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.

Sorry, but I do not have one to comment on... But Doug is probably willing to let you look at one... and I bet it would work just fine. The one thing I have found in Minox scopes is absolutely reliable specs. Some are so far from reality it is an absolute joke (Burris comes to mind) and most tend to fudge a bit.

To add to comments on the 1.5-8x...
At 5x the Minox 1.5-8 and 2-10 FOV graphs cross, with the 1.5-8 having more FOV at lower powers. If you generally run your variable scopes well below the highest powers this would probably be less than a non-issue.

At higher powers the 2-10 has significantly more FOV. As I stated earlier the FOV is among the absolute least of my concerns and it would not matter to me, within reason.

Given the same price point, I'm sure the Minox is better than a Leupold 2-7x32 VX-2.......equal to their VX-3 line perhaps?

I like Leupolds just fine... but the 2-7x Leupolds, especially the Compact, are the worst examples of compromise ever made in the optics World, IMO&E.

The Schott glass in the Minox is better without a doubt.

my example of one a 3-9 on a Kimber montana 308 has worked fine for 3 years or more (bought it when they first came out). I wish the reticle was heavier and the adjustable eyepiece was harder to turn, but it holds zero and has good optics. Its lighter than the 3-9 Conquest I have. On one end of the spectrum we look thru the bottom of a coke bottle with a Bushnell 4-20 something or another and on the other you can brag about your S&B, for 98% of hunting something in the middle made by a reputable manufacturer will do just fine. However getting hung up in the minutia is our favorite past time here on the fire.

To me, the tunnel vision I'm referring to is the field image in the scope not filling up the entire ocular lens. At the needed eye relief to maximize the image there was still a significant "ring" around the image and the image just generally seemed "far away". I could still clearly see the image and could get FOV guesstimates from the image, however, the image was not filling up the ocular. If that isn't tunnel vision then please let me know what to call it because I noticed the same thing on the Viper 2-7. The Zeiss, Nikon and Bushnell scopes I have do not display this annoyance whatsoever. Those provide nice, clear field image that fully fills up the ocular lens. Not an optics expert by any means.

A lightweight .300 RUM will give it a good "shake test" for sure.

If it survives that, it's probably OK.

DF

What you are seeing is a function of mounting the scope improperly. Your eye should be very close to the eye relief measurement. Some scopes have far more mounting latitude than others and "eye box" is commonly used to refer to the effect. The more critical the eye box the more difficult it can be to mount a scope.

If you are seeing the problem with multiple scopes with reasonable eye relief the problem may be in the stock length, either too short or too long. Or it could be the way you mount the rifle.

The eye relief on the Vortex 2-7x32 is actually quite forgiving.

I shot a hundred rounds or so of 375AI under a ZA5 2-10 and a lot more of other rounds and it is still ticking just fine...

If you and Gunner can't destroy one, it's probably OK.

DF

I've always considered what Fifth is talking about as "Tunnel Vision". I've looked at it separate from FOV. Some scopes have a thick black ring around the image even when mounted properly at the correct distance. The image is full, sharp, and fine...but the heavy black ring remains around the outside. Leupolds seem to have very little of this. A scope with (what I call) "Tunnel Vision" irritates me to no end.

Ditto

Yep. I despise the "looking down a tube" feel I get from some scopes.

Well, I am sitting here looking through several scopes that have been mentioned as having "tunnel vision" and all of them provide a clear image at the correct eye relief, without a heavy black ring.

The ZA 5 2-10 is mounted on a SA 700 in Talley lightweights and I am not seeing the dreaded black ring when mounting the rifle quickly or when mounting with eyes closed before looking through it.

I recognize few scopes have the generous eye box of a Leupold... But there is nothing wrong with these scopes when mounted in the right place.

I concur what Sitka refers to as improper mounting. I've personally never seen this particular phenomenon with even cheap, bargain basement scopes from the likes of Tasco, Simmons, and Bushnell. That is, not until the trendy fascination with longer eye relief started a few years back. One of the downsides of longer eye relief, its that it usually comes at the sacrifice of a narrower range (front to back) of optimal eye relief and the corresponding narrower FOV.

Three poorly composed and exposed images taken handheld through three scopes.

One is the brand new Vortex Viper HS-T 4-16x44, another is the Leupold 3.5-10, and the other is the Minox ZA 5 2-10... Which one is not acceptable?

Assuming you are either jerking chain or baiting...

No, I agree, I have had several scopes that are akin to looking through cardboard paper towel roll.

Your wife needs to clean the windows.

My Minox ZA 5 2-10 developed a loose ocular, on my LW 300 WSM. Called Minox and they are shipping me a new tested scope. With a pre paid label to ship the old scope back. Great service.

My other identical scope is holding up fine on a 6.5 X 284. Like the optics and scope hope it was a one time occurrence.

Some scopes are notorious for the "black donut" effect when viewing through. Check out a Weaver V10 classic sometime if you want to see reality. And we're not talking about the black image around the lense if the fore/aft isn't correct, it is the constant bold black ring around the edge of the scope regardless of image. Leupold has virtually zero for some reason.

Swarovski z5 is like the Leupie. My Bushnell 6500 and the Nightforce I had has more tunnel vision than the z5. It doesn't seem to affect field of view.

My replacement Minox ZA 5 2 X 10 X 40 was at my door in less than 72 hrs. Thanks Doug, and Greg at Minox! And they sent me a pre paid label to ship old scope back.

So Art, what do you think about the 1.8X8 on a 375 H&H? and while I think of it, your opinion on say a 3X9 power scope for a 375? jorge

Jorge
As I posted earlier in the thread I do not have a 1.5-8 to look at, so I would be guessing. I did shoot the Kodiak bear I shot with Rick Bin with the 3.5-10x Leupie intentionally set at 6x. The bear turned out to be 24 yards away in the alders.

Close enough some would think there might be issues... I was able to find a hole big enough to make a hole through the bear's neck with no problem.

The 1-4x Vortex I have on the 375AI now seems to me to be a really good choice. I do not shoot foxes at long range with a rifle like that and the compromises are nonexistent on a big game target.

I used a fixed 3x Leupie a lot and have one on my 375H&H, some 300 magnums; Norma, WM, and H&H; and even a 10-22... But, I see no advantage in the upper end of the 3-9 scale, personally, on a bigger rifle.

When I used the 3.5-10 Leupold it was more of a test outside my usual fixed power comfort zone. It worked just fine, but was replaced fairly quickly with a 3x until testing with other scopes moved it off. These days it makes less difference, but I would want less magnification than the 3x if I was looking to maximize scope potential and the upper end seems largely a waste IMO.

Jorge
To add... I would consider the 1.8-8x a very reasonable compromise and would have no issues with trying it out. And I drew a Kodiak bear tag for this coming spring in the same unit my buddy shot the monster in May of '12...

And I recognize how much overlap and so on makes this a hair-splitting contest...
art

Thanks! Doug has a good deal on it here but the reticle available sucks for big game. Looking hard at the Meopta 3.5X10X44 RD or the Zeiss HD 2X10X44 for my 375, although I don't know why, it has a perfectly working Leupold 1.75X6X32 (HD) on it since 2001. Guess I'm being paranoid about low light.

The Versa-Plex would not bother me a bit for a big game reticle...

I found I really like the illuminated TMCQ reticle in the Vortex... If given a choice of any of the scopes I have used the Vortex 1-4 PST with TMCQ reticle would be my first choice on a big rifle.

Pulled the trigger on a Meopta 3.5X20X44RD. It was a close run between it and the Zeiss Conquest 2X10X42. Mule Deer made me do it! Thanks John! .. And Doug!

A 3.5-20 on a 375??? That should be interesting...

I'm pretty sure it's 3.5-10.

I certainly hope so!

ooops, sorry, it's a 10X. a 20X? NEVER!

Whew....was going to have to start calling you RingmanII...

[bleep], it took me over two weeks and confering with the likes of MD and other sages to convince myself to go with that magnification on a 375!

Like I said earlier I used a Leupold in the same power range for a Kodiak bear that turned out to be far closer than expected when we topped the ridge. It was also in thick alders... And set at 6x it worked just fine.

Yeah, 6x is much more effective at close ranges than most people think. My closest shot was a running wild boar at 10 yards.

I suspect the "scope full of hair" stories about 6x being too much for closer ranges started back in the really old days when scopes not only had small main tubes but small ocular lenses. Today's 6x scopes, or variables set on 6x, generally have a FOV at 100 yards of around 18 feet, which means 4.5 feet at 25 yards.

I find that if I keep both eyes open, I can track just about anything, at virtually any distance, that I can see with a fixed 6X.

Just bought another one last week, the Meopta.

Steve

Just recieved my Minox ZA5 1.5-8x32.........initial inspection is great so far, just the slightest hint of ghosting at the edges on 1.5x but clears by about 2.5x and crystal clear "edge to edge" from there on up to 8x. Only discernible thing I can find is the noticeable barrel distortion while panning from 3x-6x.....not horrible, but it is there. Don't know if this is the compromise of the optical system to get the 1.5 low power and 5x range or not. Others have spoke of such on other reviews of this scope, so a call to Minox will clarify.

