Conquest 40 v. 50 mm obj.

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version

   Alright, I'm probably going to take some heat for this, but here it goes... I have a Conquest 4X32 and a Conquest 3-9X40, TO ME, I can see NO difference in low light performence whatsoever between the two - (3-9 set to 4 power) Identical all the way to legal shooting hours. The bigger objective lens offers me no added low light performence - once again, FOR MY EYES.  This being said, I would have to reccomend the 40 mm to you over the 50mm. I think you will find the performance quite on par with the 50mm and in my opinion will look better on your rifle than the big old 50mm - can be mounted lower also - just my 2 cents. 

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version
bricat Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Optics Master Joined: April/24/2007 Location: Michigan Online Status: Offline Posts: 1155	Quote Reply Topic: Conquest 40 v. 50 mm obj. Posted: November/24/2009 at 18:56
	Alright, I'm probably going to take some heat for this, but here it goes... I have a Conquest 4X32 and a Conquest 3-9X40, TO ME, I can see NO difference in low light performence whatsoever between the two - (3-9 set to 4 power) Identical all the way to legal shooting hours. The bigger objective lens offers me no added low light performence - once again, FOR MY EYES. This being said, I would have to reccomend the 40 mm to you over the 50mm. I think you will find the performance quite on par with the 50mm and in my opinion will look better on your rifle than the big old 50mm - can be mounted lower also - just my 2 cents.
	350 Remington Magnum - The sledgehammer of the forest

Kickboxer Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Optics Jedi Knight Joined: February/13/2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5268	Quote Reply Posted: November/22/2009 at 10:16
	Because both scopes are 3-9, the "twilight factor" will be nearly the same. However, the 50mm has a significantly better "relative brightness". Total light transmission should be about the same. Therefore, as stated above, the 50mm would be the better choice for low-light hunting...
	Opinion, untempered by fact, is ignorance. "One test result is worth 1000 expert opinions" Von Braun

DAVE44 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Optics Journeyman Joined: November/11/2004 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 388	Quote Reply Posted: November/22/2009 at 06:30
	I believe the Z plex reticle in the 50mm may have a wider spacing between the heavy posts than in the 40mm model, I know the 44mm is wider...MUCH WIDER. For low light hunting I would think you would want the heavy posts to come closer to the aiming point in low light.

HuntMaster Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Optics Journeyman Joined: March/19/2007 Location: St Stephens,Al. Online Status: Offline Posts: 534	Quote Reply Posted: November/21/2009 at 20:30
	I agree with the other guys on this one. If you intend to hunt in fading light, go with the 50. Derek

mike650 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Visit Members Homepage Add to Buddy List Optics Jedi Knight Joined: May/14/2006 Location: No. Cal. Online Status: Offline Posts: 6892	Quote Reply Posted: November/21/2009 at 12:53
	Get the 50mm and don't look back.
	-Mike "Fish to Live - Live to Hunt"

3_tens Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Optics Master Joined: January/08/2007 Location: Oklahoma Online Status: Offline Posts: 2238	Quote Reply Posted: November/21/2009 at 12:51
	You will easily see a difference during very low light with the 50mm over the 40mm. It just depends if you will be bothered with the larger bell on the scope. Some like a sleeker look on a hunting rig. The 50mm is a lot better value if they are the same price.
	Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow

lucytuma Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Optics Master Joined: November/25/2007 Location: Wisconsin Online Status: Offline Posts: 2875	Quote Reply Posted: November/21/2009 at 09:27
	I'd go with the 50mm, its the better value if you can get it for the same price.
	Yes Dear!

Hollywood Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/21/2009 Location: Texas Online Status: Offline Posts: 4	Quote Reply Posted: November/21/2009 at 09:20
	I've looked through a lot of glass lately and have decided to get a Zeiss Conquest as I feel it gives the best clarity and contrast for the money and has a great rep for low light. It is going on a Sako 85 hunter in 7mm-08 for hunting 0 to 300 yards. I was about to get the 3-9x40 but have been offered a 3-9x50 for the same price. Looking at the specs, the 50 has a slightly wider fov, slightly less eye relief, and would require medium rings instead of low rings. Help me decide. Thanks.