There's some good deals now.
I know its no conquest but at around $200....well....good deal?
Thinking a 2-7 for woods hunting.

I generally do not comment on products I have not used but I saw the same
Deal and almost pulled the trigger. However, after a ton of
Research I went with the Conquest 3-9 for 299. Seems everyone loves the Conquest but reviews on Terra were inconsistent and some quite poor. If you do get the terra please post a
Report as I am still not sure I made the
right choice. I spent way too much time this weekend researching scope, so many deals out there.

I have a 3x9x42 and it seems I only hunt woods. It has served me well. Recently took a buck at a bait site 50 yards away just before dark that I had no idea was even there until I made one final pass with the scope. I've got it on a heavy barrel wthby vanguard and the set up has been producing .5" groups at the bench. Paid $400 for mine when they first came out, which seems to be what I generally pay for a scope. I also have the conquest, I can't tell the difference between the two, but if it says Zeiss on the box I'll try it at least once.

Ordered a 3-9x40 Conquest from Eurooptics for $299 and got it in the mail today. I went ahead and got a conquest because they are not making them anymore. I also ordered a 3-9x50 Terra on sale for $246.99 shipped. I figured if Zeiss has put their name on it, then it has to be a decent scope. I haven't got this one in the mail yet.

By the time one of my buddies gave his OK we missed on ordering 3 of the 2-7s.....they were out and no back orders at that price.
They told me when I called in they bought all the last 3-9 conquests and have like 700 of them left and will continue to offer em for $299.
Still thinking about one....oh well.....lol!

Buy the 3X9 Conquest. I would rather have it than the Terra.

I've been useing Zeiss Terra 3 3-9X42 with the RZ6 reticle on two rifles for two seasons now. I also have a Conquest 3-9X40 on a rifle for one season.

My 223 super lite T3 prints under 1" at 300 yds with the Terra 3 RZ6 and last outing at the range printed 2.41" at 500 yds. One thing to keep in mind is if you get a Terra 3 with RZ reticle parralax is set at 300 yds; hence the reason for exceptional 300 and 500 yd groups in a non AO scope.

The Terra 3 with standard reticle has a 100 yd parralax setting. This scope will be more accurate at 100 yds however not as accurate as the RZ reticle at longer ranges.

Some apparently do not like the Terra 3 as eye relief drops to 3" on 9 power. I believe on 3 power it was something like 3.6" I personally have never had an issue with eye relief however my largest rifle I have a Terra on is a 270 Tikka T3

Comparing my Terra 3 in the field vs the Conquest I don't see the difference some on this forum have claimed( whom have never used the Terra 3 in the field). The Conquest does have a very minimal amount of better resolution in my opinion.

I'd I had to choose between the Conquest or Terra 3 for my use I would choose the Terra 3 every time. The Terra 3 is lighter, more compact, and so far has been Dependable for two seasons on two different rifles that are not only hunted but see a lot of range time. The 270 has 600+ rounds downrange so not a big test but a start.

I have also compared the Terra 3 to a FX3 leupy I've had for years. I could have easily remounted the fixed 6 on my 270 however I prefer the Zeiss stay right where it is.



Shod

Well...GEE.....thanks Shod.....now I feel dumb for not jumping on one of those....I think they were $229!

I snoozed....I losed! Oh well...we'll see what the Xmas optics season brings. Lol

I was going to get a Terra until I actually went and looked through one. I didnt like it. My boy has a 3-9 conquest that is top notch and I really like that scope but in my opinion the Terra does not match up.

I'm curious what it was you didn't like when you looked at the scope. One reason I ask is that when Mule Deer tested the scope it showed the Terra 3 to be optically right there with the Conquest. As far as dependability goes I've not yet read of a failed Terra 3 so realistically it is entirely possible the scope is every bit as touph as a Conquest.

One thing for certain the Terra 3 is more compact and lighter that certainly is very useful for mountain or packing application.

The only place I can see where the Conquest has a useable utility that the Terra doesn't is if one require 1/2" more eye relief.

I suppose the dependability verdict might still be out though ones on this forum that have used them as far as I know have had zero issues which seems to be a Zeiss trait.

There seems to be a lot of window shoppers who have developed an opinion of the Terra 3 that is most contrary to those who have actually used the scope in the field.


Shod

Shodd, I'm glad you like these damn things.....:

8 pound (all up) 338 win mag:


Old 270 fwt:


Old 375 H&H with Zeiss conquest 3.5-10x44:


I like my Zeiss scopes. Even the terra's... I also prefer the RZ6 reticle on the 3-9x42. The 4-12 terra I had for a little bit plain and simply sucked. However, The 3-9x42's have been great so far. Tracking has been spot on, unlike the Swarovski 3-9x36 I had on my 338 (pictured above) and the glass isn't bad at all.

My 3-9 Terra has excellent glass. It's not a dialing scope. Set it and forget it. Got it at Midway last year for $187 after rebate. Took a chance.

I've got a 4x12 on the way. What didn't you like about it?

I dont have a dog in this fight at all, but the statement "Its not a dialing scope," is hogwash. Either it tracks, or it doesnt, in turn either it works, or it doesnt.

I went over to Cabelas to look at one. When I pulled it up and looked around I just didnt feel right to me. I didnt like the picture quality when I looked through it, felt "cheap". Others may have great experience with them and can look through them and feel its as good as the conquest, but me. I just didnt like it and I went with full intentions of buying one.

Eye relief sucks. Not as easy to get behind as the 3-9x42...

Well, I tried the Terra, for me, IT SUCKED.

At the time I compared to a Conquest, a VXIII, a VXII, a Fullfield II, and a Monarch III.

It had the worst "eye box" of the bunch. It also had a, "halo", for lack of a better term, that was visible thru out the range.

I swapped it for a Bushy Elite then gave away the Bushy.

Now before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I'm the guy that still thinks the Weaver Classics, V4 or V6 are good enough for 99% of everything I hunt.

So what do I know?

As a matter of fact I got another V6x38 delivered today.

How about this, I'm not going to spin turrets with it.

My VX 3 3.5x10 arrived yesterday and the terra 4x12 is due tomorrow. Will be interesting to compare

I looked at some 3-9X42's and 4-12X50's today. The glass was fine but they had a bit of tunnel vision and the eye box wasn't very forgiving. Very comparable with some other $200-$300 scopes. No bargain just because it says Zeiss.

I don't know about the Terra, but the 3-9, 2.5-8, 4X Conquest MC with long eye relief were hard to put on short action Rugers. I always felt like I was pushing the gun away from me. worked well on the No.1

308 Ruger,


No.1 3-9 and 4X.

Got my 2x7 today. For the money it is a decent scope. Got it at the 50 percent off deal. That said I would not pay full price for it. Glass is ok. But noticable not as bright as anything else I own. Under about 4 power the edges are a little fuzzy. Adjustments feel a little mushy. Honestly I would compare this to either a new redfield or a bottom end leupold with the glass being possible not as good. Don't have a bottom end leupold or redfield to compare side by side. Just going by memory from looking at both. Think Zeiss is relying a lot on their name to sell these scopes.

Bottom line am I unhappy with the scope, no. Did I expect more,most definitely. It is going on a 20 gauge slug gun. Will get shot maybe ten times a year.So all it really needs to do is handle recoil and hold zero.

Got a leupold 2.5x8 arriving shortly. I am sure it will make be forget my disappointment in the zeiss.

Interesting review...now I can sleep....lol. when thinking about one I didn't expect conquest quality (kinda like you said)....but I was hoping it was a great bargain at $175. Sounds like it was worth $175-200.

Hmm,got my 2 ,2X7s today.I compared them to my Conquest 2.5 to 8 and found them to be just as good as the Conquest.I had them set up on two side by side rifles looking into the dark shadows at dusk.Not enough difference to even worry about.Then I compared with my 2X7 Kahles.The Kahles is slightly better at dusk,but also has a #4 reticle.

Guessing more reports might be still coming....pretty crazy the variety of review!

Played around with the scope a bit more. The fuzzy edges appears to be more of eye relief than anything else. If you get just right you get a nice crisp edge to edge image no matter the power. So the scope is of a little better quality than first impression. But this is by far the most sensitive scope I have for image quality when it comes to eye relief. Again not knocking the scope by any means. There is not a scope out there in the 200 to 250 range that is not noticeable lacking in some area. Seems like eye relief is the low point for these. Everything else probable not noticeable better or worse than anything else in the price range. At full retail I would be buying leupold over another of these.

I think you are talking about eye box more than eye relief. Eye relief is the length and eye box is left right ,up down position. I found the Terra lacking in eye box.

Could be. With the higher powers I am able to move around a fair amount and still keep the image. I either have a image or not. Quality of image does not change like it does on the low powers.

Three comments:

I've tested some Terras, and so far on my night-time optics chart the glass has always rated exactly the same as on the several Conquests tested.

The only significant difference I've found between the Terras and Conquests is the eye relief on the Terras varies more at different magnifications. The Terra adjustments have been just as good, and they've held up equally well on hard-kicking rifles.

I am always a little puzzled by criticism of fuzzy edges in the view of scopes, since in my experience the aiming point is never at the edge of the field of view.

The issue with the fuzzy edges is I can find it a distraction. I wear glasses. The fuzzy edges are like having a spot of dirt on my glasses. Even if It is not dead in the center of my field view every now and then my eye wants to focus on it. I prefer to have nothing in the scope other than the reticle for my eye to be drawn to. My biggest problem with a scope having fuzzy edges is on moving targets. I want as much of a picture as possible when I am tracking an animal in my scope and planning a possible shot window.

I can appreciate that. Everyone has their own preferences.. Nothing wrong with your choice in scopes..

No comparison. The VX3 3.5-10x40 is a much better scope. This is coming from someone that doesn't care for Leupolds... Had too many go tits up I guess...

All over the place aren't they? As someone else pointed out (I think it was Shodd), J.B did a review on the Terra and found them to be quite good. Because of this review, I decided to give the 3-9x42 a try. I also used one on a buddies rifle when they first came out. The aren't the best scope out there, but aren't too bad either. Not much different than the conquest's from the comparisons I've done..