Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss Conquest vs. Swaro Z3...?

For Western, open-country style hunting I'm looking at the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 with a #4 reticle.

Are the Swaro Z3's worth the extra cost compared to the Zeiss? Specifically, the Swaro 3-10x42 or 4-12x50? It looks like a $300-400 difference. Any practical insight would be appreciated!

Thanks,
Eric

Well, I don't know about the optical side, but from what looking I've done the Swaro is a couple of ounces lighter than the Conquest. I'm leaning towards a 3-10x Z3 for a Ti I just picked up, assuming I can find one to look through.

Get the Swaro. You will notice a slight difference and resale is awesome!!!

I have nothing to say bad about the Swaro and I have had a few but I do like the retical in the Zeiss better and they are cheaper, yet heavier. But they are my pick.

Weight vs. reticle....and price.

Reticle on some Swaro's are on the 'fine' side....take a peek and see what you think for how you hunt.

'Open country' if that means really long shots, a VX3 w/CDS is a light pkg. in std. duplex.

All great scopes, the Zeiss is great glass for $$$.

Eric,

I have several Conquests, including the 3-9x40. I have a Z3 4-12x50 BT with an Outdoorsmans turret. The 3-9x40 Conquests are selling in the mid $300 range, whereas the Z3's around a grand, the BT even more.

IMHO, glass quality is pretty close, maybe an edge to the Z3. I like zero stop turrets, thus the Z3 makes sense. Otherwise, the Conquest is the best deal, most glass for the buck.

I also have a Leupold VX-3 3.5-10x40 CDS. For zero stop turrets in a fine scope, this one gets the prize. I'm waiting for the VX-6 2-12x42 CDS with Fire Dot reticle. To me, that one should have it all, although it's a 30mm and as such bulkier than those mentioned above.

DF

What am I doing wrong? I've lost my *ss on all 3 that I have sold. Buy them for a grand and roughly sell them for $550.00 is what I've noticed.

Let me know next time you need to sell one...

DF

That's what I was thinking!!

The Swaro might have a slight edge in glass, but the Zeiss has a definite edge in tracking......I will choose the Zeiss.

I've had the conquest, a nice scope for sure and well worth the money...but in the end I've been happy to have 3 Z3's. I've got nothing but good to say about them. Track fine, wonderful glass and a nice trim package that fits very well on my model 70's.

Let me be clear, they were A-Line's not Z3's. Don't think resale would be any different though.

I also bought one for $500

+1

Ditto....hold the Swaro and pass the Zeiss.I haven't broken a Conquest yet.

Eric, I have a couple 3-9x40 Conquests and a 3-10x42 Swaro. The Conquest is clearly the bang-for-buck winner. I really, really like that scope on long-action midweight sporters; for instance on my .338 it's perfect, with all that eye relief.

On a featherweight rifle they can feel top-heavy. I put one on my Kimber Montana WSM for a while, and it was a great fit optically but just a bit heavy to be ideal.

The Swaro is a lighter, trimmer, more mechanically refined scope. That's what's on my Kimber and it's a good fit. It's got ~3.5" of constant ER (sic) rather than the Conq's 4".

I've used the stock turrets a bunch out to 600+ yards, just banging steel. They are similar designs. Edge to the Conquest for better (more) markings and a bit more MOA/rev. Tracking is about the same- both do really well for me so far.

I've compared them in low light numerous times. Long story short, they are different but roughly equal and I doubt there's a practical difference. The Zeiss has more contrast and the etched reticle stays blacker, while the Swaro has amazing resolution and is a tad brighter; both are really good IMHO.

I'd buy either again, and plan to. Being price-conscious those 3-9 Conq's have a real allure <g>.

Jeff, I think you may have just pushed me over the edge into buying a Z3 for my new-to-me Remington Ti... 3-10x42, I think.

cooperfan and rockchuck.....Please let us know of your personal experience with Z3's not tracking correctly.

Jeff what scope would be the better for picking out game in the thick woods?

Tough choices here... I went Z3 3x10 Swaro myself.

Brightness and weight selected Z3 for me; along with overall look FWIW. Could have saved $400 with the Conquest or VX3, but made the mistake of comparing the three side by side while at CoveCreek outfitters. Thinking back, the VX3 does not have the fast focus eye piece either which I like too but does have CDS which may be handy for you.

The VX6 was brand spanking new and had been "coming to market" for over a year so I opted out of that vs the Z3 and it is heavier/bigger. Had the 1x6x24 VX6 been around, it would have been a contender, but then again, it's still heavier that the Z3 so maybe not...

Leupold has almost too many choices out there right now IMO. A Leupold loyalst is tasked with which scope amongst it's own lines and having a marketing background myself, that is very confusing.... heck - their web site isn't even up to date.

VAHillbilly has a NIB Conquest for sale on the site if you are interested.

Wardman

Gosh... well, obviously they are rifle aiming device, not a telescope, so for myself the "picking out" is limited to once I'm on a deer...

With that said, I would be splitting RCH's to give an advantage one way or the other- except that as someone said, the stock Swaro duplex is on the thin side. The OP mentioned 4a reticles- if I were going to use my Swaro in the thick stuff routinely I'd change it to the #4. Mine is on a more open-country rifle and the duplex is just fine on it.

Anyway with both scopes sporting #4's I would guess both would be fabulous in the thick stuff. But I'm just guessing. With duplexes in both, both are pretty darn good. Again the Conquest has more contrast, the Swaro more resolution.