Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Kahles CL 3X9X42 VS Conquest 3X9X40 ????

I have a chance to upgrade from my Conquest to the Kahles CL. I own 2 Kahles 2-7X36 scopes. One is an AH and one a CL, so I do like Kahles scopes. I think both my Kahles are slightly brighter than my Zeiss. Would the 3X9X42 CL be even more of an improvement or about the same as my other Kahles scopes? I have read a lot of good reviews on the 3X9X42 CL as being a particularly good model.

How do you guys think the Zeiss and Kahles I am considering would compare? Would you consider the Kahles worth $250 more?

The Kahles C and CL are the same, but for the tube. They're Kahles' top of the line. So, if can or can't see a difference between your AH and CL in the 2-7x36 (which is going to be personal perception/opinion mostly), then there's your answer.

Given the law of diminishing returns regarding optics quality:cost, yeah, I'd say it's appropriately worth the $250 extra. It's a top drawer scope and I really like their reticles. After all that, it's still a personal call though.

RH,

I think sandcritter is spot on in his post.
I have quite a few Kahles and like them a lot, and personally think they are worth the extra money over a Conquest.

Having said that, no one else will see things the way your eyes do for your use.

I also have a couple of the 3-9 Conquests, and they are excellent for the money, and will get most any hunting chore done during legal light, but they don't compare to the Kahles.

Just depends on your uses and what you want.
Good luck whatever you decide,
-Ted

I have a couple of Conquests in 3-9 as well as Kahles in 2-7 and 3-9 CLs.
I'm with PaleRider, the Conquest is a good scope but I don't think it compares with the 3-9 CL.
To me the difference is worth the extra $250

Not to steal post but how does the ah compare to the cl?
I have a ah in a 3-9x42

Have a couple of CLs (3-9 and 2-7s0 and a couple of Conquests. The Kahles are much better to my eyes. The Conquests are good for the price, but I like my Kahles better...

I only have an AH and Helia CL. Both are 2-7X36. I actually like the AH a little better. I can't tell any difference optically just looking through them at different times of day. I shot them both into a setting sun a few days ago and the glare seemed less with the AH. I was shooting prone in the fields though so a slight change in position may have accounted for it.

The AH definitely has less of a tunnel vision effect than the CL. When looking through the scopes, the AH seems to show about 1/8" black ring from the tube. The CL shows a bit thicker black ring of the tube. It's no big deal but noticeable.

Currently I don't have a Kahles but do have several Conquest's. To my eye, the Kahles is waaaayyy better even though I don't have one. If I could get a deal on one I'd jump on it and $250 is well worth it I think. As I believe it was David Miller said, quality optics cost nothing and weigh nothing. Kahles is pure quality to me right along with Swaro's.

Rh Clark

I appreciate the info. I my ah mounted on a 300wsm browning abolt. I don't use the gun a lot as I'm partial to my 25-06ai but it sure is nice glass. From what is seen it would be hard to get a lot of improvement.

What Tulie says..

Conquests really appear bright and sharp to me for the $, but I'd still pay the extra for the Kahles.

I am also a Kahles fan. They end up on my favorite, go to, rifles.

donsm70

Yep to all of that.

I own both and the Kahles is much brighter and sharper. Conquests are great scopes for the money but the Kahles is a visually significant step up. Conquests seem to be where the returns vs. dollars spent graph starts to flatten significantly.