Just got my Zeiss Conquest 1.8-5.5 scope in the mail from Doug at Cameraland and three things came to mind, immediately:

1. Dang, this is a big scope.
2. Wow, this is a heavy scope.
3. I should have bought two!!

This is a big scope, and it has more mounting area than any other scope I own, with the exception of my Leupold M8 3x's. Since I'm in the middle of a scope shuffle at the moment, here is a comparison picture: from left to right--Zeiss Conquest 1.8-5.5, Trijicon Accupoint 3-9x40, Leupold Vari XIII 2.5-8, Leupold M8 3x



As can be seen, the Zeiss is the biggest of them. It is also the heaviest; although I didn't weigh them to see exactly what they weighed, the Zeiss felt notably heavier in the hand than the Trijicon. The Zeiss also has a very large rear objective bell which will prevent it from being mounted as low as other scopes of comparable power. For instance, although the front objective of the Zeiss is only 2mm larger than the Leupold 2.5-8 (38mm vs. 36mm) the rear objective of the Zeiss will require it to use rings higher than those required by the Leupold. This matters to me because I like to have my scopes mounted as low as possible. However, given the eye relief and optical quality of the Zeiss I'm happy to make the trade-off and only use this scope on guns where I'm using medium height scope rings anyway, like my CZ 550 9.3x62.

Here's another picture showing the usable mounting surface of the Zeiss, compared to a Leupold M8 3x. If you have a problem with ring spacing, this scope can solve it:



Here's the clearance between the rear objective bell and the bolt handle on my CZ 550 using medium rings; if the rings were any lower, this scope wouldn't work. Something to keep in mind.



Here's a picture of the scope mounted; with the long, constant, eye relief I was able to mount it very far forward which I like. This way the weight of the scope is almost entirely over the action, concentrating the weight of the gun, when loaded, between my hands. Because the rear objective is so large, it is also heavy so mounting the scope further back would alter the balance of the gun. All told, this scope, although heavy, doesn't diminish the handling qualities of this rifle because of the latitude afforded by the large mounting surface.



Another picture:



Conclusion: I wish I'd have bought two. According to Doug these are sold out and for $299 shipped I can see why. I haven't tested the optics against my other scopes yet but, just from casual comparison I can say that the Zeiss (set at 3x) is sharper and brigher than the M8 Leupold, about on par with the Vari XIII (when set to 2.5) and just a shade less color-saturated than the Trijicon (when set to 3x). All that said, even if the glass wasn't great, which it is, this scope will still fill a niche for those needing a long tubed, variable powered scope for use with standard rings on long actions, or for forward mounting on standard actions.

What kind of rings are they? I have an old ZKK 600-7x64, needing some scope and rings work. CZs are notorius about their high bolt lift. Does some one manufacture Picattiny rail adaptor for CZ/ZKK rifles? It would make it a multi purpose hunting tool.

Good review of the scope. It really shows the applications this scope would be good for. Thanks Oregon45!

Zeiss likes to take a modular approach to manufacturing, reusing component modules rather than creating a new module for a particular design. That can mean larger volume and heavier weight as it does for this scope.

I am not saying it is good, bad or indifferent, just saying that it is.

jim

Oregon45, I've had mine for about a month now. I too, wish I'd had the spare play money around to buy two of 'em!

Everything you typed is true. I'll add a couple things.

The ocular WILL clear the bolt with Talley Low's on a Model 7- even with Butler Creek flip-ups.

The repeatability on mine is great. Mine is mounted on my .358. In order to increase the utility of the rifle, I have been practicing at longer ranges with it. I am just using the stock elevation turret. It dials up and down and back to zero just fine.

Optically, it borders on spectacular. Really, really nice.

Oregon45, I will very much be interested in YOUR results with respect to low-light performance, but in my informal tests it is clearly better in very low light than my VX-III 2.5x8's. More contrast, more apparant resolution as the light fades, and in the end, it stays "legible" deeper into the gloom.

It's a good thing I didn't get two of them, because if I had, I'd be shopping for a .375 to mount it on. Would be perfect for that.

Thanks to Doug for the great deal on a very intriguing scope!

-jeff

I mounted one of these on my Anschutz 1710 22lr



This in the first 5 shot group at 50 yards outdoors.



I was so happy with the purchase from Doug that I bought a spare
1.8-5.5 x 38 Zeiss again from Doug when I heard these were being discontinued.

Discontinued?!

That figures.

The rings are Burris mediums; they may or may not fit the older ZKK's. Drilling and tapping the CZ's bridge for a picatinny rail should be no problem.

Thanks Oregon45,
I am going to try the Burris. Drilling the rear bridge would be difficult. There is a pop up peep sight installed into it, which
takes up almost the entire lenght. Burris should fit, since the dove tail grooved receiver is identical on the new and old CZ/ZKK.

