Looking at buying a new scope. Getting serious about the Swarovski Z3 3X10X42 BRH reticle , and the Zeiss Conquest HD5 2x10x42 with the rapid Z 600 reticle.
Anybody using either one? Pro's vs con's....

I have a Z3 3-10x42 with a rA reticle on both of my primary hunting rifles as I think it's the best scope you can buy in that power and price range and when U was looking for more magnification I decoded to try a Zeiss HD5 that went to 15X for top of the zoom. O bought it at CAmeraland because there no BS return policy,

When it arrived it was great but no matter what I did a 15X I couldn't see the full FOV so II returned it, My impression was it is well made scopem very attractive and gkass us int least on par with the Z3. Hiwever U wiykdn;t trade eotjer of mine for a 2-10x40 Zeiss which is noticably heavier that the Z3

I would look on ebay for an old Zeiss or Hensoldt Diavari-D 1.5-to-6 for about $300 and make them promise it is in good order. Then get a competent gunsmith to find the mounts and put it on for you. The mounting might cost twice as much as the scope but you'll end with something better than either of the models you mention.

Not enough power? Well, how much do we really need for big game? If you can't quarter the chest with 6x, you're not close enough. Remember what magnification hides, too. Multiply your field of view by the power and that's close to the linear loss, never mind the acreage of danger all round.

Forgive me, I am in mourning for a minty Hensoldt Dialytan 4x that just went for $91. Not that I would mount it on anything but the bloody rail had never been drilled or even scraped. The seller would not ship overseas and my buddy in the US did not know how to bid incrementally. The lesson is when good stuff like that pops up in your neck of the woods, there may not be much competition.

The Conquest line is not in the same class as the higher end Zeiss scopes, not even close.

Grenadier-

That used to be true with certain (but not all) models within the Conquest line. But 2014 changed that with thee introduction of the Conquest DL. Zeiss really did a dis-service to this line by retaining the Conquest name.

It's good enough (mine is the 3-12x50) that I sold off my last Diavari Victory 2.5-10x50. The contrast and image rendition the last 15 minutes of available light must be seen to be appreciated. Yes, the Victory resolves slightly better, but the difference is miniscule. But the contrast/color rendition/image quality during that critical time is actually better in the Conquest DL. (Under diffused moonlight, the Diavari Victory does show its superiority over the Conquest DL for that particular application.)

I only wish Zeiss would not have ditched the #4 reticle. Mine has the #60, which is a lighted reticle. I never would have considered anything like that on a hunting rifle, but this dot is the latest in fiber optic technology, is unobtrusive, sharply focused and adjusts down so far that it is dim enough to not affect your vision under moonlight or poor lighting.

As to the original question, the 2-10x42 HD5 is ever-so-slightly superior to the Z3 when all critical optical categories are considered. The eyebox of both gets critical under poor lighting, but the Zeiss is the more forgiving of the two.

Honestly, you could flip a coin and be OK no matter what.

Old Zeiss are good, but not sure the last five / ten years are where they used to be. Swarovski are very good and Z3 are very good value for money. If you find a previous generation Swarovski Habicht snap it up.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
Grenadier-

That used to be true. But 2014 changed that with thee introduction of the Conquest DL.

I am not familiar with the Conquest DL. I'll trust your evaluation of it.

.

I would not buy a Swaro z3. See my post below under "Swaro scope problem". Other users' experience may vary.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym SR20:
Old Zeiss are good, but not sure the last five / ten years are where they used to be. Swarovski are very good and Z3 are very good value for money. If you find a previous generation Swarovski Habicht snap it up.

That sounds like good advice, to me. Check with the vendor of any old Habicht that the focus and turrets move, though. I think the bloody things may have been so solid and reliable that the owners never had to move adjustments, whereby over time some could seize up.

The Zeiss is assembled in Germany, the Swarovski is assembled in the USA . Any ideas as to where the components of them are actually made ?

quote:

Originally posted by Heym SR20:
Old Zeiss are good, but not sure the last five / ten years are where they used to be. Swarovski are very good and Z3 are very good value for money. If you find a previous generation Swarovski Habicht snap it up.

I totally agree. I used to be a Zeiss guy on everything. No longer. Funny, in Alaska last week my guide and I were discussing how Zeiss has gone to shit lately......we both had a Z6- on my 375 H&H and his 458 Lott.

Pronunciation of Swarovski

SWORE-OFF-SKI

quote:

Originally posted by Savage_99:
Pronunciation of Swarovski

SWORE-OFF-SKI

And here I thought it was SORE-EYE-SKI.

.

LOL! That's funny

I personally love the Zeiss Conquest line. However, the Zeiss Terra line is lacking in clarity and focus. I like the Swarovskis as well but feel the Conquests are the Best Buy for the Bucks.

I have both and the Zeiss seems brighter to my eye.