolds were clearer. I then saved 4 years and bought a used pair of leica geovids for $1600. A lot of dough, but worth every penny.I can still see in the dark with them when everything in the other binocs is black. Much better definition, and no eye strain. When it comes to binos, you get what you pay for.

check out the meopta 6.5x32

after getting my Vortex Razor spotting scope and how impressed i am with it I would consider their binos now as well....

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/vortex.pl?page=vortextalonhd8x42

Keep your eyes peeled on used. I picked up a set of 8x Swaros here for $600 a couple years ago.

Buy the best glass you can possibly afford. The thing is, with poor optics you never know what you are missing.

My thoughts on glass... sell all the rifles you don't need to buy the best glass, then stretch a bit more.

A safe full of unused rifles is worthless. I'd rather have the very best bins around my neck and a Walmart rifle, than the reverse.

OTOH, "mid-priced" binoculars have gotten quite good these days.

Yup. No comparison. You definitely get what you pay for.

I have never once regretted dropping the money on Ultravids.

Agreed.

Here's a related anecdote. Setting: Yellowstone National Park, late May, a few years ago. I had with me a Pentax 8x42 DCF WP, good mid-tier glass, and a Zeiss Victory FL T* 8x42, definitely alpha glass. We were driving down a main east-west road on the north side of the park and see a couple vehicles stopped with a couple spotting scopes set up. The couple who owned the spotting scopes had spotted two bears, a cub and mama bear, on a distant hillside that must have been at least two miles away. Once my wife and I saw the bears in the spotting scopes, we tried our binocs. With the Pentax 8x42, I could barely see tiny fuzzy black spots, with no discernible shapes, on the hillside. With the Zeiss, I could barely make out the bears' shapes. So on an open hillside a long distance away the difference between mid-tier and alpha was fuzzy spots vs. bear shapes.

That difference in resolution sold me on alpha glass. If I couldn't afford alpha glass, I would be perfectly happy to hunt with the Pentax 8x42 DCF WP, like I did for a few years before I could afford alpha glass, accepting that there would be some limitation. Side note - I sold that Zeiss Victory in the Classifieds recently for $1050, so an alpha binoc doesn't have to cost you $2000.

I'll throw out one other consideration about some of the newcomers to the middle-tier optics market. The quality of the view may not be all that far from that of alpha glass, but what about durability of the binoculars? Do those newcomers have the decades of design experience that the Big 3 and other established optics companies have, and what deficiencies in design might you encounter over the life of the newcomer's binoc? While quality of the view through the optic is the most important and easiest aspect to compare, durability is important too. If you have to replace cheaper constructed mid-tier glass a couple times over the next 30 years because the cheaper binocs didn't hold up to long-term use, you haven't saved any money compared to buying an alpha binoc, and you've paid the same amount or more for an inferior view all that time.

I'll add one other related thought - What if a major durability design flaw on the mid-tier Chinese copycat binoc becomes all too apparent at the worst possible time - a once in a lifetime hunt - and the binocs are useless the rest of the hunt (worse than useless if you're backpacking and have to carry them out with you so you can send them for warranty service when you get home, if the company is even still in business and supports their product)?

I agree with Brad - I would rather hunt with a Walmart rifle and the best binocular I could afford than to have a safe full of guns and hunt with a cheaper binoc. That safe full of guns isn't going to help me see the game I'm seeking.

Good points above - With binos there are several big steps in price and quality. First step from the $40 Walmart to the $200 stuff, pretty big. Second step $200 to $400 - smaller but noticeable. Third step $400-800 - the upper end of this get very nice glass, starting to plateau in the price vs view. Next step gets smaller and pricier to the $1000-$1200 binos, very nice indeed - you about need the elite binos to see the difference. The last step is to the $2K range - best of the best. What I am looking for is the point where the view begins to plateau vs the price. The Zeiss Conquest 8X32 HD is slowly becoming my favorite in this category - but I really want to see if the Nikon Monarch 7 is a sleeper at 1/2 the price of the others. At that price range things tend to be very good, good as the best of the best 10-15 years ago? Close. Thanks for the opinions so far, keep them coming.

The fellows above have given good advice as top glass really makes things easier...and is easier to sell if you should need cash.

FWIW, there was a good thread recently about customer service and a number of folks gave Nikon a big thumbs down on CS.

Eric

The difference between the various "grades" of binoculars has shrunk considerably just in the past few years, and certainly isn't 10% in optical quality from $500 to $2500 glass. And the difference is MUCH less from $1000 to $2500.

The other objection to lower priced, however, has also been ruggedness, and even that has changed.

Used is always an option, but I would definitely look at several binoculars instead of automatically spending a lot of money.

Agreed.

John,

Do you still find switch power binoculars a favorite?

If so are there any at a reasonable price? I got some Leupold 7/12 x 32mm binocs that I like. They seem to be discontinued.

The only one I've found worth it is the Leica Duovid, but haven't tested every model on the market.

Have you considered the Meopta Meostar?

The Meostars would be on my short list of best cost/ruggedness for the bucks.

I love my 8x42 Meostar, and I've heard really good things about them in the 8x32 size the OP mentioned. If I liked 10x more I could have saved some coin by buying the Cabela's badged one.

The 10x42 HD Cabela's is a great value.

"HD" doesn't mean squat technically, but there is an easily noticeable difference between the non-HD 10x42 and the HD model.

the 10x42 HD meostar is a brilliant binocular. very bright and sharp. built very tough.

I don't have near the experience that MD does, but I was going to post something to this effect also, in light of my last post. After hunting with a Meopta Meostar HD for the last 4 months, I would go so far to say that there is no need for me to ever spend $2k on binos ever again. The Meopta (and Cabelas Euro for that matter) have it all IMO.....fantastic glass, fantastic build quality, a super overall package.

centershot,

Here's my take on your original question:

Yes, the Zeiss conquest HDs are worth it. they are excellent glass and built like a tank. Everything about them(build quality, optical quality etc....) screams quality! Having said that, my opinion is based on testing a pair of 8x42 conquest HDs.

