What are your opinions on the Ziess Conquest 3-9x40 or 3-9x50 as an all around hunting scope.
Im talking about quality, clarity, value for the dollar spent, especially if you could get a demo model,eye relief etc.
or if you wanted to spend a little more possibly the 3-12x56
thanks

I have owned many scope brands. I now only have Zeiss Conquests all 3X9X 40's and 50's they are a great value for the price

quote:

Originally posted by Rob1SG:
I have owned many scope brands. I now only have Zeiss Conquests all 3X9X 40's and 50's they are a great value for the price

How do they do at dawn and dusk?

I will let you know this evening. I just bought a 3 X 9 X 40 a few weeks ago.

The Conquests are great scopes and very bright, I like them a lot. I also picked up one of the demo Minox 3-9x40 scopes from Cameraland a couple of weeks ago and am very impressed with its optics which I think may be a bit better than the Conquest's. You might see if Doug has any left, I think I paid $289 shipped.

IMHO, The Conquests are the best scope for the $ on the market. Fixed eye relief of 4 inches and bright glasss make them the best in their price range.

I own a Conquest 4.5x14x44, Diavari 2.5x10x50, Kahles CL MultiZeros and an IOR. IMO the Conquests are the best value for the money.

Comparing the scopes you mentioned:

Scope / cost / Field of View at low power / Weight / Length

3x9x40 / $400.00 / 34' / 15 oz. / 13.15"
3x9x50 / $600.00 / 37.5' / 17.3 oz. / 12.36"
3x12x56 / $1,000.00 / 27.6' / 25.8 oz. / 15.3"

IMO once you get to or exceed 30' FOV at low power then you have enough for a general hunting scope. It has paid off for me twice with game that couldn't have been found in a scope with a narrow FOV.

So the 3x9x40 will be an excellent scope unless you need or want a couple of minutes more of shooting time at dark.

Also the 3x9x50 objective on the one I had seemed larger than it had to be


while the 4.5x14x44 objective seems smaller than it should be


IMO the 3x12x56 is just way over the line on weight, objective size and price but any of them will be a great scope. IOW buy the 3x9x40 and spend the extra cash on a rangefinder or a new stock or something.

I was a Leupold users ... until I bought and used my first Conquest.

Now I have 7 of them, and have given two as gifts.

The only better scope I have for low light conditions is a 1.5-6x42 Schmidt & Bender that happened to come on a Chapuis double rifle in 9.3x74R. There is a HUGE price difference for the small edge in light gathering capability!

A 3-9x40 Conquest is the best money I've spent on optics. You won't regret it.

LWD

Can you get Illuminated reticle, B&C, or something on the order of the CDS option like Leupold offers without spending 800-1000 bucks on a conquest? Is their warranty as good as Leupolds?

I have an upriver buddy who has several conquests & a diavari; swears by them. Probably will get to see them come moose season.

quote:

Originally posted by mstarling:
I was a Leupold users ... until I bought and used my first Conquest.

Now I have 7 of them, and have given two as gifts.

The only better scope I have for low light conditions is a 1.5-6x42 Schmidt & Bender that happened to come on a Chapuis double rifle in 9.3x74R. There is a HUGE price difference for the small edge in light gathering capability!

In a comparable scope say a 3-9x40 of each how much difference does there seem to be to you between the two?

quote:

In a comparable scope say a 3-9x40 of each how much difference does there seem to be to you between the two?

If you're talking VXIII to Conquest, the glass in the Conquest is dramatically better. There are certainly some good things to be said about Leupold scopes, but the glass pails in comparison to the Conquest.

LWD

Some users complain of critical eye placement on the Conquest. Others seem not to mind this somewhat restrictive feature which is one of the trade-offs in keeping eye relief constant when magnification is not.

The filtering of the lens coatings to intensify the red end of the light spectrum draws a lot of praise of "brightness".

I have a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14X50 with tactical turrets and a duplex type reticle with a very fine center crosshair. When comparing it to my 4.5-14X40 VX-III Leupolds, I notice no difference in eye relief and the Zeiss appears to be slightly clearer. It does let in more light in the twilight hours but then again it does have a 50mm objective also. I am deffinately planning on getting another!

Although I don't feel the same about their Binoculars, I would agree that for the money its very hard to beat a Zeiss Conquest scope.
I used to use all Leupold Vari X III scopes and now use the 3 x 9 Conquests. They just seem brighter and clearer to me.

I currently own 3 conquest models and a ton of Leupolds, Swar AV's and numerous other older scopes.
The conquests are 3.5 X 10 X 44, 4.5 x 14 x 44 and a 3 x 9 x 40.
The last scope I recently acquired is the 3 X 9 and I bought it for a 375 H&H due to the 4" of eye relief. I do not like it as well as the other two Zeiss. It is more critical to get you eye placed precisely to get a full view through the scope. I noted another poster saying the same thing. I believe this is the forgiving eye box that many elude to. All their optics are great.
I own 2 Swar AV that are 4 x 12 x 50's. These are better optically than the Zeiss Conquest (with my eyes) @ about $1000.00 however I have been told they are a bit delicate. No problems yet!
I am still a Leupold fan. I have bought a couple of the new VX3's (one on a 458 and pounding away). Main reason for the Leupolds is the Leupold dot reticle that I am addicted to.