Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Kahles VS Zeiss

kahles helia CL 3-10x50 vs zeiss conquest 3.5-10x50
Im looking at buying either one of these and cant decide

My vote would be the zeiss but I would also suggest that you go with a 3-9 and loose the 50mm obj.

tex31,

Within 48 hours or less you will probably have 20 people telling you to buy the Zeiss and 20 more telling you to buy the Kahles.

They are both very nice scopes. Find a shop that stocks both, compare for yourself and pick the one you like best.

Zeiss will be heavy, Kahles will be a few ounces lighter.

I've owned both and still own the Kahles. IMO the optics on the Kahles are clearer and brighter and I like the styling better than the Zeiss.

In a minute somebody is going to post here that the Kahles will have to be sent back to Austria if you ever require warranty service. I honestly don't know if that is true or not.

I've never had any warranty issues with either and don't expect you will either whatever your choice is. They are both very ruggedly built scopes.

CDNN has the Kahles 3-10x50 NIB for $599; thats a heck of a price for that scope. Cameraland has the Zeiss(Demo unit) for $629.

I'm not a fan of big bell scopes, so I have to agree with heavywalker about going with a smaller objective. These scopes are so bright and clear that I just don't see the need for anything bigger than 40-42mm objectives. Big, bulky, heavy scopes just ruin an otherwise nicely balanced rifle IMO.

Good luck , Leftybolt

Zeiss Conquests are great scopes and I own several of them but the Kahles CL which I also own several is in another class above the Conquests in quality of glass. There are only a few scopes made that have better glass than a Kahles CL.

SWFA optics forum has lots of good info. There are several threads reqarding Kahles and scope comparisons -

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=2

I have owned a conquest 3-10X44 and a Kahles 3-9X42....still have the Kahles....excellent glass.

FWIW I have had both the Zeiss and Kahles. I had 2 Kahles scopes and my brother also had 2 of those 4, 3 of them were sent back for repair because they would not hold zero they were fixed under the warrantee and did not cost anything except my brother missed a nice 4pt mulie when one of the scopes went bad on a hunting trip. They ended up sold or traded. The last one I had I had zero confedence in because of the other 3 and would not put it on a hunting rifle. I sent it back to Kahles just to be sure nothing was wrong with it before I sold it. I have had bad experiences with Kahles scopes so that is why my vote would go to zeiss.

And Yes your scopes will go to Austria for repair if broken.

The Kahles is a Step ahead... IMO

I've never even never seen a Kahles, in my time. But when it came time for a new scope( last week!)I picked the Kahles. Everywhere in my research ..site afte site..that i had to join to read... phone calls to shops in the states... talking to differnt salemen,this thread is another one and "heavywalker" has a few points as to "why not"..but like i said from my research it has ALOT more going for it then not.

I'm not going to point out where you have to send either for warranty work. I am going to point out that while Kahles has great glass, and some think it's better than the Zeiss Conquest, have you compared it to a Zeiss Victory series scope?

I had a rare chance to compare both a Kahles CL Helia 4-12x52, and a Zeiss 3.5-10x44 side by side under hunting conditions this past season, while deer hunting with my wife.

My wife and I hunted from our tower stand together overlooking a 10 acre beanfield. Her rifle had the Kahles, and I carried my .270 with the Zeiss Conquest.
In South Carolina, we can legally hunt to 1 hour past sunset, so a good "Lowlight" scope is a big advantage.
I was able to look at quite a few deer, both bucks and does well past when we could make them out with the naked eye.
No matter the conditions, clear or cloudy, or the power settings, from 4 thru 12 power, the Kahles always seemed to have the sharper, better defined image. There were a couple of times when I would look at a small buck at 130-150 yrds during the last few minutes, where I could make out the horns with the Zeiss,but couldn't tell exactly what the rack looked like. I would switch to the Kahles,and be able to count the points, and get a little better look at the antler frames. TO ME, the Kahles just seemed to be a little better under those lowlight conditions. One thing I did notice about the Zeiss, especially once the sun was below the trees, the color of the animals seemed better with the Zeiss. The deer hides seemed a little "flat or dull" in color with the Kahles, while they seemed to stand out more when looking thru the Zeiss. Both are very crisp, and clear to the edges, while the sun is still above the trees. I don't think there's a clear advantage with one over the other at that time of the day, but during those last few minutes, when these skittish SC bucks are beginning to move, I want to be looking thru the Kahles.
One other thing that REALLY stood out during those last few minutes of OUR hunting time was that the German #4 reticle was FAR SUPERIOR to the standard duplex for hunting.
I won't own another scope with a duplex if I can get a #4.

I've owned a half dozen of both. The Kahles CL line is often indistinguishable with my Swaro AV series scopes. great glass. For a lightweight, I love the Kahles 2-7x.

Have any of you compared the 3-10 to the 4-12 in the Kahles line up? Curious what the comparison is.

I've had both. Still have Kahles.

Both are nice scopes, but the Kahles held advantages in brightness and clarity, in a package which was trimmer and lighter and looked better IMHO.

I have 3 TDS Kahles, and have never had a bit of trouble from any of them.

FWIW, I also had a couple of Swaro AH's, and thought the Kahles every bit as good - in fact, a bit better, to my eyes.

DJ

IMO the Kahles is the better scope. However there are a few of the Swarovski A-line scopes still floating around, and at close out prices. I saw one the other day for $799. Spend the little extra and look for the Swaro. You will not be sorry. The Zeiss and Kahles are nice, but the Swaro. is definitely a grade above them both. Look for the 3X10X42 Swaro. I have had one for several years now. The power selector ring turns as smooth as butter. I also like the 42 mm OL. It allows me to mount my scope lower to the bore.

If you are willing to spend the money for the Zeiss or Kahles then definitely spend a little more and buy the Swaro. You will be using this scope for the rest of your life. Buy the best once. You will never be sorry.

The A-line Swaro's are the perfect mix of top quality optics, in a lightweight package. Tom.

+1, Still have 2 Zeiss Conquests and 3 Kahles CL.
Prefer the Kahles to both the Swaro AH and the Conquest.
The Conquest are probably the best value for money,

Kahles would be my choice of the two, I have both brands and I think the Kahles have the edge especially on brightness.

Dino

2 Conquest's and 2 Kahles. Use both quite a bit but, like the sharpness and clarity of the Kahles a bit better.

You can't lose with either scope.

Years ago I had problems with a Kahles 3x12-56 . I sent it to Swarovski for repairs. No problem they own them.

Do you guys know if the 3-10x50 Kahles CL will mount on a Rem 700 with Low Talleys or do I need mediums?

Had the same combo and it will work with Talley lows very well