Zeiss Conquest vs Swarvoski

[4Freedom]

After visiting Wholesale Sports (previously Sportmans Warehouse) and sampling some various scopes, I have now reaccessed the type of scope I want to purchase for my DPMS LR-308 and I have decided that I no longer am interested in the Leupolds. I compared the Zeiss Conquest and Swarvoski's with the Leupold VX-3 and Mark 4 and I can pretty confidently say that the Zeiss and Swarvoski blow the Leupold VX-3 away in clarity and brightness.

Well, I have set my heart on getting a Zeiss Conquest or Swarvoski now and I like to know what people's opinions are of which is better between the two. I don't want to spend any more than $1000 for my optic and have found some Swarvoski close to that amount. I am thinking I liked the Swarvoski glass a bitter bettter compared to the Zeiss from looking at it, but it was hard to tell 100% which was better with the light conditions of the store. For the extra $300, I wasn't sure if the Swarvoski was worth it. The Zeiss scopes seem reasonbly priced and for what they offer do appear to be equally priced to the new Leupold VX-3 series.

Well, I am considering getting a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50mm with Target Turrets (like Mark 4's) and z-plex reticle. I have been offered the scope for total of $815. I will mostly be doing target benchrest shooting at my range from 100 yards to 600 yards. I previously was considering a 4.5-14x50mm, but I decided having the little extra magnification would not be a problem for shooting 100 yards and I would like the added benefit of being able to have extra power magnification for farther shots. Does anyone think this sounds like a good decision for my DPMS LR-308? I like to hear what people think about Swarvoskis and other EUro-optics in this price range.

I have also found out Zeiss Conquest has a transferrable warranty and that its repairs are serviced in USA, so it has all the same customer service and resale benefits of Leupold.

 

[lykoris]

if you are looking for service/warranty in the US then go with the Zeiss conquest, I love mine, same model as above.

recommend the No.4 ret over the z-600. At the end of the day, you click to adjust windage/elevation and the target will be in the middle of the crosshairs, remember you are shooting paper at known ranges. It is a much better way to go than using holdover points on the z ret or using the horizontal hash points to adjust for crosswinds.

I think you will learn a lot more on a Number 4 ret as it forces you to adjust elevation/windage with the turrets rather than depend upon the reticle.

for Swarovski it depends on the model, their optics are primarily geared towards hunting

the only negative I have about the zeiss conquest is the range of adjustment on windage/elevation.

 

[lipadj46]

I compared the Zeiss Conquest and Swarvoski's with the Leupold VX-3 and Mark 4 and I can pretty confidently say that the Zeiss and Swarvoski blow the Leupold VX-3 away in clarity and brightness.

I'm not a big Leupold fan but I doubt the Zeiss Conquest blows the VX3 away. They are very very close with the Conquest maybe having an edge. I hear people mention that they go to a store and can tell the difference between scopes. Last time I was at a gun shop I looked through a similar power Bushnell 3200 and Zeiss (Euro) and I could not see a difference in brightness or clarity. Now that was at the same approximate exit pupil but the fluorescent lights are no good as they are not natural light.

Anyhow to your original question if you have the money any Swarovski will be better than a Zeiss Conquest. The Conquest may be the better deal though depending on the price.

 

[4Freedom]

The reason I said the Conquest and Swarvoski blew the VX3 away, was because I noticed a fewe things. I was in Sportman's Warehouse that was very large building and had a clean view out to 75 yards and I was looking at a small picture of a bear on the wall. What I noticed was:
1. The picture of the bear and surrounding was much crisper with the Zeiss and Swarvoski.
2. There was more haziness or foginess with the Leupold in dark areas I was staring at. Maybe this is just beacuse I was indoor, dont know.
3. The light reflection against the wall was much brighter with Zeiss and Swarvoski. The ligh reflection against the wall with Leupold appeared more faded.

