Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Whats better optic? Zeiss or Swarovski

Im looking at a Zeiss Conquest HD5 3-15x42 RZ600 or a Swarovski Z3 4-12x50 for a Browning Xbolt .223 which will be on a dedicated coyote rifle.
Ive played with both ballistic programs and both reticles will work OK for my loads, not great but OK
I've owned a number of Zeiss Conquests and like the glass but have had repair issues with one. I know this is not the norm for Zeiss and am willing to give them another chance. Never owned any Swarovski...I know the name holds a lot of weight.
Does one hold an edge in clarity and quality over the other? Is the 50 mm Objective on the Swarovski gonna give it any edge?

Cheers!!

I have two friends that I shoot with a good bit. One has a 5-25 HD5, the other has a 5-25 Swaro Z5. I've shot both rifles a fair amount and my eyes aren't good enough to tell the difference. They have younger eyes than I do and they seem to think the Swaro may have a slight edge at very last light, but you'll never know any difference during legal shooting hours. I prefer the reticle in the Zeiss. The Swaro reticle is so fine it can be hard to see late in the afternoons. I think that Z3 may have a slightly heavier reticle than the Z5.

I have several regular Conquests, and I personally can't justify the price difference between mine and either of the above scopes. YMMV

I would have to say that clarity in the Swarovski is a little better as well as sharpness. The difference is marginal but it is there. As Roger stated above any difference or advantage the swaro has in low light performance is really a wash as the reticle is better in the zeiss. Both has duplex reticles.
I did have the z3 4-12 with the duplex and it was a lot better in low light than the 5-25 so that wouldn't be as much of an issue with you since your wanting a rangeing reticle.
I would suggest looking through both and let your eyes be the judge

I just sold a N.I.B. HD5 2-10x42. There was nothging wrong with it and though a very nice scope. I did not like it as well as some others I have. Now the 3-15x42 may be different all together. I will say that my older Swaro Habicht 3-10x42 and my Kahles 3.5-10x50 were noticebly better in low light than my HD5 and clearer. Also at least in the 2-10x42 the HD5 had a smaller field of view in comparison to the above mentioned scopes and was rather heavy for its size. I'l also add that in my collection are a Kahles 4-12x52 MZ and a Swaro 4-12x50 and I wouldn't part with either of them. They really are outstanding.

Have to concur nothing about a Zeiss Conquest HD scope made me want to buy it . I have the Z3 4-12x50 and a Meopta R1 3-12x56 for lowlight stuff and wouldn't get rid of either.