I just received a new Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40mm MC with the RZ-600 reticle. This is my first Zeiss scope and so I have some observations that members here may or may not find interesting. Some background, I have six Leupold Mark 4 scopes, four of which I use on a regular basis out to 600 yards in F-Class "tactical" matches. I also have an older Leupold Vari-X IIc and a new Swarovski Laser Guide range finder. I've owned and sold a Leupold Vari-X III, a Leupold EER VARI-X and a couple of Tasco scopes that I bought a long time ago. The most expensive scope I've looked through for more than just a few seconds is an IOR but I've never looked through, handled or even seen a Nightforce, S&B, PR or US Optics. I have shot a 458 SOCOM (five rounds) with a Super Sniper attached to it. That scope has the dubious distinction of being the worst scope I've ever looked through. As I mentioned in another thread, it wasn't mine so I didn't check if it was focused correctly or if the objective and ocular lenses were clean. Anyway, just some background on my optical experience or lack thereof.
Before I get started, most of my comments re the Zeiss will be comparing it to the Mark 4 line since that's what I know.
As for the Zeiss, the first thing you see is the box that the scope comes in. The box and packaging alone probably save Zeiss hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. No fancy cloth, no Butler Creek lens caps, a cheap looking user manual, no foam padding ... just a simple box with some paper in it.
The scope itself gives a very good overall first impression with a HUGE ocular bell ... looks cool if you ask me. The bell is WAY longer than the Mark 4 line and that just adds to the European look/feel of the scope. The paint finish is superb and personally I prefer it to the Mark 4. The Mark 4 paint looks/feels very thin and too smooth to stand up to much abuse ... this is pure conjecture on my part. However, I do like the look/feel (slightly rough) of the Zeiss paint better.
Now from some surprises. The caps over the windage/elevation adjustments are plastic. Not a huge deal but surprising nonetheless. I haven't decided if that's going to annoy me yet. The elevation, windage and power adjustments on the Conquest are all BACKWARDS compared to the Mark 4 line!! Mark 4s are absolutely intuitive in terms of elevation/windage adjustments. With the Mark 4s you screw the adjustments out (counterclockwise) to move the POI up/right, screw the adjustments in (clockwise) to move the POI down/left .. not so with the Zeiss and so it leaves me wondering if their reticle is upside down inside the scope!! This isn't a deal breaker for a hunting scope where the elevation/windage is set and left but if I were looking for a tactical scope, then I wouldn't buy a Zeiss (assuming their tactical scopes have the same backward arrangement).
The next thing I noticed is that the power adjustment ring stops before it gets to 3 ... not a big deal but a little annoying. I must say, I prefer the Zeiss power adjustment ring and markings compared to the Mark 4 line. The ring is easier to grab and turn and the markings make power selection more positive. The large ring adds size and it's largely responsible for the oversized appearance of the ocular bell but I like it. One other difference compared to the Mark 4 line is that the Zeiss power ring rotates in the opposite direction to increase the magnification i.e. left on the Zeiss, right on the Mark 4.
OK ... now for some visual comparisons. I picked a tree about 50 yards away, cleaned the windows in my office (can't open them) and tried to get some photos so as to make a fair comparison. I used a Nikon D80 with a Nikon 18-200mm VR lens. I used the camera in manual mode with bracketing (+0.3 step, F/5.6, 1/50 sec, ISO-100) and selected the middle exposure for each image posted. I took photos through the Leupold Vari-X IIc, one of my Mark 4s (3.5-10x40mm), the Zeiss and my Swarovski Laser Guide (virtually impossible). The Vari-X II is a 6-18x40mm with an AO objective so I figured I'll take photos on 6x or as close to it as possible to make a fair comparison. The Swarovski is an 8x and I couldn't even get close to a full field of view due the non-existent eye relief ... it's a monocular but just like binoculars the eye relief is very, very short.
Now for some photos .... first, the Leupold Vari-X IIc ... (larger file)
next the Mark 4 ... (larger file)
then the Zeiss .... (larger file)
and finally the Swarovski (as best I could).
After spending about an hour comparing all four optics and looking at these photos, one thing is glaringly obvious, Leupold, Zeiss and Swarovski scopes/optics have different ideas about color representation. I will say without a doubt (based on my limited experience and limited number of scopes) that Leupold Mark 4 and Zeiss Conquest scopes are equally capable of producing sharp images at any point in the field of view (not true of the Vari-X IIc) but the Mark 4s provide a more natural color palette. If you don't believe me, look at the color of the vegetation in the upper right hand corner of the images. You'll notice that the view through the Mark 4 is closer in color to the unmagnified vegetation compared to the Zeiss. It's up to the individual as to what they prefer as one is not necessarily better than the other, just different. Zeiss and Swarovski are very similar in terms of color representation which isn't a big surprise since they're both from the same neck of the woods.