These were significant differences I coudl tell. Now on another note, I won't say I know how they will compare at dusk or on a bright sunny day outside. I am going buy the lighting in Sportsman, but I could see some significant differences. However, I am not an expert and new with scopes, so my assessment could be wrong. But from reading other peoples' reviews they seem to correlate with my own feelings of looking through the Zeiss vs LEupold.

 

[Medusa]

Swarovski is, as said, more geared towards hunters and they even don't have much of a mildot-like reticle, unlike Zeiss. Conquest is a fine optical piece, so if you like it, go for it. I've seen plenty of Zeiss'es (Diavaris though) on different sniper rifles and they've gotten the job done, as required.

 

[Maverick223]

Both are excellent scopes (as well as Kahles), I personally think that the Zeiss is the best for the money, but Swarovski and Kahles are good scopes as well. All are really catered to hunters, but there are a few Conquest models that offer target turrets/ballistic reticles.

 

[schlockinz]

I liked the conquest over the swarovski lines until the z6, which I couldn't afford.

At dusk, it looked to me like the zess gathered light better, and to me it also blew Leupold out of the water (in low light conditions, and overall clarity, outside, at dusk, at 100+ yds)

 

[Maverick223]

I liked the conquest over the swarovski lines until the z6

Yeah apples to apples I think the Zeiss is a bit better/cheaper, the Z6 equates to an upper end Diavari, so I have little doubt that it's better. I have heard that the Zeiss does skew the colors a bit more than the Swarovski though (though both look to have excellent color representation to me).

 

[schlockinz]

The z6 was beautiful and to me it looked better than the Zeiss Divari, but both scopes were more than I wanted to spend.

Thats what I was getting at.

Bottom line, get the scope that looks the best to YOUR eyes

 

[schlockinz]

double post

 

[4Freedom]

I think I have made my decision. I am going to purchase the Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50mm scope with a Rapid-Z 1000 reticle. After discussing with some people I think this is the best way to go. It seems the Rapid-Z 1000 reticles gives you lot of advantages, such as being able to quickly adjust for wind or holdover. I know some say it can hinder my learning skills, but I don't see how it can do so. I think I will be able to learn precision shooting and will have the benefit of learning how to use a ballistic type of reticle at the same time.

I have found one of these for under $900 and for that money I think I will grab it. And , from reading, if I buy from an authorized dealer, which I will be doing, it has a full lifetime transferrable warranty.

Now, my next question is mounts. I am wondering if the Larue LT-158 mount for $195.00 would be the best option. I like that it is so easy to mount on and off of the gun, with the switch. The guys at LaRue tell me most rings willl not work for properly mounting a scope on an AR-10, since the buttstock is at the same height as the barrel and I would not be able to get a proper cheek weld. They claim the rings need to be around 1.5 inches, which is the height of the rings on their mount. I know $195.00 is a lot to fork out for such a mount. I am not sure if anyone has any other ideas about this that would be less expensive. Some have suggested the tall Burris rings, but they are only 1" high as far as I can see. I have tor remind people I am putting this scope on a DPMS LR-308 flattop. So, do most people think its probably best to fork out the extra money for the LaRue?

 

[lykoris]

I have a one with a Z-1000 ret, it is a busy ret and will be distracting.

It will hinder your learning in the sense that you will be lazy.

I went down that path of using hold over/under points and the horizontal hashes to correct windage but eventually you will click to adjust elevation/windage and when you do all you need is a simple crosshairs like a No. 4 ret.

The Z-600 & Z-1000 are primarily hunting reticles when you don´t have time to range and adjust - you will be shooting paper at a range so you really don´t need it as

1. you have plenty of time

2. the distance you have placed your target is known

.......although it might look cool, I would really recommend the No.4 or something similar in simplicity

when you learn to click elevation/windage(as it is really done), everything on that scope reticle will be worthless/a real distraction except the dead centre where both axis meet.

this



or this



at the end of the day it is your choice, just sharing my experience and regret, my Z-1000 is set to go on a hunting rifle because for range work it is horrible.

just my view, hope you don´t think I am being too frank/candid or in any way offensive.

best of luck with whatever you decide.

