Elite 4200 vs Zeiss Conquest......whaaaaaaaaa?

kwjkwjkwj

kwjkwjkwj

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
168   0   1
So I have a nice new Xbolt care of a trade on the EE. I had a Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10 to put on it. Been very happy with that scope. But I wanted to try something new and I was hearing a lot of positive hubbub on the Zeiss Conquest. So I picked one up. Well it is very nice, eye relief is the best I've ever had. About 4 inches and very constant over the zoom range very forgiving eye box.......BUT. I did a couple of low light tests vs the 4200. It was better in every test. Both scopes on the same zoom, all low light. Some with dim light behind, some with dim light off to the front side. The image quality and brightness was better every time with the 4200. Both were properly focused for my eye. Oh and both have a 40mm objective.

So tell me I'm crazy but I'm kind of regretting my 'upgrade'. Not bad mouthing the Zeiss, the eye relief is great and the image quality wasn't bad....just dimmer than the 4200. Not what I expected.
 
Optical quality was never a problem with the 4200s. That was about the only thing they had going for them, eye relief sure wasn't.

Another test you should try is aiming into or near the sun like you might have to do for an morning or evening shot. Some scopes will flare so bad that you'd think the world was on fire and others don't. Or at least not so bad. I know what the bushnell will do.
 
Those 4200's are under rated.
I'm certain they pass the VXII and are up there with the VXIII's.

And every goll dang thread like this makes'im werth mawr $$.
 
Both the Elite 4200 and the Conquest have good lenses and coatings, and both work well in low light. Were both scopes new or used? I have seen scopes where the owners had cleaned the lenses with cleaning solutions that actually damaged the lens coatings, and the clarity and brightness suffered as a result. The Swarovski Z3 is brighter than the Conquest, as is the Conquest HD-5, but both cost quite a bit more.
 
So, the elite is 2.5-10x40 and the Zeiss is 3-9x40? Was the low light test done across the zoom range or at which magnification?
 
Both scopes are used but the 4200 is older and in more 'used' condition. I tested them at the same zoom levels at the same time, while also adjusting each zoom level slowly up and down while comparing to the other at its fixed point. At any zoom level close to the other scope (conquest fixed at 4 and 4200 zoomed up to 5) the conquest was dimmer. When i got to far in zoom the 4200 of course would dim (3 on the conquest and 7 on the 4200). The lenses on both scopes look great, I can't see any degradation anyway across their surface. I have an old set of binoculars that the coatings are wearing off and you can definitely see the loss of the coating when you look at the lenses on an angle in bright light. These lenses look perfect.
 
Last edited:
I've had 2.5-10 and 6-24 4200 scopes and would agree with what you are saying. On the 6-24, there was a bit of a "lottery" that some where much sharper than others. The 2nd one I got was superior to the first, so I sold my original scope. The 2.5-10 had the firefly scope and I used it on a muzzleloader for dusk and dawn hunts. The only other scope I had that was better in low light was a 6-24 burris signature with an extra ring on the objective that turned for DAYLIGHT/TWILIGHT use.
 
I've had the suspicion for a while that ultra high-end scopes are a bit like high-end audio... once you get past concrete, measurable features (zoom range, turrets, build quality, etc.) you start to get into hocus pocus and voodoo.

You can spend a lot of money for 1% more light transmission. Turn the zoom down a smidge and get more light for no money.
 
Bartledan said:
I've had the suspicion for a while that ultra high-end scopes are a bit like high-end audio... once you get past concrete, measurable features (zoom range, turrets, build quality, etc.) you start to get into hocus pocus and voodoo.

You can spend a lot of money for 1% more light transmission. Turn the zoom down a smidge and get more light for no money.
Click to expand...

As with all optics there are definitely diminishing returns at the top end. Unlike high end audio, which I agree seems to have some hocus pocus, high end optics give a measurable performance increase. Scopes are a little different, since the mechanical aspect is a higher % of the end cost than for binos and spotting scopes. If you sit down and evaluate the optics closely you will see resolution, contrast, chromatic aberration differences. As you said, at the top end you sure pay a lot of dough for a small increase (although it is more than a 1% difference. )
 
Last edited:
Yeah, come to think about it I have never doubted my Bushnell 4200 purchases. I have a 3x9, 4x16 and a 8x32. I think they have all been great value for money for what I intended them for. Its not Sightron SIII glass (thats the best I own for comparison) but again for the price I paid for each at the time the 4200s are pretty good.
 
coleman1495 said:
Hows the parallax from one scope to another? If you move your head from side to side how does the movement of the crosshairs compare?
Click to expand...

The 4200 is more critial on eye relief (still way better than other scopes i have) and the cross hairs 'move' more than the Zeiss. The Zeiss is definitely easier to retain a sight picture while holding the scopes in hand. Once mounted on rifles I don't have any issues achieving a quick sight picture. Parallax wise, the 4200 is as good as the Zeiss. Crosshairs (once focused) stay clear at appropriate ranges even in the varying light conditions.
 
I owen quiet a few Elites. They are a decent scope for the price. The last generation Elite and the old Elite 4200's were very good scopes for the money. The biggest downfall is the eye relief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom