Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics My first Zeiss scope

So............I've been a hunter and shooter for 36 years. In the last 30 years I've bought, sold, traded, had built etc. over 30 rifles, never had any scope but a Leupold in that time. I'm not an optics fanatic, but Leupolds always worked, never broke, and seemed like a great place to store my crosswires.

So............I didn't (NEED) a new scope, but I sorta WANTED one. I've got a new/unused 6x42 and 3.5-10x40 sitting around but I've been thinkin' I wanted a smaller scope for the 284. Been dithering for a few weeks since I discovered that Premier is out of the Leupold reticle biz. That hurt b/c the natural fit for my 284 was either a small six or a smallish variable with my new fave reticle the #4-a. Couldn't get what I wanted nohow and now I can't get a Loopy from Rick at all.

So..........Zeiss Conquest 2.5-8x32 with a #4 gets my attention. Ordered Sat, gets here today. I have never tested optics, nor tried to do a critical 'review' of a scope. Today will be a first....................... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />

Initial impression is the scope is a little longer and heavier than similar scopes that I've used and it has an odd balance point. The weight is oriented more toward the rear of the scope than the two Leo variables that I'm comparing to and much more so than the 6x42. On the big plus side, the Zeiss #4 looks identical to the Premier #4-a, that's exactly what I wanted. Looking out of my window in bright light, it is brighter than my 2-7x33 but seems similar to 6x42. All Leos are the previous generation.

My tests for this scope will not be as comprhensive as HJ's are. I'm going out to the range with the rifle, the new scope and the following other scopes. (Leo 2-7x33, 3.5-10x40, 6x42) After focusing, I will soft mount each scope in turn on the 284 with a dab of double stick tape in the bottom half of the Talley LW's and will snap the rifle to my shoulder comparing ergonomics, and eye-box. This is more important to me than anything else, as honestly most good scopes seem to have good enough optics for me.

But........As the sun sets I will start to view some eye charts I've printed up. They are bold letters in solid black and a mottled grey, varying in size from 2 3/8" tall down to 1/2" tall in seven steps printed on a buff colored card stock. The charts will be stapled to a board and placed in a copse of trees hopefully in the deepest shadows I can find. For grins I'm also taking all three of my binos.

I have no idea if this will work or if I will be able to tell any difference at all.

I'm sure y'all will be holding your breath for my revelatory conclusions.....hang in there..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

More news at Eleven.............................. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

JimF

Sounds like a good test. I, for one, will await the results with bated breath. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I've been wondering about that new Conquest myself. It looks like it could be a real winner.

Good luck with that scope. The evaluation of optics is in the eye of the beholder.

I started with Lyman. Not sure if Leu and Stevens was even in business then and still have a half dozen of them in service. Then I found Leupold and tried the variables. That was and is good.

Then the Conquest came out and for some applications where less glare, greater definition and sharp cross hairs matter more than a compact package I find the Zeiss product to my liking. I have four Zeiss now and will have more soon.

I would trade the ten Leu's here for ten Zeiss but for woods use the Leu's and old Lymans are ok.

Jim:
I grew up with Leupold and had no desire to look at anything else until one day I picked up the Zeiss. Really liked them and bought a 3.5x10x44 and a 4.5x14x44 and have been very happy with them. Was real excited when I saw Ziess coming out with the 2.5x8x32 and couldn�t wait to see one. Have to say though, I was disappointed by it. Way to long for a scope of this size, to heavy and objective lens to small. I could see a distinct difference between the 32 and 44 lens (no real surprise there) If I decide to go with a scope in this size will probably buy the 2.5x8x36 Leupold as smaller and just as bright.
Interested in what you think.

Perhaps you mean to ask that question to JimF. I was quite vocal in asking for a smaller Conquest but now I hesitate. It's the money. I really need to up grade my larger scopes. The smaller ones like the old Lyman 4X All Americans and now some 4X Diavari's along with a half dozen Leu 2-7's are good for forest hunting.

I do have a new VX3 2.5-8 and it falls far behind a 3-9 Conquest but the Leu is much more compact and lightweight. The Leu's reticule fades in light and turns pink. On the other hand the rifle shoots very well with this 2.5-8. Kind of a waste of money as a 2-7 would be about the same.

