So, what's with Zeiss scopes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

B!ngo

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
781
Last year I purchased my first long-gun. Having shot them when I was a kid, I finally decided to add one to my list of handguns. I'll mostly use if for mid-range paper punching.
When shopping for glass the first vendor I looked at was Zeiss. Why? Because they are world-renowned for making some of the worlds finest glass for the camera biz. Further, though not inexpensive, they seemed to be discounted to be in the mid-tier (e.g. Vortex and others) of the scope world. Expensive for me, but potentially worth the stretch.
Anyway, I don't hear hardly a thing about their products. Rarely see a forum entry or question or review, not a peep. What's with that? Are they terrible? Bad price/performance? I hear far more about higher-end scopes (or at least higher-priced ones) than I do Zeiss.
Something seems odd.
B
 
because zeiss has a military division called hensoldt which makes some very nice and extremely expensive scopes. they're generally regarded as on par (give or take) with S&B, USO, and Premier
 
I think that they have lost traction in the US market mostly because of their reticle selection. I like to call the US market the market of "designer reticles". Plain and simple, Zeiss hasn't kept up with the times in our market in that regard. Yes they have their RapidZ reticle, however compare it to one of their biggest rivals in the hunting market Swarovski. Comparing the amount of support given by Swarovski to that of Zeiss, you will find that the Zeiss offers laughable support at best.

Another thing to look at would be how a company is set up. Look at the divisions inside of each company and where their income comes from.
Zeiss- Medical and Science, Camera, Sport Optics, and hunting. The sport optics business of Zeiss doe not account for much of its over all income so less attention is paid to it. Matter of fact, they outsource the entire conquest line to Meopta (who is another company with their hands in more companies than you think)
Swarovski- Sport Optics and crystal. They are more in the sport optics business than Zeiss and concentrate in the market more heavily because of that fact.

Zeiss is still putting great products out there and is going to follow the money, for them the money isn't in sport optics.

What will be interesting to see is how/if their business model begins to shift from military contracts to sport optics. Much like the end of the gulf war, money will be drying up not only from the US, but different countries as well. Anyone following the world events knows that lots of countries are going broke. As they start to loose capital from the military market, will they shift more into the sport optics division or another division to make up for the loss?
 
Last edited:
i actually got a call from swaro today. the buyer sent in the registration papers for the laserguide i sold last month and swaro wanted to make sure it wasn't stolen. was definitely not expecting a call about it. good for them though
 
What an interesting comment about the designer reticle!

I am hooked on reticles with more than a cross hairs and a post. Recently got a Swarovski because it is great glass but also has a nice reticle that I can dial in with my rifle loads.

I was looking at Kahles which is also great glass, but reticles were very old world European. To some degree Schmidt and Bender have the same issue.

Never looked at Zeiss. But I have heard nothing but good reviews on them from everyone who had one.
 
Zeiss has the Conquest line which is a great "entry" level scope. I would rate the optical quality better than Leupold and close to Swarovski. The upper levels of Zeiss are basically equal to any other scopes out there but you will pay a lot more.

I have a lot of different brands of scopes, including some top euro names, and still think the best bang for your buck in a Conquest with a #4 reticle. Great resolution and take you way past shooting time if your not careful.
 
I have some Zeiss riflescopes now.

I started with Lyman in the 50's, then Leupold and a Hensoldt and Kahles.

I never wanted the cheap stuff and glad I didn't.

When Zeiss announced the Conquests I tried some. I prefer their reticule over the Leu. design.

I got most of the Conquests from Cameraland's demo list.
 
As i get older, i need a scope that's better in low light conditions. So, when i decided to upgrade the scope on my "go to gun", i started compareing scopes in low light levels and the Zeiss Conquest is the best scope i found, at least that's still affordable.

orig.jpg

I've got several Leupolds too, and they are GREAT scopes, but when it comes to lower light conditions i like the Conquest best.

DM
 
DM,

That's quite a picture!

Is that a double rifle? Tell more about it.

It's your "go to gun" ?

What and where do you hunt?
 
Savage99 said:
DM,

That's quite a picture!

Is that a double rifle? Tell more about it.

It's your "go to gun" ?

What and where do you hunt?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's my "go to gun" for more than 25 years now,

orig.jpg

I've hunted much of Alaska and several other states with it, takeing moose and bear, on down to deer, havolina, turkey and much small game with it...

It's been my greatest companion, sometimes makeing the difference between having meat for supper or not!

DM
 
This is a great note. Thanks very much.
I've worked extensively in Europe and for many Euro-centric companies, the U.S. is a looooong way away. That is, though they sell in the U.S., they don't really analyze and understand the U.S. market. Not that they are wrong, but it's likely a circular issue convincing them not to keep trying. Compared to some other Euro and Asian companies, Zeiss seems very distant and disengaged from our markets.
Re the reticules, yes, I agree. Though I don't have the money (nor am I worthy) of a Swarovski, they seem to have more progressive reticule design. Even the Nikon that I own (and Leupold's that I have examined) seem to cater to the less skilled and/or simply provide more useful information for anyone.
I still seem hooked on buying one some day. I just have real respect for their glass-making. And for me, though not an accomplished shooter, I have mid-age eyes and have always liked looking through fresh clear glass.
B
 
I just got two of the new VX-3 scopes. Difference between them and the older VX-III's is night and day. Far more eye relief and much better lens coatings.

I compared side by side against Swarovski Z-3. Same total power range, and set at the same power (max) and same size objective.

The LGS owner and I both agreed that the Leupold was just very slightly clearer than the Swarovski. Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself. When I walked in, I had every intention of buying the Swarovski.

If reticule is super important, the Leupold custom shop will change one out to a variety of their standard reticules. And, Leupold's warranty service is incredible. I had a 30 year old VX-III that I got used on a rifle. After about 20 years of use, it wouldn't hold zero. They gave me a brand new one to replace it N/C. They even paid return shipping.
 
Not that I care, but who said anything about Leupold? Yeah they make good scopes. The thread is about Zeiss.

I've seen nikon's and leupy's that look better inside than some swaros as well. But get them outside where they are used and I'd be willing to bet there is a difference.

Sorry for the rant but really.....

Oh Mike,
want to get even more bang for the buck than the Zeiss Conquest? Check out what Meopta has to offer. They make the Conqest for Zeiss (glass and all) as well as their own scopes. Zeiss has to pay Meopta to build their scopes for them so that adds to the cost of the scope.
 
Last edited:
DM,

I see it must be a drilling?

What are its gauges and the caliber? What make is it and the barrel lengths please.

Does it have irons too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top