Rifle Scopes Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

[freeflight]

I recently bought a Zeiss conquest 3.5-10x44mm Z800 rifle scope, hoping to gain another 10 or 15 minutes hunting time dusk or dawn. I heard good things about conquest line's low light performance

I was surprised that it came literally wrapped in paper, not even packed in plastic bags. But let's focus on optical quality

So last night I sat on the front porch and compared it with Bushnell Elite Tactical 10X and Vortex Viper HS 5-15X44. both have mil dot reticles. I tried to read the license plate of a black SUV that is about 50 yard away. Light source is street light across the street.

1. Vortex 5-15@10x, flare, low contrast, can't read car tag
2. Zeiss 3.5-10@10X, wide field of view, generous eye box, can read some number of the car tag, not all of them, seems not sharp eough

3. Bushnell 10X@10X, brightest scope of the three, can read car tag.
The Z800 reticle is much better than mil dot in that kind of darkness.

I was a little disappointed with the Zeiss. So give it another shot around noon. It was raining and cloudy outside, the kind of condition Zeiss is supposed to perform well. I tried to read some word on a power post 75 yard away, and observe a palm tree 100 yd away.
1. Vortex 5-15@10X, not as bright as the rest, but very impressive chromatic aberration control (best of the bunch).
2. Bushnell 10X@10X, brighter than Vortex, slight blue and yellow color fringing
3. Zeiss 3.5-10@10X, wider field of view, seems slightly brighter than Bushnell, generous eye box. Lots of purple color fringing, worst of all the scopes. I tried to adjust eye piece focus, no improvement.
4. Weaver 3-10X tactical, brighter than Bushnell 10X, slight color fringing. This is a better scope than Bushnell.
5. Weaver 3-15X tactical, brightest and sharpest image. quite a bit of color fringing. Best scope.

Zeiss conquest 3.5-10x44 is a $600 scope. I would rate it is about the same as the $300 Weaver 3.5-10X, only slightly better than the $125 Bushnell scope. I like the Z800 reticle, but I am not impressed with its optical quality.

What is your rating of the Zeiss conquest scope? Is this expected performance? Did I get a lemon?

I will give it a final test over the weekend, around sunset time. Unless it performs better, I will be returning it.

Kevin

======= Retested 12/02/2012
I guess so many people can't be wrong...so I retested them again near sunset today. I mount them on top a tripod, and watching a palm tree and tile roof about 327 yard away. Paid special attention to eye alignment. The test lasted about one hour minutes, 20 minutes before sunset and 40 minutes after. Here are the results

1. Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44mm, this is the best scope. Brightness and clarity is very impressive in low light situation. I can tell the palm tree leaves are green, and count number of tiles when the light got even darker. I think this is a good scope for low light hunting.

2. Weaver 3-10X40mm tactical, it is a close second.
3. Bushnell 10X40mm tactical, slightly behind Weaver. It is hard to tell the palm tree leaves are green, and tiles are kind of blurred in low light.
4. Viper 5-15X44 HS. This is a disappointment. Palm tree leaves look blackish through it, and forget counting tiles.

I tend to pay attention to chromatic aberration since I am also doing photography. I have used Zeiss (Hasselblad and Contax), Lecia, Nikon and Canon. I don't think Zeiss was worse than the rest in terms of chromatic aberration. But with the Conquest rifle scope, I still notice more fringing than the rest of the scopes. Is this normal?

 

[JL]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

Adust magnification accordingly to objective size. Zeiss should be around 6X in order to get best dark performance out of it. You did not mention other's obj diameters.
Diopteria should be adjusted first against sky or white wall.

If my memory serves me right, Conquest should be with fully multicoated lenses. I think weaver and especially cheapest Bushnell isn't.

 

[slowkota]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

At first, when I got my conquest... And looking through it, just holding it straight out of the box... I was disappointed. And posted about it.

Then I actually mounted it to my rifle, and took it to the range and got it perfectly adjusted and dialed in for my eyes... then I was like "niiiiiice"! Came back here and made another post "Eatin my words" lol

Mine is 4.5-14x50, and I had a chance to do a side by side with a PST 4-16x50FFP... and it wasn't even close to the glass quality of the zeiss.

 

[AustinR]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

I have a 4.5-14x44, and I can see targets about 5-10 minutes before dusk. I don't have a lot of good glass to compare to it, but side by side with a few Leupolds and a Vortex Viper, there's no comparison.

 

[freeflight]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

Bushnell is Elite Tactical 10x44mm, Vortex Viper 5-15x44mm, Weaver Tactical 3-10X40mm and 3-15X50mm. They are all mil/mil.

I have to say the Weaver 3-10x is a great scope for $300. It brightness and sharpness is better than Bushnell 10X.

 

[freeflight]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

Wow, sounds like I got a lemon.

I already have two Viper 5-15 and a Weaver 3-15, otherwise I would have bought the Zeiss 4.5-14x44

 

[bhoges]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

I have the same scope and its one of my favorites. Thats going toovfar with the packaging. Who clears the optics and one of the best for that price range. Ive had mine for a long time on my Rem 547 in 17HMR. I've made some long shots with that setup. Give it a few days and mount it and try it out. Even the Zeiss Darivari 6-24x56 I just bought comes wrapped the same way.

 

[spr1]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

Fixed power scopes have fewer lenses typically, which can be an advantage.

The main problem with your test I believe is that the Z800 (and Z600, etc.) is optimized for longer range shooting and has the parallax set at 300 yds, not 100 as the other scopes are probably set at. Regardless of how you focus the eyepiece, the Zeiss will not be in focus at maximum power up close.

Repeat a version of your test at a significant range.

At closer range lower magnification settings will yield improved clarity.

 

[spr1]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

Ps. IMO the Conquests are an incredible value.
I did a comparison a number of years ago where I sat two rifles up looking at a hillside 200 yards away just before dusk. One rifle had a Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10X50 and the other a Kahles 2.5-10X50. With both on 10X and going back and forth between them, as darkness approached, I watched a herd of deer.
The Conquest blew the Kahles away at half the cost.

 

[BobD]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

Something is wrong with this picture...

I believe the the lower mag Conquest have a 100 yard fixed parralax. While that may not be the issue, focusing at closer images with your eye slightly off may not be as clear. I would imagine this could be easily an issue as the eye box and relief on the conquest are so forgiving, it can give a false sense that you are perfetly in line. I actually spoke with Zeiss earlier this year and they explained that they leave the outer edges of their lenses clean (not blackened) for that reason and to expand your FOV which will be perceivably more. This is just what came to mind when I read this, it may have no baring or indeed be a lemon but I thought it may be helpful to bring up.

Here's a picture from an old post that I wrote discussing this. As you can see here, the swirled circle around the outer edge... I'm way off center looking through this but pointing it toward the light reveals the edges. I took a few more pictures, as I continued to slowly go to black fading in this swirl stood ahead of it. What's interesting is, that when lowering the scope out of the light it looks filled with light as I am properly behind it (even though I'm not). Although the appearance is still shiny, focus is much better exactly behind.

Maybe try your test at a further distance or changing your head position. I've heard a few not too ecstatic about the highest mag model, but the low vari's are really nice.

The 3-9 in a standad duplex is often priced around $300 and optically will outshine brands costing hundreds more. The difference in cost (with the 3.5-10 z800) is associated with the turrets, ballistic reticle and the additional 1x magnification on the top.

If nothing else, you should be happy with its clarity in my opinion. I hope it's something simple that can be changed.

Good luck-

 

[BobD]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

If the above is a possibility and you are comparing with scopes with a less forgiving eye box I could see how one that is thought to be inferior resolves more information. That very limitation may force you to be exactly behind it to get the proper image where there is plenty of room behind the Zeiss that is still bright but not at its potential.

Again, hope it works out for you-

 

[spr1]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

My 3.5-10 X 44mm Z600 has the parallax setting printed in while lettering on the ocular lens housing and states "300 yds"

 

[BobD]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

That's my mistake, maybe I am refferring to the 3-9? I may have not recalled properly. Disregard that figure then. 300 yards is a long distance for a fixed parralax..

 

[spr1]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

No mistake, just reticle specific product variations.
The ranging reticles are different than the standard plex reticles. You zero the main bar on the Z600 at 200 and then adjust power to match your ballistics.

 

[Ranger413]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

I was just a wee bit disappointed when I opened the box on my Zeiss Conquest. I was like "plastic turret caps, really?". At that time, the Conquest was my most expensive scope purchase. I haven't used the rifle its mounted on that much, but I've been happy with the optical clarity. Its a 3-9X and I went with the Zeiss on that rifle due to the consistent and about 4" eye relief. Its mounted on a 338-06.

