Japanese Nikon Vs Zeiss Conquest - Wow!

[rbkeiser]

Just purchased a Conquest 3.5-10X w/RZ 800 reticle for my big game stick. Overwhelmingly, I chose it for its reticle and only for that reason. I have been well-satisifed with various Leupolds and a previous generation Nikon 3.3-10 X44 but wanted the speed of multi-stadia reticle for 400 + yd shots. The game doesn't always seem to want to wait for turrets to turn. On my Vari X III's and the aforementioned Nikon I have added Stoney Point (Leupold) or used the midrise turret which came on the Nikon to tape yardage marks which were arrived at by range testing to 800 yds at the Sac Valley Shooting Center. Agree very closely with the online ballistic program, corrected for altitude that I use. The Nikon is a mil-dot and I use it to holdover for distances where I know that will work. (Like 400 yds on my 22-250 Ackley sending 75 gr Amax at 3250.) The Rapid Z (PF) system appealed to me, especially as it lines up beautifully for my 270 WSM/ 140 Berger loads at my normal shooting altitude of 5500 ft. (66 gr 7828, F215 M Match, WW 2.825" OAL 3170 fps) Tested it today and its near perfect out to 600 yds. (Far as I tried today.) Here's the bad news, however... my Nikon has better glass. That's good and bad news, I guess, since I have the scopes on two rifles, but I am dissapointed that the Zeiss glass is not "more wondrous" as it cost twice the $$s or nearly so. I am even more convinced now that shooters are as influenced by marketing hype and "brand" as the rest of the consumer world. Not bitter, the Zeiss is a fine scope but now know (at least in my example) no better "optically" than another product which cost a lot less. As i type this and the sun is going down, I have both pointing at a hillside behind my place to see what changes as it gets darker. I "hope" the Nikon doesn't resolve detail longer than the Deutch product, but that won't surprise me!

 

[winmagman]

Interesting, I've got a Nikon Tactical (made in Japan) and 4 Conquests. I have looked through both in low light, bad light, no light (nighttime), and broad daylight.

I'd swap the Nikon for a Conquest hands down, not that the Nikon has bad glass, but the Conquests are noticeably better under all conditions.

I guess it just goes to show, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just like clairity

Chris

 

[rbkeiser]

Maybe just manufacturing variance. I really "want" the Conquest to be better. It is lighter and has that reticle. Haven't spent a lot of time adjusting the diopter either although, normally I just do so to get best reticle focus against a featureless background. (Like the sky.) Fair amount of parallex too, not serious for out to 600 or so as long as I keep a good stock weld. (The 3.5-10X hasn't an adjustable objective. Don't consider that a "need to have" just a "nice to have" up to 10 power.) The Nikon does but that makes its objective bigger and I like low rings. I'm sure all will be well!

 

[wasgas]

Funny!

I found a great deal on the Zeiss conquest 3-9X40 and bought it on-line through Cabelas, I bought it to replace an older Nikon Monarch of the same size. I waited 1 month to receive it as it was backordered, once it arrived on at my door I was litteraly pulling out of the drive for a weekend archery deer hunt and decided to take the scope with me and play with it as I would be camping out under a full moon. That night I oppened it and it seemed faily clear and good in the moon light. Later that week I took it out on my patio 45 minutes before the sun went down and started to compare it to it's predesessor. I instantly found a flaw in the lense and it a peice of bebris inside of it. So I drove 1.5hr to return it at the Cabelas retail store for an exchange of the same model. That evening I started my same test on the patio about 45min before dusk. I have a large tree behind me where a giant hawk always nests and catches the last rays of the day from. I pulled out the Zeiss and the old Monarch and went head to head with them, at first the Zeiss was fine, but as the sun dissapeared the Monarch started to shine. This went on until night fall looking at various objects and turning back to the hawk to find that the Monarch showed much more detail even well after legal shooting light.

I have three Monarchs two are 3-9X40 and the other a 2.5-10X50 ILL the third one is much better in low light than the other two and just not even close to a fair comparison against the Zeiss.

