Originally Posted by Lloyd
never said I was and sure wasn't singling you out. Tell you another thing. Ive seen where two or more people looked through the same two scopes and picked different ones out as the best. What I use mostly to determine whats a good scope is low light. yes its only one aspect but most scopes that are good at low light are good everywhere. I have one Swarovski that was a 2k scope that I got for a criminal price at the local gun shop. Its my standard that others are compared to. When I look at scope performance ill take that one out to make sure my eyes aren't playing tricks on me. Is it better in low light then the others ive suggested? you bet it is but it should be. But in all reality it only buys a couple minutes at the end of the day when compared to a typical 500 dollar scope.
Now if you want to be a ziess cheerleader please explain to me how many corners they have to cut to go from a 2k scope to a 500 dollar conquest. Also try to convice me that labor in Germany is cheaper then it is in japan where they make the bush 4200 or the Nikon monarch. The best glass in the world used to be made in Germany. But this isn't 1970. today the japs and the Chinese make glass every bit as good as the germans do and yes even glass from America is just as good today. Look at a nightforce or top end leupold or and youll see.
Personaly I more then satisfied with the performance of a 500 dollar scope. If you really want good german glass go get yourself a kahles. Me ill take a vx2 or vx3. Ive used them for over 40 years and my deer shooting goes for 3 months every year and most days find me in the field. They are not decorations on fancy guns that sit in the safe. there working scopes. Ive yet to have a leupold let me down in the field. By the way if you bought that conquest for 300 bucks you bought in many years ago and the leupolds you had to compare it to are not even close opticaly the the same models today. I paid 400 for the last 3x9 I bought and that was a GOOD 15 years ago. If they sold conquests for 300 bucks today id be all over them but ive looked through a couple of those zeiss terra and I personaly think they don't hold up to an optical comparison with a new vx1. I think youll find lots who agree with that. Even they cost more then 300 bucks today.
New conquests are in the 1000 dollar range and from what ive heard (and it surely might not be correct) Zeiss found they couldn't make the conquests to compete at the 500 dollar level anymore so they brought out the terra and improved the old conquests and bumped them up to the 1000 dollar range. So now lets compare them in the real world they cost 3 times more then a vx2 and twice what a vx3 costs. There surely not worth 3 times the price of vx2. But they do have that cool emblem on the turret cap. I'm surely not going to get in some kind of a pissing match over this. I know where my money is best spent. I'm not buying 100k porche either when a new vette will be it in any performance category or a range rover for 80 that isn't as reliable as a 30k ford.
Well Lloyd, that's quite a crock there, no doubt. At this time, I own over 50 big game rifles scoped with various brands. Bushnell (4200), Burris FF & FFII, Hawke Optics, Leupold, Minox, Nikon, Pentax, Redfield, Vortex, Weaver & Zeiss. No scope has cost me over $500. Do you know that the new Zeiss Conquest line-up is now a 5X zoom? Do you know that It's more expensive to make 5X zoom than 3X zoom (like the older Zeiss Conquest or the Leupold VX2 or VX3?) Likely not. I'd suggest you peruse the Leupold VX-6 lineup to see what they cost.
I bought my first Conquest in 2005, a silver finish 3-9x40 for $400. I just bought my 5th about 3 weeks ago NIB for $365, a 3-9x40. The low light comparisons I've done (MANY!) have shown the Conquest to easily be superior to VX1, VX2, and VX3. The Conquests have also been superior, without a doubt, to any other scope I own in low light clarity and brightness. However, I do prefer my Leupold VX-Rs to the Zeiss in VERY low light and used on a dark colored target. The illuminated reticle makes a big difference there.
So you know, after reading your posts here, your eyes are playing "tricks" on you if you think a VX1, VX2 or VX3 is superior to a Zeiss Conquest. And, I've also had the opportunity to work with a couple Zeiss Terras as well. You talk trash about them, but my eyes show them better than a VX3 and with a better reticle for low light than a standard duplex VX3 as well. Anyone who talks about scopes produced 20-30 years ago within ANY
comparison with today's scopes is one silly man. Yup, I own more Leupold scopes than any other single manufacturer, about 20. But I'm not about to say something as silly as that a VX2 is as good as a Zeiss Conquest. Time to go back to the optometrist Lloyd.
For those interested (stop reading here Lloyd) here's a Conquest at a very good price point: