Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Nikon or Zeiss |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
deuceswild
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/21/2009 Location: WV Status: Offline Points: 35 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: March/23/2009 at 17:55 |
Hoping to get a little help from the resident optical heavyweights. I have posted a couple of times here, and gotten some good advice. I have been able to narrow my choice of scope for a Rem. 700 300 RUM to a Zeiss Conquest Rapid Z or Nikon Monarch.
The reason I am looking for advice is that I don't have stores nearby to look for myself. I have viewed both scopes (couple of months ago) and to me, I was able to acquire the target quicker and get a great view from a Nikon. The only thing I remember on the Zeiss Conquest was clarity; but the difference doesn't stand out. I like the ranging features of the Zeiss, and just found out Kenton will make turrets for the Monarch within the next few months. The Zeiss is in my price range, but is it $200 better than the Zeiss. I mean ALL factors; optics, customer service, eye box, eye relief, target aquisition, etc. I didn't count Kenton's cost, which is about another $100 for the Nikon. Any guidance is appreciated. Jim |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Whether or not the Conquest is $200 better than the Monarch is a personal decision only you can answer. You wouldn't be ill-served with either.
Personally, I like the Conquest $200 better than the Monarch in general, but the Monarch is no slouch, and depending on the specific models considered, I could see myself choosing a Monarch over a Conquest. For instance, the 2-8X32 Monarch really appeals to me.
If you find the Monarch has a more relaxed view and this feature is enough to offset the Conquest's slightly better clarity, then I believe I'd get the Monarch if I were you. I would also take a hard look at the Bushnell Elite 4200, which is in the same class both optically and price-wise as Monarch. Edited by RifleDude - March/23/2009 at 18:04 |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I was actually writing a similar post, saw that Ted had already posted, and decided to just say "I agree".
|
|
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
|
tony270wsm
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/23/2009 Location: N Oregon coast Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Those two scopes doesn't really seem like a fair comparison, IMO given the significant price difference. A Monarch 2.5-10x42, for example can go for $390 while a Conquest 3.5-10x44 is $775. Even a 3-9x40 is $500.
I'd certainly go with the Conquest in this case for optical clarity (and I do like Nikon scopes), but certainly comes at a higher cost. Whether it is worth it or not is up to you. As RifleDude said, I'd also look at the 4200 and I'll throw in the Sightron Big Sky.
|
|
Agree or disagree, we need to accept our differences and stand together.
|
|
deuceswild
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/21/2009 Location: WV Status: Offline Points: 35 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks for the replies, and please keep'em coming. I forgot to mention that the powers are 2.5-10X42 (maybe 50 but probably not) and the 3-9X40 for the conquest.
I haven't looked hard at the 4200, but I do like the constant 4" eye relief of the monarch and conquest. I did look at the higher end Elite (6500?) but couldn't get the turrets from Kenton. I also couldn't find a ballistic reticle for it; if it did have one it would need to be more "definite" like the Zeiss (with the ballistic calculator). I haven't had the opportunity to look at the Big Sky other than around the net. Only thing that concerns me there is if the company will be around long enough (given today's economy) to support a lifetime warranty. I figure Nikon, Leupold, Zeiss, and Bushnell for that matter have a little more track record. May be wrong though. I am really new at this. |
|
silver
Optics Master Joined: November/04/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2291 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You can get reasonable warrenty service from Zeiss.
|
|
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane." Jimmie Buffet
WWW.formitch.com |
|
308WIN
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/28/2009 Status: Offline Points: 120 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
first of all the zeiss in 3-9x40 can be had for $400
zeiss is the way to go |
|
cbm
Optics Journeyman Joined: January/11/2008 Location: SC Status: Offline Points: 580 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
308.........I'll be interested in how that comment is taken on here. I got my arse grilled for saying that one time !
But aside from that ........I had a Monarch and I have 3 Conquests......and I think the Monarch was very close to the COnquests in low light as far as seeing the target........but the nikoplex reticule is very thin and hard to see in real low light! In that regard........I think the conquest is much better and in bright light..............the conquest has a better reticule than a 6500 (i have one of those too). I think for the warranty , clearity, reticule, and resale ............I'd go with a Conquest !!
|
|
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I wouldn't be putting a 4200 on 300 RUM...... but that's because I like more eye relief than the 4200 has. Try not to think of the $200 as a one time deal, because its not really. You will have that scope forever if you want to. Think about spreading the cost of the scope over several years and it makes it a more realistic evaluation. No one here can tell you weather it is $200.00 better or not. We can only say what we'd buy or have bought. I have a 3-9X40 Conquest and a 3-9X40 4200. I do not have a Monarch. Doubt you will be disappointed in either scope.
|
|
take em!
|
|
rifle looney
Optics Master Joined: November/21/2008 Status: Offline Points: 2553 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Barfska is the one you need!......LOL
|
|
3_tens
Optics Jedi Master Joined: January/08/2007 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 7853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I agree with Todd on this one. That 300 rum will eat up what little eye relief you have with the 4200 and may very well take a bite out of your eye.
|
|
Folks ain't got a sense of humor no more. They don't laugh they just get sore.
Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow Now the rules have changed again. |
|
deuceswild
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/21/2009 Location: WV Status: Offline Points: 35 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I agree. The 4200 wasn't considered, just for that reason. That being said, I did like the Bushnell series, I just liked the ranging capabilities of the Zeiss better and had pretty much decided on that one. When I found out I could use the Kenton knobs on the Monarch things got kind of blurry again. Kenton doesn't make them for the Bushnell.
|
|
hunter12345
Optics Journeyman Joined: November/21/2007 Status: Offline Points: 470 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You have many good scopes to choose from.You could even consider the Weaver Classic Extreme 2.5-10x50 illuminated Ret.But if its down to the Monarch and the Zeiss I would have to pick the Zeiss due to its optics.
|
|
deuceswild
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/21/2009 Location: WV Status: Offline Points: 35 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I had the opportunity to look at a Zeiss locally- someone had traded a Tikka with one on it. I also compared it to a Leupold VX-III and Sightron SII. To me, the Zeiss was much clearer. I think I'll go with the Zeiss. Thanks for all the insight.
Jim |
|
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Don't forget to post a pic of your tricked out rig when it's all set-up and ready to go!
|
|
take em!
|
|
Dshusker
Optics Apprentice Joined: November/09/2008 Status: Offline Points: 103 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I keep reading posts which indicate one scope is better than another, optics better, etc. Are there objective tests available which compare resolution, light transmission, or whatever the characteritics are that determine fine optics? I buy stuff after mainly considering the cost/ value equation, such as Consumer Reports tries to do. I am trying to figure if there is enough value added to justify buying a Zeiss Conquest vs an Elite 4200 or a Sightron Big Sky. Not sure expensive optics would make me a better shooter? Perhaps nothing would. I have always put my money in barrels, glassed beddings, and better triggers. This Forum has me questioning my prior practices.
|
|
cyborg
Optics God Gaseous Clay Joined: August/24/2007 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 12288 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other
An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects. OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause. Cyborg |
|
deuceswild
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/21/2009 Location: WV Status: Offline Points: 35 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
My main considerations were the combination of quality (reputation, warranty, clarity), value, a ranging feature, and eye relief. For example, to my eyes in broad daylight the Bushnell Elite
rivaled the Conquest, as did the Monarch. Both had good warranties and reputations- Nikons reported customer service debacles aside. However, the Bushnell 4200 did not offer the eye relief, and the 6500 would have been more than I paid for the Zeiss. I would have chosen to put Kenton knobs on it as well. The Nikon would have had all those features, but by the time I got the knobs I would like for it, it would have cost as much as the Zeiss, and I might have had more problems with the CS. The Zeiss had a great warranty, good price (Rapid z600 too), eye relief, and not many people argue about the glass quality. It seemed to be the best value for me. My only regret is I did not have a chance to look at the Big Sky- no one around here sells it. I read great things about it, and would have really liked to have compared it. It may very well have been the best value. If I can find one in time, I may still take it and return the Zeiss. BTW, it's been my limited experience that you can find most of what you need to know by lurking around here. |
|
cyborg
Optics God Gaseous Clay Joined: August/24/2007 Location: North Georgia Status: Offline Points: 12288 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks for the complimentary line there. We try very hard to have fun and be informative.
Any one of the scopes you mentioned are going to be great values for the money spent. I doubt that you will be even remotely displeased with the Zeiss.
|
|
With Freedom comes great responsibility, you cannot have one without the other
An armed public are citizens. A disarmed public are subjects. OATH KEEPER #8233 Support us, and join our cause. Cyborg |
|
tony270wsm
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/23/2009 Location: N Oregon coast Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Where can you find a new one for $400?
Thanks
|
|
Agree or disagree, we need to accept our differences and stand together.
|
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |