| beachdog wrote:|
I can buy a new zeiss 3.5x10 x44 for $420
At $420, steal might have been a better choice for a verb. (:))
Seriously, IMO, as compared to a 4200 elite, these Conquests are really in a different league. They aren't a world apart, but neither are most things.
I have compared my 3.5-10x,44 Conquests to several 4200 elites using what another member accurately described as a "look through the danged things test" on several occasions. Beyond that, a friend and I did a more extensive, though not very scientific, comparison of two 3.5-10x,44 Conquests to a 3-9x,40 4200 elite, which I detailed to some degree in a prior post. Basically, it was looking at black letters on red paper as light levels fell. If we define lens contrast as the ability to distinguish the boundary between two areas having a small difference in their illuminance, I found the Conquests to have better contrast in low light.
Stray light caused by reflections within a scope causes image fogging, a loss of shadow detail and color. Because my home is located in an inner city area, I compared the two for flare (veiling glare) by looking at brick and mortar seams in walls both near a setting sun and street lights as light levels fell. I can't quantify it, but I found the Conquest to substantially better.
Additionally, using the old "look through the danged things test," I found the Conquests to have better depth of field.
An optical coating's resistance to abrasion is something that doesn't necessarily impact optical performance, but is important to me. I don't know how the two compare, but it is an area that sometimes explains higher costs.
A Conquest's image isn't as scintillating as those produced by Kahles C, S&B, Swaro Z6 or Zeiss Diavari, and things like contrast, flare and depth of field might never be a problem for you. Ron Spomer, in a recent issue of a popuplar periodical about hunting, suggests that cheap is the way to go; I disagree. If the buck of a lifetime requires shooting into shadows very early or very late, a Conquest is more likely to allow a "bang for the buck," pun intended. (:))