Yesterday I did a resolution comparision between my 1.7x10x42 Z6i swarovski and my 4.5x14x44 zeiss conquest.
The outcome was a bit surprising to me. (and quite dissapointing really in light of $$$ spent. )

The Zeiss was significantly sharper in resolution- I used one of the USAF resolution targets available at 6mmbr.com.

With the swarovski cranked to 10x I could only distinguish down to the 4 line on the right hand side of the page- basically resolving a number that was .625" tall with lines .100 thick.
The conquest resolved the #4 that is listed under the -2 part of the target- basically a # that is .270" high with a line thickness of .054" while it was set @10x-
I could read down to #6 when it was set a 14x

I'm not sure exactly how to express the sharpness/resulution except for the fact that my conquest is able to resolve details almost 1/2 the size of my swarovski @100 yards.

I'm wondering if anyone else has both of these scopes and has ever done a side x side comparison with them.Or would like to and post the results?

That would show me if I have a sub-standard swaro, or a hummer of a conquest. If someone else duplicated my results I think it would be quite interesting to say the least.

The conquest has the side parallax/focus knob- is this the advantage? with the Z61 the only means to adjust the focus is with the ring around the eyepiece just like most normal non-AO scopes.

I dicked around experimented for a couple of hours between the 2 scopes- used both left and right eyes, shot some and came back to the 2 guns too check again and the results were always the same conquest was resolving significantly smaller details.

I think it depends on how the parallax is set on the swaro. 100 or 150m. Find out set your resolution target at that range and then compare. I have a 2.5-15x56 swaro z6 and 3-18x50 swaro z6 with side focus and they blow my conquests away. For my eye the side focus helps alot.

one is twice the zoom range as the other, that ain't free.

Rich

I have always been amazed at the resolution and clarity of the Conquests. I have posted that the Conquest has better resolution than my Zeiss Diavari V and my Kahles CL's and everyone tells me it is "my eyes". Everyone, that is, except the friends who shoot with me and they believe it because they see it. To date, my Conquest on my rifle has been responsible for 6 other scopes being replaced on the rifles of my friends.

I shoot a lot at long range and no longer take a spotting scope. It is possible to see 22 caliber bullet holes in white paper to 300 yards when no other scope can.

I believe you.

I've been doing some comparioson shopping with respect to the Swarovski 1-6x24 and the 1.7-10x42. I've not found any illuminated models but I have been able to run down several stardard versions.

So far every 1-6x24mm has knocked my socks off both for clarity (subjective of course) and the amazing fov -- that's inside and outside. Color, contrast etc also top-notch.

However, the 1.7-10x42's I've looked thru have been a different story, and again it's subjective, but the one's with the #4 reticle have been great and all but one of those with the plex reticle have clearly, to me, clearly not as good. In each case the salesman's eyes told him the same thing.

I've always had good luck with Swarovski optics and I think the 1.7-10x42mm might be the best choice for an all-around scope but I would't buy one that I couldn't examine first or at least send back without prejudice.

Should add that while I've been impressed with the clarity of the Conquest's I've looked thru, my eyes seem to pick up a "color-shift" that I con't care for ---- I also see it in the higher grade Zeiss as well.

I think Mr Stoviak may have the solution.A little internet research has revealed that
all of the z6's are set for 100meter parralax-except for the 4A-300, which is the one I have!

I'm going to back out to 200 yards and do another sidexside comparison and see what I come up with. If its not raining tonight and she who must be obeyed has no other plans for me, I'll let you guys know how they compare @200.

I compared the Conquest to the Leupold and found the Leupold sharper to my eye. Further, the Conquest was easily knocked out of alignment compared to the Leupold.

I'm not sure that parallax has an effect on resolution -- can someone explain why they think it does.

As I understand it if a scope has the parallax set at 100 yards it simply means that as you move your eye while looking thru the scope AT 100 YARDS the object WILL NOT appear to move BUT if you look thru the scope at 200 yards and move your head, the object WILL APPEAR to move.

All I know is for my eye. I have scopes with parralax and non parralax or different range of parralax adjust. Say a 2.5-16 bushnell 6500 Vs a 6-24 Zeiss vmv. The bush goes down to 10 feet on the side focus and the zeiss goes down to 50M. The bush is way clearer at same power level as zeiss at 10-15m. With the focus set at 10M. than the zeiss set at 50m viewing at 10-15m. Once you get out to 50m and beyond at same power and as the power goes up with the proper focus the zeiss starts to take over. I think this side focus is the same as adjust objective.

I've always been taught that you don't focus a scope by looking at the target but rather looking at the reticle (briefly) against a neutra;, light background......look and if it isn't in focus then adjust it --- wait a couple of seconds and look at the reticle again (briefly) and if it still isn't in focus adjust and keep repeating this sequence until the reticle is in focus.

Done this way your scope should be in focus at all distances.

I'm talking about a scope with side focus. Set at different distances bushnell goes 10m to infinity in 50m increments. Ziess goes from 50m-1000m in 50m increments. You are talking about focusing the eyepiece and reticle which I agree with. I am pointing out a scope that has a setting of 10m on the side is sharper than a scope that has a setting of 50 M on the side focus at looking at an object at 10m. Even though the zeiss costs 4 times as much. Going out to 50 and beyond using the SIDE focus the zeiss passes the Bushnell up. I don't look at the target when doing this I range my target set side focus to closest distance and look through scope. Side focus and focusing reticle 2 different things.

I understand what you mean now --- but with respect to adjusting the parallax --- just because the bell is marked at a certain yardage I'd be careful about always believing it unless I checked it carefully.

quote:

Originally posted by notlim:
I think Mr Stoviak may have the solution.A little internet research has revealed that
all of the z6's are set for 100meter parralax-except for the 4A-300, which is the one I have!

I'm going to back out to 200 yards and do another sidexside comparison and see what I come up with. If its not raining tonight and she who must be obeyed has no other plans for me, I'll let you guys know how they compare @200.

I'm curious how your second round of testing turned out. Any change from your original thoughts?

I have a Z6i 1.7-10 and a Conquest 4.5-14, but I have never done a side by side comparison.

I will have to "look" into this one.

Although I personally do not own any Swarovski anything I do have some friends who own Swarovski everything ie. scopes, binoculars, and spotting scopes. I have a Zeiss Conquest 4-14X50 and have found the resolution to be great also. I have always been told that Swarovski makes it's mark in the twi-light hours not in the bright of day. As a friend once told me, "There is alot of good glass out there for bright light but very few for the dark".
You may want to do this comparison again after the sun has set and let us know. I am curious. My Zeiss is probably the best scope I have and I love it.

I'll me more than happy to take that sub-standard Z6i off your hands --- assuming you'll be selling it at a substantial discount at amount less than I'd expect to pay for the Conquest you compared it to --- Right?

Sorry Bill,
I don't think I will have a substandard swaro for sale anytime soon,wouldn't want you to have to suffer with a POS scope like I have. I do however have a much better than standard conquest for sale @ 5x the usual retail price, if you need a good scope I could help you out!

Sorry I haven't finished the 200 yard comparison yet, too damned busy fishing. I'll get it done though.

I have a Z6 and A Conquest. While the Conquest is a great scope for the money the Z6 is fair superior IMHO.

Swarovski lent me its latest Z6 5-30x50 P for testing and can already tell you I never met such an image resolution, even when compared with the former Swarovski line I am intimately familiar with.