This whole color issue reminds me of comparing Ray-Ban sunglasses to Serengeti to Maui Jim etc. Personal preference or what you're used to can make a big difference as to your perception of the glass quality but quality sunglasses all do what they're supposed to do ... they just do it in a different way.
Before I get started, most of my comments re the Zeiss will be comparing it to the Mark 4 line since that's what I know.
As for the Zeiss, the first thing you see is the box that the scope comes in. The box and packaging alone probably save Zeiss hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. No fancy cloth, no Butler Creek lens caps, a cheap looking user manual, no foam padding ... just a simple box with some paper in it.
The scope itself gives a very good overall first impression with a HUGE ocular bell ... looks cool if you ask me. The bell is WAY longer than the Mark 4 line and that just adds to the European look/feel of the scope. The paint finish is superb and personally I prefer it to the Mark 4. The Mark 4 paint looks/feels very thin and too smooth to stand up to much abuse ... this is pure conjecture on my part. However, I do like the look/feel (slightly rough) of the Zeiss paint better.
Now from some surprises. The caps over the windage/elevation adjustments are plastic. Not a huge deal but surprising nonetheless. I haven't decided if that's going to annoy me yet. The elevation, windage and power adjustments on the Conquest are all BACKWARDS compared to the Mark 4 line!! Mark 4s are absolutely intuitive in terms of elevation/windage adjustments. With the Mark 4s you screw the adjustments out (counterclockwise) to move the POI up/right, screw the adjustments in (clockwise) to move the POI down/left .. not so with the Zeiss and so it leaves me wondering if their reticle is upside down inside the scope!! This isn't a deal breaker for a hunting scope where the elevation/windage is set and left but if I were looking for a tactical scope, then I wouldn't buy a Zeiss (assuming their tactical scopes have the same backward arrangement).
The next thing I noticed is that the power adjustment ring stops before it gets to 3 ... not a big deal but a little annoying. I must say, I prefer the Zeiss power adjustment ring and markings compared to the Mark 4 line. The ring is easier to grab and turn and the markings make power selection more positive. The large ring adds size and it's largely responsible for the oversized appearance of the ocular bell but I like it. One other difference compared to the Mark 4 line is that the Zeiss power ring rotates in the opposite direction to increase the magnification i.e. left on the Zeiss, right on the Mark 4.
OK ... now for some visual comparisons. I picked a tree about 50 yards away, cleaned the windows in my office (can't open them) and tried to get some photos so as to make a fair comparison. I used a Nikon D80 with a Nikon 18-200mm VR lens. I used the camera in manual mode with bracketing (+0.3 step, F/5.6, 1/50 sec, ISO-100) and selected the middle exposure for each image posted. I took photos through the Leupold Vari-X IIc, one of my Mark 4s (3.5-10x40mm), the Zeiss and my Swarovski Laser Guide (virtually impossible). The Vari-X II is a 6-18x40mm with an AO objective so I figured I'll take photos on 6x or as close to it as possible to make a fair comparison. The Swarovski is an 8x and I couldn't even get close to a full field of view due the non-existent eye relief ... it's a monocular but just like binoculars the eye relief is very, very short.
Now for some photos .... first, the Leupold Vari-X IIc ... (larger file)
next the Mark 4 ... (larger file)
then the Zeiss .... (larger file)
and finally the Swarovski (as best I could).
After spending about an hour comparing all four optics and looking at these photos, one thing is glaringly obvious, Leupold, Zeiss and Swarovski scopes/optics have different ideas about color representation. I will say without a doubt (based on my limited experience and limited number of scopes) that Leupold Mark 4 and Zeiss Conquest scopes are equally capable of producing sharp images at any point in the field of view (not true of the Vari-X IIc) but the Mark 4s provide a more natural color palette. If you don't believe me, look at the color of the vegetation in the upper right hand corner of the images. You'll notice that the view through the Mark 4 is closer in color to the unmagnified vegetation compared to the Zeiss. It's up to the individual as to what they prefer as one is not necessarily better than the other, just different. Zeiss and Swarovski are very similar in terms of color representation which isn't a big surprise since they're both from the same neck of the woods.
This whole color issue reminds me of comparing Ray-Ban sunglasses to Serengeti to Maui Jim etc. Personal preference or what you're used to can make a big difference as to your perception of the glass quality but quality sunglasses all do what they're supposed to do ... they just do it in a different way.
Last edited:
