Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss 2.5-10x42 Diavari vs. the Conquest 3-9x40

Just wondering as good a scope that the Conquest is, just how much different/better is that Diavari ? Is the reticle spec the same for a Z-plex vs. the No. 8? 1st plane/2nd?

Anyone done a side by side? Curious.

I have done a side by side with the diavari you mention vs. the conquest 3.5-10x44. I know - not exactly what you are asking but close.

Their is really no comparison. IMO you won't find a better scope than the Diavari 2.5-10x42. It is a FFP scope and the thin part of the crosshair on the 8 is wider than on the 20.

Have compared both a older 3-9 Diavari V and a 2.5-10 Victory to a 3-9 Conquest(s)--they were all #4 reticles. TO me, FWIW, the Grrman scopes had a better look and were a little easier to get into. The glass quality was better. At the time they may have been a spread of around 3x and that certainly seems as much as it should/could be accepting of the diminishing return.

I agree.

I have compared my Conquest 3-9x with the Diavari V 2.5-10 42mm.

The Conquest is a great scope, but the Diavari is better (albeit with slightly less eye relief).

I am pretty sure the 2.5-10x42 Diavari is now discontinued, so don't wait much longer...

John

John, would not mind running one, but cashflow makes it a non-option for now. So other than FFP, and reticle specs, apparently the Diavari takes optics up another notch?

Anyone compare the Diavari to a Swaro 3-10x42 by chance? Not sure if that's a FFP or not, and I do know some of their plex centers are thin for my tastes, though they have options like 4a.

Thanks for the feedback all.

The #8 reticle/FFP is a great setup, in my opinion. At 2.5X, the heavy posts (and they are very heavy) form a nice bracket for quick, close up/moving shots. At higher powers the heavy posts move out of the way and the thinner (but not overly thin) parts of the reticle allow for more precise aiming. I haven't done a side-by-side, but I've looked through both and the glass on the Victory is "wow" good, to my eyes. They eye box seems to be better, as well.

65BR,

I also happen to have the Swarovski scope you mention (all with Number 4 or 4a reticles -- which I really like!).

Unfortunately, I did not have all three scopes in my possession at the same time (the Diavari was on a borrowed rifle, sob!) so the only direct comparison is between the Conquest and the Diavari. However, since then, I have compared my Swarovski to the Conquest (and to my old favorite, the Leupold 2.5-8x 36mm).

The trusty old Leupold finished last optically, then the Conquest, and the Swarovski was on top optically. I *think* the Diavari would be slightly better than the Swarovski for image quality but we are close to splitting hairs here...

Note that the difference between the Conquest and the Swarovski was pretty damn small to be honest! Even though I saved money by buying a "demo" Swarovski, the small optical improvement over the Conquest makes it difficult to justify the MUCH higher cost of the Swarovski except for the reticle. I do like the Swarovski (or Diavari) reticle the best! The outer arms are fat and can be seen in near darkness and are just the right distance apart; the fine section is so fine you can aim at very small targets without covering them.

Overall, (and I hate to be boring and re-state what many have said here at the 'Fire), I would get the Conquest 3-9x -- it has longer eye relief than other Conquests scopes (good my for my .375 H&H!). All of the scopes (Conquest 3-9, Swarovski and Leupold 2.5-8) have held up well on my two .375 H&H rifles with no problems.

The optical quality of Swarovski OR the Diavari are what Swedes would call "cake on cake" -- nice to have, but "excessively good" for just a simple aiming device.

John

Right. I had a Diavari 2.5-10x42. The optics were very good and I like the way the rite tickle worked. However the eye relief wasa far too short for me to comfortably use. I got rid of it and happily went To a conquest.

The Diavari is a great scope, just not the RIGHT scope for me.

Yup been there done that too. Though not with a 4a. That said, I own more than one zeiss and less than one Swarovski. Comprende?

Here's the answer, maybe:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=306058108

I have three Diavari scopes with FFP reticles and a couple of Conquests. For target work the 2FP Conquests are better. For hunting the FFP Diavaris are better. Both ways by a good margin IMO.

Thanks for all the great feedback. It looks like ergonomics are more different among some of the scopes above vs. pure optical quality as all quite good. No doubt 1st/2nd and reticles matter.

If I could just get a 6x Conquest with #4 reticle - may just get a Conquest/#4 and use Blue Tape on the Power Ring knob

Me too I guess. Conquest vs German Made Diavari. It simply isn't even close. The Diavari is obviously superior. I even think some Bushnell Elites and Nikon Monarchs were equal or better than the Conquest. None bettered the Diavari.

I do think some of the Swaro's I have seen on other people's rifles equal or exceed even the Diavari.

Thanks.

Forgot to come back to this thread...

As mentioned above by more than one, the Diavari does not have any excess of eye relief. On a rifle with serious recoil, I would select the 3-9x Conquest for its long (4 inch?) eye relief. That is what my light .375 H&H Magnum wears now.

The view through the Conquest is very good, but to my eyes the Diavari is a clear step beyond it.

Decisions, decisions...

John

No contest. Diavari #1.