I personally own a pair of excellent German made Minox HG 8x43s and the Zeiss Conquest HDs were equal, if not better, in every respect. Doug at Cameraland has had both of these binos down as low as $750 on sale in the past. For what you described as your intended use for them I think either of these would serve you very, very well for many year to come.

I've listened for years to all these top-tier bino aficionados who say 30yrs from now you'll still be using your top-tier glass with no regrets if you spend the money to purchase them. But they themselves seem to be the ones constantly selling and upgrading their "top-tier glass" in the classifieds here on "the Campfire". Point is, top-tier with today's technology is only top-tier for 3-5 yrs before something better comes along and these same guys just can't seem to live without the new toy(no disrespect intended).

$500 buys you some very, very good glass these days. If you can stretch your budget out to $750-$800ish you can get some incredibly good glass(very close to the best of the best) that will serve you well and with a very respectable lifetime warranty to boot(Minox, Zeiss and Meopta come to mind). These are respectable companies with proven track records for building quality products and taking care of their customers.

Bottom line, get ahold of a pair of the 8x32 Zeiss Conquest HDs and try them yourself. If you like them which I'm sure you will, pay the $650ish price and enjoy the view through them and many happy days in the field. No regrets. Truth is, most of this "stuff"(high-priced outdoor gear, optics etc...)we all love to use for hunting is just STUFF and if your not careful you can spend your whole retirement savings and then some on stuff you don't really need. The best hunters and outdoorsmen I know(the guys who put meat in the freezer and big racks on the wall year after year own very little in the way of top-tier stuff. Instead they spend time afield and do their homework and it pays off.

Work hard, play hard and enjoy life,

Leftybolt

+1 would do it again in a heart beat, the wow factor doesn't go away.

I'm working with a new Leupold Mojave 8x32. I'll put up a review in a day or two. I have a bunch of mid price 8x32 binoculars on hand right now and the Mojave is a notch above them all. Leupold's MSRP is $429, but I see CLNY has them listed for $349 (unless that's a mistake). I'd put it in about the same class as the Vortex Viper HD. For a glass of its price, it has a surprisingly flat field, sharp edges and holds up much better than I expected in light limited situations with even pretty good 8x42 binoculars. So I'd put it on your short list of candidates if that is the sort of glass you are looking for.

There is not much reason to spend much above that, however I agree with a couple of posts about the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32. I'd like to see a Meopta 8x32 for long enough to wring it out, but I have not enough time with them to form much of an opinion.

As to your query about the Monarch 7...no they are not the same league as your older Nikon. In fact I had a chance for a side by side with the Monarch 7 8x42 and the Mojave, and I'll take the Mojave any day of the week.

A hunter will be wise to spend as much as he can afford on two things, binoculars & boots. One leads to the use of the other.

I don't accept the rationalization that mid-line binoculars have gotten better, and are good enough. Improvements in materials, engineering, and manufacturing cross all lines.

Eyesight decreases with age. You will experience declines in your eyesight, particularly in low light and with focusing. If you are making an investment in optics, then consider that quality will continue to pay-off.

I feel the same about my Zeiss.

Some have reported here that Leica is not covered by warranty to other than the original purchaser.

Swarovski, has taken care of anything.

Not sure about Zeiss. The only defect I ever encountered was with a new 10x40 several years ago. My dealer replaced them. I suppose he had faith in the company.

I use a Swarovski 8x30 SLC. They may be short as it gets dark.. At my age, I have no desire to mess with a deer after dark, therefore no problem. I have counted points way before it got legal light at dawn.

Jack

One can never go wrong with Swaro 10x42SLC. Never a disappointment and your children will enjoy when you are gone.

Starting to sound like the Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32 Demos from doug at $675 may be a bigger bargain that I first thought. Given the choice which would be your pick between the Conquest or CL ($780 demos)? This is a chunk of change to me and I really want to make the best decision, so please bear with the questions. Thanks.

My advice was:

"I don't think the big name binoculars are worth it except of course to show off. "

I have Hensoldt, and many others for hunting and the boat. The lower priced ones work just as well and I don't worry about them falling.

The Leupold's I have are durable and sharp.

I can't comment on the conquest HD or CL from personal use. You probably can't go wrong with either. If it's me, I save up a little more and get used, better glass in the $900 range.

Is the new mid priced better than the old high priced? Seems to me that there have been several innovations in the last few years that make up quite a lot of difference. Are 10yr old Swaros what these Zeiss Conquest HD's are? They are about the same price and with new you know where they have been and how they have been treated. Lots to weigh out here.

Some binoculars that retail now for $500 that are good or even better than the best from the 1980's.

Yes, all binoculars have improved in the past 25 years, but the lower end has improved the most, by far. Anybody who doesn't believe that hasn't looked through enough recent binoculars.

I have several recent "alpha" binoculars, and they are great. I especially use my Leica 8+12 Duovid for open-country glassing, but also use my 10x42 Swarovski EL a lot, and have a Zeiss Victory 8x32 that's great for closer glassing. But I also have around 30 other lower-priced binoculars that also work very well, some so close to the "alphas" that there's almost no practical difference.

One of my buddies is a total Swarovski slut, and is always talking about how they're the ONLY binoculars (and scopes) to own. If somebody has that kind of money, why not? But he has also been blown away by the quality some of my lesser-priced binoculars. I don't think he's going to switch anytime soon, but he doesn't talk about how Swarovskis blow away everything else nearly as much anymore.

That is great news for a guy like me - without the unlimited budget. What I'm trying to do is sort out the best thing I can for $500-$700. I really don't care what the name on the package is - the only one I need to impress is me. I do want a nice quality rig that will last me for a few years and not feel like I'm missing something that a 'better' bino would provide. Thanks for your inputs.

for 500-700 id get either a meostar or conquest hd

I have a pair of the zeiss HD conquests in a 8x42 and I really like them. I gave my Leica 8x32 ultravids to my wife to use

Sitting in a deer stand in the Connecticut woods hoping for the first legal buck isn't quite as demanding as other types of hunting.

