zeiss conquest

R

regulate34

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
67   0   0
Location
BC
looking for some input on the conquest line. i have heard alot of good things about the scopes. i am looking at getting the 4.5x14x44. i looked threw it at the store and i also looked threw a bushnell elite 4200 and a leupold vx-3. i found the zeiss a bit clearer and better looking. minus the plastic adgustment caps. i am just a little nervoius about buying a low end line of a great company. plus i am not a scope expert and dont really know what to look for.
any tips or info would be great.
 
You won't find many users not impressed with the Conquest.

The pricing is very good, , it is impossible to beat a 3-9 Conquest for quality and price.

For a hunting scope probably the best bang for the buck in optics right now.

You could buy a top of the line Tasco if you are worried about it being a bottom end scope. ;)
 
regulate34 said:
looking for some input on the conquest line. i have heard alot of good things about the scopes. i am looking at getting the 4.5x14x44. i looked threw it at the store and i also looked threw a bushnell elite 4200 and a leupold vx-3. i found the zeiss a bit clearer and better looking. minus the plastic adgustment caps. i am just a little nervoius about buying a low end line of a great company. plus i am not a scope expert and dont really know what to look for.
any tips or info would be great.
Click to expand...

I have the Zeiss and a Bushnell 3200.

When compareed directly the image in the 3200 is better (subjectively) it looks clearer, more contrasts and just better.

The Zeiss has a lot of fringing and doesnt look as contrasty. The mechanical construction is possibly better on the zeiss. Apparently you can adjust the conquest 10 clicks left, down right and up and your zero will not have moved. I havent tried that though and dont know if thats the same with other quality scopes

Take in mind that the conquest is not a "real" zeiss, its cheaped down for the north american market.

I would buy a Bushnell 3200 over a Zeiss conquest but also wouldnt sell my conquest. Its not a bad scope.


Best thing is go to a store and compare them side by side and buy what you like better. Both have life time warranties.

Teac

Edit:

friend of mine has a 3 series leupold and really likes it. When it comes down to it you cant go wrong weither either Zeiss conquest, bushnell 3200/4200 or Leupold, none is really "better" than the other. Personal preference decides.
 
Last edited:
Teac said:
I have the Zeiss and a Bushnell 3200.

When compareed directly the image in the 3200 is better (subjectively) it looks clearer, more contrasts and just better.

The Zeiss has a lot of fringing and doesnt look as contrasty. The mechanical construction is possibly better on the zeiss. Apparently you can adjust the conquest 10 clicks left, down right and up and your zero will not have moved. I havent tried that though and dont know if thats the same with other quality scopes

Take in mind that the conquest is not a "real" zeiss, its cheaped down for the north american market.

I would buy a Bushnell 3200 over a Zeiss conquest but also wouldnt sell my conquest. Its not a bad scope.


Best thing is go to a store and compare them side by side and buy what you like better. Both have life time warranties.

Teac
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
ziess conquest line

I have 6.5 x 20 x 50 ziess , 6500 bushnell 4 x 30 x 50 and a 8 x 32 x 56 nightforce plus some leupold and 3200 bushells. In my opinion the ziess has the best glass of all of them including my nightforce which costs double the money. I have target turrets on my ziess and have never had a problem with repeatability. That been said my buddy has a vortex and it looks good also looked through a sightron at the range a couple weekends ago also seems pretty decent. thanks
 
Teac said:
I have the Zeiss and a Bushnell 3200.

When compareed directly the image in the 3200 is better (subjectively) it looks clearer, more contrasts and just better.

The Zeiss has a lot of fringing and doesnt look as contrasty. The mechanical construction is possibly better on the zeiss. Apparently you can adjust the conquest 10 clicks left, down right and up and your zero will not have moved. I havent tried that though and dont know if thats the same with other quality scopes

Take in mind that the conquest is not a "real" zeiss, its cheaped down for the north american market.

I would buy a Bushnell 3200 over a Zeiss conquest but also wouldnt sell my conquest. Its not a bad scope.


Best thing is go to a store and compare them side by side and buy what you like better. Both have life time warranties.

Teac

Edit:

friend of mine has a 3 series leupold and really likes it. When it comes down to it you cant go wrong weither either Zeiss conquest, bushnell 3200/4200 or Leupold, none is really "better" than the other. Personal preference decides.
Click to expand...

You were looking through the Zeiss with the scope cover on weren't you??? ;)
 
I have a few Conquests 3x9,3.5x10 I think they are the best out there for the price.In low light or bad weather they are hard to beat.
 
I have a few swarows a s&b kahles and 2 3x9 conqests the conqests are as good as the others maybe better than some. If I needed to get a new scope tommorow it would likely be a conqest.
 
Teac said:
I have the Zeiss and a Bushnell 3200.

When compareed directly the image in the 3200 is better (subjectively) it looks clearer, more contrasts and just better.

The Zeiss has a lot of fringing and doesnt look as contrasty. The mechanical construction is possibly better on the zeiss. Apparently you can adjust the conquest 10 clicks left, down right and up and your zero will not have moved. I havent tried that though and dont know if thats the same with other quality scopes

Take in mind that the conquest is not a "real" zeiss, its cheaped down for the north american market.

I would buy a Bushnell 3200 over a Zeiss conquest but also wouldnt sell my conquest. Its not a bad scope.


Best thing is go to a store and compare them side by side and buy what you like better. Both have life time warranties.

Teac

Edit:

friend of mine has a 3 series leupold and really likes it. When it comes down to it you cant go wrong weither either Zeiss conquest, bushnell 3200/4200 or Leupold, none is really "better" than the other. Personal preference decides.
Click to expand...



:confused: :onCrack:

-Jason
 
The Zeiss Conquest:

It's a very good scope for the money. The guy who said his wasn't as good as his 3200. Well either yours was a knock of Ziess Conquerer or some other cunning trickery, or yours was F@#$ed. My Conquest scopes glass wise compete with scopes costing a lot more. Also they track with the best.

Pros:
Reticle choices are excellent, tracking is excellent, glass is excellent. Constant fixed eye relief through the entire magnification range. Good features such as side focus etc.

Cons:
Price. It's a bit high in my opinion. 1" tube. This gives it limited moa adjustment. Which for long range shooting could be an issue. I use the Rapid Z reticles to compensate for this.

In terms of the best bang for the buck in a 3-9x scope. The Burris Fullfield II.
 
thanks for all the input guys. i do agree the zeiss is nicer then the 3200.
i have decided to go with a 3.5x10x50 conquest. they are on sale for 779.95. i think is not a bad price. hell the winchester m70 sporter is the same. i just have to find the proper rins/mounts. was looking at the tally 2 peice. but unsure whats better but construction 1 or two peice. i would imagine 1 but i may be wrong.
 
are the holes in the paper that much rounder and closer to the mark with a Zeiss than with a 3200? at the end of the day, isn't it the guy with the hits closest to the X-ring that wins and not the guy who had the most magical picture of the target? if we're talking cameras where the image IS the result, i can see Zeiss being worthwhile.

wow. $800 for a scope is "not bad".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom