I own 2 Conquests no problems so far under normal hunting conditions, no POI shift and accurate tracking. Anyone experience any failures? (please no Leupold bashing or comparisons just a poll)

I have never heard of one failing period

No problems with the (4) I own; great scopes.

Sorry, I know of no failures either. I have been happy with all the Conquests I own - approx 7 currently 2 more on the way.
- mike

We have been carrying Zeiss for about 3 years now and we have only had 2 come back due to problems.

please keep the replies coming....who has had a Zeiss Conquest fail!

not me

I was one of those first guys that started championing conquests before it was popular to do so without taking some heated flaming. I have only heard of one real failure and that has been in 4-5 years. I thought we had a bad one early on, but it turned out to be a serious rifle problem....not scope related. I have two with quite a few "miles" on them....one has worn out two barrels on a 7mm-08 without a hint of trouble. The other has stood heavy smokeless powder ML'er loads and been drug thru the puckerbrush many a mile with no mercy...again no problems at all.

I grin when I remember ol JB and E over on 24 hr campfire swearing they were all beat to crap in a giant scope tester and had most of their life pounded out before we even bought em'.... Course that myth has been debunked and put to bed, it should have never been started from what had been seen years before in Germany, heck did they figure they were putting them together here in the US and shipping them to Germany to test?...... real cost effective..grin... From their apparent lack of failures, we can figure Zeiss knows a thing or two about assembling a rugged scope and can expect long reliable service from the conquest line. From what I've seen to this point they have no equal in their price range and continue to lead the mid priced pack.

woods

if you listen to E on the 24 hour campfire...all Zeiss scopes fail right out of the box...

An expert that has never owned or used the scope he pretends to know all about......is not much of a good source for a comparison.

Well those days have changed and the sheer number of conquest owners and users indicates there are many that actually use their own eyes to see which scope is of interest to them. Now if I could just get my hands on a big sky sightron to see where they stand in the optics line-up.

woods

quote:

if you listen to E on the 24 hour campfire...all Zeiss scopes fail right out of the box...

Surprised he has not been here already chiming in.

quote:

Surprised he has not been here already chiming in.

Problem is, it will be the same old 5-15 year old drivel... deva tests - tiny scratches on the lens - its not focused properly - mystery lab tests no one has access to - and our eyes are just not dialating enough.......

Sorry Jimmy....not trying to hijack your thread, its a good and informative one. I just get a chuckle out of the lengths the detractors try to go to.....and people still "see the light"

woods

I had a Conquest that would not hold zero. The slightest bump and it was off. I got rid of it and will not buy another Zeiss product after that.

And what do you use now? If you have a problem with your present scope choice will that mean that you will never use that brand again also?

I have 8 of them and plan to get more. I use them up through 416 Rigby and they are great!

OK we have had one reported failure. Again I have 2 Conquests and 1 Diavari, the Diavari I have had for 5 years or so, the Conquests are 2 years and brand new...zero problems..

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
And what do you use now? If you have a problem with your present scope choice will that mean that you will never use that brand again also?

I switched back to Leupold VX III's for all of my scopes. I like the Leupold service as the Zeiss folks were not helpful when I had my problem. I also compared the German made Zeiss to Leupold and my eyes could tell any difference.

I suspect the Zeiss makes a decent product, but it is not for me.

WOW..sounds like a reliable scope. Of course E hasn't chimed in yet

In forty-odd years of messing with dozens, maybe even hundreds, of scopes, I've only had one outright failure. That was on an inexpensive Asian-made 4x that suffered a broken reticle (on a .22 LR, for that matter). Not living in a humid climate, I'm sure that some of the lesser makes would have exhibited some fogging, given the opportunity. I also observed another guy's Simmons on which the entire objective bell fell off when sighting in at a bear camp 100 miles from civilization. Outside of those two failures, that's about it. My point is that statistically, most scopes are pretty damn dependable.

As with most name brands of scopes, I've heard very little bad about the dependability of the Conquest. The complaint I have heard from some users is that the eye placement (both fore-aft and side-to-side) is somewhat critical, particularly when compared, as it frequently is, to a Leupold.

Among those who have commented is a good friend of mine who has a small general merchandise and sporting goods store. He uses Leupolds on most of his own guns, but has no particular prejudices. He custom ordered and mounted a Conquest at the request of a customer. His initial comment was that it seemed like a high quality scope, but that when shouldering the gun, the Conquest's sight picture was noticably more difficult to obtain than what he was accustomed to.

I have observed this same difficulty with some other scopes, particularly some models of Burris, but haven't actually tried a Conquest myself. However, the optical trade-offs that must be made to both obtain fairly long and constant eye relief with a variable power instrument would certainly tend to shrink the usable "eye box".

Have others observed this limitation in the Conquest?

Stonecreek, I don't think it is a limitation of any other scope, but an advantage of a Leupold, they are known for having a generous 'eyebox'. I don't care for their optics though. The conquest stomps them IMO.

