Anyone know about Zeiss Conquest scopes?

[10-Ring]

I was on the verge of buying a Zeiss Conquest scope...right up until a buddy gave me one of those "you're buying one of those, huh?" looks. When I asked him why not, he just said that it's nothing concrete but the US made scopes just don't seem as nice as the European made ones. Does anyone have any practical experience w/ them? Am I better off w/ a Leupold Mark 4?

 

[JWarren]

I've heard and read nothing but praise for them. So much so, that I am planning on getting one soon.

Are they as nice as the European ones? Dunno. I've heard they are as nice, and that they are a step down.

Either way, they are better than MANY optics out there in the same range.

But you would not go wrong with a Leupold Mark 4, either.


-- John

 

[Funderb]

They are expensive, and I'm not allowed to touch them unless I pay first.
So quoth the gunshow man.

uhh.

 

[JWarren]

buddy gave me one of those "you're buying one of those, huh?"

BTW... your buddy sounds like some of the hunters around here:

If you don't have a Leupold on your rifle, they will look at you like you just kicked their dog and slept with their wife.

If you have a Nikon, they think you were too poor to buy the Leupold you obviously wanted and should have saved up.

If you buy a Bushnell, they think you are just stupid-- because all they know about is the Banner series. You are clearly too stupid to know just HOW bad you need a Leupold.

If you own a Kahles, you obviously spent good money that you would have been better off spending on a Leupold.

If you own a Schmitt and Bender, a Swarovski, or a Ziess, you just threw your money away because you could have had a Leupold for less in most cases-- and you are just trying to make an effort to "be odd."

If you have a Burris, your wife likely bought it for you and has no idea how crappy it is. If she DID know, she would have bought you a Leupold.

If you own a Tasco, Simmons, or other in that range, they will be very polite to you and not hurt your feelings. Obviously, you are saving up your money for a Leupold.



Are you seeing a pattern here?


Now remember... these are the guys that take their rifles out once a year and fire it between 5-10 times to zero it, and then take it hunting. Whatever they kill adds to the shots fired that year. Then, after the season, they put it up and forget about it for another year.

These are the same ones that will scoff at a guy that has an AR platform as a guy that wants to "machinegun" deer down-- not knowing or caring that the AR platform is a preferred platform for building an inherently accurate rifle-- so much so that they are doing VERY well on the competition circuit.

Somehow they believe that thier Leupold is absolutely critical, and that their Remington 742 is fine. But there is clearly something wrong with a guy with an AR-10(T) and a Bushnell Elite 4200.


Go figure....


And that's my critique of fashionable hunting.


Don't even get me started if they see a guy hunting with a .303 Enfield or other Milsurp. And you don't want to hear what happens if you are not wearning the mandatory 3 pieces of Mossy Oak camoflage.


-- John

 

[ozarkhillbilly]

While I am no expert in scopes, I do know camera glass and I can not think of any that are better then Zeiss and only a few that are qualified to be in the same room with Zeiss.

 

[flashhole]

I'll weigh in on this. I have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14 x 44mm. It's the best scope I own. I have Leuopold VX III (highly overrated for the money spent in my opinion), Nikon Monarch (great value), Burris Signature (great value). I have set them all side-by-side during morning and evening low light conditions at the same magnification and the Conquest beats them all. All are excellent scopes but anyone who would turn their nose up at a Conquest just doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

I have my Conquest mounted on my Rem 700 221 Fireball. The only thing I don't like is the parallax adjust on the side. It serves as more of a focus adjust and works superbly as long as you have time to adjust it. For quick shots on a walk about gun it may not be the best choice (one without a focus adjust would be a better choice for that) but for a varmint rig it hangs with the best of the best.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

BTW... your buddy sounds like some of the hunters around here:

If you don't have a Leupold on your rifle, they will look at you like you just kicked their dog and slept with their wife.

If you have a Nikon, they think you were too poor to buy the Leupold you obviously wanted and should have saved up.

If you buy a Bushnell, they think you are just stupid-- because all they know about is the Banner series. You are clearly too stupid to know just HOW bad you need a Leupold.

If you own a Kahles, you obviously spent good money that you would have been better off spending on a Leupold.

