Zeiss Conquest HD5 worth the money???

[MudRunner2005]

A little thinner than the German #4, but not anywhere near hair-thin. It's, IMO, a perfect size, and a good comprimise for shooters who prefer thick or thin reticles.

 

[bruce_ventura]

...What Zeiss has done some how is produce the same scope as the Swaro Z5 series for 500-600 dollars less...

I agree that the HD5 is a good value. I don't think it's equivalent to a Swaro Z5, though.

I just started a side-by-side comparison of the ZeIss HD5 3-15x42 and Swaro Z5 3.5-18x44. I'm not done yet, but one thing is immediately clear, the Z5 has a much better objective lens design. The Z5 has three lenses ("triplet"), while the HD5 has only two ("doublet"). The old Conquest scopes also have doublets in the objective.

When reticle is optically centered on both scopes, there isn't much difference in image quality. When I crank the elevation 24 MOA from center, however, the Z5 image stays sharp, while the HD5 loses resolution. I noticed that the Z5 also has lower glare ( higher contrast).

The HD5 is no worse in this "off-axis" resolution than other scopes at the same price point. There's only so much that an optical designer can do with a doublet design. To get better performance a triplet is needed, and that's what Swaro has done with the Z5. I've noticed that other scopes above the ~$1,300 price point tend to use triplet objectives. The Nightforce NXS line is an example.

I would not overlook the obvious differences in weight, either. While I'm not finished with this comparison, I can already see good reasons for the price difference between the HD5 and Z5 lines. I think both are good at their price points.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Bruce....With each optic put in their respective price points, would you say that the Zeiss Conquest leads its class?

I know that my Conquests are not far behind my Kahles Helia KX ($1,500), which is a higher priced optic. I can tell the difference in the clarity and quality, and the eclipsing, however, the Conquests seem to really be trailing closely as far as glass and lens coatings...From my observations. Then again, I'm no glass expert like you are. You get to play with them on a daily basis and compare. Which is why I am interested to hear your thoughts.

I would love to hear your opinions on comparing those 2.

 

[bruce_ventura]

Bruce....With each optic put in their respective price points, would you say that the Zeiss Conquest leads its class?

I don't have enough detailed hands-on experience with competitor's products to make that strong of a statement. I can say that the resolution and contrast are among the best I've seen at that price point.

I guess I would say that the Conquest HD5 line sets a standard in the industry for overall value. That line doesn't offer a wide range of feature options, like FFP, milling reticles, etc., but what it does, it does well. That's especially so for raw optical performance. Zeiss has a corporate culture of excellent optical and mechanical design, and use of high quality materials. For those reasons, Zeiss dominates the HD5 price point.

Swaro Z3 is also up there in value at a similar price point. Some of the newer Bushnell 6500 and Elite Tactical scopes could be up there too.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Thanks for that input Bruce. It's good to know that we're on the same wave of thinking.

 

[highridge1]

The selling point for me on the Zeiss HD5 5-25x50 is I have been aware of many swarovski scopes failing on bigger long range calibers and to my eye there glass is no better ,so the Zeiss for me is a tremendous value.I also really like the zeiss turrets

 

[overmax]

Dmax1800 you have a pm

 

[Thefieldster]

I've got a question about the turrets. How do they work? Ive heafd once you set them you only have like 17 moa of adjustment? I've looked through one and compared it to the viper PST. I forgot to play with the turrets because the salesman was extremely impatient.

I bought the PST because the warranty and the glass was very clear. I have slight buyers remorse because when shooting at 1000 yrds on 24x the glass is slightly foggy. I still took 2nd out of 20 and all of the rest had nightforce. But the zeiss has A LOT better glass. The thing I dislike the most about the zeiss is the gigantic crosshairs. They are huge! They must plan on you only shooting elk because the bars would cover up any dots on paper.

 

[chopit]

The selling point for me on the Zeiss HD5 5-25x50 is I have been aware of many swarovski scopes failing on bigger long range calibers and to my eye there glass is no better ,so the Zeiss for me is a tremendous value.I also really like the zeiss turrets

Where are you seeing many Swarovskis fail on larger caliber rifles?

 

[Prieto9000]

I've got a question about the turrets. How do they work? Ive heafd once you set them you only have like 17 moa of adjustment? I've looked through one and compared it to the viper PST. I forgot to play with the turrets because the salesman was extremely impatient.