Lets see what Jim thinks.

I think I will get a 3.5-10 Conquest next. I wish I had a 4.5-14 Zeiss too. The Leu 4.5-14 that I have is not all that bad however. Don't think that I will join DJ Paintless on the Swaro's this year.

I too am looking forward to your test results. If I may suggest, be sure to include the bino info and times when the cards appear to turn "grey" in color, lacking contrast. Thanks for taking the time to perform these tests. These are the kind of tests I pay the most attention too.

Will be looking forward to hearing a full report.................

Even MD had to start somewhere.
T <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Alrighty then............................The Chart



The Contenders (with notes)

Zeiss.........Conquest 2.5-8x32 w #4 reticle Newest tech avail.
Loopy........VX III 3.5-10x40 (3 years old) Duplex
Loopy........VX II 2-7x33 (5 years old) Duplex
Loopy........6x42 (3 years old) Hvy Duplex
Leica..........10x32 BN (3 years old)
Leica..........8x20 (2 years old)
Zeiss..........8x30 Classic (20+ years old)

Obviously, these are not "the same" as far as objective size, age of technology etc. These are just the scopes that I have relied upon forever and are known everywhere, vs. the upstart that I purchased basically on a whim.

Ergonomics of the Zeiss...................................

The Conquest is slightly heavier than all the other scopes, except the VX III. In the "soft mount" test however, the 2-3 oz difference was not noticable in the feel or handling of my ultralight 284. What was noticable was that the Zeiss has the least forgiving eye box. The full field of the Zeiss "tunneled" with less head movement than any of the Loopies. Eye relief OTH was good enough and probably is a fixed 4" as adv. Focus was easier/faster with the Zeiss. After hard mounting, I shot the Zeiss to zero it and fired two groups for record. The internal adjustments of the Zeiss were firm, precise and more accurate than I am accustomed to with Loopy. The two groups for record went .535" and .125"

The optics......I had no clue what to do, so I placed the chart shown in the shade of some trees @ 155 yds at about 7:30 and waited to see what happened.

Following are the initial viewings and what row on the chart was READABLE. B=Black row, G=Grey row, Number = row number visible. Zeiss was on the rifle, rifle in the bags aimed at the chart. Other scopes and Binos were rested on top of the Zeiss and compared back and forth.

7:35 Chart in broken shade

Zeiss = B4, G4, (I can read row #4 in the black and the grey)
L 3-10 = B4, G3 (row #4 Black, #3 Grey)
L6x42 = B4, G4
L 2x7 = B3,G3
All Binos read B5, G4

At this point, it is clear that the Zeiss and the 6x42 have a sharper image than the other scopes and the binos blow the scopes away.

7:50 Chart in full shade

Zeiss = B4,G3
L 3-10 = B3,G3
L 6x42 = B4,G3
L 2-7 = B3,G3 (G3 getting shaky)
All Binos read B4,G4 (G4 shaky w/8x20)

At this time, I conclude that the make or break is going to be when I can no longer READ FOR SURE the difference between the (F) and the (R) in black row #3. These two letters are the hardest to distinguish.

8:05 Sun cracks the trees, visibility get better for a couple minutes.

8:15 Getting dark quickly, chart is in deep shade.

Zeiss = B3,G3 (strong, bright)
L3-10 = B3,G2 (losing it)
L6x42 = B3,G2 (still solid)
L2-7 Drops out
Binos.....
L10x32 = B4 G3 (image bright but hard to keep focused)
L8x20 = B3,G3 (still solid)
Z 8x30 B4,G3 (best of the binos!!)

8:25 from here on, I'm just concentrating on black row #3

Zeiss = Strong
L 3-10 = Hangin' on
L 6x42 = Strong
All binos still reading black #4 but L 10x32 is shaky

8:30

Zeiss = OK
L 3-10 = Done
L 6x42 = OK
Binos..........
L 10x32 = Drop (image still bright but can't focus)
L 8x20 = amazing
Z 8x30 = still strong

8:36

Zeiss = Drop
L 6X42 = hangin'
Binos.........
L 8x20 = hangin'
Z 8x30 = top dog

8:38

L6x42.....Done
Both binos still reading black row #3

So there you have it, sorry for the length.

Some conclusions about the new Zeiss Scope.

The Conquest is a stunning optical instrument for a 32mm objective. It held right to end with the (old model) 6 x 42, and bested the others. Throughout, I would say that the Zeiss was marginally brighter than the Loopy, but at the last minute or two, I was able to define the (R) and (F) just slighly better with the Leo. This was so close that a different set of eyes might have seen it the opposite way. I would say that the internals are superior to the individual Leupolds that I have had.

The Zeiss is not perfect however, as the eye box is notably less generous than all the Leupold models. Given that I was able to get the reticle that I wanted in this scope which was no longer obtainable in any Leupold, I'd say I make a good purchase. I'm not drawing any better or best lines in the sand here, just stating that I'm satisfied with what I got.

Would I buy it again.........given the reticle choice.........yes, for sure. If a #4 were available in a Loopy 2.5x8.........I don't know.

One other conclusion re the binos, especially the little Leica 8x20 and the older than dirt Zeiss 8x30......BINOCULARS KICK ASS.

Now back to your regularly scheduled arguments........ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

JimF

Been toying with buying the Leica 8x20's. Are yours the Utravid?

Trinovid 8x20 BCA....honestly, I had no idea they were this good.

JimF

I may have missed it, but what approx. power setting did you have the various scopes on?

The biggest difference I noticed when comparing the 2.5x8x32 to my other Zeiss's was the eyebox. One of the big reasons I went to Zeiss over the Loopy was the eyebox in the first place. Yet on this new one just doesn't cut it.

You didn't miss it, I forgot to mention it. The Leupolds were set at 6X, the Zeiss at about 5.7X.

JimF

Thanks for the review! Certainly helped in my pending decision.

Further thoughts after sleeping on it (OW!!.....lumpy)

I mentioned the precision of the Zeiss internal adjustments vs. Leupold. This is an issue that I have historically had with most Loopies. The IA's have always been a little "vague" This is not to say, that they don't hold their zero, they for sure do.

One should not read much into the accuracy of the "record" groups, this particular rifle has shot similarly with both the 6X42 and the 3.5-10X40 that it has worn in the past. (The .125" WAS a bit of a shock), but the rifle has been 'trying' to shoot that group for a couple weeks and sombody always messed up the third shot.

The eyebox is NOT bad, it is just not as good as the other scopes that I have that are KNOWN for generous eyebox. I think the eyebox would be better, were the scope set up in mounts lower then the Talley not-so-lows. I may try setting it up in some Burris Zee ultra lows later but for now, I just need to shoot it and carry it on a couple of my canyon hike/shooting sessions. The carry power on this one is likely to be 5X.

So, as I mentioned, this Zeiss is stunning optically for a 32MM scope, but it will not boot my other Loopies out into the cold just yet. Although, I may not keep around the ones that I have been hoarding as spares. Will I buy more Zeiss models in the future? I don't know. I certainly would not buy a scope any heavier than this one for my light rifles. For a heavier rifle, this would be less of a concern.

The #4 reticle is the perfect choice for me as the posts are very thick and I can look right into black shadow and see them clearly. This is the reticle that I personally am going to want on big game rifles. If this reticle were available on Loopies, then I'd have a tough decision. I don't think I would put this reticle on a "dual purpose" rifle like a 243 or some such as the posts are almost too heavy for that application.

Final thoughts on the Binoculars. I took them out as a whim, but I'm really glad I did. At the range that I was viewing, the 10x32 which is fabulous optically, was not as good as the two others (even the 8x20) due to the focus. However, at longer ranges, the story may be different. I kept the chart and may try a similar test out at maybe 300 yds sometime down the road to see how things shake out.

JimF

I think your testing methodology was an excellent real world test.

I have done similar, and it is surprising to most just how much better binoculars do than riflescopes. I guess it just comes from using both eyes.

Thank you..well done and informative.

Am I missing something? I just sent my leupold to their "products and services" dept in Oregon, who installed a post and duplex reticle in my 4x. During my converstaion with the tech, a #4 was indeed one of my options. Total cost was about 65 bucks.

This was 2 weeks or so ago. Did something just change, or is there a reason why you can't go that route, Jim??

....Also, why doesn't Zeiss make any fixed powers? That's a deal killer for me. Or do they and I'm just too dumb to find them on the internet?