OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Other Optics > Binoculars
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Zeiss conquest vs vortex razors
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

Zeiss conquest vs vortex razors

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1308
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Klamath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/10/2013 at 20:37
Originally posted by Bitterroot Bulls Bitterroot Bulls wrote:


I find the image in the Meostar HD much better than that of the Prime. It seems pretty noticeable to me, especially considering the aforementioned "ring."

There is what I'm having a problem with.  There simply is not enough room in image difference for even a new Swaro to be "noticeably better than the Prime", nor for that matter, the McKinley either.  I'm having a heck of a time figuring out just how the Meopta is going to get that done...unless you had a substandard Prime...or I have both a cherry Prime and McKinley...or who knows.  Big Smile

That ring is insignificant.  You either have to be seriously looking for something like that before you see it, or you have to know it's there before hand.  It is almost absent from my Prime, I really have to look for it, and I already know it's there.  In normal use I would never notice it.  EDIT:  I can't see that ring on the new stock Primes I have from the Winter Wings Festival booth.  I know Charles made a couple of production tweaks after the first run.

I may have to bite the bullet and buy a Meopta HD with the idea of wringing it out and returning it, but I really don't like doing that.  But maybe it is  the binocular that finally checks all my checklist points.  I have some that come awful close, but nothing has checked them all off yet.

This would be a dull place if everybody agreed on everything Big Smile.


Edited by Klamath - March/10/2013 at 20:50
Steve
"Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted". William Bruce Cameron

Back to Top
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 14569
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mike650 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/10/2013 at 20:40
Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:

Originally posted by mike650 mike650 wrote:

Why can't you link it here, it's just a review isn't it?

That is the thread I started on BF.  Same review I posted here.



Thunbs Up
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
Back to Top
JGRaider View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: February/06/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1540
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JGRaider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/10/2013 at 21:03
In regards to the SLC HD/McKinley comparison that Klamath refers to........I've posted before than IMO the SLC HD is the finest hunting glass ever made, and I'll stick with that, and I've seen most all the top shelf stuff in the field.  The McKinley is really, really close, and I have no idea what ring BB is referring to.  My buddy who owns a shop in town was taking inventory today so I stopped by.  I can see zero difference between the McKinley, Conquest HD, and Meopta HD. 
Back to Top
Bitterroot Bulls View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: May/07/2009
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 3416
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bitterroot Bulls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/10/2013 at 21:04
Originally posted by Klamath Klamath wrote:


There is what I'm having a problem with.  There simply is not enough room in image difference for even a new Swaro to be "noticeably better than the Prime", nor for that matter, the McKinley either.  I'm having a heck of a time figuring out just how the Meopta is going to get that done...unless you had a substandard Prime...or I have both a cherry Prime and McKinley...or who knows.  Big Smile
 
That is the rub there, Steve.  These small differences are much more noticeable to me than to many other people.  I am sure there are some that would agree with me, and clearly some that wouldn't.
 
I have already conceded to myself that I am MUCH more sensitive to CA than most people.  Like CA, the "ring" isn't super noticeable, unless you look for it, which of course I do.  However, no matter how much I look for it in the Meopta it will never be there. 
 
I am less picky about other performance areas, like extreme edge sharpness, or pincushion distortion.  I am sure there are those that put those areas above all others, and their opinions will vary from mine.
 
Everybody is different.  On another website, I had a PM from a guy that knew I had the Primes.  He told me he thought his were defective, because he noticed they weren't (to his eyes) as sharp as his friend's alphas.  I told him that opinions varied, but my SLC neus were apparently sharper to me than the Primes.  I further advised if he was concerned, he should have Zen Ray look at them.  He liked them enough overall to keep them, however.
 
Then there is the eyecup design of the Primes, which I found disturbing.  In fact, eyecup design alone would be worth the difference in price for me.  I spend many, many hours with binocular eyecups pressed against my face.
 
I am kind of defending my opinion here, and I don't want to get on the Primes too badly.  They still are the best Chinese produced bin in overall quality that I have seen, and still offer tons of value.
 
 
-Matt
Back to Top
Klamath View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/20/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1308
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Klamath Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/10/2013 at 22:10
No need to defend your opinion on my behalf.  Smile

The Prime, and for that matter the McKinley, do have large ocular diameters and those will not suit a lot of people.  That is one tiny checkpoint on the ideal binocular list they don't quite tick off for me.

I happen to think that anybody should be careful about teaching themselves to look too closely at, or for, minute differences.  Pretty soon even a $2,500 Swarovision will be lacking.

Anyway, I have faith in your high opinion of the Meopta, and if I go with one you will be one reason I did.
Steve
"Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted". William Bruce Cameron

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.123 seconds.