Zeiss vs. Nightforce

[Broz]

I have owned many of both Zeiss (conquest and Diavari) and Nightforce (NXS). I like them both but they are far from comparable "apples to apples" if we are talking long range scopes like the NXS.

Although there may be a subtle advantages in clairity going to the Zeiss, I have never felt I was leaving anything on the table using a NXS even when taking an elk at long range in the last legal minutes of shooting hours. There are far more important differences in my opinion. At least if we are talking a true long range scope. What about max elevation? How can you compare the limited 45 moa of a 6.5~20 conquest to the 100 moa of the NXS? The Zeiss is very limited in elevation until you get into the upper end scopes that will cost as much or more than a NXS. We can also compare the feel and the positivnes of the detents on the turrets. The NXS will win hands down, they are simply a more quality turret and you know it every time you turn the knob. What about a zero stop? This is a great option for the NXS that Zeiss does not offer. Also it is no secret that the NF scope will take a beating. It is heavier for a reason, it is built to be tough. Not that the Conquest is a cheap or bad scope by any means. I like them both, but if I was to knock them both over on a rock while hunting in elk country, I know which one I would place my money on to hold zero.

Two great scopes, but for sure they are not all for te same usage and it is hard to compare them. One cost more because it simply is more.

Jeff

 

[Hunter2678]

I have owned many of both Zeiss (conquest and Diavari) and Nightforce (NXS). I like them both but they are far from comparable "apples to apples" if we are talking long range scopes like the NXS.

Although there may be a subtle advantages in clairity going to the Zeiss, I have never felt I was leaving anything on the table using a NXS even when taking an elk at long range in the last legal minutes of shooting hours. There are far more important differences in my opinion. At least if we are talking a true long range scope. What about max elevation? How can you compare the limited 45 moa of a 6.5~20 conquest to the 100 moa of the NXS? The Zeiss is very limited in elevation until you get into the upper end scopes that will cost as much or more than a NXS. We can also compare the feel and the positivnes of the detents on the turrets. The NXS will win hands down, they are simply a more quality turret and you know it every time you turn the knob. What about a zero stop? This is a great option for the NXS that Zeiss does not offer. Also it is no secret that the NF scope will take a beating. It is heavier for a reason, it is built to be tough. Not that the Conquest is a cheap or bad scope by any means. I like them both, but if I was to knock them both over on a rock while hunting in elk country, I know which one I would place my money on to hold zero.

Two great scopes, but for sure they are not all for te same usage and it is hard to compare them. One cost more because it simply is more.

Jeff

All valid points that I touched on earlier Broz, however for the cost of the NF scope I wasn't overly impressed with the performance of the glass it has. It all boils down to what you want out of a scope and how much you're willing to pay for it. For a hunting scope clarity, contrast & brightness is paramount for me personally. JMO Obviously for long range applications more adjustment is needed and therefore a game changer.

 

[Broz]

All valid points that I touched on earlier Broz, however for the cost of the NF scope I wasn't overly impressed with the performance of the glass in a scope of that price or construction. It all boils down to what you want out of a scope and how much you're willing to pay for it.

True, but the zeiss will not get you to a mile with 45 moa. If you want better glass plus all the bennifits of the NXS for long range what scope has it for less than the cost of a NF?

Like I said the Zeiss is a great scope. Especially if your needs fall within it's limits. But for those who need more the NXS is a value. They both are good within their limits. The NXS is simply more money and much more scope when going long range.

Jeff

 

[Hunter2678]

True, but the zeiss will not get you to a mile with 45 moa. If you want better glass plus all the bennifits of the NXS for long range what scope has it for less than the cost of a NF?

Like I said the Zeiss is a great scope. Especially if your needs fall within it's limits. But for those who need more the NXS is a value. They both are good within their limits. The NXS is simply more money and much more scope when going long range.

Jeff

Again, Broz I agree with you on that point..as I explained in my original post earlier. The NXS has more than double the MOA adjustment. The Zeiss simply doesn't cut it there and isnt as stout in body construction. I'll give you turret advantage too. Where we seem to part ways is our perception of what we should be getting at $1800.00 for me I want $1800.00 better glass than what I would get in $1000.00 glass. To my eyes I simply dont see it in the NF.

 

[Broz]

I am agreeing also. But my point was when you get all the other better options, and other quality, maybe it would cost even more to also upgrade the glass of a NXS? I support this with the question I asked. What scope offers all the NXS does with better glass for the price of a NF? I am being honest when I say, I do not know of one.

Don't get me wrong. For a carry rifle used to limited distances the Conquest is a huge value and the crisp and clear glass is superb. But it won't cut it as a long range scope for many users. This is why I said "apples to apples" they do not compare well.

Jeff

 

[COBrad]

Good points here Broz and Hunter. From my experience I am in agreement with Broz in regard to the value of NF. There is nothing else out there in that price range that compares. I would also like better quality glass in my NF, but the only thing I have found that matches their quality, with top notch glass is S&B, and that is what I use on my heavy LR rifle. I have not looked through another scope with glass so impressive, to my eyes.
I have had 3 Conquests. All had good glass, but only one had truly repeatable turrets that were calibrated accurately at 1/4 MOA. I have had two NF. I find the glass to be very good, but not S&B good. I recently put a 2.5-10 NF on a light weight .270 WSM. I'll do a lot of field shooting at distant rocks and marmots, and shoot a few big game animals with it each year. When I finally draw that sheep tag here in CO, I want the most reliable scope I can find on it. I also want that NP-R2 reticle for fast range compensation. It works nicely with my G7 rangefinder that expresses solutions in MOA. When I'm out shooting varmints I want turrets that are dead accurate and repeatable. They will get twisted many times over the course of a year and need to work right every time.
Nightforce does all of this, and with glass that really is good enough for the task.
If S&B made the scope I want with MOA turrets I would have used them again, but NF makes just what I want, and no one else has their features at that price.
Are they worth that much more that a Conquest, absolutely, if that is what you need.

 

[Buano]

Good points here Broz and Hunter. From my experience I am in agreement with Broz in regard to the value of NF. There is nothing else out there in that price range that compares. I would also like better quality glass in my NF, but the only thing I have found that matches their quality, with top notch glass is S&B, and that is what I use on my heavy LR rifle. I have not looked through another scope with glass so impressive, to my eyes.
I have had 3 Conquests. All had good glass, but only one had truly repeatable turrets that were calibrated accurately at 1/4 MOA. I have had two NF. I find the glass to be very good, but not S&B good. I recently put a 2.5-10 NF on a light weight .270 WSM. I'll do a lot of field shooting at distant rocks and marmots, and shoot a few big game animals with it each year. When I finally draw that sheep tag here in CO, I want the most reliable scope I can find on it. I also want that NP-R2 reticle for fast range compensation. It works nicely with my G7 rangefinder that expresses solutions in MOA. When I'm out shooting varmints I want turrets that are dead accurate and repeatable. They will get twisted many times over the course of a year and need to work right every time.
Nightforce does all of this, and with glass that really is good enough for the task.
If S&B made the scope I want with MOA turrets I would have used them again, but NF makes just what I want, and no one else has their features at that price.
Are they worth that much more that a Conquest, absolutely, if that is what you need.

I haven't read every post, but I don't see anyone saying Nightforce isn't the "tank" of long-range scopes. I believe that is well established. Nightforce has heavier duty tubes, terrific turrets, and a great selection of reticles that no one can beat WITHIN THE SAME PRICE RANGE.

By every independent test I've seen & by my observations, fine detail & detail with minimum light is better when looking through Zeiss or Swarovski glass than with Nightforce optics. That doesn't mean that Nightforce glass isn't very good, it is. It just doesn't compare to GREAT glass with GREAT coatings.

Zeiss offers world-class long-range scopes that have everything Nightforce offers — and great glass, in their Hensoldt line. These come with prices that are truly monumental. Until the Euro tanks versus the US dollar, not many of us will be able to afford such a scope so these aren't part of this discussion.

This leaves most of us with incomes less than Mitt Romney's having to compromise. If the best glass in a light scope is what our application demands, we are likely to opt for Swarovski or Zeiss. If the best long-range adjustment range & indestructibility are most critical, we are apt to choose a Nightforce. Since each is a compromise (as measured from the best scopes made), we will never have a perfect scope with either option. We will however have a damned good scope with either option.

 

[bryguy]

Buano, Broz and Hunter....so what would you guys recomend for a guy who was a southeastern deer hunter hunting out of tower stands over big ag fields where ranges were inside 800 yds or so? Reason I am asking, is I am on the cusp of building a beanfield rig for our hunting club and am looking at the NF 5.5x22x56 NP-R1 and either the Zeiss Conquest in 4.5x14x50 with turrets or the 6.5x20x50 conquest with turrets. I COULD spend the 2k on the nighforce, but would rather not spend that if something cheaper will fit my needs.

