Zeiss Conquest vs. Swarovski SLC 10x42's

[kf1983]

Is the SLC worth $700-800 more than the Conquest?

I would use them for an upcoming axis deer hunt then afterwards for at home mainly desert hunting.

 

[elkguide]

Depends on what you are looking for. The Zeiss are a good glass but the Swarovskis are a lot more glass. This is definitely a case of you get what you pay for in my opinion.

 

[kf1983]

Depends on what you are looking for. The Zeiss are a good glass but the Swarovskis are a lot more glass. This is definitely a case of you get what you pay for in my opinion.

I have Vortex Vipers now. In your opinion, would you stay with the vipers or make the jump to conquest. SLC's are almost completely out of the question for me. Without really experiencing the difference I can't make the price jump. Plus, I think my wife has started researching binos so she knows the actual prices, can't sneak that one through haha.

 

[NoWiser]

It depends. $700 is a ton of money for some people and not so much for others.

I had 10x Conquest HDs and sold them for 8x SLCs. I like the SLCs more, but not by much. Both are great and will serve you well. The focus knob on the SLCs sucks and I'd say the Conquests feel every bit as well built, if not better. The glass is slightly better, for my eyes, in the Swaros. I had blackout issues with the Conquests (even with the extended eyecups). No blackout issues with the SLCs. Both are infinitely better than the Nikon Monarchs I was using previously.

 

[elkguide]

Look through them. Your eyes will tell you what you "need" or what you can get by with.

 

[david_227]

I have both.

One thing for sure is the SLCs have better eye relief. You can call Zeiss and they will send you extended eye cups for the Conquests.

It’s a lot of personal preference, my advice would be to try both on a tripod somewhere and decide if the extra cash is worth it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ericF]

I have 8x Conquest and 10x SLCs. If i'm not going to be using a tripod and will be freehanding most of the time then I will take my 8x Conquests for better stability. If you main focus is desert hunting and they will be sitting on a tripod most of the time, then it might be worth springing for the SLCs.

 

[excaliber]

I looked at both and to me the SLC's are slightly better optically but not by that much. The Zeiss are pretty darn nice for the price. I like the natural color of the Zeiss better and the ergonomics of the Zeiss are way nicer than the SLC's. I would put the extra money towards something else as I think you'd be happy with the Zeiss Conquests.
I was and bought a pair.

 

[rileybassman]

I have Vortex Vipers now. In your opinion, would you stay with the vipers or make the jump to conquest. SLC's are almost completely out of the question for me. Without really experiencing the difference I can't make the price jump. Plus, I think my wife has started researching binos so she knows the actual prices, can't sneak that one through haha.

I have the SLCs, conquest HDs, and have had viper HDs. Viper to conquest is a bigger jump for sure then conquest to SLC.

No question SLCs are the best - but the conquests are very good and maybe within 10% of the SLC. Viper is probably 20% below the conquest... just rough numbers.

The Zeiss is a “cooler” picture - blueish and the SLC is a warmer picture or yellowish. SLC controls CA quite a bit better then the Zeiss.

In good, sunny weather, sharpness and clarity in the center will be close... the Zeiss sweet spot is similar to the SLC in favorable conditions. The Zeiss sweet spot is smaller the... SLCs have a much larger sweet spot.

Low light was actually closer then I thought it would be - both are usable as long as shooting light for sure. SLC last a smidge longer but not tons.

Flat light the SLCs are gonna give more detail...

Zeiss are very good binos - but I do like the SLCs more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[rileybassman]

So idk how much this helps... But I just ran onto my deck and took some crappy pics... The grainyness is camera... Sunset was 8:25 and these shots were at 8:50 and this is a completely overcast evening. About 800 yards.

Both looked slightly better in person then on film... Both are completely usable.

I like the eyecups on the SLC more... The Zeiss focus is a lot faster.

Zeiss:

SLCs:

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[2blade]

I have the SLCs, conquest HDs, and have had viper HDs. Viper to conquest is a bigger jump for sure then conquest to SLC.

No question SLCs are the best - but the conquests are very good and maybe within 10% of the SLC. Viper is probably 20% below the conquest... just rough numbers.

The Zeiss is a “cooler” picture - blueish and the SLC is a warmer picture or yellowish. SLC controls CA quite a bit better then the Zeiss.

In good, sunny weather, sharpness and clarity in the center will be close... the Zeiss sweet spot is similar to the SLC in favorable conditions. The Zeiss sweet spot is smaller the... SLCs have a much larger sweet spot.

Low light was actually closer then I thought it would be - both are usable as long as shooting light for sure. SLC last a smidge longer but not tons.

Flat light the SLCs are gonna give more detail...

