Zeiss Conquest HDX 15x56

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.
The Vectronix VectorX have that reticle, but highest magnification is 12x42 😕
 
Man, i had to part with a pair of the 10x42 zeiss conquest HD because the depth of focus was so shallow. That crap drives me nuts, i'm surprised so many people dont mind it and like those nockers.
 
Swapping out the reticle wouldn't be a difficult job assuming you had a suitable replacement ready to go. Ive seen one in a disassembled Fujinon 7 x 50 compass marine bino. The glass panel has very highly defined marks but slips in and out.

Maybe a gap in the market for someone
 
I would not be comfortable disassembling my optics. too much risk of outside dust entering
 
Swapping out the reticle wouldn't be a difficult job assuming you had a suitable replacement ready to go. Ive seen one in a disassembled Fujinon 7 x 50 compass marine bino. The glass panel has very highly defined marks but slips in and out.

Maybe a gap in the market for someone
Would ruin the waranty.
Someone could make a sticker that is able to be visible looking through the binos that you could install
 
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.

View attachment 873116

View attachment 873117


First look:

View attachment 873119


Swaro at 1,100’ish yards-
View attachment 873120


Zeiss-
View attachment 873121


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.

View attachment 873160


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.
View attachment 873136







“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”.

View attachment 873164

View attachment 873165






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.
This is really helpful.
 
Back
Top