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.

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...

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