timbercruiser

Is there a noticible difference between the Zeiss and the Conquest or the Swarovski and the Kahles? The question should be "Is there a $700 difference?"

bigcountry

Not for most of us. I do require the clearness and brightness of either a VXIII or conquest. But thats my top end. I don't know what happened to Kahles. Right when they were bought up, they were affordable. Around 500 dollars for a nice 3-9, but now they are just going too high for my wallet.

handloader1

When it comes to low end scopes to medium end scopes one can really see the difference in quality. When it comes to medium end scopes to high end scopes the difference is not as great, but it is noticeable. Good luck.

Todd1700

As with all equipment I think you reach a point of diminishing return on your dollar. From a low end scope up to a Leupold VXIII or Zeiss Conquest you will see a huge jump in quality but from those scopes on up to a 1200 dollar Swarovski or other high dollar European optics I just can't see it.

oldelkhunter

.

They got bought by Greedy Swarovski that is what happened but that is a different story. Now don't get me wrong Swarovski has great optics but Kahles is not the same it may be equal to Zeiss Conquest in their 1" tubes.

trailer

The only way to really answer that question is to field test them all and that would vary from person to person. The end result is that the user is satisfied with the scope weather it be a $100.00 scope or a $1500.00 scope.

NO_GILLS

I was wondering the same thing. I am trying to decide on the Zeiss Conquest 3.5x10 or the Leupold 3.5x10 with the Boone reticle. I want the Zeiss so bad I can taste it but they dont offer a reticle I really want. The Boone and Crockett however seems like a winner for my .300 WSM. I was looking through several scopes at the "shop" the other day and couldnt tell a nickles worth of difference between the Zeiss conquest and the Swarovski! But, it was daylight, took them both outside and viewed signs from 100 yards to 500 yards. COULD NOT see $400.00 difference!

They didnt have the Boone reticle at this gun shop so I didnt get to view through it, anyone out there have one and give me an opinion???

bigcountry

Nogills, sounds about right. What you need to do when in a store or whatever is to find a place with a void or a huge transition between light and no light. A cave like place. Thats where you can see alot of brightness differences. Make sure its 50 yards or so away. I will even put a product or something with words on it in the dark void. Do a comparison.

I was pleasently surprised a few weeks ago with the VXIII. I have been down about them due to the change in design lately. But the VXIII was a handsdown winner in the "void" test. Conquest was a very close second. I didn't compare the Swarovski. I can't go that high.

I hope the VX turnes out to be every bit as tough as the Vari-X.

People getting on here saying "scope X is brighter than scope y". Thats just horse crap. Bottome line. They all got thier specs. And some lenses exceed the spec with stride, some are on the edge, but they all go into a pile. If all the tolerance build up you could have a mediocre scope on your hands. Its all statistics.

Only way a person can responsibably say scope x is brighter than scope y, is if they had 20 of them in front of them of each flavor. And did a side by side unbias'd comparison. Other than that, you are dealing with one data set. And a logical person knows thats not a real test.

Now if you are at Bass pro, and you do the "void" test I mention and see a B&L 4200 beats the VXIII, its possible. Its all about manufacturing tolerances.

As you can tell, yes I have turned into one of those bean counters in manufacturing.

oldelkhunter

Maybe that explains why my current Zeiss Conquest is going back to the guy who originally sold it to me and thought the plastic adjustment covers were not the ticket. he went out and bought a 3.5-10x40 VXIII and evidently not his cup of tea either. Part of the agreement when he sold it to me was he could have it back if he needed it. I looked thru both in actual hunting situations at dark and took an animal with the Zeiss. There is simply no comparism the Zeiss is brighter noticeably brighter and its crosshairs are superior. A comparism in any environment other then the actual hunting place or shooting place at all different hours is what really matters. At the target range the Zeiss is much sharper. I'll beat that VX-III with my Nikon Monarch 3-9x40 which is 150 dollars cheaper and has 1 piece tube design. The Leupold with its 3piece tube is shoddier construction and way overpriced . Thanks god there is Ebay to correct ones mistake. Now I have to replace that Conquest that would have gone on my custom gun. You can bet your bottom dollar it won't be a Leupold.

bigcountry

Absolutely, very possible. I bet you anything, if leupold, and zeiss is like my company, they know the numbers. They know the chances of the tolerances lining up and with a bad scope. They know the statistics on failures, and acceptable failures. Yes, every company has "acceptable failure rate". I know we do. But the difference is, the goverment, our customer, keeps very tight watch on our failures and noncompliances. We consumers don't have the equipment or luxery of see which specs are met. And its all subjective to teh set of eyes looking at it. Its a much slower process than the goverment labs, but its also much harder to repair a damaged reputation with us consumers.

Clarity and brightness are usually two different problems us scope enthusist has to worry about. They always don't go hand in hand. Most people I believe confuse one with the other. Sure if you len cut sucks, clarity is off, and usually cuts of transmission or brightness. But other things go into it. You could have a very clear sharp scope with bad index match coatings and brightness go downhill.