 

[Broz]

Buano, Broz and Hunter....so what would you guys recomend for a guy who was a southeastern deer hunter hunting out of tower stands over big ag fields where ranges were inside 800 yds or so? Reason I am asking, is I am on the cusp of building a beanfield rig for our hunting club and am looking at the NF 5.5x22x56 NP-R1 and either the Zeiss Conquest in 4.5x14x50 with turrets or the 6.5x20x50 conquest with turrets. I COULD spend the 2k on the nighforce, but would rather not spend that if something cheaper will fit my needs.

Both the Conquest and the NXS will work to 800 yards. I am going to assume you will be dialing turrets. A quick run of the numbers for an average rig, a high BC bullet to fight wind shows you will need 15 to 17 moa of elevation with a 200 yard zero. The conquest has a total of 45 if you mount it with zero cant bases that will get you 22.5 moa in a perfect world. So you should get to 1000 with that. But like mentioned before if you are going to crank turrets each time you hunt in my opinion the best choice is a NXS. If you don't want the weight of the NXS the Conquest will indeed do the job. If you are sure you will never take the rifle past 1000 and you can live with the cheaper feeling turrets the Conquest is a value. But if you think you might advance into longer shooting I would spring for the NXS. They both hold value well. But one thing is for sure, a used NXS will fetch close to new cost. Especially when new supplies are low. So for sure the investment is a safe one.

My opinion is in your case it comes down to personal choice and future shooting plans.

Jeff

 

[Caleb]

If I had an unlimited budget, I would still use Ziess. Call me crazy.

 

[bryguy]

Both the Conquest and the NXS will work to 800 yards. I am going to assume you will be dialing turrets. A quick run of the numbers for an average rig, a high BC bullet to fight wind shows you will need 15 to 17 moa of elevation with a 200 yard zero. The conquest has a total of 45 if you mount it with zero cant bases that will get you 22.5 moa in a perfect world. So you should get to 1000 with that. But like mentioned before if you are going to crank turrets each time you hunt in my opinion the best choice is a NXS. If you don't want the weight of the NXS the Conquest will indeed do the job. If you are sure you will never take the rifle past 1000 and you can live with the cheaper feeling turrets the Conquest is a value. But if you think you might advance into longer shooting I would spring for the NXS. They both hold value well. But one thing is for sure, a used NXS will fetch close to new cost. Especially when new supplies are low. So for sure the investment is a safe one.

My opinion is in your case it comes down to personal choice and future shooting plans.

Jeff

Thanks for the info. I am new to this long range stuff, most of the areas I was hunting did not offer these longer ranges, but the new club I am in does have some areas that present longer shooting opportunities than I have had. Farthest deer I have killed has been 376, so I am pretty confident that I can do it with the correct gear. But given that I will need to step up my range finder and my binocs, it all kind of adds up. I have about 5k total to do this with, but that can get burnt up pretty quickly if it is not watched. I honestly do not ever see myself getting into shooting high powered competitively(been there, done that with 3d archery, and it ruined me on archery forever, even bowhunting) and it will be a hunting rig with any long range stuff done for kicks and giggles only. Looking at either 7mm wsm or 7 mm rem mag pushing 160 grn pills (probably Bergers or perhaps accubombs). I may go with a 20 MOA base just to have the option for more range if needed, so that should give me close to 45 MOA or so, even with a Conquest. I have several of those scopes already, so I like the familiarity factor, but the NXS do look mighty good. May just quit agonizing over it and buy the NF and be done with it, if it does not work, looks like I could get the money back and then go another route if not happy.

 

[Hunter2678]

Buano, Broz and Hunter....so what would you guys recomend for a guy who was a southeastern deer hunter hunting out of tower stands over big ag fields where ranges were inside 800 yds or so? Reason I am asking, is I am on the cusp of building a beanfield rig for our hunting club and am looking at the NF 5.5x22x56 NP-R1 and either the Zeiss Conquest in 4.5x14x50 with turrets or the 6.5x20x50 conquest with turrets. I COULD spend the 2k on the nighforce, but would rather not spend that if something cheaper will fit my needs.

For hunting beanfields, inside 800 yds....Id go the Zeiss route 6-20x50 even the 4-14x50 should be plenty. You'll have superbly clear, bright glass that will really shine in dawn & dusk.

If I were out west in the mountains where access is done over rocky terrain via horseback or hiking and shots would be at least 700 yds then Id go the NF route.

 

[Hunter2678]

If I had an unlimited budget, I would still use Ziess. Call me crazy.

You're nuts dude

 

[Buano]

You're nuts dude

Notice, he didn't say WHICH Zeiss. With an unlimited budget, I would also choose Zeiss over Nightforce for a long-range rig, but I would be looking at a $4,000 Hensoldt — not a Conquest.