So do all the other scopes I own, I bought one of the latest greatest Leupold VX III's and was very disappointed. Last leupold for me, I buy optics for good optical image first and foremost. That VX III went back to the dealer, and was replaced by a Conquest, it's eyebox is definitely more critical than that Leupy and the other couple of Leupy's I have--that's OK with me.

I have 8 conquests, and several have seen some really rough duty on big bangers, and they are good as new except for being scraped up a bit!

I had a 3-9x40 MC fail the weekend before leaving for South Africa in 2004. The rifle simply stopped grouping. The scope was mounted on a Krieger barreled .338 WM 8.5 pound pre-64 M70 in a McMillan stock. Rifle is MagnaPorted. Too late to get repaired before the trip. Was going to take the .338 WM and a .375. The failure left me without spare scopes for that pair so I took a 9,3x62 and a .416 Rigby for which I had a spare. The rifle had hundreds of rounds on it before the failure.

Zeiss replaced it immediuately. No questions asked. The rifle again grouped beautifully.

I have Conquests on .308 Win, 9,3x62, .338 WM, and .375 H&Hs. I like them very, very much and have seen no other failures.

By chance I have a 2.5-8x Leupold on a 9,3x62, a 1.5-5 Leupold IR on .416 Rigby, and a 2.5x Compact on a .458 AR. They've served well but are not the quality of the Conquests.

I wish I had the funding to use S&B scopes on everything ... I have a 1.5-6 x 42 30mm scope on a 9,3x74R Chapuis and it is definitely the best scope I own. Damn sure not the cheapest though.

quote:

So do all the other scopes I own, I bought one of the latest greatest Leupold VX III's and was very disappointed. Last leupold for me, I buy optics for good optical image first and foremost.

Same thing here Fish, I just bought a VXIII 4.5-14x40. It's a nice scope but it's not near as nice as I expected. My 4.5-14x44 Conquest is a far better scope IMO.

Reloader

To answer your question Stonecreek......I have only had direct experience with the 3x9 and 3.5x10 conquests and can only compare them to the 3.5x10,3x9,and 4.5x14 leupolds. I have seen very little difference in the actual sight picture and don't notice one to be more critical in eye position than the other, I can't speak with experience about other power ranges with either brand however. I have noticed that nikons and bushnell elites are a lot more position sensitive to eye movement and sight picture but haven't seen this with conquests or leupolds. I do prefer the constant eye relief to an eye relief that changes along with power, and have found the brightness and resolution to be noticeably better with the conquests. I do a lot of low light comparisons with both above mentioned scopes and hunt in all conditions with both brands also. These are however my opinions
from my experience based on my eyes......others experiences may vary.
I do know my gunsmith and friend was a confirmed leupold man for years and after seeing the conquests continue to perform while shooting towards the setting sun at his range and not flaring out after his leupolds were, he decided to try a conquest for his next scope. For me its the etched reticle that stays black under all light reflection conditions - the tough outside finish - that euro style fast focus ocular - its great resistance to flare-out - the constant eye relief - and the optics that just come out on top every time I compare them with other scopes in their class. As far as service goes.....I haven't had to use it for a conquest or a leupold ever to this point........

woods

I agree there are pro's and cons associated with both brand of $500.00 or so scopes as there should be in this price range. I would not expect these limitations in a S&B at 3-4 times the money. On the Zeiss, I just like the black reticle and the constant eye relief better, I cannot really comment on the eye box as what ever it is, it works for me. I really like the Leupold 2.5 x 8 and it is 2 ounces lighter than the Zeiss, making it the better choice for a Kimber Montana or NULA type rifles. I also like th Leupold VXII 2 x 7 as I think it is about perfect for a 9.3 x 62 project of mine. There are valid reasons that Leupold is the probably the most popular scope in the USA and valid reasons why Zeiss Conquest is taking more of their business.

I've ruined a few scopes in my time. I think anyone who has never sent one back either is a lot more careful than me or doesn't shoot big bores much. Still waiting to send in a Zeiss or Leupold. The Zeiss is still the best buy in a mid-price scope and the reticle is superior to the Leupold. Another one I've had good luck with is a Sightron, a 1.5-6x on my .375. Pretty darn good optics and no problems on a fairly light Whitworth and they are on special- Midway at $199. You'd be wise to listen to Jon at Optic Zone as he handles more than I'll be able to hunt with in two or three lifetimes. The folks selling them will know what works if they will tell you the straight scoop.

I have 2 Conquests with no problems to report so far.

But I spent many years hunting and shooting with a much larger number of Leuponds before I had trouble with one.

I can recommend both to friends.

I had a 3.5-10 Conquest fail on a .300 WM Sako after 200 rounds.
CS was terrific and they HAPPILY replaced the broken scope with a new one.

Second Conquest was perfect after several hundred rounds. Sold the rifle and scope to finance another gun project.

I'm STILL a big Conquest guy and hold them in high regard. I think the 3-9 Conquest w/ a #4 reticle and 4" fixed eye relief is the shit for big game!

Darn, I just bought another two of these scopes... That probably takes my total above 10. They are pretty good value for such good quality, IMHO. Not perfect, but pretty darn good.

- mike