Did I buy two bad Zeiss in a row, or are they not as good as we had thought? I still need to buy one for my sons rifle and like the Zeiss specs for the long eye relief, what should I do common sense has alreay shown me twice what not to buy?

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I have said it before, Nikon scopes and binoculars are tough to beat. Especially at comparative price points. I Like my Nikons.

Steve

 

[D.ID]

I have said it before, Nikon scopes and binoculars are tough to beat. Especially at comparative price points. I Like my Nikons.

Steve

+1 love my Nikons

 

[Oliveralan]

Are the new nikons made elsewhere? Or why are you xalling them "Japanese nikons"?

In what order is the different levels of glass quality? Like for leupold is is the VX-II, VX-3, MK-4 etc.

And finaly, how does the millet buckmaster 6-25x56 stand up to them? That's more in my current budget for my workhorse gun's scope.


Interesting results, I don't often here much about Zeiss optics being absolutely amazing like we do about others. Interesting to read a direct comparision. Good post.

 

[LRSickle]

Wait a second. I own both Nikon and Zeiss scopes and none of my Nikons are better than my Zeiss. I love my Nikons, especially for the price, but none of them are better than my Zeiss.

 

[rbkeiser]

3.3-10X 44mm Matte (Mildot) AO

These are the Japanese model Monarchs which are discontinued and are the subject of my comparison with my Conquest. They look just like the current "Titanium" models but mine is matte black. My understanding is that the new Monarchs are made eleswhere (not Japan.) I bought it from an optics retailer online for about $269 and it was a refurb. Another interesting fact is that it's clicks = .30 moa, not .25 as advertised. With a mil dot this is handy as 12 clicks ( 3 major graduations) = 1 mil. Don't know if this was intentional or just a happy coincidence. Truthfully, I bought mine because I've always felt they looked "scopey!" (Silly, I know.) The clicks on this unit are as close to 100% repeatable as I've seen. No discernable parallex when objective correctly adjusted for range and this has not always been my observation with other scopes I've owned that have an adjustable objective. (Never owned a side unit.) It is heavy for a general purpose riflescope and I initially had it on an averge weight sporter but that messed with the rifle's balance so much that I promptly put the Leupold 2.5 - 8X back on. (Another scope that has been a terrific performer for me.)
As I stated previously, I don't think its "better" than the Conquest (yet to determine) but I can't say it isn't either. Eventually, I'll get around to really testing it for resolution and repeatability at the range but I was having too much fun ringing the 600 yd gong with the RZ 800 feature to bother! BTW... Zeiss' online calculator for these reticles is a hoot.

 

[FEENIX]

Are the new nikons made elsewhere? Or why are you xalling them "Japanese nikons"?

The ones I've seen were Made in the Philippines.

 

[elkaholic]

Interesting, I've got a Nikon Tactical (made in Japan) and 4 Conquests. I have looked through both in low light, bad light, no light (nighttime), and broad daylight.

I'd swap the Nikon for a Conquest hands down, not that the Nikon has bad glass, but the Conquests are noticeably better under all conditions.

I guess it just goes to show, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just like clairity

Chris

+1 on that! I thought my Zeiss scopes were more clear as well. Someone stated that different eyes react to different coatings. May be something to that?....Rich

 

[ol mike]

Maybe there is something to individual eyes ,I have a 5.5x16.5-44 nikon monarch and had a 6.5x20-50 monarch both were optically equal .

I have compared them with two zeiss scopes 4.5x14-44 and a 6.5x20-50 = no comparison as far as resolution ,i now have a third 6.5x20-50 and for the money they are a top-notch scope .

The old 5.5x16.5 monarch has been a real workhorse and for the money -it is a great scope -but it ain't no conquest !

My 4.5x14-44 conquest is hands down the best piece of glass i have -the resolution is unbelieveable !
The 6.5x20-50's need to be fine tuned - I spent a good bit of time getting the crosshair focus ,parallax adjusted right .

 

[winmagman]

[QUOTEI spent a good bit of time getting the crosshair focus ,parallax adjusted right ][/QUOTE]

And that I think is important to getting the most out of any scope, if its a $90 Tasco or a $900 XYZ brand.

Chris