Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Zeiss conquest 40mm or 50mm?? |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
Txaggie9307
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/29/2010 Status: Offline Points: 33 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: April/26/2010 at 12:52 |
Hey guys,
Is there a big difference in light transmission on the Zeiss 3x9 40mm and 3x9 50mm conquests? I am trying to determine whether or not the 50mm is worth $120 more for longer light. |
|
bricat
Optics Master Joined: April/24/2007 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 1881 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Short answer - NO, save your money and save the extra bulk. 3-9X40 best deal going right now, $399 - you will not be disappointed.
|
|
|
|
300S&W
Optics God Joined: January/27/2008 Location: Burlington,WV Status: Offline Points: 10592 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
+1 Plus 50mm scopes are mounted higher which can cause you to have to lift your head higher from the stock for a proper view.
|
|
"I ain't got time to bleed!"
|
|
Lawnfella
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/02/2008 Status: Offline Points: 67 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Go in the middle and get the 3.5x10 44mm. On most rifles you can use low mounts with this scope so you will still have good cheek weld to the stock. I have one mounted on a Browning A Bolt with standard Leupold low rings.
|
|
bricat
Optics Master Joined: April/24/2007 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 1881 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Still not necessary, not worth the extra $300 to go to a 44mm by any means. You will gain little IF ANY low light performance by getting the 44mm. Also note that the Z-Plex on the 40mm is slightly different than the Z-plex on the 44mm. The 44mm Z-Plex is similar to the Leupold "wide duplex" in that the thinner, inner part of the plex is wider than a standard plex.
|
|
|
|
DAVE44
Optics Journeyman Joined: November/11/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 652 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Bricat is correct, the inner plex is very wide in the 44mm model. That is why I got the 40mm instead. The inner lines are also very,very thin in the Zeiss reticles so in low light you will definately need the outer heavy posts to come closer to the center of the reticle to help determine the aiming point.
|
|
2 Samuel 22
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/08/2010 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 59 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I personally prefer the 50mm over the 40mm. I spent a long time comparing the 40, 44, and 50mm Conquest scopes. To my eyes, the 50mm was brighter in last light than the 40mm but very close to the 44mm. The trade off is price and a slightly higher mounting. If you can, try doing a side-by-side comparison.
|
|
Semper Paratus - Semper Fidelis - Semper Vigilans
|
|
300S&W
Optics God Joined: January/27/2008 Location: Burlington,WV Status: Offline Points: 10592 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I don't understand HOW the European hunters make those 56mm scopes work for them. My Husqvarna has QUITE a drop in the comb of the stock. Even with a 40mm objective I can't get my cheek anchored the way I like.
|
|
"I ain't got time to bleed!"
|
|
Alan Robertson
Optics Master Joined: October/31/2009 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 1763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
My 3.5-10x44 Conquest is mounted in a Burris medium ring on a long action, but
would fit in a low ring if available.
I've never noticed any issues with the slightly more open crosshairs and didn't know there was a different Z-Plex until this thread. The 44mm model (and the 50mm) also have a 3.5" eye relief instead of the 3-9X40's 4". For me, 3.5" eye- relief works well. With that great big ocular, it gives a noticeably larger sight picture (don't know the official optics term) than any other scope I own- it's like stepping up to a 32" TV from a 26"... note: the field of view isn't affected. My Sightron Big Sky with a 42mm objective resolves finer detail in low light of tan/yellowish- colored objects than the Conquest. I was amazed to discover this and have verified it several times. This color difference may be due to glass coatings as they seem about on par with each other otherwise. The Big Sky also has a duplex reticle which equals/exceeds a Z-plex in visibility- the center cross hairs are also thicker/closer than the Zeiss. The 44mm Conquest seems to have less twitchy eye relief than the 40mm and definitely has more forgiving eye- relief than a Big- Sky, but neither scope has the comfortable eye relief of an upper- end Burris, which beats everything out there. The Big Sky is a fine scope, but I definitely prefer the Conquest. The 3.5-10X44 Conquest admits more available light than the 40mm- it's simple mathematics. For me, this isn't a big deal. I liked the 3.5- 10 better than the 3-9. That's just me. If low light performance is your main criteria, then a Conquest might not be your scope. For the price of any variable Conquest except the 3-9X40 model, you're getting into Accu- Point territory. |
|
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
|
|
Txaggie9307
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/29/2010 Status: Offline Points: 33 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I am still unsure... After looking at through the 50mm and the 40mm, I can not tell that much of a difference. Also I will be purchasing my scope from a big name shop where I have $260 worth of gift certificates valid. The prices they have for the 3-9 40mm conquest is $399 and the 3-9 50mm conquest is $599. I just dont know if the 50mm is worth the extra $390 out of my pocket or the 40mm for $179 out of my pocket... |
|
martin3175
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: January/19/2005 Location: Maryland Status: Offline Points: 3773 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
what are you mounting it on ? |
|
Txaggie9307
Optics GrassHopper Joined: March/29/2010 Status: Offline Points: 33 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I am putting it on a Ruger M77 Mark II .270,,
|
|
martin3175
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: January/19/2005 Location: Maryland Status: Offline Points: 3773 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
General all purpose medium game rig like that -- I'd go with the 3x9x40 .. right size ...appropriate magnification range .. mount low to bore .. and a super optics value ( save the $$ for ammo ) |
|
bricat
Optics Master Joined: April/24/2007 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 1881 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Martin is right, the 40mm can be mounted using Ruger "lows" the 44mm will require you to use "mediums" Keep in mind that medium rings are what come standard with Ruger M77s so if you are going to get the 40mm and mount it nice and low, you'll need to change ring height. You can still use mediums with the 40mm it will just be sitting up a little higher. I don't have a picture of my Ruger W/40mm but here is my M77 with a Zeiss Conquest 4X32mm sitting in Ruger "lows" ................ and no, ...... bolt clearance is not an issue.
Edited by bricat - April/28/2010 at 10:10 |
|
|
|
bricat
Optics Master Joined: April/24/2007 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 1881 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
.........not sure if the 50mm will require meds or highs
|
|
|
|
Alan Robertson
Optics Master Joined: October/31/2009 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 1763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
That's the way it goes. The answer to your dilemma is to buy the scope that suits your eyes- the scope you want. If it costs a bit more (or less), so be it. Most people around here will tell you that they've been unhappy buying a scope that wasn't exactly what they wanted, but chose a different model for price or some other reason. The 2nd tricky part is deciding what you want... Good Luck! |
|
"Garg'n uair dhuisgear"
|
|
m_freeman
Optics Apprentice Joined: August/07/2009 Status: Offline Points: 69 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have the 3x9x40 conquest the only complaint I have is my binos see better in low light than the scope. If I could I would go for the 50mm but I have aging eyes and the low light conditions are very challenging for me. If I ever find an extra 1500 to 2500 I am certianly going for low light performance.
|
|
REMF
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/04/2008 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 153 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have Conquests in both 40 and 50mm objectives. My preference is the 50mm. I agree that it is not absolutely necessary, but it'll give you about 5 or 10 more minutes in the stand.
|
|
Chris Farris II
TEAM SWFA - Admin MODERATOR Joined: August/13/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I personally don't think the 50 mm vs. the 40mm is worth the extra $180 especially considering the 50mm will only be brighter on 6x and up. Below 6X they are the EXACT same. So if you are looking through both scopes at dusk on 5 power NEITHER will have an ADVANTAGE over the other.
|
|
One day your life will flash before your eyes; Make sure it's worth watching.
|
|
bricat
Optics Master Joined: April/24/2007 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 1881 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
|
|
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 |