Just saying...

Cabelas Euro HD

Why am I not surprised that the extent of hunting for that buffoon is a treestand in suburbia? Why am I further not surprised that he would be in Connecticut?

Shrapnel?

A couple years ago we bought my dad a set of Swaro 10x42 SLC NEU from shrapnel for Christmas at a great price. He was absolutely blown away, as his previous top glass was a set of Aus Jena 10x40s from the early 1980s. The next fall we were out hunting in West River country of SD and we were watching a herd of mule deer about a mile off when the rancher's son and grandson pulled up, wondering what we were looking at. We pointed out the white butts in the distance and the grandson put up his obviously cheap 8x Bushnell binos and stated, "I think there's about four deer over there, but I don't see any horns." I said to him, "There are six deer, three big does, two yearlings or fawns, and one nice 4x4." He looked again through his binos and disagreed with me. I said, "Here, let's trade." We both looked through the swapped binos and said, "Holy schitt!" for absolutely different reasons. He drives a brand new Chevy HD pickup and uses a nice rifle, but spent $80 on binoculars. Oops. He quickly wanted to know what kind of binoculars those were and where he could get some. Last fall he had a set of olive green binos with a silver hawk on the housing hanging around his neck...

I've owned several Swarovski bin's... I liked them, and I think Swarovski is a very good company, that makes a very good product, which also happens to have the very best marketing of The Big Three, as well as the best after sale Consumer Service (something which prices Swaro several hundred dollars more than Leica or Zeiss).

They're smart in that they ignored going with the traditional black color, going primarily green instead. Then they engineered their bins with a unique open shape to make them stand out all the more. Then they give them to guides and industry people at dramatically reduced cost, further cementing the idea that guides think "they're the best."

The consumers follow along like sheep.

For me, Swarovski lost their way with Swarovision. The human eye doesn't work like the flat field of the Swarovision does, and to many of us it's an unpleasant experience. A flat field is something all mfg's know how to do, they're just smart enough to not do it (apart from a few in the Nikon lineup).

To me, it's yet another gimmick on Swarovski's part to set themselves apart from Leica and Zeiss... however this time, for many of us, it's a failure.

And their objective covers, unlike the previous SLC covers, completely suck..

YMMV.

ive never looked thro swaro binos. just dont c how they can be a thousand bucks or so better than a meopta meostar

For the sake of complete honesty, I purchased the Zeiss ClassiC 10x40 binos that shrapnel had up for sale in December for a great price. A couple of weeks ago I got together with dad and mom for lunch and I told him to bring along his Swarovski binos. We ate lunch then went out to a nearby city park and then a wildlife management area. We couldn't discern a noticeable difference in clarity or optical quality between the two. My main criticism between the two is that the Swaro twist-up eye cups are very sweet and much more convenient than the fold down rubber cups on my Zeiss. Dad simply salivated at the Zeiss binos, as he is 72 y/o now and has always been certain that Zeiss are the absolute best, but he also loves the Swaros that we bought him. I would be happy with either one. The other comparison we had for glass was a set of Zeiss Telexem 6x24 that were made in 1936 and I purchased for $40 shipped and then I paid NRC Optics $87 to go through them and clean them up. In good daylight, the 6x24 binos are just as good as the modern binocs, though I'm sure they aren't waterproof, shockproof, fogproof, and in the evening and morning they simply aren't as bright as the 10x40 Zeiss. I just sent the OP a link to the classifieds that a guy is selling a set of 8x32 Swaro SLC NEU for $625 shipped.

I have spent what I felt was a good bit of money on touted binoculars in the past. No - not Swaro or Leica money but the pair du jor. I will actually admit still being caught up in some inexplicable want to justify owning a pricey new pair.

That said, I find I can just not get past what fraction -of-the-cost low excitement porros give me instead. If a comfortable and technically apportioned 7x35 porro ever comes out I would likely never buy after that again.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't gush over someone else's Swaro EL's but- there you have it.

Well why not go look through some $300-500 binos and see what you think? I got a pair of Weaver Grand Slam 8.5x45 binos that are really all I need for $200 on sale a couple of years ago and have been very satisfied with them.

I'm a gun and boot nut more than a fancy optics snob....



That and I'm afraid to really use a nice set of bino's....grin

Not 'use' so much in the hunting sense, more along the lines leave in the pickup, get dirty, scratched up. Theft, puppy dog chew toy, etc..

Thinking about it my hunting bino's have become truck bino's this Winter...


Only pair I've bought and used in the last 6-7 years.


$300 pair of Nikon ATB's.


To my poor eyes a fresh set of contacts makes more difference in being able 'to see chit' than a $$$ set of bino's.

I used to not worry about binos too much, but a while back I made the mistake of trying out a Leica Trinovid and that was that for me. So I saved some money for a good while and wound up with a Meopta Meostar.

Overall feel, seems like it would be the deciding factor. That and an obvious 'good' view.

Same goes for high end scopes too.

I love my Minox HG 8x33 MIG. Got them from Cameraland for $647.

Nope, someone else. I haven't accepted lesser quality binoculars yet and 2 of the 3 top tier binoculars I use are Leica HD-B and Leica Ultravids...

I was joking shrap...I've talked with you enough to know that you have far more than just Swarovskis in the safe...

Bought Nikon monarch ATB 10X42 Binos about 5 years back for $299.Good glass for the $$ spent IMHO.

Did not read the replies, but I can offer this

If you can't see game, you can't take it.

But if your binocs are better than your scope light wise, seeing may not allow shoooting...

Talking late and early.

Then tehre is headache city. Better glass gives less....

I've not been unhappy with my Zeiss 10x50s bought in the early 80s.... cheap if you figure the per year cost....

And FWIW my motto has been... you get the best scope you can...first, then the best binocs, then the best rifle....

