Zeiss - Where does the Conquest fit in?

[Mr. Friendly]

their entry level scope's can be had for $500 if you look hard enough...$600-$800 if you're lazy. where do they fit in against the upper end of Leupold and Bushnell? VX2? VX3? 4200? 6500? how's their warranty support? is it cheaper because they're trying to cash in on their name, or is it really a solid product?

 

[stubblejumper]

I consider the Conquest comparable to the VX3 and 4200.

 

[RoscoeP]

Zeiss

I consider the Conquest comparable to the VX3 and 4200.

That sounds about right. I have two 3-9 x 40, they were $500 each with the standard duplex(forget what they call it?) 20 plex maybe. They jump in price quite abit for the other reticle they have or for increases in power.
I like the optics, only shot at range so far, hunting trip 9 Oct. I think its a great scope for the money.

 

[struff55]

they are superior to the 4200 and equal to and in some aspects superior to the vx 3

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

I now exclusively use Zeiss Conquest of varying spec. I have used Leupold,Bushnell, Simmons, Bausch and Lomb, Weaver, and others.Just go look through some and compare them to others of similar price and options. You will see the glass quality immediately. German glass is hard to beat in Zeiss or other brands. But yes, a very solid product. You can find scopes with the Zeiss name from $400 to $11,000(Hiensoldt)
You won't regret the purchase if you buy one.

 

[crazy_davey]

I consider the Conquest comparable to the VX3 and 4200.

That is a fair comparison.

I find when you get to a decent level of glass such as mentioned above it comes down to personal preference.

 

[martinbns]

I consider the conquest to be a bit superior to the 4200 and vx3. Better optics than the VX3 and way more eye relief than the 4200.

 

[600 Mohawk]

Wish Ziess had a Conquest more compact with a smaller objective, say 32mm. Seems like good stuff for the money. The one I looked through had better glass than the VX3 & 4200. Better reticle too.

600

 

[Dogleg]

I never quite forgave Zeiss for making their adjustments turn backwards, and making the occular lens so big that even the smaller scopes need to mounted high. Otherwise they are pretty good scopes, not anywhere near a "real" Zeiss, but a good scope for the money.I've got a couple, a Conquest isn't a Dia-vari.

 

[SandRoad]

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=353983

 

[bigrigdawson]

I consider the Conquest comparable to the VX3 and 4200.

4200 glass is inferior to the conquest I doubt you have ever look through one with that comparison.

I have all three scopes and by far I like my conquest the best.

VX3 glass would be comparable but not quite as good to my eyes at least.

 

[stubblejumper]

4200 glass is inferior to the conquest I doubt you have ever look through one with that comparison.

I have owned both,and although I prefer the Conquest over the 4200,my 4200 was not far behind.

 

[noneck180]

No comparison in my books..specially with higher magnification..Zeiss hands down.

 

[Omega]

i consider the conquest to be a bit superior to the 4200 and vx3. Better optics than the vx3 and way more eye relief than the 4200.

x2!

 

[Omega]

I never quite forgave Zeiss for making their adjustments turn backwards, and making the occular lens so big that even the smaller scopes need to mounted high. Otherwise they are pretty good scopes, not anywhere near a "real" Zeiss, but a good scope for the money.I've got a couple, a Conquest isn't a Dia-vari.

Yes thank God! Otherwise none of my sheep rifles would have Zeiss on them. The Diavari are fabulous scope but weigh to much.

 

[sheephunter]

II've got a couple, a Conquest isn't a Dia-vari.

For less than 1/2 the price you wouldn't expect it to be.....lol

Definitely a small but noticeable step up from the 4200 and VX3. I'd say Zeiss coatings are the best in the industry right now and the Rapid Z reticle definitely puts them in a class of their own, at least in this price range.

 

[stubblejumper]

When you consider that you can but a Conquest 3-9x40 for under $500,they are definitely a best buy in that price range.When you get into the higher end scopes,I like Kahles and Swarovski just as much as the Zeiss Diavari.

 

[scott_r]

I really dont see much point in going higher then a Zeiss Conquest for hunting purposes. If you can't see your target through that scope you need your vision checked. I use my scope for about secs each hunting season and thats when I shoulder my rifle and shoot an animal. I can see why people use high end spotting scopes or binos but for rifle scopes a Fullfield II, VX 11 or III, Conquest all get the job done fine and have proven themselves as rugged and reliable equipment.

 

[stubblejumper]

I really dont see much point in going higher then a Zeiss Conquest for hunting purposes.

I prefer the 1" Kahles or Swarovski scopes over the Conquest,because they are more compact.The new Swarovski z-3 is also lighter.Optically,I would say that the 1" Kahles and Swarovski scopes are very slightly superior to the Conquest,but then again,they cost more than the Conquest..

 

[sheephunter]

I prefer the 1" Kahles or Swarovski scopes over the Conquest,because they are more compact.The new Swarovski z-3 is also lighter.Optically,I would say that the 1" Kahles and Swarovski scopes are very slightly superior to the Conquest,but then again,they cost more than the Conquest..

So you are saying the Conquest is optically equal to the Diavari????