Wondering about how good this model zeiss conquest is here a lot about the other powers but not this one.................and it sports a 30mm tube to boot.

Am thinking it might be nice on a 22/250..............if it had of been 4-16x56

I have had 3-12x56mm in Conquest and Diavari, and optically, they were great. They were just TOO BIG for my taste.

I was looking at picking one up.

Most of the conquest I've looked at are great optics. I've had one of there straight 4X on my 223. Works great.

Ed

I looked through one at a gander mountain and the first thing I noticed was that the field of view constricts above about 10 power. I've never seen a scope do this and wouldn't buy one for just that reason.

boltman wrote:

quote:

the first thing I noticed was that the field of view constricts above about 10 power.

ANY scope will have a reduction in the field of view as you go up in power. At 4x, there will be less f.o.v. than 3x, etc. -- and it does not matter what scope it is.

I don't own a Conquest 3x12x56, but I do own at least 2 of the German Classic 3x12x56s......right now, today, Cameraland has the NEW 2008 price of Conquest 3x12x56s at 999.99 and has Demo Classic German 3x12x56s at $1075, based on that, there is no contest, get the German scope IMMEDIATELY. Whether it is any better than a Conquest is hard for me to say, but I'd sure as hell pay the $75 difference. BTW, Cameraland's Demos are just like NIB unless othewise stated. I have no hesitation about buying one and, given the Dollar/Euro situation, I may just do so......hold me back.....I just bought 4 conquests from Cameraland today at last year's prices for that very reason.

i had a look through a conquest which my friend bought recently...it blew me away, the optics are plain brilliant, (leupold glass dosent even compare ) however i would go the extra mile and get the top of the line 3-12x56 vm model, not the classic or the conquest
the 3-12x56 are big and bulky but they are a purpose specific scope....not something you want to lug around the mountains
Daniel

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
boltman wrote:

quote:

the first thing I noticed was that the field of view constricts above about 10 power.

ANY scope will have a reduction in the field of view as you go up in power. At 4x, there will be less f.o.v. than 3x, etc. -- and it does not matter what scope it is.

Sorry, I didn't word that properly. What I meant to say is that you get a large "tunnel effect" when turning the power above 10 or so. The edges of the image stops before it fills the view and you have large area of black around the image. It's probably not a problem but it's something that doesn't sit well with me because it seems like some kind of design flaw. I own quite a few high end scopes and I've never seen a scope do this. It might not be something that bothers most folks but I didn't like it and wouldn't buy one for that reason.

quote:

I have had 3-12x56mm in Conquest and Diavari, and optically, they were great. They were just TOO BIG for my taste.

I have a friend that killed a black bear with one of these scopes. He did have to whack him a second time in the head and the front lens cracked, but the tube didn't bend and that big ol' scope sure did the trick.

quote:

What I meant to say is that you get a large "tunnel effect" when turning the power above 10 or so. The edges of the image stops before it fills the view and you have large area of black around the image.

That's part of the optical trade-off for constant -- and critical -- eye relief. It is also partly a result of the internal lenses traveling further than normal in order to extend the magnification range. Zeiss unarguably has superb optics, but the way in which they are applied may not necessarily be optimal for an optical gunsight under field conditions.

I have 3 x Zeiss Conquest 4 -9 x40 on a variety on rimfire and .224 cal rifles.

You need to bear in mind, that like some of the Zeiss camera rangefinder lens, the Conquest scopes are NOT made in Europe, the glass is and there is Zeiss QC, in the USA, where they are assembled.

I could not afford a true high power European Zeiss scope. Given compromised sight in my R eye, I need a fair amount of scope assistance so I can actually see what I am aiming at.
I could not be happier with my Zeiss Conquests, but then the Kahles camp are strident in the praise of their scopes.

Whilst I am based in Australia, some of the pro Kahels posters may not be comparing apples with apples.

As Zeiss did a number of years ago to stay competitive with Euro labour rates , exchange rate issues, they introduced the Conquest range. The Conquest scopes sell for a signficantly lower price than the full Euro scopes.

Same with Kahles. Just read their open promo material : the cheaper line of scopes " made with the American shooter in mind " etc.

Then compare, as with Zeiss the price of Kahle Euro and Kahle "American".

Don't get me wrong. Both are superb scopes. However, I need more magnification that Kahles is able to offer, quality aside.

Have just purchased 3 x Zeiss Conquest 5 -20 x 40 and could not be happier.

Stonecreek:

I don't know if you've ever used a Zeiss Conquest or not, probably not, but all that "constant-and critical" eye relief bull shit you spout is just that .

It is constant but it ain't "critical", I've shot dozens of critters with them, using most of their models except for the 3x12x56, where I use the German scopes, and NEVER had a problem getting a sight picture. Perhaps you do, but I doubt it. How many critters have you shot with one? BTW I'm not "wedded" to Zeiss scopes, I use them all, (I don't buy many new Leupies anymore, I don't think I'm getting the value for my money there) but the Zeiss eye relief issue is not an "issue", it is more likely a positive.

quote:

I don't know if you've ever used a Zeiss Conquest or not, probably not, but all that "constant-and critical" eye relief bull shit you spout is just that

Used, as in fired a gun on which one is mounted? No. Shouldered guns and sighted through the scope? Yes.

I have a close friend and hunting partner who has been in the gun business for . . . damn, I guess it must be better than 35 years now . . . how time flies. He doesn't stock them, but has had occasion to special order a few Zeiss scopes for customers. I occasionally pass time helping him with scope mounting and other small chores around his store. Both of us are always struck at how critical both the eye relief and lateral eye placement is on the Zeiss. The same is true to some extent on Burris, particularly the "Compact" models, and a few other scopes.

If the gun stock fits you very well, and you do not find yourself forced to shoot from awkward positions, the tight "eye box" (as some people call it) on such scopes is not too much of an issue. But I can't tell you how many times I've seen shooters of such scopes hesitate after shouldering the gun while they search for the sight picture.

If this opto-mechanical restriction doesn't bother you, and the extra weight, bulk, and cost don't either, then you can be very satisfied with a Zeiss or similar telescope adapted for use as an optical gunsight.

The restricted eye positioning with Zeiss (and most European pattern scopes) is an unavoidable result of how their designers have chosen to make them in order to enhance or achieve some other trait that they regard as more imporatant (in this case, constant eye relief).

Gato, you're too smart a guy to simply yell "bullshit" just because you find the Zeiss product to your liking. The restricted eye placement, whether it bothers you or not, is a fact. I prefer the speed of sight picture acquisition and forgiving quality of the larger "eye box" to whatever advantages constant eye relief provides. You may not agree with my preferences, and you may even be in the majority, but dismissing physical laws governing optics as "bullshit" is hardly conducive to constructive or even entertaining discourse.

quote:

the Conquest scopes are NOT made in Europe, the glass is

I don't know for a fact, but I sincerely doubt that the glass is made in Europe. Top quality optical glass is cheaper than ever these days and nearly all of it is made in Asia. I do believe that Swarovski still makes some of its glass in Austria -- or it may be that they do the final finish in Austria on glass outsourced from somewhere else.

This is not a criticism of European scopes; simply a recognition that the origin of the glass is not particularly related to the quality of the optical instrument anymore.