Can't see it, can't shoot it. Cant' find it to see it to shoot it..... and it takes only the cheapest single shot HR type handi rifle to kill most anything for most folks.... but they are more vain than that....

Wife has been happy with her new Vortex glass much more so than her old Leupy ones that really were not any better than old leupy scopes in the clarity department.

With the glass techniques drastically improved over the last few years, it is hard to justify to spend more than $1000 for a pair of binoculars other than for the sake of showing off.

My favorite binoculars are Zeiss Terra ED and Zen-Ray ZRS HD. For better quality, the Zen-Ray PRIME HD is one of the best in its class. For less expensive binoculars, I would consider Leupold's new McKenzie.

interestingly enough I'd like to spend enough to have the rangefinder inside the binocs, but I have not yet....

Just how "fancy" or good a binocular you really need is, of course, up to you to determine.
I spent many years, as in 40 plus, using a 9X35 B&L Zephur. Many a time, I really needed something sharper. So, I bought my first Leica about 13 yrs ago. Since then, I've bought another Leica, and several other binoculars.
What I've found along the way is that alot of companys that make binoculars have really improved their products. The Pentax ED, 8X43 I tried out a few years ago was every bit as good as the 8x42 Leica I bought in 2001 or 2002.
The one I carry use the most these days is my 8X32 Nikon LX. But when I really need to see well at extended distances, out comes the heavy 12X50 Leica BN.
I might add that additional weight can make a significant difference even with equal optics. The Pentax ED I mentioned does not perform as well as the Leica 8X42 at extended ranges. Not because it isn't up to the job, but because the image shake makes seeing fine detail so tough. It's the same with eye strain. The heavier the binocular, the easier it is on the eyes.
Good luck. I firmly believe it's worth the effort to find what works best for you. I'd consider the above Pentax and the Meopta/Cabela's Euro as well in your search. E

That's simply not true. There IS improved quality to be had above 1k - albeit marginal in some cases. To some that gain is worth it, to others not so much - but to claim "showing off" is obviously out-driving the headlights.

Agreed....to whom do you "show off"? It's gear...not a fashion show LOL!

You generally get what you pay for.

You need to get out in the woods a bit more...

All I will say. Is buy the best you can afford. Because I will guarantee. I have never herd anyone say I sure am pissed I bought these expensive, clear, low light gathering optics. But sure have herd about the other side of the spectrum.



Take care, Willie

Maybe they have fashion runway's in his deer camp where hunters put on all their very best gear and model it before the hunt....

I finally just pulled the trigger on the Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32 Demo from Cameralandny - $675 seems like a very fair price for quality glass from one of the big 3. Time will tell but from the few pairs that I have handled in the stores I doubt I will be left 'wanting' with these. Thanks for all the suggestions.

Speaking of Chinese optics...

Think I'll save that one.

RD: Yeah look what I have!


The poster above said it best....buy the best you can afford.

It depends on what you use you binocular for and how often you need to use it. Had I remained in Texas where I grew up, hunting a few weekends during the deer season, and shooting deer out of deer blinds at ranges of 300 yards or less, there are a lot of binoculars that would have worked just fine.

About the time that I turned 49, I took on the responsibility of managing a large ranch owned by a conservation buyer. I spent just about every day using my binocular for something, sometimes for extended periods. My eyesight had been deteriorating for a few years and I decided that I was just getting too old to get by with a cheap binocular. I bought two Swarovski binoculars, an 8x30 SLC and a 10x42 SLC. I found myself using the 10x42 almost exclusively and my wife ended up with the 8x30. That was 22 years ago and since then, I have owned nothing but Swarovski and Leica. When the ELs came out, I acquired one of them (as a gift) and they were a definite step up.

I am retired now, but if I had to start all over, I would probably go with one or the other brand, depending on the deal that I could get. Swarovski's customer service has been exceptional. The amount that I have spent on repairs (mostly for things that I have done to the binoculars) has averaged out to less than $20/year.

mudhen I think you are right on all counts. I ended up with the same two bins you use,except have a Leica HD 10x42 as well as a Swaro 8x30 today.

Interesting thread. You guys do realize, that despite the fun poked in Hawker's direction, you have proceeded to prove his point. If the last bunch of posts is not a bunch of guys staking out bragging rights, then there's been no bragging ever done here

Uuhhh.......no.

That would mean that any discussion of the merits of one product vs another,and interjecting your own opinion, constitutes "bragging"....which is something of a stretch.

Said another way, if you own something that costs more than what someone else owns, you are prohibited from expressing an opinion about it,for fear of being accused of "bragging"...they have names for this sort of speech suppression...I won't mention what they are.

Not to step on anyone's toes but .....


I think the issue here is when the discussion switches from a comparison of companies versus a comparison of country of origin.

If Brad's previously posted sentiment were true then optics such as the Vortex Razor spotting scope, the Nikon ED 50 spotting scope and the Nikon Monarch 7 binoculars would have to be included in that statement. In my experience, none of those optics are "poor quality"....and that was just a few of the more common ones.

Frank about all these threads mean to me(they accomplish utterly nothing),is that people have a lot more choices among quality optics today than they did "X" years back (pick a number).

So, personally I have no quarrel with how and on what a man spends his money, but this is not really true of many I see on here discussing the matter. Many remind me of Democrats and love to wail to the heavens, suffering acutely, it seems,from class envy....

As soon as they see someone spending more than they can, or will,on an item,the discussion about the item stops and the ad hominem attacks commence.

Frank, mine is just a small play on the image, ie the Chinese philosopher in the poster. Just a small joke, really.

Here's one that may be more to your liking...

Uhh...Yes it does. Look at the way you guys press the "merits". They are your merits, not somebody else's. Nobody can post about not needing a fancy binocular without this discussion coming out. You seem to think there are no merits outside $2,000 glass.

If you like the expensive stuff, fine. There is no need in today's optics world to spend over $500. But need and want seem to have differrent trajectories. You can even do that and stay away from Confucius land.

Ever own any alpha bins? Hunted with them?

If there were no differences, at all,between various optics in various price brackets, objective folks like Mule Deer would not have charts rating what you can, and cannot see, through them,and under what conditions.

Also, some people who have owned and used both extensively would not tell you very firmly, that there are differences...and spend the money for the higher priced spread.

If what you say is true,then the guy who spent $2k on a Zeiss,would look through a $300 leupold, or Pentax,or whatever,decide he had been taken for a ride,and soon Zeiss would not exist as a company....right? In other words,the market place would even out the inequality

So, no, the differences are not subjective..you might not see
them; but this doesn't mean no one else does.

I don't recall anybody saying there are no merits outside of $2000 glass....that's your spin on it to attempt to prove your point.

Resolution, pure and simple, is where Alpha's shine.

I've never seen a non-alpha that resolved detail as well as The Big Four (Leica, Zeiss, Swaro, Top-End Nikon).

But I will confess I haven't spent any time behind Meopta's, something I intend to rectify.

Yup.

This is one of the best posts ever made on the optics forums IMHO. I own, or have owned many different "alpha" products FWIW.......

I guess BobinNH missed that one.

A few years ago Sue wanted a new car. I asked her to close her eyes and I would take her to check on a car. We were driving a two or three year old Toyota Camry. She cooperated. I sat her in a Cadillac and then back in the Camry. She said,
"I like this seat better." Cheapest new car I ever bought.

Whenever I see the word "fancy" in the optics forum, I pretty much know how quickly the thread will deteriorate.

This is a comical topic. I can still hear the echoes in the canyon from many years back. Oh that is Japanese junkjunkjunk. Now ya don't hear anyone bad mouthing Japanese products anymore do ya? Take a deep seat boys. As there are Americans that own companies in China. And are baby sitting them (quality control). And optics there are getting better in leaps and bounds. One of the main reasons is polishing compounds. While we are worrying about what is in them they are polishing away, and coating away. And will get a fine product, simply because all the big dogs were using the same compounds at one time. Economics will dictate that if they don't care if these compounds are dangerous. Buyers won't care either. Especially when the results are close to the alphas.


Take care, Willie

Everything you level at me there can be aimed right back at you.

Yes I have and use an alpha. You might not consider it so but I consider the view from and the construction of my Leupold Gold Ring HD to be in the top 10% of any binoculars. Now have you ever hunted with or owned...say a ZEN Prime HD? Any other mid price glass?

If the alpha were as good as you make out there would not be a bunch of companies from Alpen to Zen Ray doing the business they are.

There are people I know who will tell you very firmly that if they had any idea of what they could have got with the money, they would not have spent what they did. That works both ways too.

I also have never said I can't see the differences, I have said numerous times, but need to repeat it here, the difference I see is not enough to coax the $$ out of me. I have been on the verge several times of buying what you would consider a true alpha glass and simply did not see the justification. I have had all of them in the field, and I have more hours behind glass under conditions you can only guess about.

I simply see your post as your spin to prove your point

All of the tales of...back 20, 30, 40 years ago I bought an alpha and never regretted it. Back then there was essentially no mid price competition of the level we have today. That unquestioned level of superiority that existed then is not so much now.

Now, you were the one who dragged John Barsness in here. So after the fact why don't you try going over the thread here and reading what he actually did post here, in this thread...several times.

Brad,

No harm no foul. I wasn't singling you out specifically except your previous post had China in it so it was a good place to start my comments. :-)

Bob,

I don't think we are necessarily on different pages here. I understand where you are coming from with the class envy comment. I think I see where you can perceive Steve's comments, for example, in that manner. On the other hand, Steve' past comments (other threads) about a "newbie" coming on asking about what glass to buy and a dozen folks coming on and saying "save up for an Z, S, or L" could also be perceived as a elitist from a certain perspective.

I am not saying either is right.

Here is what I can say. I know Steve pretty well. He and I have been exchanging emails/private messages and posts on various forums for a good number of years now. We have even sent each other various binoculars to try out for evaluation purposes. I would consider that pretty trusting considering we have never met and we live on two opposite ends of the country.

He and I tend to share the same opinions on the various optics we review. I know for a fact that, at the moment, he has more mid-priced models on hand than I do. I also know that, if he wanted to, he could easily afford at least one or two of the Big Three if he should choose. The reason he chooses not to (if I may speak for him for a moment) is because he does not see the need to spend that much money on an optic. Optics in the mid-priced points are just "that good" these days.

As for me, I make no attempt to hide the fact that I cannot afford an L, S or Z right now. There was a time that I could and did own many of those models. If I do a little digging I am sure I can find my comparative threads on here and other forums where I reviewed all three of the top 7x42s available at the time. I have also owned many of the 8x32 alpha models and one 8.5x42 as well. I have owned every configuration of original Meopta Meostar lineup. I have owned Nikon SEs and E IIs. I have also owned an uncountable number of mid and low price level binoculars from a variety of different manufacturers and countries.

As someone who does not really have a stake in this one way or another my opinion is fairly simple. On the one hand many mid and even relatively inexpensively priced binoculars have become so good optically and mechanically that there really isn't much of a reason for a majority of individuals to look much farther to meet their needs. On the other hand there is still something to be said for the most expensive binoculars from the various European and Japanese manufacturers. They are almost always cutting edge in design with excellent build quality.

I guess what I would like to see is both sides of the discussion accept the fact that the other side does have a valid opinion on the subject.

Frank,

Thanks for the thought. I will add no modifiers to your basic sentiment.

I am pleased with my Zen-Ray HD Prime 10x42. The only problem I have had with mine was the rubber eye cup cover came off one side. Optically they are great and I get complements from everyone who looks through them.

Well said Frank and I totally agree on your last sentence.

Yes, these threads typically have a tendency to get heated, no doubt. My observation is as follows:

-Advancements by the non-alpha producers are narrowing the "gap".
-Build quality/longevity is hard to measure near term - i.e. the new makers will have to prove themselves out over time
-Those that generally don't support buying an Alpha generally can't afford one, and therefore stay strong in their convictions and quite frankly visa versa.
-There is a difference IMO, Alpha is higher quality, again, whether it's worth it to you tends to depend on your financial situation but don't judge those you can make this purchase.

I guess what I dont get is the guys that go out and buy every mid price range bin on the market so they can tell us how they are almost as good as the more expensive stuff, WTF? buy a pair of top end 10's and some 15's and end the mental masturbation.

If your job is to review optics then I get it, otherwise it makes no sense to me.

I do agree that the mid range stuff is pretty nice, my zeiss classics that i kept in my truck full time came up missing last fall. I replaced them with Zeiss Terra ED's and am pretty impressed with them.

Some of the "alpha" buyers don't just buy once/cry once though. Every time their favorite company makes some minor improvement, their previous "alpha" bino winds up in the classified section (or sold to a friend). Then we get to hear how the new and improved version is so vastly superior to last years model.

...and so on.

I would still bet that if all optics cost the same, all the "just as good as, and almost as good" binoculars would soon disappear and you would be left with Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss...

Guilty, most of the time I dont take much of a loss tho. The only pair I took a big loss on was a pair of 10x32's..10x42's and 15x56's sell fast. I actually made money on a pair of 10x42's after a bidding war for them started on ebay.

I may upgrade every few years, but i'm selling my old ones to do it..How does a pair of 400 dollar bins hold their resale value?

I've also known more than one alpha-believer who's never hunted with anything else in the past 30 years--just like people who've never hunted with an alpha. As a result they don't know what kind of view can be purchased for less money.

I also know some alpha believers couldn't tell the difference between a lot of non-alpha binoculars and alphas (however that's defined), unless they tested them side-by-side. And even then they might not be able to tell.

As for the difference in the field, I was hunting Alberta mule deer a few years ago with a very experienced guide (he'd also been a PH in Tanzania, along with hunting in many places around the world as well as his native Canada) and my wife, who knows her way around a binocular as well. One of us used a Zeiss, one a Swarovski, and one a very good Chinese roof-prism.

Per usual in that part of Alberta, we scouted for three days before the first legal shooting morning. There wasn't much difference between who spotted what in that wide-open country during the scouting, and the two bucks Eileen and I eventually did kill were close to a mile away when spotted. The person using the Chinese glass saw them first, which was probably more luck than anything.

I do own some alpha binoculars right now, and have owned at least one for over 20 years. But even back in the early 1990's, when the phase-correction of roof prisms was really getting going, I found others than the Big Three equal or so close to them in optical quality that there was no practical difference. One was a Bausch & Lomb Elite that I lost on a caribou hunt, but it cost just about as much as a similar Leica, Swarovski or Zeiss back then.

Today the difference in price between the Big Three and everything else is far greater, and the optical difference is much less. I still own and use all three brands, but also use a lot of others, and don't feel that my glassing suffers much, partly because of too many instances like the one in Alberta.

Oh, and by the way, I was the hunter with the Chinese binocular--which I also still own and use.

That's about as logical as deflave wanting the 22lr companies to be complicit in his extortion theme.

I don't know cause I wouldn't be caught dead with a cheap chit pair of bino's...............

Be honest.

If the alpha glass was $300.00 and so was Vortex, you would still by Vortex?

If the other glass was $2000.00, the same as alpha, you would buy the Vortex?

Of course not, the difference is price, not quality...

Who did I attempt to extort?



Travis

Frank I thought that I had made that as plain as possible in my posts...obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion on the subject and frankly it isn't a subject that I care about one way or another.

But then I am not the one running around calling people "snobs" because they happen to buy Z,L,or S bins.

I think we get way too deep in the weeds on this stuff,and get involved in these lively discussions, because we make the mistake of assuming that optics are a question of "opinion"....they aren't.

They are a question of optical engineering,technology,design, execution in manufacture,mechanical integrity,construction, precision, etc..."science". Subjective analysis is a poor way to judge them.

This stuff costs "money".Companies build them to a price point,and give as much of the "goodies"as they can for the
price and still make a profit. If they were not different in some ways, we would only need one set of specs, one price point,and optical engineers would be out of work.

True, modern technology gives us more goodies today than we had in the past,but I refuse to believe there are no differences,usually expressed in price. Whether we can put these improvements to use , or not,is another subject....after all we all don't take the same eyeglass prescriptions, do we?

I am not an optics expert...I can't afford to buy $500-$700 bins for the sole purpose of determining if they are as good as Z,L,or S....they are too expensive. $700 bucks is a lot of money to me,and optics are not my "hobby"....to me they are tools, like tire irons.

I buy them,and I use them....I have been fortunate to be able to afford what I want and what I perceive suits my needs. If that makes me a "snob"(how silly, really)....so be it.

In closing, I want to thank YOU for the intelligent discourse.

Edited to Add: I bought my first "alpha",a Zeiss 10x40 Classic, in 1980 for $750 bucks,used them continent wide on many hunts for 19 years,and sold them for $500 in 1999. I figure I had rented them for about $13/year....that sound like "snob money" to anyone here?

Can somebody that has tried a lot of less costly glass tell me who makes a spotter as good as a Zeiss 15-45x 65mm for substantially less than a Zeiss cost?





Travis

I see that another bino thread goes "heated" with some justification. But the more I read these, the more I see two distinct classes of users. The "alpha user" tries to drain every last bit of analysis from whatever he is checking out. Mr. Alpha is pretty adept at the terminology and knows what to look for.
Not like on a couple of sophisticated "glass forums" but pretty close.
The other class is the "casual user" who is not as demanding or knowledgeable. They still want to darn thing to perform -like seeing that nice mulie buck up there 350 yards bedded under a juniper. If an alph glass is 15% better and $1500 more, they don't care, they saw the mulie. They have reached a point of dimishing return for themselves personally and don't give a hoot if an alpha gives them 3 minutes 17 seconds more of viewing time. Thye have $1500 still in their bank account.
I have come to the conclustion that the Mr.Casual and Mr. Alpha will never see eye to eye and should just realize this and move on.