Zeiss are very good binos - but I do like the SLCs more.

I pretty much agree with all of this. I also think the the Conquest is better than the Razor, clearer, crisper, sharper and brighter image to my eyes. Big step up above the Viper. I would have no problems selling my SLC's and just using Conquests if I had to.

 

[lundellhunting7]

SLC's are worth the extra money compared to the conquests.... With that being said..... if you don't want to spend the money for SLC's I would go with Nikon HG's over anything other than Swaro in that mid tier bino.

 

[Newtosavage]

Is the SLC worth $700-800 more than the Conquest?

I would use them for an upcoming axis deer hunt then afterwards for at home mainly desert hunting.

Most people who will tell you the Swaros are "a lot better" have never actually had the two pairs side by side on tripods in varying lighting, looking at real field targets.

I have. The Swaros are not 2x as good as the Conquests. Not even close. I've owned 2 pairs of the newest model SLC 10x42's and two pairs of Conquest HD's. I've literally spent hours looking through them side by side, in the field. The Conquests were the reason I sold my Swaros, both times. Figured I got a weak pair of SLC's the first time, so I gave them another try 2 years later. Same result. Conquests resolve just as much detail to my eyes as the Swaros, but there are so many Swaro fan boys on this forum that you'd never be able to tell that here.

Please note, nowhere above did I say the Swaros are not good. Great in fact. But that won't stop people from taking my comments out of context and telling me how wrong I am about what my own eyes have seen, even though they themselves haven't done the same real-world tests with both pairs, using my eyeballs.

 

[Newtosavage]

I have both.

One thing for sure is the SLCs have better eye relief. You can call Zeiss and they will send you extended eye cups for the Conquests.

It’s a lot of personal preference, my advice would be to try both on a tripod somewhere and decide if the extra cash is worth it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think what you mean is the eyecups on the SLC's are a better fit for their eye relief. If you're an eyeglass wearer, then the Conquests would give you a better field of view due to having more eye relief than the SLC's.

 

[Newtosavage]

I have Vortex Vipers now. In your opinion, would you stay with the vipers or make the jump to conquest. SLC's are almost completely out of the question for me. Without really experiencing the difference I can't make the price jump. Plus, I think my wife has started researching binos so she knows the actual prices, can't sneak that one through haha.

Conquests are a fair jump up from the Vipers, although the Vipers are a very good value for the dollar. If you aren't going to be glassing for hours, then you won't notice the difference all that much. But after the first hour or two, you will want the Conquests.

 

[NoWiser]

I think that you could argue that, for the average hunter, the main justification for going to SLCs is for them to be able to say they own Swarovski binoculars. Before I get torn to shreds, this is coming from someone who owns a pair. Had I not had the blackout problems with the Conquests, I'd still happily own a pair, though I'd have sold my 10x for 8x.

 

[Newtosavage]

I think that you could argue that, for the average hunter, the main justification for going to SLCs is for them to be able to say they own Swarovski binoculars. Before I get torn to shreds, this is coming from someone who owns a pair. Had I not had the blackout problems with the Conquests, I'd still happily own a pair, though I'd have sold my 10x for 8x.

The blackout problems with the Zeiss were mostly cured with the free eyecups they sent me. Kind of a pain for non-eyeglass wearers, but my wife who wears glasses, absolutely loved seeing a full field of view for the first time through those Conquests, so I suppose when Zeiss designed them, they must have had eyeglass wearers in mind. You gotta pick one or the other. I know of no binocular that is equally well suited for eyeglass wearers and non-eyeglass wearers.

 

[JGRaider]

My two main issues with the Conquest HD's are the eyecup/eye relief/blackout problems as mentioned, and the super fast and finicky focus mechanism. I much prefer slower focus on a binocular when big game hunting as, at least to my eyeballs, it's much easier to find a sharp focus that to be fiddling with with fast focus trying to nail the sweet spot. The optics on the Conquest HD are very nice though. An SLC over the Conquest is an easy choice IME for those reasons.

 

[Trial153]

Pretty much its all been said already in this tread,. Owned two pairs of conquest and currently have the newest version of the SLC, I would go SLC, if your not on a tight budget.

 

[PHo]

In my opinion the Conquests compare very well to the SLCs and I’d be happy with the Conquests if that’s what I could afford, but one area where the SLCs excel over the Conquests is chromatic aberration. In the SLCs I can see it only on the outer edges of the view and it wasn’t all that bad. With the Conquests I could pretty much see it throughout the whole view and the effect was quite a bit more noticeable as well. If you’re CA sensitive you’ll be glad to go with the SLCs, but if you’re not you’ll be happy to save the $700.