Zeiss - Where does the Conquest fit in?
- Thread starter Mr. Friendly
- Start date
My eyes told me the conquest had a very marginal edge on the Leupold VX-3, not so much the glass, maybe just the reticle, on the first scope I got. 4.5-14x44 Conquest. ( And I always liked Leupold)
Same comparison on the 2nd scope I got.when you factor in the price..no brainer for me. 3-9x40 Conquest
The 3rd gun got a bushnell, which I knew I didn't like as much when I bought it, but it was secondary rifle. Now every time I shoot it I wish it was also a Zeiss. The light and the eye relief are just not the same.
Same comparison on the 2nd scope I got.when you factor in the price..no brainer for me. 3-9x40 Conquest
The 3rd gun got a bushnell, which I knew I didn't like as much when I bought it, but it was secondary rifle. Now every time I shoot it I wish it was also a Zeiss. The light and the eye relief are just not the same.
Last edited:
Just reading through your long list of opinions and they seem to come to that conclusion.
Actually YOU came to that conclusion all by yourself.How and why is beyond me,since I never even mentioned the Diavari in my previous posts.I only compared the Conquest to the 4200,the Leupold VX3,and the 1" Kahles and Swarovski scopes.
I did purchased a 6-24x56 Diavari for my 6,5x47L target rifle,and it obviously is superior to the Conquest optically,but for well over twice the price of a 6.5-20x50 Conquest,it should be.And if I had to pay over $3000 for the Diavari,as most dealers are asking,I wouldn't have purchased it.
Lol, how quickly you forget. You did in post 17, somewhere amoung your "slightly" better comparisons. Sorry for the confusion. It's just you used the world slightly so many times in your comparisons that it got confusing which scope was actually better. I wasn't aware there were that many different degrees of slightly. Thanks for clearing it up
My mistake,I did mention the Diavari once,although not in the post that you quoted.And I didn't actually compare the Diavari to the Conquest in any of my posts previous to your question.You came up with your assumption totally on your own.
You the all knowing optics guru confused?Couldn't happen.
As to your own optics comparisons,I don't see any reference to actual numbers that would allow for a direct comparison in any of them either.Perhaps you have access to equipment that can actually measure the brightness or clarity of optics,but I don't,so I use non numerical comparisons,that apparently aren't precise enough for you.
I haven't compared a VX7 and a Diavari side by side,but the review below might be of interest.
http://www.opticstalk.com/swfa-riflescope-rating-scale_topic8185.html
http://www.opticstalk.com/swfa-riflescope-rating-scale_topic8185.html
When I can take a scope from gun to gun and have a gun shooting right where I want it in like 5 rounds..I consider that to be a good scope..tracking is great on the Conquests wonderful turrets..and the Z reticles are simple to use.
i own a 3x9 50mm conquest and i was hell bound on getting the 4200 when i first was looking at scopes. Then my dad told me to look around at some zeiss products.. so i did. i went to the local dealer and had a look at all three different brands and and if you do that you can see the difference in them. i was sold on the scope but bought mine through e something when our dollar was good and had it to my door for $475. Zeiss is a damn fine product. 
It's been a while, but I had this exact same decision. I went with the Zeiss Conquest. The Leupold VX3 or whatever they call the new one are on par with the Zeiss Conquest in terms of optics. However the Leupold has a slightly warmer tint to it, which may help with contrast. Personally I prefer a true colour without the tint.
Where the Conquest excels is that it has a fixed eye relief, the Leupold doesn't. The Leupold changes as you change the magnification. The reticle on the conquest is also etched instead of a wire. The disadvange is that it's a 1" scope, and you get less MOA.
6mm br has a good comparison page. However it's a bit dated. The sightron SIII specs I don't believe are current.
Where the Conquest excels is that it has a fixed eye relief, the Leupold doesn't. The Leupold changes as you change the magnification. The reticle on the conquest is also etched instead of a wire. The disadvange is that it's a 1" scope, and you get less MOA.
6mm br has a good comparison page. However it's a bit dated. The sightron SIII specs I don't believe are current.
Last edited:
Northman999
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Yukon
I looked at these same scopes (and a few others) and I went with the Zeiss Conquest. I think it is better, period, than the 4200, and superior to the Leupold in terms of eye relief, ease of turret use, and brightness at last light.
