Zeiss Conquest rifle scopes
- Thread starter quaticman
- Start date
Yes they are good. But they aren't equal to a $2K Swarovski. Vortex scopes as a brand make low end scopes and some better end scopes but again don't compare to a $2K Swarovski. You can spend a few grand on a NF scope too...................There is nothing wrong with a Zeiss Conquest. I would rather have a Zeiss than a Vortex or a Sightron. Guys at the local gun shop have not given you good advice......at least they should have given you information on scopes of comparable price. I have a Zeiss Conquest with a RZ reticle..................I prefer it over my Leupold VX3's.
Last edited:
If you have a Zeiss Monarch, there is something very wrong with it.
But on a serious note, the Conquests are good quality scopes, and the HD-5 are even better than the original Conquest. I much prefer any Conquest to the VX3.
If you have a Zeiss Monarch, there is something very wrong with it.
But on a serious note, the Conquests are good quality scopes, and the HD-5 are even better than the original Conquest. I much prefer any Conquest to the VX3.
Yeah.........typo on my part lol. I'll change it
I have a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 and will never buy another. It has several small issues that bother me but the biggest is the plastic turret caps. Personally I think a Leupold in the same price range is a far better scope.
The regular Conquest is a small step up from the VX-3, the HD-5 is another step up from the regular Conquest.
I have seen enough Conquest's on other peoples rifles to have a fair idea of them. (I shot each one many times) . 1) I love the glass clarity on them. They just WORK for my eyes. Other peoples mileage may vary. 2) The eye relief was impressive for the gun. I certainly had lots of "wiggle room" , in that I felt completely insulated from "Scope-eye". 3) The street price my friends paid was COMPLETELY reasonable. There have been NO issues with all 4 scopes. All of them on "magnum" rifles for at least 200+ rounds. (2x 338winmag, .300wby mag, .300RUM) with no "reticle issues" or any other issues. I really think you won't be handicapped with one of these on your gun.............I think you may have an edge up on your buddies.
Have a 3-9x40 conquest, it was my go to scope, now switched to my 222, awesome scope, won't ever get rid of it. On my main hunting rifle now have a conquest HD5 2-10, a lot wider field of view, awesome scope, better low light performance. Also have a Victory Diavari T 4-16 FL, amazing scope, but that's where you get into the big bucks. In my opinion can't go wrong, just work for me.
I have a number of Zeiss scopes/binos. I also have Leupy VX3's and VXR's. I also have one Hensoldt. The Zeiss is clearer, brighter glass to my eyes than the Leupy's. Zeiss makes a very quality product. If you want one that is comparible to $2K Swarovski's, then Zeiss makes those too; they just are in the Conquest line.
duncansuds
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Weyburn, SK
I think the Ziess offers excellent glass, and they are a decent hunting optics, and if I was not going to be dialing turrets other then to change my load and checking zero, and looking for an acceptably priced optic, it would be a Ziess, but, that not the shooting I do. I find the Ziess to be lacking on the exact tracking portion of dealing turrets, I have had two of them, both giving me in between 5-10% difference in what I was dialling for and achieving, not to mention the internal travel was something to be desired. They did however both hold zero flawlessly, and thus why I belive they do belong on a dedicated hunting rifle that you plan on either leaving alone, or using holdovers for range compensation. All this being said, I do still think they offer an excellent product overall and cannot argue that their glass is top notch of their price range, but from my experience, not as amazing as a Nightforce or a Schmidt and Bender, but cudos to the salesman.
I just went through the process of looking for a new scope for my main hunting rifle. I have good mid range scopes on all my guns so far, elite 4200's and nikon monarchs, but wanted something really nice for just one gun. I looked through a lot of conquests in store and they all look like very nice glass. I can't argue with anything that's been posted. Most of these threads that come up are pretty unanimous in the fact that conquests have great glass quality for the money. And it appears the HD5 are a bit better, but also a bit pricier. For me I decided to get a swarovski Z3. I know it's not top of the line swarovski but I find it just as good as the HD5, and the biggest factor for me was the weight. Conquests are just too heavy!! I am putting the swarovski on a kimber 270, so I wanted a scope that would match it's lightweight balance. Also, since the 270 doesn't kick as much I can live with the 3.5" eye relief. If I were to buy a better scope for my 300 win mag I would probably get a conquest, as I don't mind a bit of extra weight on that gun and like the long eye relief. So I'm just saying that if you are as picky as me about every aspect of the scope and rifle set up make sure you take into account dimensions and weight etc to make sure you are pleased. If it's for a lightweight setup I personally would avoid the conquest, as all you weight shaving measures would be negated with a heavy scope.
To me the conquest would be a step backwards from any Leupold.