 

[spr1]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

As far as "good" scopes go, the Conquest is really cheap.
In addition to the optical qualities, they also have a good reputation for recoil tolerance.

 

[freeflight]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

I guess so many people can't be wrong...so I retested them again near sunset today. I mount them on top a tripod, and watching a palm tree and tile roof about 327 yard away. Paid special attention to eye alignment. The test lasted about one hour minutes, 20 minutes before sunset and 40 minutes after. Here are the results

1. Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44mm, this is the best scope. Brightness and clarity is very impressive in low light situation. I can tell the palm tree leaves are green, and count number of tiles when the light got even darker. I think this is a good scope for low light hunting.

2. Weaver 3-10X40mm tactical, it is a close second.
3. Bushnell 10X40mm tactical, slightly behind Weaver. It is hard to tell the palm tree leaves are green, and tiles are kind of blurred in low light.
4. Viper 5-15X44 HS. This is a disappointment. Palm tree leaves look blackish through it, and forget counting tiles.

I tend to pay attention to chromatic aberration since I am also doing photography. I have used Zeiss (Hasselblad and Contax), Lecia, Nikon and Canon. I don't think Zeiss was worse than the rest in terms of chromatic aberration. But with the Conquest rifle scope, I still notice more fringing than the rest of the scopes. Is this normal?

 

[freeflight]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: spr1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fixed power scopes have fewer lenses typically, which can be an advantage.

The main problem with your test I believe is that the Z800 (and Z600, etc.) is optimized for longer range shooting and has the parallax set at 300 yds, not 100 as the other scopes are probably set at. Regardless of how you focus the eyepiece, the Zeiss will not be in focus at maximum power up close.

Repeat a version of your test at a significant range.

At closer range lower magnification settings will yield improved clarity. </div></div>

Good point. I did notice the 300yd marking on the eye piece, but forgot to ask about it. I retested the scopes around 300 yds, and results are much different.

 

[freeflight]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something is wrong with this picture...

I believe the the lower mag Conquest have a 100 yard fixed parralax. While that may not be the issue, focusing at closer images with your eye slightly off may not be as clear. I would imagine this could be easily an issue as the eye box and relief on the conquest are so forgiving, it can give a false sense that you are perfetly in line. I actually spoke with Zeiss earlier this year and they explained that they leave the outer edges of their lenses clean (not blackened) for that reason and to expand your FOV which will be perceivably more. This is just what came to mind when I read this, it may have no baring or indeed be a lemon but I thought it may be helpful to bring up.

If nothing else, you should be happy with its clarity in my opinion. I hope it's something simple that can be changed.

Good luck-
</div></div>

Thanks for the long explanation and picture. I am happy with its clarity for the beginning.

Believe it or not, I noticed the swirled circle around the edge when I open the box and inspect the scope. I have a habit to look though the objective side of the lens. In my other scopes, i saw a nice and round bright circle. With the conquest 3.5-10x44, I saw another swirled circle near the edge, just like the one in your picture.

Perhaps this is a smart trick to wide field of view, but I believe there will be adverse consequences as well.

The conquest has relatively large eye piece, which might contribute to the generous eyebox. No?

 

[BobD]

Re: Zeiss Conquest disappointment and question

I'm glad to hear everything worked out. The low vari Conquest are really unique in my eyes. It's unfortunate the price climbs so quickly to add some additional features.

Zeiss actually wrote me an email addressing why they don't artificially blacken the outer edges of their lenses. I believe their Conquest line is geared mostly toward hunters, where the additional FOV would be gladly taken even though the edge is softened (for those couple extra feet of detection).

As far as the eye box and its forgiveness... I have no idea how much a role the size of the ocular or eye piece plays but I'm sure it helps. It is an interesting concept. In my mind I think of 'forgiveness' as exit pupil size in proportion to eye relief and how their figures relate to each other at different distances and viewing angles.

I was under some impression it had to do with a balance of lens placement, shape and quality that would be proportionate to its magnification. Honestly, I don't know excactly how any of them achieve that. I also don't know if its a designated feature or just the end product of a combination of things just done very well.


Have fun with new glass, hope it serves you well-