Zeiss Conquest HDX 15x56

Formidilosus

Not A Moderator
Shoot2HuntU
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
12,557
This will be an ongoing look at the Zeiss 15x56mm binoculars with mil reticle. They are and will be compared side by side with Swarovski SLC 15x56mm and Leica 15x56mm Geovid R’s, Meopta B1 Plus, as well as several others.

IMG_5894.jpeg

1745941527730.jpeg


First look:

1745941899841.jpeg


Swaro at 1,100’ish yards-
1745942061532.jpeg


Zeiss-
1745942084915.jpeg


Here you can see that overall the image and details are softer in the Zeiss- the actual image is better than the pictures for the Swaro, about the same’ish for the Zeiss- but the differences between them is about right.



The reticle is right in the FOV of the left eye, and like most is pretty distracting when trying to glass or spot shots for another shooter.

1745948944011.jpeg


The first field use was at the April Shoot2Hunt course. Spotting shots and a bit of glassing for 4 days. There were some pluses and minuses to the Zeiss.
IMG_6530.jpeg







“Glass”

Overall good. When focused perfectly the image has good resolution, clarity, contrast and color. The Swaro 15x’s are better in every category however. The real issue with the Zeiss is the extremely shallow depth of focus (DOF). If you get them focused perfectly on the target- no issue; however, even a very slight change in range causes the image to be noticeably soft/blurry/off. Focused at 100 yards, 105 yards is noticeably wrong.
This really shows up when trying to use the reticle at 100 yards to measure the offset for a zero correction, and when trying to spot in natural broken environments- being so picky at focus makes getting them right for quick shots (or spotting in general), much more finicky than it should. Not so with the Swarovski 15’s.


Reticle

This is where issue with them shows up. Like most, Zeiss put the reticle just below center- smack in the middle of the FOV. On top of that, the reticle is thick and a full tree- none of which is needed or desired at all. You do not (should not) place the reticle smack on the center of the target while somebody shoots- all that does is block your FOV from seeing trace, hits, splash. Furthermore, you do not need a full tree reticle- you just need a scale to reference the target to make corrections. There is no, or extremely limited benefit to a tree- all it does is clutter and obscure the target and surroundings.
On top of that, the reticle should not be thick- it just covers up the target and surrounding area and makes missing trace, hits, splashes much more likely. On a perfect range it may not matter as much, however in broken terrain, varying light, blended targets, etc.- it matters a whole lot.
I want to give the benefit of the doubt and say “well, they were made for PRS”. The issue there is that it is just as wrong/a hindrance in precision field shooting as it is for hunting.

Being blunt- reticles in the center of the FOV are amateurish. It just says that the company/designers don’t understand what they are actually doing. They aren’t aiming devices- they are “seeing” devices, and blocking the most important part of the image is counterproductive to “seeing”.

1745948994860.jpeg

1745949052316.jpeg






Conclusion to initial use:

Despite the noted issues with the reticle, DOF, and slightly soft image- they actually are pretty decent so far. As I get more use on them spotting in bear season, at multiple S2H classes, maybe a comp or two, and with more people using them and giving feedback- I’ll have a lot better grasp of where they stand.
 
Being blunt- reticles in the center of the FOV are amateurish. It just says that the company/designers don’t understand what they are actually doing. They aren’t aiming devices- they are “seeing” devices, and blocking the most important part of the image is counterproductive to “seeing”.

I'd love to see a bino (or a spotter) with the measurement bit from the THLR Hybrid positioned in the lower LH corner
1746032013599.png
 
I'd love to see a bino (or a spotter) with the measurement bit from the THLR Hybrid positioned in the lower LH corner
View attachment 873571


That’s how they all should be. I have asked every manufacturer for that exact thing for more than 10 years. The first thing I have asked every company that has come out with a reticle in a spotter or bino is why they filled the FOV up with it, and not put an “L” reticle in the lower left or right hand corner. The usual response is a blank stare.
 
Down with @mtnwrunner and @PNWGATOR

Left to right- Meopta B1 Plus, Zeiss Conquest HDX, Leica Geovid R, Swarovski SLC. All 15’s of course.
IMG_6746.jpeg


Difference were pretty stark, and would surprise most.
 
“Glass”

Overall good. When focused perfectly the image has good resolution, clarity, contrast and color. The Swaro 15x’s are better in every category however. The real issue with the Zeiss is the extremely shallow depth of focus (DOF). If you get them focused perfectly on the target- no issue; however, even a very slight change in range causes the image to be noticeably soft/blurry/off. Focused at 100 yards, 105 yards is noticeably wrong.
This really shows up when trying to use the reticle at 100 yards to measure the offset for a zero correction, and when trying to spot in natural broken environments- being so picky at focus makes getting them right for quick shots (or spotting in general), much more finicky than it should. Not so with the Swarovski 15’s.
That is why I got rid of my regular zeiss 15x56, that soft DOF would give my eyes fatigue over time when glassing. Similarly I felt the sample of the maven B5 I tried out had less DOF than the swaro paired with a more touchy focus (not sure if that was all caused by the DOF issue or in addition), it made them finicky to my eyes to glass and focus.

The swaro's had a slower focus movement paired with a deeper DOF, I find them much more forgiving to use. I haven't spent time behind the meopta but would absolutely have tried them if I wasn't happy with the swaro.
Down with @mtnwrunner and @PNWGATOR

Left to right- Meopta B1 Plus, Zeiss Conquest HDX, Leica Geovid R, Swarovski EL. All 15’s of course.

Difference were pretty stark, and would surprise most.
You have typo above I believe, EL vs SLC is written, FYI.

I am interested to know how the Geovid R stacks up against the SLC? If same performance with range finder that would be quite nice.
 
That is why I got rid of my regular zeiss 15x56, that soft DOF would give my eyes fatigue over time when glassing. Similarly I felt the sample of the maven B5 I tried out had less DOF than the swaro paired with a more touchy focus (not sure if that was all caused by the DOF issue or in addition), it made them finicky to my eyes to glass and focus.

The swaro's had a slower focus movement paired with a deeper DOF, I find them much more forgiving to use. I haven't spent time behind the meopta but would absolutely have tried them if I wasn't happy with the swaro.

You have typo above I believe, EL vs SLC is written, FYI.

I am interested to know how the Geovid R stacks up against the SLC? If same performance with range finder that would be quite nice.
The Geovid R (15s) are very competitive with the SLC 15s. I have a couple of close friends that have migrated from the SLCs to the Geovid Rs and they have no complaints. I've spent many hours in Coues country looking through them and had no issues finding game with them.
 
The Geovid R (15s) are very competitive with the SLC 15s. I have a couple of close friends that have migrated from the SLCs to the Geovid Rs and they have no complaints. I've spent many hours in Coues country looking through them and had no issues finding game with them.
The geovid r 15s are going to be my next big glass purchase period. The 10x42 geovid r's are my favorite piece of hunting gear hands down.
 
How does the zero tech 15x56 measure up to these? A usable alternative for those of us that only get out every other year or so?

I’ve only seen one sample of the Zero Tech, but it was the only 15x below the Meopta B1 Plus that I would use. Quite good in the center.
 
I'd agree on the center. Slightly on the warm side of neutral tone, easy on the eyes. No glaringly obvious CA or wiggly nonlinearities as you pan. Eyecups could use another click on the extender ring (for me) and rubber could be a bit softer.
 
I’ve only seen one sample of the Zero Tech, but it was the only 15x below the Meopta B1 Plus that I would use. Quite good in the center.
Would you say the Zero Techs are a better option than something like Athlon’s 15x56?
 
Back
Top