Just compared the Zeiss Conquest and the Swarovski 3x9x36

texasaggiebowhunter · 08-02-2004, 01:01 PM

I have been looking to buy a new scope for my .300 Wby.. So I had my mind made up between the two.... I compared the two side by side and I honestly couldnt tell much difference... The Swaro was a little lighter in weight, and was maybe, maybe a little bit clearer in the higher powers than the Zeiss. The Zeiss was equally clear and seemed to be an equally good scope. Now granted this was all in the store looking out across the parking lot looking over through the Texas A&M campus from the store. Im sure things will be different at dark and so on and so forth. I just couldnt tell alot of significant differences between the two except for the price. Which was the Swaro for $670.00 or the Zeiss for $399.00, either on is a good price for each.

Compared the Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40 to the Swarovski 3x9x36

oldelkhunter · 08-02-2004, 01:12 PM

I am assuming you were comparing the Swaro with a 3-9x40 Conquest. They would be comparable to each other..the 3.5-10x42 is slightly brighter. All are really exceptional scopes

08-02-2004, 01:20 PM

You know this weekend, I found a reason to have the best and brightest and crispest scope. I am not a hardcore varmiter and went out groundhoggin in a large field. My gunsmith has only Swarvos on his 22-243 middlesteads. I see where a person needs the crispest images when shooting rats out to 500 yards. No I didn't hit any at those distances, but those guys do. Nevermind a prairie dog.

TEXAS 10PT · 08-02-2004, 10:54 PM

I have a Zeiss Diavari (assembled in Germany, the Conquest are assembled in the US) and a Swarovski and I think both scopes are great but in low light conditions I think the Swarovski is a little better. The Zeiss actually costs more than the Swarovski did.

Solitary Man · 08-03-2004, 12:41 PM

For about a year I owned a Swarovski PH 3-12x50. It was a great scope and all, but I grew to not like it because of its size and the first plane reticle. My next scope was a Zeiss Conquest 3-9X40. This has been my favorite scope since buying it 3 years ago. It may not be quite the equal of that Swarovski from an optical standpoint, although it is very, very close. However, I like it a lot more because it's a good size, it has features I like, and it's got a second plane reticle.

One of these days I'd like to try the Swarovski A-line. These might be more to my liking than the PH model.

bigbulls · 08-03-2004, 06:19 PM

Before you buy one you should really compare them to a Bushnell 4200. You may just get the Bushnell.

oldelkhunter · 08-04-2004, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Before you buy one you should really compare them to a Bushnell 4200. You may just get the Bushnell.

Oh come on now ..maybe close optically but in physical dimensions absolutely no. Too little eye relief,Excessive Length and Weight.

GTBuzz · 08-10-2004, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Oh come on now ..maybe close optically but in physical dimensions absolutely no. Too little eye relief,Excessive Length and Weight.

The 2.5x10x40mm isn't so bad as far as length and weight go; however, I certainly agree with you on eye relief. The .300 Weatherby is starting to get into the range of "kicking rifles" and I prefer more than 3.3" of eye relief in a gun that recoils in the .300 Mag range.

Some of the Elite scopes are HUGE and heavy.

My personal opinion is the Conquest is the best buy for the money at this time. I think you have to spend a lot more money to get a significantly better scope than the Conquest.

USMC PMI · 08-10-2004, 12:46 PM

I have a cheapie 300 WBY Mag (Vangard) Please take my advice and get the scope with a longer eye relief if you plan on doing any shooting from the prone or a bench. I had a scope with a 3" max eye relief on the rifle and now I wear the scars to prove it!

Superpig · 08-10-2004, 02:16 PM

I don't own a Zeiss Conquest so I can't comment. I do however own a Swarovski A-Line 3-9X36 and a Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10X40. The Swarovski is mounted on a 25-06 and the Bushnell on a 257 Roberts. I have always in the past been a Leupold fan. I loaned a friend $250 dollars and he used the Swarovski as collateral. He decided he couldn't pay and asked me if I would just keep the scope. So too make a long story short. I came across the Bushnell at a dealers table at a gun show. He said he was going out of business and had the Bushnell for $265. I had previously looked at the same scope for $349. So I bought it because it was very clear and the price was right. Now having both scopes I have taken them afield many times and also sat on my back porch at dusk to compare both scopes. I would have to say in my opinion the Bushnell is as optically clear and the windage/elevation adjustments are precise. I can say the same for the Swarovski. The Bushnell is superior in my book because nearing dark the Bushnell maintains a brighter sight picture longer than the Swarovski. Also, looking in my latest Cabela's catalog the Swarovski is $369 more than the Bushnell. I also believe the Bushnell to be brighter at dusk than my Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10X50A/O. My wife is a hunter also and likes the Bushnell over the Swarovski and the Leupold. Too bad because I gave her my 25-06 when I bought my 257. This is my 2 cents worth.

I don't think you would go wrong purchasing the Zeiss as most I have read on this site like them very well.