A Kowa Prominar 663/664 is just as good and lot's less $$$ if you're talking about new ones.

Just optically? Or are they just as watertight and durable also?



Travis

Kowa is good stuff... but their upper end stuff is truly "Alpha"... like Nikon.

A Gold Ring HD is the toughest spotter on the planet, with great glass. Travis, are you talking about the new, single wheel Zeiss, or the older dual wheel one?

Brad, you need to take a peek through the Meopta S2......Wowza!

[bleep] if I know. I don't see any wheels on mine.

Where are they located?



Travis

If you're saying they're not as good I agree with you.



Travis

The focus wheels, on top. If it is the older single focus wheel Zeiss 65T, it was probably made by Meopta anyway, as Meopta made the Zeiss 65, 85, and Leica spotters until a couple of years ago.

Ah! Gotcha. Mine has two.



Travis

Honestly it would be hard to do much better without spending the same $$, or probably more.

As I understand it, if you purchase a binocular and still have money to fritter away on a rifle (or if you kept a rifle rather than selling it to apply the money to the binocular purchase), you have not spent enough on the binocular.

Well back to where this all started - I went with the Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32's - Demos from Cameraland. @ $675 still a chunk of change but no where near the 2K+ that some alphas bring. I do not think the Conquest will be the top of the top or the bottom of the bottom but if price vs quality were shown in a curve I believe these would be at the point were the curve breaks over and plateaus (where improvements become very expensive and more difficult to see). From what I have seen and read they appear to be a leader in the $1000 range and a bargain at the $675 price. Time will tell but I feel good about my choice so far. I fully expect a Swarovski 8X32 EL or Leica Ultravid to be a better bino - I would certainly hope so as they costs over 3X more than the Conquest. Just as the Conquest is 2X more than the Leupold Mojave and is very likely not 2X better.

You can shop and get good prices/deals on anything. My 8x30 Swaro SLC cost me $550 bucks on close out.They stay in the truck year round and get used a lot.

Centershot,

I think you will be more than happy with the Conquest HDs. I have only used them on a couple of occasions but what I saw was very good. For the price you paid I think you got a steal!

Summary:

The best is the best but if you can't afford the best you can always buy the not best because it's just as good as the best. Almost.



Travis

^ exactly.........I think.

I'm always amazed at how many think the ONLY people who really know how to make optics are Germans and Austrians--and that they've kept their secrets in some vault for a century and a half.

While the biggest advancements in optics were made in Germany (mostly by Carl Zeiss and his two eventual partners, Ernst Abbe and Otto Schott)in the late 1800's, the word started getting out early. The Japanese started sending people to study optics in Germany and Austria in the 1880's, and by WWI there were several Japanese optical factories making very sophisticated lenses. They made even further progress in the years before the two World Wars, though WWII set them back. By the 1970's Japan started it present domination of the professional camera market.

At the opposite end, German and Austrian companies have been out-sourcing quite a few of their parts and products for a while. One well-known Austrian firm (not Swarovski) has had its binoculars made in Japan for around a decade now--and when Japanese production started they actually got BETTER.

Several "alpha" companies have used parts from Meopta (Czech Republic) for a number of years, and the original Zeiss Conquests were mostly made by Meopta. Zeiss ran into pricing problems, however, as the Czech economy started recovering from the Soviet years, which is probably why Zeiss turned to China and Japan for their latest Terra scopes and binoculars.
But even before that Zeiss had started getting one of their spotting scopes, the Dialyt field spotter) made in Japan to their specifications.

Leica has long had some stuff assembled in Portugal, and only the most expensive Minox binoculars are made in Germany.

All of this was done because Germany pays such high wages. Even 20 years ago, the average Zeiss worker made about twice as much as the average Leupold worker. If you think the quality difference was obvious, when I first visited the Zeiss factories in German in 1993, one of the other optical companies they praised highly was Leupold--which had recently started multicoating the glass in their scopes, and already was ahead of Zeiss in both interior baffling to reduce stray light, and water-proofing.

All of which is why so many companies around the world are making optics so close to the German/Austrian companies, and for less loney. The knowledge of optical manufacturing has been dispersing from Europe for well over a century now--and some has been dispersed by German companies themselves, when they've contracted for parts and even entire scopes and binoculars with Asian companies.

Leica, Swarovski and Zeiss sell great optics, but if anybody believes they're the ONLY companies on earth making great binoculars due to secrets only they know, then you're essentially saying optical manufacturing hasn't changed since the 1870's.

That is true, but if you could get Minox, Swarovski, Vortex, Meopta at the same price, which would you buy? You need to be honest now and not in defense of the improvement of the up and coming brands...

Yeah. Why not pick the "very best" if you can get that last 1% of performance without the 300% price penalty?

Swarovski.
For resale value....

I don't think the big 3 are the only ones that make great optics but.......I do think that while some of the others know how corners often get cut to make price point binos. Nikon has some of the best of the best in the Premiers and EDGs but you pay for the extra care in assembly and cutting edge technology. They also make some of the worst, cheapos that are not much better than the bare eye. Minox is similar and a few others. Zeiss with it's Terra line is an interesting experiment. It seems they are selling the name with that line. Not sure how many of the parts come from Zeiss. It would be interesting to see what an FL would cost using the same parts only assembled in China or Japan and if the quality would be the same in the end. While I have not owned a super high end bino I have over the last 10 years owned Nikon LX, Vortex Viper & Viper HDs all very good to my eyes.

Kirk,

Your question is irrelevant, because it's based on a hypothetical that doesn't exist, and never will. What we're talking about here involves market economics, just like the .22 rimfire threads that seemingly go on and on and on--which is the reason there's NEVER going to be a time when all good binoculars cost exactly the same. Some company will always try to undersell the others, and that's the reason we now have Zeiss binoculars made in China.

