Swarovski PH or Zeiss MC conquest rifle scope what one's is better?

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by enigma, Jan 8, 2011.

  1. enigma

    enigma Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    What one is a better for low light hunting condition? A swarovski Ph 2.5-10x56 with a 30mm scope tube or a Ziess MC conqest 3-12x56 with a 30mm scope tube,And shooting in low light condition 100 to 300 yards?I have a swarovski PH 6-24x50 with 30mm scope tube I love that scope I've put over 500 round throw my 338-378 weatherby with that scope on it never had a problem with it, But I've never owned a zeiss so I have to ask on here to find out from people who have had both scopes and see what you people think.Thanks
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2011
  2. Buano

    Buano Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    805
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Swarovski glass & coatings are generally SLIGHTLY better than Zeiss, but the differences in ability to hunt low-light between these two scopes are apt to be too small to notice.

    For low-light hunting I would rather have a quality 50mm objective lens with an illuminated reticle than a 56mm objective without an illuminated reticle. I find the first thing that goes in low-light is my ability to see the reticle clearly.
     

  3. orangeride

    orangeride Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    69
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    My Dad and Brothers always ran Swarovski 4-12 Av. To be different and because I didnt quit have the cash I put on a ziess 4-14x44 conquest. The clarity was awesome, and it pulled alot of light, but It didn't hold a candle to the Swarovski. Now the Swarovski was about the 400 bucks more. Now here's my beef with Zeiss. We all shoot Big cannons with brakes. AKA 340 wthby, 338 RUM, and our newest mule deer rifle, 6.5x300 Rum wildcat. (yes it's hard on barrels). My Zeiss broke two different times, really bad customer service. One time they sent me back the wrong scope! (it had target turrets and mine didn't ). They were giving me all sorts of crap, like the conquest line was in big demand and thats why it was taking so long to get it fixed (like three months right before hunting season.) My Dads Swarovski has had at least 4-5 thousand rounds from big mags through it. Never one problem. Needless to say I sold my Ziess and scrimped for two year's and last year bought a z-6 2.5-15x56. The optics are un-real. A noticeably brighter and sharper image than my dads swarovski. (it was 800 more than his) The only things I don't like about my z-6, First it's quit a bit more heavy than the AV, and all our rifle's are left hand and I'm having a hard time tuning my ejector to clear the third turret on the left side. Hope this helps. Aaron
     
  4. Brad from ND

    Brad from ND Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    91
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    The 3-12x56 Zeiss has a 30 mm tube. It is the only one that does, the rest are 1 inch. As far as customer service goes, I had an issue with one of my 6 that I own. I talked to my dealer about it as it was 2 months before season. He contacted his Zeiss rep and the rep gave me a new scope to make sure I had one for hunting season. He said he would take care of my other for me. That's pretty damn good cs if you ask me.

    The issue I had was a small speck the appeared on the inside of the glass on the rear lens. He said it was assembly lube that had been thrown onto the glass due to high recoil on my 300 RUM.

    You wont regret purchasing either scope. My friend has a PH and prefers my Zeiss's over his scope. In low light, they're both excellent. You need to remember that each person perceives clarity and resolution a little differently. You need to check them out for yourself and decide. If you can find a dealer that has both, ask if you can go outside in low light and compare them side by side.
     
  5. enigma

    enigma Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    242
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Your right 30mm thanks.