What do you guys think about this Ziess Scope?

[Nature Boy]

4-12x50mm, $303



https://www.amazon.com/Zeiss-4-12x5...91236&sr=8-4&keywords=ziess+scopes+for+rifles

 

[MIL-DOT]

Zeiss makes quality stuff, no argument, but 50mm objectives just plain suck.
They were all the rage for a while there, and yeah, they look real cool, but the negatives outweigh any perceived positives. They're bulky,heavy, require high rings, which can mess with your cheek weld.
And, while I can't state this as a fact in this case, I'm thinking Zeiss is one of those companies where a good bit of what you're paying for is the name. In the $300 range, I'm thinking there might be other options that'll give you more scope for your money.
Also, there's no parallax adjustment on this unit. I'm assuming if you're looking at 12x scopes with jumbo objectives, you're probably looking at shooting some distance. if so, something with parallax adjustment will be more ideal.
That's my .02, worth what you paid for it !

BTW, this was from one of the reviews in that Amazon link: "Nice scope if I had to do it over again though I would've bought a Leopold".
There have been several recent threads on scopes, with lots of solid recommendations, as well as where to find the current deals. Try and hunt them down.

 

[jmr40]

The Zeiss Terra scope is made for them somewhere in Asia and they put Zeiss badges on it. I'm not exactly sure where. They are a decent scope, but not nearly the same quality as the European made versions.

$303 is a good price for what it is. But you couldn't give me a 50mm objective and for $300 or less you can get a much better 3-9X40 scope.

Meopta used to make the 3-9X40 Conquest for Zeiss. That was a very good scope, far better than the Terra. Zeiss has discontinued it, but it is still being made under the Cabela's Euro Instinct name. Last time I looked in Cabelas it was about $315. This was a $550 scope when sold under the Zeiss label. This is the best deal going in optics right now.

A VX-2 will run $300-$350 depending on reticle and is also a better option

 

[Nature Boy]

Thanks for the feedback fellas.

My understanding is this particular scope is made in Japan

 

[MCMXI]

Meopta used to make the 3-9X40 Conquest for Zeiss. That was a very good scope, far better than the Terra. Zeiss has discontinued it, but it is still being made under the Cabela's Euro Instinct name. Last time I looked in Cabelas it was about $315. This was a $550 scope when sold under the Zeiss label. This is the best deal going in optics right now.

That's very interesting. I have four of the Zeiss Conquest scopes, all with RZ reticles and they're by far my favorite hunting scopes.

 

[lobo9er]

I am still pretty green compared to many here. That said I too suggest skipping the 50mm objective. If you read the math on light transmission and what our eyes can actually use I think you would come to the same conclusion. Its worth the time reading it, I only have a rudimentary understanding but enough to go for better cheek weld than large objective.

 

[Haxby]

Bigger objective is way better when it gets dark.
Run the the numbers at scopecalc.com and test scopes for yourself.

 

[Panzerschwein]

It's a Zeiss.

How could it NOT be good? Plus it's cheap as all get out. Buy it.

 

[Gtscotty]

I don't have any first hand experience with the cheaper Terras. I had a Conquest 3-9x40mm that looked great, but ultimately lost zero. When I sent it in for warranty repair they wound up sending me a Conquest HD5 2-10x42 as a replacement (can't complain). I liked the glass on the original Conquest, and the HD5 looks great, but I don't think I'd be willing to pay the extra money for the HD5 over my Leupold VX-3. The other thing to keep in mind is that Zeiss scopes tend to be pretty chunky, so if you're trying to keep the weight down on a mountain rifle or something like that they wouldn't be my first choice.

 

[Nature Boy]

This will be used for hunting (.30-06) and my interest in the 50mm objective is exactly what others have said: better low light performance. The older me and my eyes get the more that seems to matter.

I have a 43mm Nikon on the rifle now, it's been returned once already for warranty repair and don't trust it.

I saw that ziess for $300 and figured how could you go wrong. Seemed like a hellava deal.

 

[gillmeister692]

Spelling = "Leupold", not "leo-pold". Also, pronounced "LOO-pold", as in "LOOP-hole".

 

[cdb1]

Bigger objective is way better when it gets dark.
Run the the numbers at scopecalc.com and test scopes for yourself.

Glass quality is more important than objective size. Going from a 40mm to 50mm objective in the same scope gains you a little, maybe a minute or two. I'll stick with the smaller objective, YMMV.

 

[cdb1]

I work the gun counter at Cabela's and indeed the Euro scope has Meopta stamped on it. I've compared my Conquest to a Euro and they look the same.

My favorite scope is my Meopta MeoPro 3.5-10x44, purchased from CameraLand before I started working at Cabela's. Currently they are $349.99 including tax and shipping. Add $50.00 and you can get one with a German #4 reticle, which is what I have. The German #4 is one of the best low light and fast target acquisition reticles out there.

People often buy great glass in a scope but it becomes useless in low light because the reticle is so thin they can't see it.

