Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics What scope to buy?

Wow, I guess I got what I asked for. Thanks for the insight. I was thinking the Conquest or the Monarch would be my newest toy. Since weight or size is not really an issue there is only one variable left. There is a substantial difference in price between them (about $400 for the 4x12x40 Monarch and $650 for the 4.5x14x40 Conquest). Do these prices sound about right?

Thanks for the help.

I believe Doug at Cameraland, aka gr8fuldoug, can do better for you on that Conquest.

roadhog,

Just my two cents...I have a Vari X II 2-7 and 3-9x50, and a Vari X III in 2.5-8 and 3.5-10, as well as a VX II in 2-7, and a Zeiss Conquest 3-9, and a Zeiss Diavari 3-9. My vote for the rifle and hunting your doing, hands down would be the VX-III 2.5-8 or 3.5-10. I got reamed in another thread about not liking the Conquest, but I'll say it again. I bought a Zeiss 3-9 Diavari several years ago and thought I was getting the same thing in the Conquest. Its not, IMO and having formed that opinion by actually employing the scopes on the range and in the woods, NOT as good a scope as a Vari X III or VX III. I would class it somewhere around a VX II, no better, and with more critical eye relief. \

Actually the BEST scope deal I ever got was that Diavari. But they aint making that one now...its a hell of a good American Zeiss scope at what was a good price about 8 years ago.

Eremicus, You are still completely missing 2 fundamental points.
Number 1. Facts and figures about % of light transmission aren't all that scope quality is about. You can have the brightest possible scope and if it doesn't focus well, have aberration at the edges, pincushion distortion etc. etc. etc. it won't be as good a scope as a "dimmer" one without all these faults. You can quote all the factory literature you want but to actually compare scopes you need to actually try the different ones. Have you EVER used a Zeiss,Swarovski or Schmidt und Bender scope in the field?
Number 2: Trust your own eyes and experience, your incessant quoting of brochure figures and other people isn't near as valuable as your own hunting experience, which I think you have a good deal of. I'd a lot rather hear about the exact scope you were using, when and where, than light transmission % figures...............DJ

Ditto what DJ said. Let's look at the guy's application:

Primarily stand hunting, ranges from zero to as far as they eye (or scope) can see, low light conditions expected (even at longer ranges), size and weight do not matter.

The recommended "best tool for the job:"

A small, light, compact, low power, fixed power scope with a small objective and no parallax adjustment. Sounds like a match made in heaven to me. Oh, and all glass is the same, all coatings are the same, anybody who thinks one scope is optically better than another must have fooled himself by looking through them wrong....

If ever there was an application that called for the polar opposite of the above, this is it.

roadhog, what other features are you wanting--reticles, turrets, etc? It looks like the Zeiss gives you more options there but can drive up the price even more.

Hey .280Rem......the Conquest = the VX II??? You've got t be kidding. Never heard that one before.

JonA, you are correct. No offense to anyone here but I was looking for input on a larger scope with more magnification. My intent on starting this thread was to get personal opinions from the other members who may have had experience with the scopes in question. Personal opinions vary considerable and I can respect that. I do know that I want a variable power scope with relatively high magnification (12x to 14x max). Size and weight are not a factor (within reason). I know that an "apples to apples" comparison of the three brands is difficult, maybe impossible. Essentially I was looking to compare the three brands which is probably similar to asking a group of people whether they like Ford, Chevy or Dodge trucks. You get a bunch of different answers (some formed from opinions and some formed from experiences) but inevitably you come away with more knowledge of each one. This will help me when deciding what to buy. Being new to this board I would like to thank everyone for sharing their knowledge with me on the subject.

With that being said, back to question at hand. I am not looking for a bunch of additional features. I am very fond of a duplex reticle. Regular turrets are fine. I have heard some negative comments on the AO so I can do without that as well.

Does Doug (gr8fuldoug) visit regularily or should I send him a message? Thanks again.

Scott

Todd,

Im convinced that some people just get in their heads that its a Zeiss and therefore must be better.

I have Vari X and VX II's and III's. Specifically I replaced a Vari X II 3-9x50 on my .280 with a 3-9x40 Conquest. It was one of those things where I really didn't pay much attention to it when I bought it. I thought I'm buying a Zeiss, it has to be better. The first time on the range I didn't notice that much difference (but its a Zeiss I should have). However in the field under low light, I noticed a big difference. It was one of those things where I was sitting in a stand on a field, a deer walked out at that time when the sun was behind the trees and the field in shadows, but not dark, and I put the scope to my eye and my first reaction was "Well [bleep]***er I wasted a bunch of money on this?" (Actually I traded straight up a Glock .40 and one Hi-Cap Mag for it, and I think I'd have been as happy to have thrown the Glock in the river and kept the 3-9 on the rifle) Combine that with the fact that the clarity is not noticibly better than a Vari XII...why pay the Zeiss price = to a Vari X III when I get no better than a Vari X II? I have a buddy that will tell you exactly the same story.

I overreacted the first thread about this...the Conquest doesn't suck...but its not nearly a Vari X or VX III. So why pay that price? However, if it makes a person happy to have a Zeiss, and it serves their purposes, I wouldn't say their wrong for buying one, but don't try to convince me its better than a comparably priced Leupold VX III, I own both, my eyes are in good shape, and I can see for myself, and have put them side by side and actually compared. It may be opinion, but thats my opinion.

roadhog,

Im gonna cast my vote for the Leupold VX III in the magnification of your choice. The type hunting you described is very similar to much of the hunting we do here in Alabama. I own Zeiss, and Leupolds. Excluding the Diavari I own, and comparing the Conquest to the Leupold...youll get more for your money out of a VX III. You wont be handicapped much if at all by the conquest, but more for the money equals better deal to me.

I can only say to .280Rem that the particular Conquest you had must have been an aberation. At the range and in the field I have compared 3 Vari-X III's, 2 VX-III's and 1 VX-II to 4 different Conquests and the Zeiss scopes have always exhibited better optical quality, without question. And I can assure you, the name on the tube does not factor in at all.

On my last hunt in Alabama I hunted a total of 9 days with 2 different rifles that had 2 recently purchased scopes mounted on them. One was my shooting house rifle with a 3.5-10x50 AH kahles scope on it(TDS) reticle and the other my treestand gun with a new 2.5-8x36 VXIII with the B&C reticle. I have owned probably a dozen of the older 2.5-8's and really didn't expect this scope to work out at last minute shooting light based on past experience in really lowlight conditions . In Alabama the shooting time limit is 1/2 hour past sunset but this 2.5-8 VXIII sure did the trick . It was way more then enough..maybe the glass is better or the etched reticle makes a difference but I was pleasantly surprised. I would buy another without a seconds hesitation.

DJ, your argument about a dimmer scope looking brighter because it can be focused better is riduiculous. The scope is dimmer because it looses more light as it passes through the scope. Focusing is as simple and well known a principle of optics as there is. Everybody and anybody can do it right. But not all scope user will do it right, particularly if they don't understand a few things. Leupold, for reasons that escape my understanding, simply say to focus the reticle and your done. Many of us have found that you can do better than that. If you do, you'll find that all of them, regardless of their focusing system, can be made very sharp. That's when you compare brightness. When they are all focused to their best.
I've played with some of them in the field. I'm constantly amazed that many aren't focused as well as they can be.
You want to hear about my experiences ? Fine. I've found that the shooting world today is full of great riflescopes. I've also discovered that one need not spend $1000-$1600 on a riflescope for the best performance.
Thanks Mathman. For some reason I was using a formula that went radius multiplied by pie, instead of pie r squared. Wasn't thinking. E

It would have been ridiculous if that's what I actually said.

Simply put: Brighter and lower resolution isn't as good as Slightly less bright with better resolution.

Point of fact, not all scopes focus as well as others. Point of fact 2: Some scopes have better resolutions than others.

E, you might reread what I actually said and try again.............



.......and I agree that you don't have to spend $1500 to get a good scope. I'm just saying that the $1500 are a bit better than the $500 scopes. Whether or not it's worth the extra $1000 is up to each shooters pocket book...............DJ

Having owned both as well, I would be a Leupold VX-III lean too. My take on the Conquest is similar to .280's. It doesn't suck. Is that really all you want from a Zeiss?

I also own Vari X III's, VX III's, and VX II's. I also own 2 Zeiss Conquest's (3.5-10x44's). My use in the field proves the Zeiss to be significantly better than the VX II, and marginally better than the VX III, but definitely better than any Leupold I have. The glass is better in the Zeiss, and the etched reticles are absolutely superior to Leupy. As a matter of fact my Buris Fullfield II is on par with the VX II (can't tell any difference). What I would expect from Leupy is to be more price competetive with the competition. I think they've gotten a little out of touch.

Man these guys get all bent outta shape over "exit pupil".

Max the human eye can use is "7". To get MAXIMUM
light transmission, the desired exit pupil (7) must be multiplied
by the magnification power to obtain the required bell size in
MM.

7 (exit pupil) X 6 power = 42mm, thus a 6X36 will NEVER be as bright as a 6X42 since it lacks capacity for maximum exit pupil.

To objectively compare scopes, each must have the same
exit pupil at the same power magnification. Anything less is
comparing apples and oranges, and is nothing more than
personal preferrence and biases!

How does this apply in the real world? I was at the gunshop
last week looking at scopes. The sales clerk wanted me to
compare a Burris fullfield II against a Sightron SII.

He set them both on 9 power (both were 3X9) and asked me
to look through them. He was excited the Sightron was
brighter. Duh? The Burris has a 40mm bell and trhe Sightron
has a 42mm bell.

While at 9X both could not obtain maximum brightness due
to having less than maximum exit pupil, the Sightron was
brighter. I think we all know why? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Could this be why some guys like BIG scopes with plenty of
magnification. To get a bell big enough to support the maximum exist pupil of 7? Maybe it isn't magnification they are after and simply don't know it?

280don....with all due respect I dont give a hoot about this technical stuff (although I completely understand it). What I rely on is in the field hunting use. This is what I base my opinions on, not looking through stuff in gun shops or other retail outlet. They all look good in those conditions.

I don't really disagree with you, Todd. But when everyone
is arguing over "brightness" , it is this technical stuff that
explains WHY they see the differences they do, and it is not necessarily the quality of the scope.

My hunting is done under very variable conditions. And here
is where I agree with you, I haven't found too many scopes
of respectable quality that don't do the job.

Like you, I think the technical stuff doesn't really matter!
There are exceptions, of course. A friend of mine is a "stock
crawler", and so after one bad experience is terrified of scopes. A Zeiss conquest with a CONSTANT 4" eye relief cured the problem and the fear. And that, my friend, is
choice made on "technical stuff"! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

280Don, Your comparison here is fatally flawed. The only time a human pupil is fully dialated to 7mm is a young person in complete darkness. As you grow older your pupils ability to fully dialate to 7mm or so is reduced. So if you are over 40yrs old you probably aren't able to dialate to a full 7mm.
But more to the case in point you were looking at the scopes in a lit store where your pupil wasn't dialated anywhere near it's full capability anyway. Indoors both scopes where giving a larger exit pupil than your eye could see anyway, so the scope that looked "brighter" was indeed brighter.
This is an example of why to really compare scopes properly you need to do it in the field preferably in lower light....................DJ

DJ, I don't disagree with you buddy. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But I think the
key word in my rant was....MAXIMUM. Some people never
had a 7mm exit pupil, even from birth.

My point is that most of this stuff is based on "theories" and
"perfect" conditions.

What works for you, might not work for me. Some need brightness. Some need FOV. A few, like myself, often base
purchases on eye relief.

To each his own. Not everyone has the same requirements of a scope. I'm willing to bet that many of the campfire cannot see well through a scope/rifle setup just for me. Probably be "blurry" until set for the individual. And yes, field appraisals are best. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> For the above reason! Just as every
BODY is different, every scope need is different!

No arguements here, pal. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Everything scope wise is
pure conjecture and biases based on personal....NEEDS! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Todd is right. Who really needs
all that technical stuff, right? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

I would be curious how a scientific lab would conduct a
"what's the best scope" study? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> Kinda like the old real estate mantra.....parameters....parameters....parameters!

Pretty much makes all the scope questions stupid questions? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> What's next? Should I marry a
redhead, a blonde or a brunette? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> Depends on the tool you have to work with, huh? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In that case, some would need more magnification! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
While others might need more FOV. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> And me? I'll stick with "eye relief". I couldn't marry an ugly broad, even if she was "brighter" than the rest.

Thanks for the debate, guys. I can see clearly now!