*Update*

Rubber cover over power ring??? Who's the f'n engineer who decided that one??? .......what a joke!!! Started slipping and coming loose after just 5-6 turns. Almost decided to just rip the thing off, but there's no quick change knob underneath it. At least there seems to be a nice knurled ring under it that won't look too bad without the cover. Don't know whether to just re-glue it better or send it back, cause there really wouldn't be a fix, due to being a design flaw.

On a positive note, the low light performance is outstanding!!! Only misgiving is the duplex they use is just a hair bit too skinny in the thick part of the crosshairs.

Do the za5 have lift and set turrets? I just got a za3 and you have to play w/set screws. Sure hate to see all the quality problems. If all these scopes are put together in America they have a long long way to go to match leupolds workforce!

my ZA5 1.5-8x32 doesn't have lift-n-set turrets

Most of the "scope full of hair" stories come from people who have never seen a scope full of hair but did read about it in F&S.

People having problems with a 6x are the idiots that have NO idea how to shoulder a rifle. Lots of folks out there that have to 'find' stuff through the scope.

Anyone else get a Minox and not like and/or have problems with the rubber power ring thingy??? The more I look and fiddle with it, I don't know if it's something that can be relied upon for long term use.

Well........a call to Minox was both helpful/reasuring, but also a bit discouraging at the same time. Said they are aware of the problem, and said careful application of a good glue would not void any warranty, and therefore didn't recommend a return. However, they would take it back and repair free of charge if I absolutely wanted to, or if it becomes a continual problem.

Needless to say, I just put a few dabs of automotive rubber/plastic trim adhesive on and reattached it........works like a charm now. Still not too thrilled about that one design aspect, but like everything else about it. Especially at the price I payed.

I own two ZA5 scopes a 3-15-50 illuminated and a 2-10-50 both are nice I was a little worried about the 4" eye relief but no problems there so far . You must use high scope mounts on the 50mm objective scope to keep the objective end from touching the barrel. The only problem I have had so far is the 2-10-50 turned all the way down I can see the end of the barrel turn it up to four no problem. Great in low light . For the price can't beat them . Can't wait to see the new ZA HD line.

I know this thread is old, but I thought I'd chime in about the Minox ZA5 3-15 x 42 I have. I bought it last year as a demo from Cameraland and mounted it on a 25-06. Last year I hunted with it a few times and I couldn't warm up to it for some reason or another. all of my other scopes are Zeiss Conquests in 3-9 or 3.5 x 10 and I've been real happy with them.

I took the Minox out again this past weekend and these are the four things I noticed. Has anyone else experienced this with theirs?

1. I was panning some pigs and there's a noticeable "fish eye" effect. As you pan around, you'll see the image get larger as it moves to the center of the view and then decrease as it reaches the edges again.

2. The focus shifts significantly as you change power. I've focused it at 15X, 7X and 3X and it happens in either direction.

3. When adjusted to 3X, objects appear farther away then they do with my naked eye.

4. In low light conditions, there's significant changes in light transmission when changing power. Some of this is to be expected, but I haven't seen it to such a degree with my Zeiss Conquests.

I'm getting ready to send it back to Minox for evaluation/repair as I'm hoping it's just out of adjustment. Either it needs repaired or it's a piece of crap IMO.

Did you happen to adjust the ocular assembly significantly? Also, for #2, are you viewing an object at a distance past 100yds, or in close? Far away is ok, but in close that's just a function of depth of field. So long as #2 is tested using a far away target, I'd definitely send it back. This sounds like what happens when an ocular is off axis with the rest of the optical system, or when it is screwed out way, way too far back. #4 is the only thing that I would suspect to just be normal or inherent to the glass.

The 3-9 Z3 I have is "OK" but I want to replace it, I find the sweet spot on the scope to be smaller than I like, i.e. your head position is more critical than I am used too.

[/quote]
Did you happen to adjust the ocular assembly significantly? ..... This sounds like what happens when an ocular is off axis with the rest of the optical system, or when it is screwed out way, way too far back. [/quote]

With this being an open box demo, I suspect that may be what the problem is after folks fiddled with it. I'll send it in, because something is definitely not right.

It is a fast focus eyepiece on the Minox scopes

I have one of the za3 3-9x40 models with the #4 reticle and have been happy with its performance. The glass is great and the tracking has been spot on.