I once considered that scope when it first came out til I saw the specs on it, dang its long and heavy (18 oz I believe). Th eone that would be a better comparison is the Conquest 2.5-8x32, its an inch shoter and almost 5 oz lighter than the 1.8-5.

It is, for those reasons, a limited application scope. I would not use this scope on a light, or even medium weight gun. I like it on my 9.3x62 as it helps to slow the recoil of my relatively light, McMillan stocked CZ 550; I am looking to buy another 1.8-5.5 for use on a CZ 550 458 Winchester magnum, where an extra 180z of scope weight can be a good thing

All in all, I view scopes as one part of the rifle "system." Depending on the use I intend to put the system to, the individual components will be required to perform different functions at different weights and sizes.

This is why it pays to try as many scopes as possible. I've had ten different optics on the 9.3x62 in the past three years (Leupold 3x, 4x, 2.5x, 1-4x, 1.5-5x; Trijicon 1.25-4x, 3-9x; Aimpoint Comp 9000L, Comp 9000L 2x; Burris 1.5-4), all are quality optics and my decision to move them from this gun had nothing to do with how they work in isolation, but rather how they interacted with the stock, the load and my intended purpose for the rifle.

So complaints about the size and weight of this scope are natural, but I don't see its weight as a drawback given the intended uses I've outlined.

That's a McMillan AHR, right?

Yes, the old, now discontinued pattern. American Hunting Rifles still has a few in stock ready to go but new stocks ordered from McMillan will be made in McMillan's new CZ pattern which is virtually identical to their Sako classic pattern.

Understood, its just hard for me to imagine making a gun heavier as opposed to lighter.

I've found that balance is more important to the handling qualities of a rifle than is overall weight; also, for shot to shot recovery a slightly heavier gun performs better, for me at least. With this 9.3x62 increasing the weight by 7 ounces has allowed me to fire a faster second shot, which is how I practice from hunting positions as I'm a real believer in backing up my own shots.

It matters not on my M7 in .358.

What does matter is low-light performance and then the usual stuff.

So far, after a month, the 1.5x5.8 is "better" in low light than my Loopy 2.5x8's. I could care less about a few ounces or some length. It's not a sheep rifle.

They are 16oz with the Zeiss supplied scope covers , a little over 15 oz without.

Mine came today from eurooptics.

Very nice scope and looking forward to some range time this weekend with it.

From the many of the photos I have seen over the years of gun nuts and hunters , I always laugh when folks are more concerned with a riflescope that weighs 3 oz more than it 'should' than with packing an extra 30 pounds around the belt.

Most of the time, that extra 30lbs is the REASON they're so concerned about adding any extra weight at all, even 3oz

Some people like the way a particular rifle balances with certain scope combinations especially the ultralights. Leupold has a market all to themselves when it comes to compact scopes.

The Zeiss website is a little misleading with the weight of this scope so it surprised me when I weighed it and lo and behold they were off. 30 lbs is small change to what a lot of hunters are packing extra around the waist...the age of the supersize hunter is here and the xxxl sizes in hunting clothes is indicative of that, I don't know how horses can tolerate it.

Butler Creek flip-ups will fit it, and still clear the bolt on a M7 with Talley low's, for anyone interested.

I used mine again today, out to 400 yards with my .358, dialing it up and down with the stock turret.

Really nice scope.

I did another comparison last night. It was the Zeiss that is the topic of this thread, Leupold 2.5-8 (VX and Vari-X), and a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44mm.

The 1.8-5.5 simply smoked them all in the dim light. This is my finest scope, optically, and not by a little.

For $299! Cool beans.

HOWEVER, it's actually bigger and longer than the 3.5x10x44mm. Guess there's a price for the optical quality.

The resolution, eye box, and brightness are just superb.

If I could think of another rifle that could use one, I'd be all over it, but it is a rather "specialty" scope.

-jeff

I wish Zeiss scopes were a little more compact, as far as size goes.
Other than that minor foible, I really like the Conquest.

This model, in particular, is large all out of proportion to it's magnification.

But MAN it is optically great!

Thinking it would be killer on a .375. I sure like it on my M7, but it's undeniably large for the rifle, aesthetically.

yep,
Tis the reason I have not bought more conquests-kind of silly perhaps, as they seem to offer excellent optics and adjustment repeatability for a good price.

My .358 M7 is a crucial rifle for me, and since I hunt alone usually, it's not a fashion show out there <g>. So, I'll take the optical upgrade- the low light in particular- and accept the fact that, yes, it's a cosmetic downgrade from a nice trim Leupold.

You know what kept striking me last night as I switched from one rifle/scope to the other? The "three-dimensionality" of the image through the 1.8-5.5. Or is it 1.5-5.8 <g>. At any rate, it was slap-your-forehead better.

three-dimensionality....

Yep.

A crystalline sense of being able to easily still see things in 3-d as the light faded. Unlike the Leupold 2.5x8, which really "flattens out" the image at the very end of the light.

To my eyes, at least.