Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics So what is the consensus on Minox?

I've read that a few of the early riflescopes had ocular issues but that has now been fixed? What is the overall consensus on Minox? I'm looking at a ZA-5 in a #4 reticle for $300. Pass or go in your opinion? ....and please leave the "must be made in USA" comments at the door. Thank you for any feedback on ownership experience.

I would like to know as well, I moved a ZA-5 2-10 from a Ruger #1 in 300 H&H over to a lightweight M-70 Winchester in 300 RUM, so far so good but, would like to hear positive reports on long term reliability.

Most may recommend you spend that 300 bucks on a 3-9 Conquest.

Gunner

I've got a 3.5x10 Conquest already. Great scope but seems very heavy......although not the end of the world. I'm just looking to try something different this next go around. Also, the #4 is my favorite reticle and it costs you more for that in the Zeiss and other brands.

I have 3 of the 3x9x40's that have been used for one hunting season with no problems at all. I still like it as well as my Conquest 3x9 and in some ways it seems easier to look through.

But I'm not one of the scope experts on here, just a hunter so take it for what its worth.

I like my Minox.

I love the Minox ZA5 scopes. I have 2 of them. If you like the Zeiss #4 reticle, you will be greatly disappointed. The #4 reticle in the Minox is not the same or even close to the Zeiss #4. I have a 1.5-8 with the #4 reticle. I bought it from Cameraland and wished I would have seen the reticle before I bought it. I was going to send it back but put it on my AR and it works very well on paper. In low light, however, you will not see the crosshairs at all. I haven't had any functional issues with either scope. They hold zero very well and optically they are fantastic. IMO, you will be happier with the standard plex reticle.

WinM70...

Thanks for the heads up. I already placed the order so I'll have to take a look at it once it arrives. I've been looking at the subtensions data on the Minox site and the #4 reticle size appears to be the same for your 8x as mine would be at 10x. I hope this makes a bit of a difference on the sight picture as you are correct in that the Zeiss #4 appears to be thicker and more narrow on the thin opening. However, the #4 really shines in lowest power in closer range situations, especially as the light lowers. You now have me concerned the bold will not be sufficient for these moments or perhaps too far spaced. Hmmm...

Trust me...the Minox #4 reticle will be a huge disappointment if you love the Zeiss #4 reticle. It sucks in low light.

I found my Zeiss Conquest #4 reticle to be too heavy. I do like the #4 on my MInox ZA5 1.5-8. But that's to my eyes. You experience may be different.

If my conversions from inches to cm are correct, it appears that the Minox #4 is wider on the thin opening than the Zeiss #6 reticle. I'll have to check it out when it arrives.

Well, gambled and lost. The scope arrived in great order. No issues on delivery from Camera Land. The glass looked great and I actually liked the #4 reticle even though it is much closer to the Zeiss #6. However, I did have to send it back. The eye relief was too long on the scope. I swear it was 5 inches plus. I had to crane my head back to get full view on the ocular. As well, the scope has major tunnel vision. It was/is very similar to what I observed on the Vortex Viper 2-7 I had. I had high hopes for the scope and really wanted to keep it but it just didn't work for me. Others may like/need these features but it was a bad fit for me. YMMV.

None of that agrees with the ZA 5 2-10 in my hands right now; which runs very close to the Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10 in my hands. The eye relief is no longer than the Leupold and the FOV at the high end is very close, small nod to the Leupold. The FOV at the low end is all Minox...

And that is comparing it to one of the most universally liked Leupold scopes for being user-friendly...

"Major tunnel vision" is simply not present in any Minox I have ever looked through, especially the ZA 5 2-10x40.

At first I thought I had tunnel vision on my Minox scope. Then I moved it forward or installed it on a rifle that required longer eye relief and everything looked much better with no tunnel vision. But that is just my experience. If you need 4+ inches of eye relief, go with a Minox ZA5. JMO...

What scope did you try Fifth? Cause I'm seriously thinking of bleeding another $100 and going with their 1.5-8x instead of one of the Scopes from my other thread on 2-7's

John - Scope was their ZA-5 2-10x40.

Trust me. I really wanted to like/keep the Minox. To me, competition in the "mid to high end" German'ish scope market would be a great thing. Perhaps it was the specific one I got, my eyes (very good vision btw), my shooting style/position......who knows. All I know is that it didn't work for me. The heads up against my Conquest was not even close in the areas I described. I had the same tunnel vision issue with the Viper 2-7x32. I test viewed the new Monarch 3 at the local shop this weekend and it is very close/similar to the Conquest. Again, for my eyes. I'm glad it has worked for other as I would like to see Minox succeed from a market competition point of view. GL

I had a Minox 3-15 for a short while and I returned it.

I did not like how it looked on my rifle with the large garish lettering.

Also I let the fact that it did not have AO bother me.

It was sharp and clear. Minox took it back, no problem.

Sorry Fifth, but I just have to shake my head...

Calling the Conquest 3-9x better than the Minox 2-10x just does not hold water in a power to power comparison. The Minox smokes the Conquest in non-tunnel vision viewing.

Consider:
the Minox has "just" 9.4' at 100 yards at 10x.

The Conquest has 11' at 100 yards on 9x.

Stop the Minox at 9x and it has "just" a horribly restricted 14.2'.

If the Conquest ran up to 10x it would only maintain a broad 7' FOV.

To suggest the Minox is lacking in FOV compared to the Conquest is a little hard to accept.

BTW, of all the parameters used to measure scopes, in the real World, the absolute first one I would cede is FOV. Riflescopes are not made for taking in huge panoramas. They are a box to carry a reticle, nothing more. I carry good glass for inspecting and judging critters and "good enough" glass for pasting an X on the one I want to kill.

Big Stick always used to talk up the 3.5-10x Leupie and I have always been a fixed power snob... After using the 3.5-10X Leupie a bit I had to admit it gives up nothing. I still like and use mostly fixed-power scopes, but have to admit the variables are mighty useful at times.

BTW 10x40 Zeiss ClassiCs have been my bino of choice for over 30 years... I have nothing against Zeiss.
art

So........consensus on their 1.5-8x???

Sorry, I mistook you for someone that understood optics a little bit. It is obvious I was mistaken.

FOV is the only way to measure "Tunnel Vision" FYI.

The 3.5-10x44 is a much better comparison because the graphs of FOV in the scopes cross at just under 7x. The Minox smokes the Conquest from 2x to 7x and cedes a small amount (1.1' @ 9x) from there up. Compromises have to be made somewhere and the choices made by Zeiss and Minox are slightly different. But to suggest the Minox has "Tunnel Vision" compared to the Conquest is ridiculous.

Especially when I actually measure the two scopes against standards and find the Minox is EXACTLY what it claims and the Zeiss fudges their numbers a bit... Not a lot, but enough to cut the minor differences by more than 50%. Zeiss, BTW had to change their descriptions a while back because their claims of "Constant Eye Relief" at all powers did not mesh with reality and the EU advertising standards are actually standards... They made them stop advertising them that way...

If you do not realize FOV and "Tunnel Vision" are the same creature then please explain what you meant by the term.