As an aside any decent scope made today will get you past legal hunting hours. I hunt quite a bit at night though and that is where my Meopta and Conquest shine - for my eyes.

The Terra is a good scope, better than many people would have you believe. It is not made by Zeiss though as others have stated and I don't believe it's as good as the old Conquest.

If you look through a Terra and a MeoPro in good light, I believe they will be similar. In low light I believe the MeoPro is distinctly superior.

 

[Haxby]

40mm to 50mm objective in the same scope gains you a little, maybe a minute or two

I've done comparisons myself and seen 20 minutes difference.

 

[Gtscotty]

Spelling = "Leupold", not "leo-pold". Also, pronounced "LOO-pold", as in "LOOP-hole".

Yes, yes, I know, my phone autocorrects from "Leupold" to the name "Leopold". Fixed, for the sake of future generations.

Btw, for some reason Eurooptic is still able to get the original MC Conquest 3-9x40. I could see well past legal shooting light with the one I had (didn't have a need for a 50mm scope). For $349, it might be another good option.

http://www.eurooptic.com/zeiss-conquest-3-9x40-zplex-reticle-hunting-turrets-matte-black-5214609920.aspx

 

[Nature Boy]

I have a Leopold Mk4 L/RT 4.5-14x50mm and I notice the improved performance in low light over my other scopes with smaller objectives (and admittedly smaller price tags). Again, that was my reasoning for the 50mm and the Zeiss looked like good value for the price.

I've never owned a Ziess scope but I do have 2 of their 35mm camera lenses. They are top notch.

Maybe I'll get to a store that has one and look through it before pulling the trigger.

 

[cdb1]

I've done comparisons myself and seen 20 minutes difference.

I find that very hard to believe if you are comparing the same scope with the only difference being the objective size.

 

[MCMXI]

Bigger objective is way better when it gets dark.
Run the the numbers at scopecalc.com and test scopes for yourself.

That's over simplifying a complex issue. There are many factors that affect how bright the view is in a scope. I have three of the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40mm scopes and one of the 3.5-10x44mm scopes. In practical terms they will be equally bright when set on maximum magnification based on the exit pupil diameter being equal to the objective diameter/magnification. To me a 50mm objective simply isn't worth the cost, size, weight or trouble (higher rings typically). If I need to brighten the image in my Zeiss scopes I can dial the magnification down to 6X or less and flood my eye with excess light that exceeds any 50mm objective scope on max magnification. The problem is that people don't practice shooting with lower magnification. They get used to shooting groups on max magnification and don't feel comfortable dialing the scope down to 6X or less. I subscribe to the "aim small to miss small" school of thought but you're not shooting groups when hunting. The recent trend of 30mm tube hunting scopes is equally moronic with optics manufactures making what their customers think they need rather than what they actually need. So much for educating the customer.

 

[rbernie]

I don't have any first hand experience with the cheaper Terras.

I do.

I sold mine and spend an equivalent amount of money on a (better) Leupold.

 

[Nature Boy]

I just left my local Gander and had a chance to look through the Zeiss model in question and to my calibrated eye it's noticeably clearer than the Nikon M308 (~$450) it would be replacing and similar enough to the lower end Leupolds that I could decern a difference.

I really believe at this point it's a coin flip. As far as height to accommodate the larger objective, the med Burris signature Z rings that are on the rifle will work based on my calculations. I already shoot with a pad and get a good cheek weld.

The question is: is $300 for that scope a good value or not? I'm convinced it's an upgrade from what I have.

This is the rifle as it is with the Nikon

 

[lobo9er]

Sweet nice gun. When you mount and shoot it let us know. I am sure its quality.

 

[Bart B.]

From that scope's instructions:

All Zeiss RZ Reticles rifle scopes are factory set to be parallax free at 300 yards. This is to help compensate for the effects of pgarallax at longer distances.

That's good for 100 yards to well over 1000.

 

[cdb1]

Nature Boy, everyone's eyes are different and certain people see better out of certain brands of scopes than they do others. Nikon makes good scopes but I don't see particularly well out of them. I've looked through many Monarchs and Terra's and see better through the Terra.

Buy the Terra if you like it.

 

[MIL-DOT]

.....The question is: is $300 for that scope a good value or not? I'm convinced it's an upgrade from what I have.

As has been stated already, when looking at "budget" optics, you will typically get "more" scope for the money, by going with a slightly lower power and smaller objective, like 3-9x40.
The criteria shouldn't just be "better than what you got", the point (presumably) of asking a forum full of knowledgeable people for their advice, is to get the very best you can get, in a given price range.
But, you seem to be chomping at the bit to get this Zeiss, and as also has been stated, Zeiss isn't junk, so you probably can't go wrong, it's just that you can probably do discernably better. But, I'm getting the impression that isn't what you want to hear, so go for it.

 

[Nature Boy]

I think you do have the wrong impression Mil Dot. I was asking for opinions on this particular scope, not "what scope should I buy for $300"

I appreciate everyone's opinions and experience so I hope no one is too disappointed if I end up actually getting the Ziess.....especially me