zeiss or sightron??

[paste]

i am shopping around for a new scope and i might have it narrowed down to these two
Zeiss conquest 6.5-20x50 or the Sightron SIII 6-24x50
any input will be very much appreciated

 

[Sully2]

i am shopping around for a new scope and i might have it narrowed down to these two
Zeiss conquest 6.5-20x50 or the Sightron SIII 6-24x50
any input will be very much appreciated

I have 3 of the Zeiss scopes. Wouldnt swap even for a dozen Sightron's. My next build will either have a Zeiss or a Swarosky on it.

 

[bigngreen]

Been using the Sightron Slll 6-24 MOA to shoot ELR on a 338 RUM, fabulous optic for long range shooting, so far I haven't seen anything about the Zeiss that would be better unless your wanting to use hold overs then the Z plex would be interesting, much prefer the turrets on the Sightron!

 

[T3-OleMan]

ZEISS 100x.
They got german glass and they should be the last ones to go belly up.
They are older than Roy.

 

[steelshooter]

I have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14 and a Sightron 6-24 LRMOA.
I think each is as good as the other. You wouldn't make a bad decision going with either. The Zeiss however, has a 25mm tube as compared to a 30mm tube on the Sightron, so therefore weighs a little less, and is a little less bulky. Otherwise I am equally happy to recommend either.

 

[Hunter2678]

Hard not to give the edge to Ziess...its on my to buy list. Looked through both and the ziess' belw me away.

 

[bruce_ventura]

At >1,000 yds you are fighting veiling glare and atmospheric turbulence. Glare reduces image contrast. Low glare is one reason that images in high end glass seem to "pop" and appear bright. Turbulence-induced blur reduces contrast and resolution.

I've spent time at the last four SHOT Shows assessing veiling glare performance. All the SIII scopes I've looked through had below average veiling glare performance. All the Conquests have had above average performance. For hunting, I would go with Zeiss.

If I had to go with Sightron for some reason, I would use a 4" sunshade.

 

[paste]

thanx for the thoughts and opinions i truely appreciate it.
i decided to go with the Zeiss....it should arrive this friday or saturday

 

[T3-OleMan]

Good decision. Have fun.

 

[Tulie]

Very good decision, you sure won't be disappointed. To do better than the Zeiss you have to boost the bucks spent by 2+X.

 

[mike33]

I was glad to see this thread i have been kicking the same around. I now have a nfx 5.5x22 on my 338 rum that will be my back up or carry rifle with my edge. This is a factory sporter and to save weight i wanted another scope besides the nfx to keep the weight down. My buddy has agun shop and has a 6.5x20 zeiss i was looking at very nice but had the 1k yard reticle i didnt care for but was interested it in getting it in plain z-plex. Seems like others are happy with the zeiss glad to hear that. Was wondering how it would stand up for light gathering at a dawn or dusk shot?
Mike

 

[T3-OleMan]

........................................ Was wondering how it would stand up for light gathering at a dawn or dusk shot?
Mike

I could hunt in the dark with my zeiss-victory-diavari-4-16x50-t-fl, If it were legal!!!!! Clear moonless but bright stars you could ID Bull or Cow in the middle of a meadow. With a little moon you could count the points.

 

[mike33]

Thanks, i know thats one heck of a scope wondering about the 6.5x 20 though for light gathering.
mike

 

[Sami]

Thanks, i know thats one heck of a scope wondering about the 6.5x 20 though for light gathering.
mike

While it's no Victory Diavari, low light performance is still better on the Conquest than the NFX. Features, NF > Conquest. Conquest is IPY meaning turrets are in 1/4", not 1/4 MOA or 0.1mil.