 

[Maverick223]

I have found one of these for under $900 and for that money I think I will grab it.

Check with Scott (via E-mail or phone) at Liberty Optics before you jump. He might be able to save you a little, just ask for the THR.org discount, as seen here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=449569

 

[4Freedom]

Hey lykoris, I really respect your advice and in know way do I think you are being too frank , you are sharing your opinion and I am seriously suggesting everything you are mentioning. Yeah, I really think much of what you say has lot of truth perhaps. I am a new shooter, so its hard for me to say, I am just going by what many others have said and I am trying to soak it in. The reason I thought the Rapid Z would be nice is that if I go shooting in the woods at variable distances or if I need a good defense scope for zombie attack, I would not want to have to buy two scopes to do two differnt things.

Do you khnow if I can upgrade my reticle later to a Rapid Z? Someone told me that you can do the same calculations and with a Rapid Z as with a Z-Plex or #4. By the way, why do you suggest #4 over the Z-Plex? I think if I was to purchase any other reticle, it would be Z-plex, because everywhere I look #4 is out of stock, maybe discontinued?? Would the Z-plex suffice as well as #4 for the purpose of benchrest target shooting? Do you really think I would be less accurate shooter if I trained with Rapid Z vs Z-pLex? I mean I thought it would be nice to learn the ballistic tools on this scope. One person I talked to mentioned that when you use a duplex reticle, all you do is make an approximation of windage and elevation, whereas with the Rapid Z you can know exactly how much to position it for differnet conditions and distances. The guy told me using a Z-plex was like driving a car without the odometer and guessing your speed, whereas having a Rapid Z was having an odometer and knowing has fast you are going at each time.


To Maverick,
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't see Liberty Optics as an Authorized Reseller of Zeiss products on the Zeiss website. If you don't purchase from an Authorized Reseller then Zeiss will not give you the lifetime transferrable warranty and all repeairs will be sent to Europe rather than USA. So, on that note, I will ONLY buy from an AUTHORIZED RESELLER, because of Zeiss's policy.



BTW.. Does anyone know the advantages of buying the stainless steel over the black? I know they are a bit more spendy. Would I be better getting stainless for my LR-308? I am thinking the black would work fine, just not sure what advantages stainless steel offers, except aesthetics.

 

[blackops]

At dusk, it looked to me like the zess gathered light better, and to me it also blew Leupold out of the water (in low light conditions, and overall clarity, outside, at dusk, at 100+ yds

)

Interesting, which Leupold were you looking through? Longest kill ever recorded in the militarys history was through a Leupold.

 

[Maverick223]

but I don't see Liberty Optics as an Authorized Reseller of Zeiss products on the Zeiss website

1858 E-mailed Zeiss and found out that they (Liberty Optics) are an authorized retailer. You may want to check for yourself, but I trust his word.

 

[lykoris]

blackops,

if you bring any scope out in middle of the day in the middle east (iraq/afganistan) of course it will be bright, they get a lot of sun there in the middle of the day

4freedom,

go with your gut, if you want the z-1000 then go for it If you think you won´t be happy with a No. 4 then get the Z-1000

I do not believe you can upgrade from a No. 4 to a Z-1000 but not 100% sure.

I think it is impossible to explain to you as you have to experience it for yourself, effectively you will use the Z-1000 reticle to avoid adjusting the elevation/windage turrets. With all deference to your friend no reticle will be able to read the wind for you.

Get the z-1000 as you seem set on it and in 3 months we will talk again and maybe a lot of what I am saying will make more sense.

 

[4Freedom]

lykoris,
Well, after reading what you wrote I am no longer set on the Rapid Z-1000. You actually stopped me from going ahead with that purchase. Now, I am pondering and taking in everything you said and others. I think you make some good points and many others have also pointed me to the duplex reticle. I have to also mention that the only #4's I see have the hunting turrets and I would rather get the Target Turrets. So, the only Target Turret models I see outside the z-1000 are the Z-Plexes. Would you think Z-Plex would be as good of a reticle as the #4? Is the main problem with the Rapid Z that it is too busy and obstructs the targets or the fact that it makes it too easy and hinders my training and skills?

 

[lykoris]

I was going to go to bed as it is really late here in Europe but I will perhaps better explain what I mean with the Z-1000

 

[Maverick223]

I think what lykoris is saying is that it has a great deal of unnecessary information on it. You may want to go with a simpler reticle like No. 43 (mil-dot), which is less busy but still has hold overs. The RapidZ-Varmit would be alright but it is tuned to a lighter, faster projectile.

 

[lykoris]

100% definitely get target turrets.

this is only for illustration as temperature/altitude/BC/weight of bullet and a host of other wonderful variables go into it

EXAMPLE

say you have zeroed your rifle at I dunno, 200 yards

so on this reticle, the Z-1000



the dead centre where both the x & y axis meet is your aiming point at 200 yards, you put 10 shots and all is well with the world and you are on target shooting 2"/1moa

then you want to shoot at I dunno, say 600 yards so you then use one of the other horizontal lines to hold over the target...under 200 yards you will be shooting under the target.

Basically your point of aim is continuously shifting on the reticle as you are using the reticle to adjust for elevation....numbered lines from top to bottom.....and then using the hash marks from left to right to compensate for wind.

To contrast this with a No. 4 reticle (haven´t seen the plex ret on the zeiss site....my weary eyes its 2.30am here )

you have it zeroed at 200,

you want to shoot 400, you crank the top turret x clicks up in elevation and then x clicks on the windage turret on the side, your point of aim is always the same, dead centre of the No. 4 ret as you are adjusting by using the turrets.

You can´t do the hold over/under with a No. 4 as the markings are not there...so in some ways a Z-1000 offers the best of both worlds as it is more flexible.

I am literally falling asleep so I will take it up in the morning when i am awake

 

[Maverick223]

I really like the Rapid Z 600/800/Varmint better because they are zeroed at 100M, but they will not work for my rifle so I think I might go with the Z 1000 as well (and they don't offer the Varmint in the 4.5-14x44mm), BUT mine is not for target work.

 

[schlockinz]

Interesting, which Leupold were you looking through? Longest kill ever recorded in the militarys history was through a Leupold.

Vx7 was probably the highest dollar one that I held, the zeiss replaced a vxII which is waiting for me to get a rifle worthy of it.

It was a very nice scope, I just thought that I saw a slight difference that favored the Zeiss.

One thing that I did find interesting, my old VXII felt better and looked clearer than the newer ones, but that could have just been nostalgia, but it did definitely feel like a much higher scope, and its about 10yrs old now, maybe older.

 

[deerhunter61]

Yes the Conquest BLOWS away the leupold! COME ON! Anyone who is uncertain needs to take both out at dark and see which one you would rather have....

 

[4Freedom]

I am in the dilemma between choosing the Z-Plex or Z-1000 for target shooting. I am taking the informaiotn presented by lykoris's seriously, but I am wondering what other people think of using the Z-1000 for target shooting? Will using the Z-1000 really hinder my skills and prevent me from understanding how to dial in wind and elevation adjustment? Will the busy reticle really block me from quickly acquiring my target? Is there not advantages of having a reticle that can allow me to quickly holdover the target to a different line on the reticle for quick shooting of targets?

Lets say I wan to dial in the elevation and windage for practice at sometimes, like with a Z-plex and use the holdover function of a Z-1000 at other times, is it impossible to have best of both worlds with the Rapid Z-1000 reticle?

I am trying to weigh both right now. I was told to avoid Mil-Dots because the dots on this reticle are a bit large and will block your target. This is on the LEupold, I am not sure how large the dots are on the Zeiss. Would the mildot cause problems in precise target acquisition?