Is there any difference between the two scopes?

Is the Terra a rebranded Conquest?

The Zeiss guy, on another forum, told me that the Terra is a new beast, i.e. different parts, design, etc than the Conquest. As I'm sure you already know, the Terra scopes are Jap made.

Conquest definitely offers up better optical quality/coatings than the Terra. The Terra is well priced in its class but it's definitely not a Conquest...especially not a Conquest HD. The Terra is an entry level scope that's new from Zeiss.

Just as the Conquests have their costs cut by not only being assembled in the USA but by the use of Meopta lenses, the Terra obviously takes this tendency further.

There's obvious design parsimony in using the old technology of smallish objectives and the traditional 3x power multiples rather than the now-popular 4x and 5x multiples.

As said elsewhere, I don't mind that. Hunting in thick bush, I prefer small scopes and a 32mm objective is fine for 2.3-7x variables for most eyes and purposes. If a 3x power multiple allows an erector set that does not require a long, bump-sensitive internal tube, I am all for it.

So, if the scopes are actually designed with Zeiss integrity and are not just, say, rebranded Tascos, they might be good value.

The Conquest HD5 is made in Germany and Zeiss has always used Zeiss lenses....obviously of different quality with different coatings depending on price.

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:
The Conquest HD5 is made in Germany and Zeiss has always used Zeiss lenses....obviously of different quality with different coatings depending on price.

Yeah, sorry, I was referring to the cheap-and-cheerful ones we'd got used to and reports that they used glass from Meopta. Are you saying the Terra scopes use German lenses, too?

Never said any such thing. The Terra is made in Japan but not sure where the lenses come from. It's a very nice scope in its price range but it's not in the class of the Conquest.

Do you think the Terra is better than, say, the Leupold VX-1? The latter has better field blending than the Zeiss Duralyt, IMHO, which they should rename The Terror.

I'd say it's better but then again I like the Duralyt.

You probably know them better than I do. The only Duralyt I've looked through was a 3-12, I think. Though it should not cut your nose or eyebrow, I could not believe the thickness of the eyepiece or the tunnel-vision that it and the bulge on top contributed to.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
You probably know them better than I do. The only Duralyt I've looked through was a 3-12, I think. Though it should not cut your nose or eyebrow, I could not believe the thickness of the eyepiece or the tunnel-vision that it and the bulge on top contributed to.

I've got a Duralyt on my .375H&H and my nose and eyebrow are still intact...

If the model you shot has the lighted reticle, the eye piece does seem a bit large at first glance but it really didn't bother me too much. Each to their own. It worked great for us on a recent trip to South Africa. Nice thing is that there are lots of other manufacturers out there to satisfy your particular wants and needs. I'm happy with mine.

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:
... Nice thing is that there are lots of other manufacturers out there to satisfy your particular wants and needs...

I wonder if the the scopes I really like are being made any more. I suspect that the victory of image-movement and the remaining FFP scopes simply having the reticle at the other end of the same long erector tube means most variables have the SFP field stop and susceptibility to bumping.

Swarovsky may beat the bumping issue with their coil-sprung erector tube but the ones I've looked through still appear to have the field stop, whereby blending is little better than with the Leupold VX-1.

So when was the Golden Age? Power ranges, waterproofness and coatings may have improved since but I loved the Zeiss Oberkochen, Nickel, Pecar and Kahles scopes from 30-40 years ago and would like to have seen the Bausch & Lomb with no internal adjustments. The field blending on the old 1.5-6 Zeiss is like looking over the edge of rimless specs. Even the Bushnell scopes with the 'egg-shaped' ocular housing made a fair fist of it and they didn't even have reticle movement.

Unless the mail-order-only Nickels have kept the faith, I doubt we'll see scopes like that again.

I'd say with the quality of glass and coatings we have today combined with all the other technical innovations that the good old days of rifle scopes is right now. All my old glass is long gone.

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:
I'd say with the quality of glass and coatings we have today combined with all the other technical innovations that the good old days of rifle scopes is right now. All my old glass is long gone.

Agree 100%. The reliability and waterproofness, or more correctly, lack of same, of those early model euro scopes is one the main reasons for Leupold becoming so popular over the years.

Things have improved mightily.

I've heard some of the old Nickels lacked good seals but they were well thought of for all that. Marvellous how many London rifles come up at auction wearing them. The only problem I've had was that, after 22 years and a torrential rainstorm, my Kahles Helia 27 fogged up. I'd got deer blood over the one of the lenses the day before and suspect either enzymes in the blood or the commercial lens cleaner used to get it off had something to do with the problem, which cost $540 and a trip back to Austria to fix. It's given another 11 years excellent service since, though, and hopefully will see me out.

As to the superiority of modern lenses, yes, I'm sure they are better. However, I try not to use riflescopes for spotting critters and have never missed one because the scope was not clear enough.

quote:

However, I try not to use riflescopes for spotting critters .

A sound practice with new or old rifle scopes. It seems to me the point of quality glass in a rifle scope perhaps does not apply to your type of hunting or perhaps is just lost on you. For others it is indeed very useful...and not for spotting critters

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:
It seems to me the point of quality glass in a rifle scope perhaps does not apply to your type of hunting or perhaps is just lost on you. For others it is indeed very useful...and not for spotting critters

Not sure, but the waspishness might be lost on me. If you mean it's a matter of safety, yes, it might make a bee's appendage difference. If it's about staying out until the last moment, well, we have laws and ethics to discourage that. Also, our bush can be pretty thick and we tend not to have gravelled paths with yellow ribbons tied along them, so pushing your luck can end with an uncomfortable night for you and grumpy friends back in camp. If it's about counting tines, sambar don't usually have more than six, and reticle movement is more useful for judging their sizes, if it matters.

But to return to topic, would you say then that the Zeiss scopes in question possess this modern optical superiority to the point that I should turf my beloved Kahles and replace it with a Terra or Conquest forthwith? Maybe I should get a new one as the old steel scope is a bit scratched (I had to use it and the 338 as a brake after slipping on a greasy rock while crossing a dry cascade, the only time in 33 years it's ever lost zero). We do have a Conquest here and it is pretty sharp but I have noticed strange reflections around the lens periphery not shared by the old scope.

LOL, you are a master of the backhanded insults...I'll resist the urge to bite.

I think you should do what makes you happy....what you do with your hard-earned money is none of my business.

If you really want to return to topic, go back to the beginning of this thread; it was about comparing the Conquest to Terra...not what you should do with your optics In my experience the Conquest is optically superior to the Terra and no, the Terra is not a rebranded Conquest.

I think you know what I do with my money - try to hang on to some of it in case I live to be old (not that my wife cares - she'd rather spend it on vacations for her).

No, I didn't think it was a rebranded Conquest, that would be good news. I was thinking more that it might be a rebranded Japanese or Korean scope with no Zeiss input.

The Japs have made some reasonable ones over the years, all the same. The old Kowas had a good reputation and I think they may have sequed into Bushnells. We have a 40-year-old scope sold here as a Nikko-Stirling that has the egg-shape ocular housing and blends the fields like an old Zeiss. My father used it to shoot rabbits with his 22LR, always at 120 yards because that was as close to a certain burrow as he could get. He killed seven with eight shots, one day. It's solid and has a long eye relief but came without the price tag that would make me risk it on a serious hunting rifle.

What I don't like is when manufacturers pick up an existing model from another company and give it their own name, just to fill a hole in their catalogue.

Cheers