I bought the PST because the warranty and the glass was very clear. I have slight buyers remorse because when shooting at 1000 yrds on 24x the glass is slightly foggy. I still took 2nd out of 20 and all of the rest had nightforce. But the zeiss has A LOT better glass. The thing I dislike the most about the zeiss is the gigantic crosshairs. They are huge! They must plan on you only shooting elk because the bars would cover up any dots on paper.

I own both, the 6-24X50 Viper PST (2 of them), and a 5-25X50 HD-5. I really like the Viper for LRH/S but what you say is true, it really gets foggy past 20x. The turrets and zero stop work like a charm. I mounted one on my .338 EDGE and the other one on my .308. Just got a NSX for my EDGE, lets see how that goes.

As far as the HD-5 it seems to be a very nice scope, I mounted it on my coyote .243 rifle and I really hated the zero stop tech they use. It only allows 16MOA of adjustment on each turret. The glass is nice (nicer than the PST) Crystal clear all the way to 25x. Parallax adjustment seems a little odd to me, I almost always have to crank it up all the way to infinity unlike the PST.

 

[6point5x284]

Thefieldster,

The turrents have 16.5MOA with the ZEROSTOP installed. The zero stop is a tiny flathead screw that you can take out if you so desire. You have to take it out to zero your scope in anyway (at least for mine, because I had to come down elevation and the zero stop prevented me from doing that initially). I have never been a fan of ZEROSTOP for hunting as I'm never switching distances that drastically where I can get messed up with my turret revolutions. For me, 16.5MOA is about 900 yards, and the only time I may have to go from more than 900 yard back to zero in an instant would be coyote/wolf hunting, or maybe antelope, so for me it's a non issue and I leave the zero stop screw off so I have all the revolutions of the turret. As far as the crosshairs, thats one of the reasons I like 2nd focal plane (for hunting) because I am using a rangefinder for my ranging, and I like the small crosshairs that stay the same size throughout the entire power range. (I realize the benefits of FFP for ranging and competition applications) What reticle did you choose? With my standard plex (again, i'm not ranging with my scope for hunting, I have a Leica for that) it appears smaller than most, and by far smaller than most FFP scopes when magnified.

Bottom Line: If clear glass beyond 20x is important, get the HD5. If you are in competitions (it sounds like you may be) and a zero stop feature with more MOA is needed,or FFP is needed, stick with your PST. They are great too.

 

[MudRunner2005]

I own both, the 6-24X50 Viper PST (2 of them), and a 5-25X50 HD-5. I really like the Viper for LRH/S but what you say is true, it really gets foggy past 20x. The turrets and zero stop work like a charm. I mounted one on my .338 EDGE and the other one on my .308. Just got a NSX for my EDGE, lets see how that goes.

As far as the HD-5 it seems to be a very nice scope, I mounted it on my coyote .243 rifle and I really hated the zero stop tech they use. It only allows 16MOA of adjustment on each turret. The glass is nice (nicer than the PST) Crystal clear all the way to 25x. Parallax adjustment seems a little odd to me, I almost always have to crank it up all the way to infinity unlike the PST.

Have you adjusted the micro adjustment on the occular bell to keep from having to adjust the parallax that far out?

 

[Prieto9000]

Have you adjusted the micro adjustment on the occular bell to keep from having to adjust the parallax that far out?

I did. At first it seemed a little foggy but once I adjusted the ocular bell it got much better.

 

[CLKHunter]

I own both, the 6-24X50 Viper PST (2 of them), and a 5-25X50 HD-5. I really like the Viper for LRH/S but what you say is true, it really gets foggy past 20x. The turrets and zero stop work like a charm. I mounted one on my .338 EDGE and the other one on my .308. Just got a NSX for my EDGE, lets see how that goes.

As far as the HD-5 it seems to be a very nice scope, I mounted it on my coyote .243 rifle and I really hated the zero stop tech they use. It only allows 16MOA of adjustment on each turret. The glass is nice (nicer than the PST) Crystal clear all the way to 25x. Parallax adjustment seems a little odd to me, I almost always have to crank it up all the way to infinity unlike the PST.

I have to do the same on my HD5. Even at 200yds the adjustment is almost cranked all the way up.