Ziess or nikon?

broadhead67

broadhead67

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
72   0   0
Location
B.C.
Looking @ a Ziess conquest or a Nikon buckmaster my question is Am I better off buying the bottom end scope from a great com. or the higher end scope from a good com. I have never read anything bad about either company ,anyone have or had both to compare?
-going on a 308 Steyr -hunting only
 
I own both. A Nikon Buckmaster 3-9x40 and a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. You should compare the Zeiss to the Nikon Monarch as it is more fair. The Zeiss is hands down the winner in optical clarity. I like the adjustments on the Zeiss more as they feel more "solid". The Zeiss is certainly more scope but at twice the cost of a Buckmaster it's up to you if its worth it.

The one thing the Buckmaster has over the Zeiss is that the turret covers are made of plastic on the Zeiss and the buckmaster has very nice and soild metal ones. Seriously Zeiss, you're selling a $500 scope and you put plastic turret caps on, I have 40 dollar wal-mart scopes with metal caps. Nikon on the other hand has turret caps that other companies could stand to learn a thing or two from.

Oh and I dont like on the Zeiss how the soft rubber on the eyepiece has that inletted texture as it creats a poor seal for a lens cover and lets in water. Meaning when you flip open your cover and it has been raining hard there is water on the eyepiece. Perhaps I am nit picking. It is a great scope and I'm happy with it.
 
Zeiss, the glass in the Nikon, unless made in Japan is getting very bad. My eyes can't handle them, really.
 
cam1936 said:
I own both. A Nikon Buckmaster 3-9x40 and a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. You should compare the Zeiss to the Nikon Monarch as it is more fair. The Zeiss is hands down the winner in optical clarity. I like the adjustments on the Zeiss more as they feel more "solid". The Zeiss is certainly more scope but at twice the cost of a Buckmaster it's up to you if its worth it.

The one thing the Buckmaster has over the Zeiss is that the turret covers are made of plastic on the Zeiss and the buckmaster has very nice and soild metal ones. Seriously Zeiss, you're selling a $500 scope and you put plastic turret caps on, I have 40 dollar wal-mart scopes with metal caps. Nikon on the other hand has turret caps that other companies could stand to learn a thing or two from.

Oh and I dont like on the Zeiss how the soft rubber on the eyepiece has that inletted texture as it creats a poor seal for a lens cover and lets in water. Meaning when you flip open your cover and it has been raining hard there is water on the eyepiece. Perhaps I am nit picking. It is a great scope and I'm happy with it.
Click to expand...

Is $500 a lot of money for a scope that should sell for $750-$800??...wasn't long ago when 3200's where around that price..and a Conquest is not in the same league.

I would rather have a nice rubber eyepiece to to turn than leupold welded eyepiece, or get scoped with a rubber eyepiece, than the alternative.

Plastic caps...whats the diff..at least your hands.. when they are wet won't freeze to the caps..;)
 
cam1936 said:
I own both. A Nikon Buckmaster 3-9x40 and a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. You should compare the Zeiss to the Nikon Monarch as it is more fair. The Zeiss is hands down the winner in optical clarity. I like the adjustments on the Zeiss more as they feel more "solid". The Zeiss is certainly more scope but at twice the cost of a Buckmaster it's up to you if its worth it.

The one thing the Buckmaster has over the Zeiss is that the turret covers are made of plastic on the Zeiss and the buckmaster has very nice and soild metal ones. Seriously Zeiss, you're selling a $500 scope and you put plastic turret caps on, I have 40 dollar wal-mart scopes with metal caps. Nikon on the other hand has turret caps that other companies could stand to learn a thing or two from.

Oh and I dont like on the Zeiss how the soft rubber on the eyepiece has that inletted texture as it creats a poor seal for a lens cover and lets in water. Meaning when you flip open your cover and it has been raining hard there is water on the eyepiece. Perhaps I am nit picking. It is a great scope and I'm happy with it.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%...........and I'll go on a little rant here.

I'm not sure why any scope manufacturer figures there's a need for rubber anywhere on a scope. I've had problems with ALL of my scopes that include rubber on them. A Leica scope where I couldn't keep the power adjustment rubber and eyepiece rubber on, a Minox with the same issue, ditto for Swarovski. A Nikon and Simmons where the rubber eyepiece ring fell off. All these problems occurred in very cold temperatures only, but I happen to live in Canada.

I don't play in a tub of margarine before shooting/hunting, my hands are dry, leave the rubber off scopes. Next will be rubber coated bolt handles on rifles?

That's the reason I like Leupold. Did I mention I hate rubber on scopes? :D
 
broadhead67 said:
Looking @ a Ziess conquest or a Nikon buckmaster my question is Am I better off buying the bottom end scope from a great com. or the higher end scope from a good com. I have never read anything bad about either company ,anyone have or had both to compare?
-going on a 308 Steyr -hunting only
Click to expand...

Cadillac vs VW!
 
I'd agree, give us a fair shot at comparing apples to apples. Zeiss makes a great product and I don't think you can go wrong with it but I'd suggest you compare the equivalent Nikon Monarch or Monarch Gold scope at your local retailer. The Buckmaster is our mid level option and as such does give some compromises as compared to the Monarch series.

All the best in whatever choice you make!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom