Zeiss Conquest Scopes

[Bison]

Anyone have any experience with these scopes? I am looking to put the 3-9x50 on my Remington 700BDL hunting rifle. I'm particularly interested in its light gathering capabilities around dawn and dusk and have heard that this scope does well in that regard. . . better than the Leupolds.

Of course, I'd love to go out and buy a Swarovski, but the Conquest price looks a whole lot better than the Swarovski price.

Thanks in advance.

[Cold Zero]

bison;

i bought the conquest 3-9x when they first came out in 1998. later, i upgraded to the 3.5-10x42mm as soon as they came out and have used it hunting in all 3 n.a. countries in all types of weather conditions.

it is very bright early and late and i.m.h.o. a great value and a better scope than the leupold's that i have.

i also have a swarovski 3-9x and do not find a significant diff' between the two. in fact, i prefer the zeiss. a lot of scope for the money.

[Bison]

. . . a better scope than the leupold's that i have . . . a lot of scope for the money.

That is what I keep hearing. Sounds good to me! Thanks for the response.

[KiloSierra]

I compared one against a similarly priced Leupold and Nikon scopes once. I couldn't tell any difference between the Nikon and Leupold, but the Zeiss was significantly better than either in reduced light inside and regular light outside.

[Bison]

I compared one against a similarly priced Leupold and Nikon scopes once. I couldn't tell any difference between the Nikon and Leupold . . .

Seems like I read somewhere that the glass in the Nikon and Leupold scopes comes from the same place in Japan. So, that makes sense. I think I read that on the 1911 forum I'm on. According to that post, the European glass outperforms the Japanese glass. I think that is what experience shows as well, from what I've heard. Problem is that European glass comes at a price many can't afford or don't want to pay.

My understanding is that the Conquest scopes are made here in the USA from European glass and parts. Labor is cheaper here than it is there so they are cheaper than the higher priced Zeiss offerings that are assembled in Europe. That may or may not be true.

[ccoker]

my preference is the Nikon Monarch over the Leupold VXIII
my Sako 243 has the 4-12x40 AO on it

I want a Conquest :)

[mike240]

Check the ones with the PFI reticle. I have used this reticle and it is great for hunting. Check out the info on the reticle at the Pride Fowler site. Zeiss has adopted this reticle but I do not know if it is in the Conquest models.

[tikkafan]

I have a 3.5-10x44 Conquest and it's a beauty. Super clear and didn't cost too much.

[Username]

Another consideration that I found for me was eye relief in the Conquest I looked at was MUCH more generous than any of my Leupold's.

My LRT 3.5-10, 6.5-20x50 Leupold's all had very strict eye relief allowances to while producing a full edge to edge shadowless picture.

The Conquest I checked out at Cabelas had a generous eye relief.
It was a 20x model with side focus. I did not compare the lower magnification models, so I can't comment on their ER.

Having the generous ER of the Conquest I looked at would be a huge help in combating eye strain and facial fatigue from shooting long periods using the optic. Especially in direct sunlight where additional fatigue may occur from squinting anyway.

Or you could somehow apply the "..go to the gym.." idealogy that is often suggested to overcome muscular fatigue while shooting.
Might get some funny looks from people if you had a dumbell layed across your face though!:p