New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Conquest 3-9x40 vs. Monarch 2.5-10x50mm
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Conquest 3-9x40 vs. Monarch 2.5-10x50mm

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Poll Question: Which one would you picks for Eastern Kentucky Elk Hunting?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
15 [93.75%]
1 [6.25%]
You can not vote in this poll

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 12:18
Palehorse View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Last minute upgrade before deer season.   Which one and why; thanks in advance.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 12:34
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4297
I think the Conquest has great glass, the 3-9 configuration is very practical for hunting, and 40 mm gives good mounting height. I like my Monarch, but love my Conquest even more.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 12:35
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
Originally posted by trigger29 trigger29 wrote:

I think the Conquest has great glass, the 3-9 configuration is very practical for hunting, and 40 mm gives good mounting height. I like my Monarch, but love my Conquest even more.

i agree with you jason, the monarch is no slouch, but the conquest is for sure better.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 15:36
danjojoUSMC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/20/2009
Location: NE Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 329
Is the Conquest really that much better when you can get the Monarch for 60% of the price?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 18:51
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
In my experience the Conquest is tougher. If everything else is rated equal, toughness tips it for me. You can't hit something if the scope is out of zero.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 18:56
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4297
Have beat myself to death with a lightweight .300 wby. Conquest has laughed at me, and keeps on truckin'. My nose isn't so fortunate.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 21:44
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
That has been my experience as well--except my Conquests have been mounted far enough forward that I don't get whacked! They have GREAT eye relief--if the mounts allow.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/21/2009 at 22:02
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12712
Another vote for the conquest.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/22/2009 at 04:02
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20478
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

In my experience the Conquest is tougher. If everything else is rated equal, toughness tips it for me. You can't hit something if the scope is out of zero.
 
I also love the Conquest, but have had a 3.5-10x fail and never a Monarch. Or any Nikon for that matter. Wink
 
I do think the Conquest is a better scope than the Monarch over all, but only slightly. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/22/2009 at 06:27
bugsNbows View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
bowsNbugs

Joined: March/10/2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 9294
I'll also vote for the Conquest. I only have one now, but it has displayed zero issues to date. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/22/2009 at 09:06
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131
both scopes are good for the money - is the conquest 60% better than the monarch? no.


I have beat both without mercy and they both hold up fine.

In 95% of scenarios, the monarch will perform as well as the conquest.  In my opinion of course - whatever that is worth.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/25/2009 at 23:56
FunShot View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: February/18/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 91
At the power you are taking about, for me the monarch and conquest are arguably equal when it comes to image alone. It will all boil down to your personal preference. Overall the conquest is arguably the better scope and if you have the money go for it.
I've done a side by side comparison of a monarch and a conquest, under  10x  power, image quality is very similar. Above 10x and specially 12x + and most evident at 20x, image clarity and resolution is better on the conquest. I have the side focus models and with 20x power on both scopes, i get better resolution and contrast on the conquest on far off objects like more than a kilometer away.
Under 10x, monarch or conquest, you can't go wrong with either. Let me warn you though that before 2009, there are lots of factory smuggled philippine made scopes, either defective, below standard, or reject scopes that have made it out of the factory onto the black market, specially nikon and bushnell legend scopes as well as a few burris scopes so be wary of your purchase of one and make sure you order only from reliable sources. Wink
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2009 at 09:30
Randall45 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: June/25/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 284
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

In my experience the Conquest is tougher. If everything else is rated equal, toughness tips it for me. You can't hit something if the scope is out of zero.
Yes the Conquest is tougher than the Nikon Monarch in my personal experience.Also the Conquest optics are so much better to my eyes.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2009 at 09:35
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7703
The glass in the Conquest is appreciably better.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2009 at 18:01
3_tens View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2007
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7181
To me there is not much advantage in going from the 2-10X42 Monarch to the 2-10X50 other than you have a lighter wallet. For your stated hunt in mind, to me there is no contest. Go with the Conquest. If you are worried about seeing the Reticle in low light get the #4 reticle in the Zeiss. It stands out very well. Also it is not offered by Nikon.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2009 at 19:37
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4297
Originally posted by 3_tens 3_tens wrote:

To me there is not much advantage in going from the 2-10X42 Monarch to the 2-10X50 other than you have a lighter wallet. For your stated hunt in mind, to me there is no contest. Go with the Conquest. If you are worried about seeing the Reticle in low light get the #4 reticle in the Zeiss. It stands out very well. Also it is not offered by Nikon.
I must say, I can appreciate how black the reticles in the Conquest appear to be. They really seem to stand out for some reason.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/26/2009 at 22:48
Palehorse View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Thanks all, this will do nicely :D

http://swfa.com/Zeiss-3-9x40-Conquest-Rifle-Scope-P5400.aspx


Edited by Palehorse - October/26/2009 at 22:49
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/27/2009 at 05:52
cbm View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: January/11/2008
Location: SC
Status: Offline
Points: 474
I have a 6x42 monarch and have about 3-4 Conquests ............2 are 44mm ! The Nikon is clear and suprisingly bright in low light for what it cost. I don't think it's quite on par with the Conquest but is more than adequate for deer hunting.
 
The biggest difference I can see with them is the reticles. The standard Nikoplex is very thin and is hard to see in low light IMO !! It also get's "silvery" in bright light..............I think the Conquests win hands down in this area and are worth the extra $$ IMO !!
 
Also I am not a big Zeiss #4 fan............while it is the best low light reticle I have seen , it is very thick and obtrusive IMO ! I think the plex is very good in low light and gives a better sight picture for normal shooting situations !


Edited by cbm - October/27/2009 at 06:00
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/27/2009 at 06:08
DAVE44 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: November/11/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 652
The only thing I dont like about the Z plex is while the outer heavy posts are great the middle of the reticle has very thin lines...they could be a little thicker.
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Conquest 3-9x40 vs. Monarch 2.5-10x50mm"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Brand new Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x50mm spreader Optics For Sale 0 11/14/2007 8:21:01 PM
Conquest 3-9x40 Heitmann13 Rifle Scopes 4 5/3/2007 3:45:59 PM
Zeiss 3-9x40 Conquest AirGunner Rimfire / Airgun 3 8/18/2006 12:29:47 AM
Nikon Monarch 3-9X40 Tip69 Rifle Scopes 3 1/16/2006 10:44:19 AM
3-9X40 4200 or monarch miket_81 Rifle Scopes 7 1/11/2007 3:18:19 PM
3-9x40 Nikon Monarch tahqua Member's Tests and Reviews 4 11/12/2007 10:49:30 PM
monarch vs 4200 vs conquest kicker Rifle Scopes 3 1/30/2007 12:17:47 AM
Monarch vs. Conquest DAVE44 Rifle Scopes 11 4/24/2007 2:01:53 PM
Nikon Monarch UCC or Zeiss Conquest eddy k Rifle Scopes 3 12/2/2006 10:25:13 AM
monarch or fullfield II or conquest .243 ruger Rifle Scopes 10 12/15/2006 4:51:26 PM


This page was generated in 0.391 seconds.