Which would you rather?

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by matt_3479, Jun 12, 2011.

  1. matt_3479

    matt_3479 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    886
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    A Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x50mm with rapid z 800 reticle weighing in a 19.75 oz for a long range hunting scope that will be used at the range for targets between 100-800 yards (max on scope) or the Vortex PST 4-16x50mm weighing in at 22 oz for long range hunting scope that will also be used at the range for targets between 100-800 yards.

    This gun will also be used on Moose, Elk, Bear, Caribou and deer. The matching reticle and turrets on the PST makes up for the glass quality of the Zeiss. I do not care as much as many of you do about glass so keep that in mind. They are about the same price and close to same weight.

    I know some people dont like exposed turrets for hunting but others prefer it. What is your thoughts? would you choose a PST or Conquest for hunting/targets?
     
  2. Tikkamike

    Tikkamike Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,359
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    I am a big fan of the rapid z-800, in my opinion out to 800 yards you absolutly can not beat the zeiss.
     

  3. Wisc_Hunter

    Wisc_Hunter Active Member

    Messages:
    30
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Both are good. Get one of each.
     
  4. brentc

    brentc Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    I now own both the Zeiss 4.5-14x44 RZ800, and the PST 6-24 FFP. Both have separate functions. The Rapid Z is used for a medium range mountain carry rifle where ounces count a little bit more. The PST is on a LR rig that Kevin Rayhill just finished up. I should have it home in few days. Kevin was curious about the newly arrived PST so I sent it up to him to try on my rifle and he absolutely loved it. He liked it so much he decided that he was going to put one on his personal rifle.

    It's a tough choice. I'd have to lean towards the PST on this one. The glass is really good with a lot of features. The Zeiss has fantastic glass, but is somewhat limited with the 1" tube.

    If you go with the Zeiss, you may as well get the 44mm objective over the 50. It's lighter, and less obtrusive. Plus, The cost between the 44 and 50 is not worth the minimal gain on Zeiss' 1" tube.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
  5. MTBULLET

    MTBULLET Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,058
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    +1 on the zeiss w/44mm obj. and z-800
     
  6. bkondeff

    bkondeff Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    345
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Does a 1" tube have an "optical" limitations over a 30mm tube. I thought the difference was only strength/durability. I've been wrong before.....
     
  7. brentc

    brentc Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Not necessarliy. Some believe it does, but in reality, the clarity of a 1" tube can equal a comparable scope with a 30mm tube. Clarity and light transmission depends mostly upon a combination of glass and coatings, and a properly matched objective lens. A 50mm lens with lousy glass won't do much for you, but a 50mm objective with suitable glass performs really well.

    In the case of the Zeiss, the quality of the glass and coatings seem to make up the difference between the 44 and 50 objective. I can't tell a difference between the two in any lighting condition. Both are outstandingly clear.

    The biggest benefits of a 30mm are more internal adjustment, stronger main tube, and they provide more area for the scope rings to grip for hard recoiling rifles.