Nikon vs Zeiss
 

I would like opinions on the two; especially if you HAVE BOTH so you can make a fair and unbias review. I thought I had the scope picked out for my Browing BAR .270.....a Nikon Monarch 2.5-10X42 BDC. Now I'm second guessing myself on the scope and the reticle. Everyone swears by Zeiss. I've looked through them and they are nice. But so are the Monarchs. I do not have an opportunity to look through both during "ideal" hunting conditions. I'm having to go to one store that has one and then go to another store (sometimes an hour away) to look at the other. I have found the Monarch for $350-$400; the Zeiss is about $200 more. I can't say I see an extra $200 worth of scope there...but again I can't look through them side by side to make that determination. I did look through a Meopta and was really blown away!! VERY high end scope! So what do ya'll think??--DrASUS

Both are nice scopes. Don't know where you were shopping, but you can stil get the Conquest 3x9x40 for about $420 here:

www.natchezss.com

Zeiss is the next level....................




Both nice scopes.

Monarchs are great scopes, however I'm not very familiar with the Zeiss line. Just make sure you are comparing apples to apples. Monarch in it's price range it a great optic, it seems the Zeiss you are looking at may be a higher priced line. If you want to look at a higher priced line of Nikon, check out the Monarch X, Premier, or even the new EDG line (EDG are very the best Nikon offers and yes, they are expensive but are AMAZING!!) It all comes down to what looks best to you, all of our eyes are different, and what looks good to you may not look good to someone else. Look through the ones you like and pick the one YOU like best!! Good luck

I have both scopes and the zeiss conquest for me is the winner. The nikon has a pleasant feeling when peering through it for sure but after plenty of side by side in the outdoors, the zeiss is clearer, brighter and has better resolution/contrast. In regards to my niokon the power ring is stiff & I actually find it bulky in design/stature. My zeiss's are excellent in POI tracking my nikon is average. In terms of holding POI both have been good. I like the zeiss reticles better then nikon's as well. ER on the 2 are identical with the 40mm zeiss and 42 mm monarch at 4" constent, however I find the eye positioning is slightly more critical with the monarch.

Optics are personal & for me the zeiss is the better fit and most pleasing to my eyes. It is not unreasonable your the opposite. However judging optics in a store only isn't the best way to get a true feel. I suggest you head to the shop and ask to look outside with the scopes of interest. If the store is open hours that will allow you some fading light that is even better. If not possible most stores have a return policy of some sort and will take back a scope as long as it's not mounted.

Best of luck

+1 Skeeter's comments. Additionally, the Meopta Meostar's are very nice. Their ER is a bit short, but on a .270 that would be a non-issue. Good luck. :s2:

I ordered the monarch to be put on my hill country rifle and after looking through the Zeiss I ordered the 3.5-10X50, Nikon is ok but I love the Zeiss.

Nikon has good optics,Zeiss has EXCELENT optics! I own 2 Conquest scopes,3-9-50mm and a 4.5-14-44mm...:hail:

I have a number of Nikon's and Leupolds and finally bought my first Zeiss this year, hands down the Zeiss is the winner.

Dalebow---I have to ask why the 3.5-10X50 vs the 3-9X50?? You're only getting .5-1x more magnification but yet the 3.5-10X50 costs about $150 more. Would there be much difference between the 3-9X40 and 3-9X50? And does Zeiss make any 30mm tube scopes? Is that their Davari line? I just need a really good scope that lets me see in the 30 mins after sunset (my state's legal hunting time)...cause that's when 95% of the deer move.--DrASUS

You may also want to check out Swarovski. The old AV series are on sale in many places as they have now come out with a Z-3 and a Z-5 to go with the Z-6. I have two of the AV models and they are wonderful in low light. Just a thought. ;)

To be honest I like the 10 power, it isnt a lot past the 9 power but does make a littel diff and It will allow you to see well into dusk, actually with moonlight can make out an animails indiviual eyes ans and features.
I think the 3X9X50 would be fine as well.:sheep:

Actually the higher the mag the more critical the external lighting becomes, now 1x isn't going to make a hill of beans in difference but if you have or used a spotting scope you'd know more mag needs more light.

I have had 40mm, 44mm & 50 mm conquests the only positive difference the bigger objective had was FOV. I found no better twilght performance with a 50mm vs the 40mm. Negatives such as higher mounting, scabbord issues, etc IMO outweigh the positives of a larger bell (objectives). For biggame needs the 2-3x to 9-10x x 40mm is my choice. LR target &/or varmit I see the need for higher mag.

Our big game hunting hours are 1/2 hour before and after, no problems with my 40mm zeiss's.

One thing to add once you've selected your scope make sure to put on quality mounts. Talley or Warne would be my choice. However I've had good results in the past with Leupold Dovetails as well.

Good luck

Yea I have Talley mounts on my TC Triumph and they are a very high quality mount. I probably will not go with another mount. I plan on getting some Talleys for my Browning BAR Safari when I re-scope her and some for my Browning X-bolt I plan on getting.--DrAsus :rock:

I like the 50 mm objective, we are talking 10mm and with talley rings you only need the medium rings, I put mine in quick detach and keep a strait 6X40 in my pack incase of a fall or damaged scope, release the leavers, pop in the 6 powere and go, my 3.5-10X50 is zeroed for 180gr tsx and I have a 3X9X50 zeroed for the 130 gr TSX, great rifle and does it all:-)

I have both .... 2 Monarch's , 2 - Zeiss Conquests . In my opinion the Conquest is a superior value by far.

+1 for the Zeiss. I have a 6.5-20x50 Conquest on my varmint AR, and have no complaints whatsoever. It is clear and crisp from edge to edge, never loses zero, and seems very solid. I compared them side by side when I was scope shopping. Not to get off-subject, but another good one is the Burris Fullfield II. Good glass, great warranty, and a nice ballistic plex reticle. I have one on my 300 WSM. It's been used, abused, dropped, muddy, cold, hot, and has held up through hundreds of 300 WSM rounds without losing it's zero. They cost quite a bit less too.

Yep, the Diarairi V/VM series are 30MM tubes. I own many different makes of scopes and the V/VM series of scopes are the best of them. My 2.5-10x50IR is mounted on my 30/06 and it is what I used when hunted boar in Germany. This hunting is done at night and if there is any moonlight at all the scope gathers it and I had no problem being able to hunt at midnight.
WW

i have a 3.5x10 x50mm ZeissConquest and its got a better view,clearer and crisper image,and better E/R than the nikon monarch does,in an earlier post someone mentioned there is no difference in twilight between a 40mm VS. a 50mm,i am gonna argue that one.we have had the same identical scopes a 40mm and a 50mm sitting inside of a swamp,and could see 15 minutes longer with the 50mm than we could a 40mm,there is a world of difference.the 50mm is letting in way more light than a 40mm,do the test yourself you will see,
call [email protected] and ask his expert opinion

It was me who said it and I annotated that it was my experience on the same scope model of 40 through 50 mm objectives. Based on my legal hunting hours 1/2 before and after I saw no difference in the ability to acquire my target with the 50 vs the 40's. I see no need to see after or before that because: A) its not legal and B) a scope is an aiming device not a scanning optic (such as bins or spotter).