If you own a Schmitt and Bender, a Swarovski, or a Ziess, you just threw your money away because you could have had a Leupold for less in most cases-- and you are just trying to make an effort to "be odd."

If you have a Burris, your wife likely bought it for you and has no idea how crappy it is. If she DID know, she would have bought you a Leupold.

If you own a Tasco, Simmons, or other in that range, they will be very polite to you and not hurt your feelings. Obviously, you are saving up your money for a Leupold.

Lol, yes, absolutely. Described my hunting buddy to a 'T', and pretty much all the gun show guys. They know a LOT about guns, but basically nothing about scopes. Major disconnect there, for some reason. If it's not Leupold, it's crap, and it doesn't matter WHAT kind of Leupold. To them, a Leupold Rifleman is better than a Bushnell Elite 4200. There are only 2 kinds of scopes to them: Leupold (any) or "bullspit" scopes, which is anything else. There is no distinction between a $10 simmons and a $600 Sightron S3. Absurd. Same guys who think that if it's not a Pre-64 winchester or Colt or S&W, it sucks, but they pay way to much for their pre-64s and colts. Boy am I gonna laugh when all these old guys die off, from the John Wayne generation, and the artificial bubble bursts on their Winchesters' valuations - they'll be holding the bag.

P.S. I just bought today off of my buddy a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x50mm with side focus for $400 - I've been working on him for a couple of years, and it paid to be patient. Was $550 about 1 year ago. My first Zeiss and second most expensive scope ever purchased (I'm cheap) - I'll let you know. You generally hear about 90% positive on these, but you do hear SOME negative - not of the glass quality, but along the lines of durability and weather resistance failure in extreme hunting conditions, allegedly. I don't yet have the rifle it's going to go on. It will go on this one when acquired:

http://www.gunblast.com/Savage-12F.htm

Some scopes I have that I like for value: Bushnell Elite 3200, Bushnell Elite 4200, Sightron S2, Burris Fullfield II, Burris Signature Select, Nikon Prostaff, Simmons Master Series Aetec, Millett Buck Gold.

 

[JWarren]

PremiumSauces....

You just added another one to the list:


If you own a Sightron, it sounds so gimicky that it just HAS to be made for a pellet rifle. Quit screwing around and get yourself a Leupold.

If you own a Nightforce, its a fly-by-night company that we've never heard of. Its probabaly made of PVC will snap in two if you put it on anything larger than your Ruger 10/22. After all, its not a Leupold.



hehe...

I'm REALLY glad you said something about the Rifleman series. As my wife says.... its the "Look, We can beat ANY price on a Leupold at Wal-mart" Series.


-- John






BTW all....


Please don't think I am getting too hard on Leupold owners. They are fine optics made by a VERY stand-up company and many are well worth the money. I am having a little fun with people who think that anything OTHER than a Leupold is crap.


And this is from a guy who has a $1,000 LR-308 with a Simmons 3x9x50 that I found laying at the bottom of my closet on top. I'm such a miser that I haven't broken down and gotten the Ziess yet. But the Simmons will be back on the floor of my closet well before Deer Season comes again.

 

[CB900F]

10ring;

I've got a fair amount of glass. Over the decades, I've been through more.

My .338 Winchester magnum wears a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10X 44mm mil-dot. It is the best glass I've ever had, including the Leupolds. Which is not to say that Leupold doesn't make excellent scopes, they do, in spades. But, the Zeiss is better.

900F

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

If you own a Sightron, it sounds so gimicky that it just HAS to be made for a pellet rifle. Quit screwing around and get yourself a Leupold.

If you own a Nightforce, its a fly-by-night company that we've never heard of. Its probabaly made of PVC will snap in two if you put it on anything larger than your Ruger 10/22. After all, its not a Leupold.

Ha, ha - I can just hear my arrogant elitist buddy saying those exact words! Good stuff! He knows nothing except what he learns at the gun shows and the swap meet and the campfire at the deer lease. By limiting himself to this small world, the universe becomes a big circle jerk of ideas for them. Oh brother - I'm working on him.....

I think that my Sightron S2 4-14x42 with AO & IMDR is THE best value scope I've ever purchased, bar none, at $200 when I got it (Now they are $350 plus). By the way, I also like Leupolds and have owned 2 of them in the past (1 VX2 & 1 Rifleman), and own one now (VX-1) - great scopes. But they are a fair bit overpriced, so come in lower in the value department. I really LOVE the VX-1 I have - it's the 1-4x20mm, with a heavy reticle, stuck on a Rem 1187 sportsman's deer dedicated 12 ga rifled slug gun - great clarity and eye relief for this shoulder-fired cannon.

If you buy a Bushnell, they think you are just stupid-- because all they know about is the Banner series.

Actually all they know is the Sportsman series, because if they knew about the Banner seried, they'd know (a) it's a decent scope, and (b) it adds about $40 to the value of the rifle it's on, not $10 as they try to chisel you down on price.

 

[lvcat2004]

I have a Conquest 6.5-20x50mm on my CZ750 sniper. Best scope I've owned. Yeah it's U.S. made (out of German glass, I think?) and fore me, who is not a competition shooter, I didn't want to pay more than double to get Victory Diavari (or whatever it's called)...to me, that's like me buying Lance Armstrong's bicycle...sure it's nice but I can't use it to its potential, so why waste the money. As for me, conquest is as good as it needs to be for a reasonable amount of $$$, and I'm very happy with it.

 

[geojap]

They are held in very high regard for hunting scopes over on www.opticstalk.com

 

[geojap]

Since people are weighing in with other scopes, I've owned several cheaper Leupolds (VX-II, VX-III) and they are well-made with great customer service, but the glass isn't as crystal clear as some more expensive scopes.

I own a Sightron S2 Big Sky 1.25x5-20 and think it's a great scope for the money. It sits atop my Sig 556. The quality is as good as a Leupold VX-III, but it cost less than $250 shipped. It's made in Japan also.

I just got an IOR Valdada 2.5-10x42 to put atop my FN PBR XP. It is an incredible scope. Incredibly clear glass with a great reticle.

 

[Bendutro]

Go over to the Optics talk forums for more info.

Those guys helped me settle on a Nikon Monarch 5-20x44 for my rifle. I'm VERY happy with my purchase. Leupolds are fine, but they're not magic and they cost about 20-30% more than anything else in their class.

 

[Horsemany]

The only negative about the Conquest will be the plastic turret caps and weight. They are one of the clearest 1" tubes you can buy IMO. Great scopes.

Getting back to the Leupold thing. They are really not a great value but that doesn't mean they are not good scopes. They have much to offer over many other brands. They usually offer many more options, will swap out reticles, have maybe the best customer service of any optics company, are usually lighter and more compact than any other scope comparable, and are a great American company who hasn't outsourced production like many others. They will hardly ever be the top performer optically, but every other way you can compare scopes they will hold their own.

I own several of the big brands here, not just Leo's and they're all good. It seems to be a mark of how much you know about optics to badmout Leupolds. It is probably backlash from years of snobbish folks who only respect the gold ring.

 

[10X]

I bought a Conquest 3 x 9 x 50 mil dot a couple of years ago. Wonderful scope-razor sharp optics, crisp, precise, repeatable adjustments.

 

[Savage99]

10-Ring,

I can only give you my general comments on Leupold vrs Zeiss Conquest scopes. Since you mention the Mark 4 you must be after a tactical scope and while I have a Leupold 4.5-14 Tactical the only similar Conquest that I have is a 4.5-14 Conquest that does not have target knobs.

I go back a ways and when Leupold became a name I got 10 of them to replace the older Lyman's. They are well made, very attractive, backed by a superb company and have decent optics.

When the Conquests came to my attention I started buying them and now I have 7 Ziess. Since that time I have bought no Leupolds.

The Ziess scopes have somewhat greater definition, much better haze and glare control and superior reticules. On the take back side the Cnoquests are heavier and larger than similar magnification Leupold scopes and the regular Zeiss knobs are not that easy to see and turn the wrong way. Again I don't have a Ziess with target knobs.

If you look towards the light and in particular the setting sun with a Leupold and then a Ziess you will be startled at how much haze the Leupold has due to the light and how sharp the Ziess is. The Leupold reticules also fade to brown/pink and the Zeiss reticules stay very sharp and black.

Check Zeiss prices at cameraland. Thats were I get mine.

http://www.cameralandny.com/optics/zeiss.pl?page=zeissconquestrapidz521430