zeiss
 

ok I either getting the 3x9x40 or the 3.5x10x44 is it worth the extra 150 for the bigger objective. I heard everyone on here talk about them and they are very nice scopes.its going on my 300 rum

RE: zeiss
 

the bigger lens is always worth the money imo... the more light it gathers the better

RE: zeiss
 

I prefer the 3x9x40.It also has 1/2" more eye relief than the 3.5x10x44 if you are worried about recoil.

RE: zeiss
 

I have the 3-9X40. The glass is high quality. 40mm is really all you need in my opinion. NOT worth an exta $150 to me for the 44mm.

RE: zeiss
 

I have taken game from as small as antelope at long range up to moose with a 3x9 and have never, ever felt the need for more magnification than 9x at the high end. Why spend more and carry around more weight? And on an Ultramag that little bit of extra eye relief can mean a scar or no scar;)

RE: zeiss
 

I would not get the 44mm objective either. 40mm's is more than enough glass up front to provide you with enough light transmission to see untill after legal shooting hours.

At the highest magnification they will both transmit (scopes do not gather light) equal ammounts of light to your eye any way. At 9 power the 3-9X40 will have an exit pupil diameter of 4.4mm's and at 10 power the 3.5-10X44 will have an exit pupil diameter of 4.4mm's. So as far as brightness goes they will be exactly equal at their highest magnifications and below that both will be brighter than you need.

What you have to decide is if you really need the extra magnification (highly doubt it), weight, cost, less eye relief, and if having the scope sit higher off the rifle is worth it.

Remember that the higher your cheek moves from the stock the more it is going to hurt when that 300RUM smack you in the face. The less accurate you become due to the fact that your cheek isn't welded to the stock like it should be, and the harder it will be to find something quickly in the scope due to you having to find the right unnatural spot to hold your head.

RE: zeiss
 

Will you carry the gun much? If you're split between the two I'd take the lighter of the two...and that 1/2 would sure be nice, especially if you're a long-necked freak like me.

RE: zeiss
 

btw I was talking scopes with a buddy of mine tonight...how in the world do you pronounce this name Zeiss?

RE: zeiss
 

Ice with a 'Z' in front.

And since we are discussing proper pronunciation........ Swarovski is pronounced Svar-off-ski and you roll the 'R'.

[Deleted]
 

[Deleted by Admins]

RE: zeiss
 

I got one for you bigbulls

how do you pronounce "Hogue"

RE: zeiss
 

I thought the 3x9 would be just fine eye relief wasnt a big factor since my nikon hasn't give me a dinger but my buddy shot it and got it right in the bridge of the nose. Do you believe zeiss is better than leupold

RE: zeiss
 

I believe the Zeiss Conquest is slightly optically superior to comparable Leupolds. At least that's been my experience with the ones I've owned. I also prefer the etched Zeiss Z-plex reticle to the wire Leupold duplex. From a durability standpoint, I've had no problems with either brand. If I were buying another scope right now, it would more than likely be another Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40.

RE: zeiss
 

I was convinced enough to replace all four leupold 3.5x10x40s on my hunting rifles with 3x9 ziess scopes.

RE: zeiss
 

The only real advantage to the 3.5x10x44 is if you spend a great deal of time developing loads at the range. It may possibly help you to eek out those last few tenths of an inch in group size.

Otherwise I think the 3-9x40 certainly is the winner for a standard hunting scope.

RE: zeiss
 

What alot of people don't realize is the objective size has more to do with resolution than anything. Whats the use of a 6-24 power when you can't resolve your small target at 500 or 600 yards. And if your not shooting over 500 yards, why get a 6-24 power scope? You can do the same with a 10 power. For a max of 5X, 20mm is fine. Your limiting factor is power, not resolution. For a max of 10 power, 40mm is fine. for 14 power, I would opt for the 44mm. For anything over that, I would opt for the 50mm or larger. Just like the folks who by a 5meg digital camera but with a 10mm or smaller lenses. Why?That objective can't resolve the picture enough to ultilize the 5meg of info on a picture. Try blowing it up. Sure, you got alot of pixels, but they are fuzzy.

The only other thing is 50mm usually gives more FOV. But any shooter that uses a scoped rifle should be able to point thier rifle in a direction and find the animal.

I am sure most of use have bought these powerful 10X binocs with little tiny lenses. Some of us, not naming names probably bought these very poweful 20X with little lenses, but you cannot resolve your animal at long distances with the 20X. But a guy with a 8X50mm binocs can easily resolve the antlers, the points or whatever.

RE: zeiss
 

I would go for a 50 mm or even better 56 mm. Own 2 Zeiss with 56 mm objektive lenses. The best scopes I own.

RE: zeiss
 

I have (3) 4.5-14x44's, (2) 6.5-20x50's, and (1) 3-12x56 all Conquests. They are all great and collect light really well. I am selling the 3-12x56 because it is too large and heavy for my taste. It works great and collects light very well, but I prefer the 4.5-14x44 for a "carry" gun.

RE: zeiss
 

I have both conquest models you are considering and I don't notice any real difference between the 2. So I would agree keep the extra 150 in your jeans. If you don't have good mounts then I'd put it towards some good quality rings/bases to hold her tight on the 300.