Hey, as a matter of fact there IS a Zeiss binocular for under $400 now! But I'm not going to buy one just because it's a Zeiss. First I'd have to compare it to other binoculars in its price range to see if it agrees with my eyes and how solid it feels. Then go on some Internet sites to check out how the same binocular has held up for other people, and the quality of customer service.

Sir,
I was setting up to purchase a wonderful set of Swarovskis from Him for the price of the Euro HD's. Dang it.
Missed them by this much.
Oh well.

Women and optics, you get what you pay for!

Hypothetical, yes, irrelevant, no. People would prefer the most expensive if not for the price. There is value there, not everyone will pay for it...

So John, with the actual performance being so close between the "alpha" brands and the upper crust models from Asia, is it mostly because of the cost of labor ? I'm assuming that the quality of the glass, coatings, prism's are similar if the "view" performance is that close.

I won a pair of Zeiss 8x40 Binos in the December 2013 give away and they are very nice. Actually, the best pair of binos I've ever owned.

They are not Zeiss best I guess, but they are my best. They have a special price on them while supply lasts. A closeout I think.

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/zeiss.pl?page=zeissconquest524508

Ed J

RD,

Cost of labor is always part of anything's price, and China also has a Schott glass factory, which I'd assume makes lens glass at a lower price than a Schott factory in a higher-wage country.

When buying binoculars I like to visit birding sites like better view desired. They give honest reviews and tell one what they consider are the best per category regardless of price.

Presently they rate a Nikon 7x's as the best all around bino - even though they're not waterproof.

I admit, the wife and I like to go birding to (see how I threw the wife comment out there to preempt the gay comments... ) To me, it's like hunting year round but you don't pull the trigger when you I'd the prey.

Most every bino works good in good light. You're basically paying extra to identify shapes and colors in the shade, waterproof and fog proof, and ruggedness.

Just make sure that you don't get a pair from the grey market - the warranty may not be honored. My first high dollar pair of bins were Leica 10x42 trinovid bn and were from a grey market internet dealer - I didn't know what that was at the time. I sent the warranty card off and Leica basically replied gfy. Since then I've hunted with them, birder with them, used them as loaners for people and had them on deployments in Iraq, Africa, and other middle eastern countries. They still work fine today. So I guess the warranty was a wash anyways.

Also, don't overlook the compacts, they have some pretty amazing glass now in like 10x25 like the 10x25 ultra vids.

Our all around bino is the Zeiss 7x42 t fl. I'm kind of looking around for another 8x or 7x so we are both using the same pov when birding.

Kind of funny how having nice binos kind of turns you into a nature watcher. Just checking out a squirrel or bird turns into a new adventure with great glass.

agreed. i took the 6.5x out the other day when i was bored and watched the cows.

That grey market clap-trap the companies spruik irritates me, they either made them and owe warranty or they did not make them and don't owe warranty.

Many years ago I bought Brunton Eterna 10x42 for $250 out of the buy and sell, at the time they sold for ~$600 new. They agree with my eyes and I don't get fatigued looking through them for extended periods. At the price point its the best I could come up with.

JSTUART,

Apparently Leica has a reputation for not-so-sterling customer service, which is no doubt a major reason Swarovski has a bigger share of the "alpha" market. Swarovski CS wasn't so hot either 20 years ago, but they learned a lot from Leupold.

Not trying to hijack this thread but I would like to hear some opinions on a good pair of compact woods binoculars. I am looking to purchase a smaller pair of binos for woods use and leave my swarovski 10x42 ELs in the truck or for open country work. I would like to get something with quality in the ballpark of my swarovski glass but not looking to spend so much. What models should I be considering in the 7x30 range
?
thanks

The Zeiss Conquest HD 8X32 is what I just bought - pretty darn nice for $675 as a demo unit from Cameralandny.com

Sounds good, I thought about giving Doug a call next week and seeing what he recommended.
Keep the info coming guys

i bought a pair of meopta 6.5x32 from doug for woods hunting. they r excellent. built tough. very bright zero eye strain

Yep.

Years ago the Pentax WP's were touted as being within 5% of the alphas.

Then along came the Pentax DCF SP's that were touted as being within 5% of the alphas.

Then a short while later Minox were touted as being within 5% of the alphas.

Then Kahles were touted as being within 5% of the alphas.

Then Vortex Razors were touted as being within 5% of the alphas.

Then the Zen-Ray ED's were touted as being within 5% of the alphas.

Then the Zen-Ray ED2's were touted as being within 5% of the alphas.

Then the Zen-Ray ED3's were touted as being within 5% of the alphas.

Then the Zen-Ray Primes were touted as being within 5% of the alphas.

Then the.......

Then the.......

Excellent advice here - from a guy who also has the same model.

Wahputi:

I agree with you about the ZenRay optics. The shine has gone
off the next best thing going on in optics today.

It seems trying to produce a quality product in China is difficult.
Unless you have control of things, as some large mfrs. such as
Nikon or Zeiss, the slogan with many China made products is make it "just good enough".

And then when you offer a warranty you have too many coming back, you are in a pickle.

I went on dougs website and found the 6.5x32 meoptas they look like a perfect fit for a woods hunting bino.
thanks all

youll love em

Well the Conquest arrived yesterday. Wow, I mean wow - darn these are nice. From the moment you pick them up you know your dealing with quality. Put them up to your eyes and it just gets better. I think the view is even better than my old Nikon LX's which is really saying something. You would really have to be picky to find fault with the Conquest HD's. I have not really had a chance to really work them over but they just have that breath taking quality view that never gets old. Very pleased so far.

Zeiss hit a home run with the Conquest HD's. Glad they work so well for you.

centershot,

I figured you would like em.

Build quality, optical quality etc...what's not to like?

Worth every penny in my book.

Enjoy,

Leftybolt

Could not agree more leftybolt - and for the prices Cameralandny has them for - I am a happy camper.

If you are a varmint hunter, it can't be too good.

I recommend the Big Three. L, Z or S.

Gonna take a close look at these.