Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss scopes....? If they were 'leaner' would you use more?

Just curious, hearing comments in the past about ocular size, etc. though I did not see a big diff between a 3-9 Conquest and the 3-10 VX3 - both 40. The reticle sure does look crisper on the Zeiss on paper...and when comparing the 4-14x44 to the 4-14x40 VX3 I dare say my eyes liked the Zeiss more, seemed like a bigger eyebox.

SO my question is, does the 'dimensions' really turn you off, and if Zeiss re-engineers them to be 'slimmer/lighter' etc. how might that affect you guys using them?

Yes, I would use them more. In a standard 30-40mm objective scope, I want the objective to determine ring height, not the ocular. And keep the weight down.

Minox did a good job of this with their new line of scopes which, interestingly enough, have the same size ocular as your standard Leupold.

I would use them more - I've always liked Zeiss. And I'm with Dan, objective should determine ring height, not the back end. But I'm a form AND function guy - they're a little blocky for me.

They'd have sold a pant load of their now discontinued 2.5x8 if it didn't look like the dang thing was mounted bassackwards.

They'd put a world of hurt on Leupold if they did a streamlined redesign.

Yes.

On the one hand, physics is physics and since much high end stuff has some heft, there must be (?) valid design reasons. As clark98ut said, take the ocular for example. On the other hand, look at Leopold's size/weight. The Conquest line experiment was very successful for Zeiss, but for ebb/flow of the economy would think they'd take their lessons-learned and run with it (strive for shorter, lighter while continuing to respect and forego that last 5% of performance which is 50% of the cost). I really do think a lot of folks would like to try zeiss/S&B/etc and are game to squirrel away the funds, but on figuring in the size/weight penalty interest fades. Fortunately the used market makes it more palatable.

Short answer is Yes.

I don't really care if they are sleeker or not. I'm all about the optical clarity, light transmission performance, and the ability to hold zero. I will continue to use Zeiss until there is a better bang for the buck in the above performance categories.

Zeiss produces a number of models on both sides of the pond. Interesting enough the eye piece diameter is identical on all of this ( Victory, Classic, Duralyt, Conquest). There must be a reason behind that. Form must follow function and not the other way around . With over 150 years of experience you'd figure they could come up with petite scopes like Leupold.

I'd love it if they retained all the function, somehow, with a smaller ocular and a little less weight.

If your entire game plan gets [bleep] up by an additional 2-3 ounces, you have other issues to work on.

+1,000

I couldn't agree more.

The pearl of the day right there.

With eyes that are older, very nearsighted and keeping glaucoma in check, that large ocular, clear reticle and eyebox are absolutely beautiful! At some point over the past year the rear fast focus ring became essential.

Cheers,

GrimJim

They certainly aren't suited for all rifles. Because everyone who has any sense knows that not all "additional 2-3 ounces" are created equal. Two or three ounces and an extra two inches in length will sometimes screw up the balance on a rifle beyond belief.

+1 !

Curly

True, but their 40mm objective lens is housed in a 42mm bell which forces us Ruger users to go to medium, instead of low rings.

Yes.

My best single scope is a Zeiss Victory (Diavari) 2.5-10x42. Freaky amazing optics. In my "garage testing", with the lights out and a flashlight pointing towards a corner, I can see far, far deeper into the shadows with clarity than I can can with a Conquest (1.8-5.5 even!), Leupold VXIII 2.5-8 and Burris Euro-D 3-10x44 scopes. Garage testing may not be "real world", but you can really get a damn fine feel for how a scope resolved detail in a controlled light condition.

But the 2.5-10x42 doesn't fit on my Remmie M7MS unless I want to pull the rear sight off (umm, nope). Doesn't work on my Ruger #1 - scope's just short enough and eye relief doesn't let that happen without me stretching and craning my neck. And it sure doesn't fit on my Marlin 336. Talk about eyebox issues with Talley lightweights! (side note: the Talley Design is tough to work around on the 336. Pushes the scope too far to the rear.)

No, the M7MS wears the 2.5-8x36 Loop III. The dimensions are perfect.
The Marlin wears a Loop III 1.5-5.5 - the eye relief is so forgiving I can make it work with them Talley rings.
The .375 H&H wears the Conquest 1.8-5.5 - and while it's 6 oz. heavier than I want, the optics are outstanding and the #20 ret works near as good as a Loop Heavy Dup.
And the No. 1 wears a Minox 2-10 not hugely happy with the reticle (a bit fine to me), but otherwise it's light and fast with perfect eye releif.

So the Victory 2.5-10x42 sits atop my Pre-64 M70 .300 H&H. And it WORKS PERFECTLY there.

Zeiss doesn't really make a scope that fits my M7MS without resorting to either a straight tube 1-4x, or going to high rings. The Conquest 3-9x40 would work on the Ruger but them Minox open box Cam-Land scopes really are such a deal...Of course, the .375 could benefit from a 1-4...I have that in a Burris Euro-D that I got for a steal.

So, yes, I LOVE Zeiss optics and I would LOVE IT if they came out with some smaller dimensioned scopes.

No big deal though. About the time you get over $400 for a scope the realization hits: they are all damn good. The second realization is that until you get deep over the $1k mark, it's hard to see much difference in optical quality.

The third realization is: I'm far more likely just to flat out not even see that buck in the first place than I am to truly need optics as good as the Diavari...

Zeiss Scopes...I'd use more if I had more money. I'd love to put a Zeiss 2.5-10x42 Varipoint on my pre-64 Model 70 in 30-06.

I am perfectly happy with zeiss scopes as is and I actually prefer them. I have more leupolds as they are cheaper and easier to obtain for a good price used but both of my seriois hunting rifles wear zeiss, both bought from here.

I've got a Vortex 2-7x32, a Nikon Monarch 2-7x32 and an Aimpoint CompM4 w/the 3X Aimpoint magnifier for the scopes on my hunting shotguns (turkey and deer). I'm hoping that my lovely bride will get me a Smith & Wesson 500 from the custom shop that has the 10" Lothar-Walther barrel with the full muzzle break for Christmas. Then I can apply for 4 different deer "seasons" in IL.

I have a Hensoldt 6-24x72 on my Weatherby 30-378 AI when I have the opportunity to hunt "beanfield" style in adjoining states, and my real home, Texas.