Which Zeiss would you go with

R

rickyb

New member
I am looking at the 2.5x8x32 or the 3x9x40. Would the 32mm still pick up at early light and dusky dark. This will be a predator scope. Thanks Rick
 
Either would be great. I have 2 Zeiss Conquest 3x-9x 40mm. I don't own a 2.5x -8x, but the clarity and resolution of the glass is great! The size of the objective has nothing to do with the light transmission. Quality of glass and coatings do.

I also own 3 Leupold's and I think the Zeiss glass is better.

Leupold does not make a VX-III in 2x-7x. I have a VX-II in 2x-7x and there is no comparison.
 
I'd go with the 3x9x40.

These kind of post always make me laugh. Usually the question is should I get the Remington or the Winchester, and some posters will automatically rattle off get the Savage or Tikka or whatever. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


Now someone ask a question about a Zeiss scope and already you have the Leupold and the Burris response. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
Coyotejunki, exactly. A guy asks for info from someone that has owned a scope that he is asking about, and gets responses from people that have not even looked through one. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused1.gif
 
WOW !!!! If i remember correctly rickyb was asking about "burris" in one of his post's.

"Tell me a little about the posi-lock system. What does it do why would you need it". {rickyb}

So I'm just going to take a wild guess and say he has not looked at burris
i was only suggesting burris because he could spend the $400.00 or so dollar's he would save, on reloading supplies or ammo, e caller

and yes i have looked through and shot rifles with zeiss scopes on them and i do not think your gaining that much over burris or leupold VX III to justify paying twice as much.

but it's his money and this is just my humble opinion /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif


orson
living the dream on unemployment /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
Quote:
Either would be great. I have 2 Zeiss Conquest 3x-9x 40mm. I don't own a 2.5x -8x, but the clarity and resolution of the glass is great! The size of the objective has nothing to do with the light transmission. Quality of glass and coatings do.

I also own 3 Leupold's and I think the Zeiss glass is better.

Leupold does not make a VX-III in 2x-7x. I have a VX-II in 2x-7x and there is no comparison.



just want to correct something, the size of the objective has EVERYTHING to do with light transmission, way more so than how good the glass is, Its all out exit pupil the eye has trouble gathering more light than a 6 on the exit pupil value, for instance I have a pair of nikon monarch 8.5x56 binocs, they are a lower end unit, I also have some 10x42 geovids, even though the glass is much better in the geovids the nikons gather more light because of their huge objective lenses, the nikons have an exit pupil of 6.58 the geovids have an exit pupil of 4.2, I don't care how good the glass is the geovids just will not gather the light in low light conditions, that the nikons can

Rifle scopes are the exact same way, this can be somewhat negated by simply turning the power down on the 32mm obj unit, personally I would buy the 3x9x40 zeiss, it will likely be cheaper, it WILL be brighter if you are using the upper power ranges. The zeiss conquest is the best scope clarity wise for the money, if you want better you had best plan on spending way way more money,
 
Last edited:
If you can find one of the West German 3X9X40's then that would be a great scope to buy. I have had one for 20 years, and it is truly a dandy. It has a 1 inch tube, and is fairly lightweight. The only scope I like better than it is the Swarovski A-Line I have in a 3X10.

I do not want to get caught up in the quagmire of arguing about Zeiss versus Leupold versus Burris versus Swarovski............... All I can say is this. Once you hunt with the better optics, you will not go back. It is easy to have an opinion on a product that you have not used. And by this I do not mean just looking through the glass at a Cabela's store. I am talking about several years of hunting usage in bad conditions. Tom.
 
There is absolutely no comparison between a Burris FFII and a Zeiss Conquest. It was even my mistake to put them in the same sentence. If your eyes cant tell the difference looking thru them, the look at the outside of them and how they are made. I will take the old style power ring over a complete eyepiece movement to adjust powder. I have had 3 scopes go back to burris over those junk eyepieces, never again. I also wouldnt give you a squirt of cold urine for the ballistic plex reticle, but thats a whole other story.
 
Quote:
Once you hunt with the better optics, you will not go back. It is easy to have an opinion on a product that you have not used. And by this I do not mean just looking through the glass at a Cabela's store. I am talking about several years of hunting usage in bad conditions. Tom.




Exactly my opinion as well.

Randy
 
Quote:
Quote:
Once you hunt with the better optics, you will not go back. It is easy to have an opinion on a product that you have not used. And by this I do not mean just looking through the glass at a Cabela's store. I am talking about several years of hunting usage in bad conditions. Tom.




Exactly my opinion as well.

Randy




/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
rickyb,

You did not say yet how important the slightly extra size and weight of the larger Conquest will be?

I have two of each of those scopes and I got the 2.5-8's later for woods rifles. For a varminter I would get the 3-9 Conquest.

I have had scopes since the early 50's starting with Lymans and then ten Leupolds. When the Conquest came out I got some and I have not bought another Leupold since seeing the superior optics of the Conquests.

I have seven Zeiss now.
 
But lets look at the prices of those scopes that cost twice as much,

A 2.5x8 Conquest is 399.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=525506

The 3x9 Conquest is 499.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=301769

A Burris FFII in 4x16 will run a guy 349..... or you can spend 30 bucks extra and get one with the junk spotting scope for 379. (which is about 4 times what that little spotter its worth)
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=697896
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=511719

Not twice as much and there are other places out there that have better prices in the Zeiss. I would spend the extra 100 for the bigger objective. You wont need a 14x to kill coyotes, if you do...... ya might need more practice.
 
Quote:
But lets look at the prices of those scopes that cost twice as much,

A 2.5x8 Conquest is 399.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=525506

The 3x9 Conquest is 499.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=301769

A Burris FFII in 4x16 will run a guy 349..... or you can spend 30 bucks extra and get one with the junk spotting scope for 379. (which is about 4 times what that little spotter its worth)
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=697896
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=511719

Not twice as much and there are other places out there that have better prices in the Zeiss. I would spend the extra 100 for the bigger objective. You wont need a 14x to kill coyotes, if you do...... ya might need more practice.



if you want a zeiss check out camerland new york, I got my 3x9 conquest from them for $379 it was a demo, but looked new, new ones are $399 I think, better yet if you want any optic I highly recommend cameraland. you will not find better prices and the service is great too.

the only caveat with the zeiss is, IMO the eyerelief is too much and the rifle I have it on really needs extension rings to move the scope even further forward, the eye box is also a bit more critical than some other scopes. however most people love long eyerelief
 
Open mouth insert foot /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif it's quite apparent that i have not priced scopes in some time, the last scope i purchased new was a burris 2-8 compact in the late 90's.

I should also add that my better half gave me the 4-14x50 burris as a gift.


I bow to the masters of the optic's on this forum /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowingsmilie.gif


lesson learned research then post



orson
living the dream on unemployment /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
In dim light the 40mm objective would be better. For example, with both scopes on 8X, the 32mm will give you 4mm out the ocular and the 40mm will give you 5mm. That's a 25% increase in brightness.
 
I'd go with the 3-9x40. It'll help a bit when sighting in at 100 yards believe it or not and you won't lose too much FOV compared to the 2.5...only about 5 ft.
 
Back
Top