I've always been a Zeiss fan. Have owned and been very satisfied with the Conquest series. A couple months ago, I picked up a Zeiss Terra 3x9x40. It stinks. Poor clarity and not nearly bright enough. I'm going to get rid of it and replace it with a Conquest. Anyone else have the same problem with the Terra?

I felt that way a few years back when I purchased a Conquest and compared it to an older Zeiss I had. The adage still applies, "You get what you pay for".

They have started to race to the bottom selling 'scopes made in China branded as "Designed by Zeiss". I said to their rep at the UK Shooting Show that it was a bad idea.

They think it gives people an "entry level" Zeiss to put on thier .22LR and .17HMR. I think it is a false friend. Hardy (fishing tackle did it)

Cheapen and brand and folk just say, IMHO, if their paying XXX for a Chinese 'scope with a Zeiss name on it why not, instead, pay 65% of XXX for "the same" Chinese 'scope without the Zeiss name on it.

I'd agree with that. The new Terra scopes seem to have fallen victim to the "value" lineup so many have done I have a few Conquests and have always found them to be the best for the price and certainly good for any hunting scenario. Fortunately, there are still tons of 3-9x40 Conquests out and available at reasonable prices.

My brief look through the Terra did not alert me to lack of resolution but it did have the worst field blending I'd ever seen in the Zeiss brand, even worse than the Duralyt. The Victory is still excellent, of course, and the Conquests I've seen are not too bad.

What is "field blending"? I have a couple Duralyts and find them bright and serviceable. My expectations were not sky high since the Duralyt was a very modestly priced 30MM scope. I honestly see little difference compared to some Victory models I have.

The Zeiss Conquests were made for Zeiss by Meopta and basically were Meopta Meopro scopes. if you'd like that type of quality go with the Meopro's and you'll be happy

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
What is "field blending"? I have a couple Duralyts and find them bright and serviceable. My expectations were not sky high since the Duralyt was a very modestly priced 30MM scope. I honestly see little difference compared to some Victory models I have.

Perhaps the the easiest explanation is to say what it is not; good field blending is the lack of tunnel vision or big black ring around your scope picture. Many old reticle-movement Zeiss and Nickel scopes (and B&L Custom models) had so little they were like looking over the edge of frameless spectacles - modern scopes tend more to the Clark Kent view.

The modern problem comes greatly from fat rubber eye pieces but in the Duralyt's case I recall just a big metal one.

Good to know, the poor quality of the Terra. I had considered them. I have several conquests that I like.

The Zeiss Duralyte scopes run out of MOA adjustment very quickly on some rifles.
It has 40 MOA which is only 20 MOA up and down.
The Conquest 3-9x40 has more, and that is why I bought a Conquest and it is a 1-inch tube that I prefer.

Pieter

quote:

Originally posted by Pieter die 4de:
The Zeiss Duralyte scopes run out of MOA adjustment very quickly on some rifles.
It has 40 MOA which is only 20 MOA up and down.
Pieter

That doesn't seem like much but if our scopes are mounted properly we shouldn't need more within sporting ranges (or even want that much, for optical integrity). If shooting at 1000 yards, special mounts are indicated, of course.

The gunshop around the corner from me battles even at a 100 yds ZERO, as some receivers on some brands of rifles are not quite level enough, and then they run out of adjustment.

Pieter