Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by WEATHERBY460, Nov 24, 2009.
For a $1000 scope, whats the scope to get.....thanks
The Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14 x 50 is a very good buy for the money!
I have 2 conquests and the glass is excellent in them. They track perfectly and work great. I would definitely choose them over the Leupold. Not saying Leupold is bad, just think the Zeiss is better.
Leupold has been left behind they are not in the same league as a zeiss ..
I have a 4.5x14-44 and two 6.5x20-50's they all track great and the glass is great for the price.
I have had all kinds and agree the Zeiss Conquest are the best bang for the buck and maybe the best bang at any price. They have amazing clarity and resolution. Today I was at the range with 2 Kahles 4x12x52's, a Zeiss Conquest 4.5x14x44 and a Swarovski 4x16x50 Habicht and the Zeiss was the one that would spot the bullet holes at 300 yards, the Swarovski came in last. I also have a Zeiss Diavari 2.5x10x50 and the Conquest has better resolution and clarity.
I have a 6.5-20x50 conquest and it is a very clear scope with highly repeatable adjustments.....Rich
I have a Zeiss 4.5x14x50 #4 ret. on my .260 rem and a 4.5x14x50 with a standard duplex on my 300wsm and love them both, though the price has climbed a little on them these last couple years. Both have the target turrets and seem to track well thus far.
How is the clarity at 14 power on the ziess? And has anyone done a comparison side by side with a NF? I love my NXS but its a little heavy for a carry gun, but I sure do love the clarity.
I do a lot of shooting at 300 yards and remember one day with 3 guys and the following equipment:
Zeiss 4.5x14x44 Conquest
Zeiss 4.5x14x50 Conquest
Leupold 4.5x14x50 VX3
Kahles 4x12x52 MZ
Zeiss 2.5x10x50 Diavari
Burris 4x16x50 Black Diamond
Leupold 15x45 Spotting Scope
and there were only 2 pcs of equipment that could consistantly see the bullet holes in the white paper and those were the 2 Conquests. They could make out the 22 holes from the 22-250. The Kahles almost got there but the holes would fade in and out. The Diavari did not have enough magnification. The mirage and wind shaking the spotting scope put it out even at the higher magnification. The Burris didn't have the resolution or clarity. The NEW Leupold VX3 was terrible. I told the guy but some things you have to learn yourself.
The clarity and resolution on all the Conquests I have mounted and used is excellent. It may not gather as much light as my Diavari or Kahles but it exels in being able to see details at distance well.
I owned a 5.5x22 nxs and a 6.5x20 conguest concurrently and both had excellent clarity and repeatability. I did love the nightforce, but it was heavy, as you stated, and also cost almost double and had half the vertical per rotation. I did like the nightforce reticle better.......Rich
Buy Zeiss now if you can....they have a price increase going into effect on Jan 1, 2010.
I use either Luepold scopes or Nightforce because I know they travel well and when I have driven 2000+ miles from home on bumpy roads and have a 1000+ yard shot to make they will what I need to have done.
Whether the Zeiss is a better hunting scope I do not know and have no plans to find out. I have used V3s for 25 years and they have served me well. They represent a quality that I find to be worth the money I pay for them.
Everywhere you read about these comparisons, folks like the Zeiss Conquest. The new Leupold VX-3 has every bit as good an optics, costs less, and weighs about 2/3rds of the Zeiss Conquest. I prefer the B&C reticle on the Leupold as Zeiss' Rapid Z is too busy to effectively see the target. Best of all, Leupold is every bit as good a product and is made in America! Nuff said!
Their both descent glass. but the vx-3 is not in the $1000.00 category, not even close. I have not used the Zeiss, but have looked through them in stores as well as the field. They are nice. The VX-6 is their comparable in the Leupold line, maybe a small step up in glass quality.