New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Monarch vs. Conquest ?????
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Monarch vs. Conquest ?????

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/04/2006 at 19:05
Wally View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/08/2006
Location: 4 Corners
Status: Offline
Points: 124

Gentlemen,

I've been lurking around this board for a few months now.  I found it by doing extensive research on rifle scopes.  It seems I have the same problem as many others who visit this board, that is, I am having problems making a final decision.  I've been impressed with the advice and information given out here, and would be very happy if anybody would like to chime in on my questions.

 

I just spent the day comparing a new Nikon Monarch 3-9x with my Dad's Zeiss Conquest 3-9x.  Some would say that these scopes aren't even an apples to apples comparison.  I'm not so sure.  I went to the trouble of mounting both on my rifle to see how they both looked and felt on my rifle.  That may sound trivial to some, but nonetheless, it's important to me.  Then, with both scopes mounted on seperate rifles, I looked through both of them until after legal shooting hours, to see if I could see any substantial differences.  I had both of the scopes set on 6x, for the duration of the experiment.  Here are some of my conclusions:

 

1.  I would have no problems seeing a deer, pig, sheep, or elk, until well after shooting hours.  Yea, the Conquest seemed to have a little better definition in the daylight hours, but as it got closer to dark, I couldn't see a lot of difference.  I'm no optics expert, so maybe I don't know what to look for, but this was my conclusion.

 

2.  I noticed the Zeiss was more forgiving in the areas of eye relief, and head position.  But, when I got the Nikon positioned correctly, I really didn't have that much of a problem getting a good field of view in the scope.

 

3.  I did like the reticle better in the Zeiss, but could see both until it was much too late to shoot.

 

4.  The Nikon is shorter, and slightly lighter than the Zeiss.  It didn't seem to be quite as bulky as the Zeiss, when they were mounted on my rifle.

 

All in all, they were pretty damn close.  So what makes the Zeiss worth another $100?  Is it going to be more durable?  That's a pretty important point for me.  Does anybody know if one will have better customer service over the other, if I do have a breakdown?  I went into the comparison thinking that I could see a substantial difference in the Zeiss over the Nikon.  I know everyone sees different things in optics, but I just couldn't tell that much difference.  

 

Please enlighten me, what can the Zeiss do for me, for another $100, that the Nikon can't.  What am I missing?

 

Thanks for your help,

 

Steve 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/04/2006 at 19:51
silver View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/04/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2291

 

 

You mentioned that the Zeiss was more forgiving in eye postioning.  Now that alone would be worth the differance.  You also mentioned the better resolution.  You liked the reticle better in the Zeiss.  I know that in hunting I have had to get into some odd positions to make a shot, so now we get back to that eye position being more forgiving thing.  At longer shots better resloution is your friend,  you see not only your target better, but what is behind it better.  You now have confidence that you are making a safer shot.  You also have less eye strain from the better glass. 

 

Summary: You like the Zeiss Reticle better...The Ziess is more forgiveing in eye placement for difficult shots... You are shooting safer because you can see the target and what is behind it more clearly (I like to ask the question is that a coyote or the neighbors german shepard at 400 yards?)...  I think that it would be worth the extra hundred bucks for that alone.

 

As more and more people move into hunting areas I think that being able to see CLEARLY at long ranges becomes more and more important to prevent accidents.       

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/04/2006 at 20:51
Wally View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/08/2006
Location: 4 Corners
Status: Offline
Points: 124

silver,

I appreciate your observations.  I guess I was initially a little disappointed, because I expected to see more of a difference between the two scopes.  But the more I think about it, all of those subtle differences add up to make the Conquest a better scope.  There are diminishing returns to everything.  The Monarch is definitely a lot of scope for the money, but the Conquest does give you more for the extra $100.  The eye relief issue is really nice, I'll have to admit.  I have also noticed there seems to be less of the "tunnel vision" effect with the Zeiss.  No one has really ever explained to me what causes this, but I have noticed more in some scopes than in others.  I realize you should be looking through the center of the scope, but this phenomenon has always bugged me with some scopes.

 

I also just completed an extensive search of this forum.  I should have done it sooner, but never really considered the Conquest, until I got the opportunity to compare them today.  It seems the Conquest recieves very high marks from many of the participants on this forum, as well as a couple of other forums.  As a result, I'm leaning very hard to the Conquest. 

 

I also like the reticle.  THERE!  I went and talked myself into spending my extra money.  Besides, this is for a custom rifle, and is going to be my all around rifle for quite some time.  It deserves a good scope.

 

Thanks for the reply,

Steve

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/04/2006 at 21:25
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8047

Hello Wally, if you are only looking at these two scopes, that is great info that Silver has given you. There is more than just cost to consider with a scope. If you are willing to look outside these two brands, the 3 X 9 Bushnell 4200 is worth serious consideration. Very clear and bright optics. It is good looking on a gun and is really rugged. The eye relief is adequate for all but the serious kickers. The Zeiss reticle is real nice and you will want to compare it with the Bushnell at low light.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/05/2006 at 07:33
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131

although the zeiss conquests are excellent scopes, they are NOT at the zeiss diavari levels.

 

This is the BUDGET zeiss, and you are still paying a little bit for the name.

and that is compared to the FLAGSHIP nikon, so, maybe not a fair comparison.

 

please don't take this as a shot at Zeiss, they make fantastic scopes. every one.

 

Just putting it in perspective. +1 on the elite 4200's

 

J

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/05/2006 at 14:22
OK hunter View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: November/27/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 73

I think this is a real easy decision between those two scopes.  I have both and I much prefer the Zeiss over the Nikon, in as much as for your first reason.  I don't like having to worry about holding my head just right in order to see a full view.  I also agree that this point alone is valuable enough in my mind to make the Zeiss decision.

I will also agree with the two previous posters that the Bushnell Elite 4200 is one terrific scope for the money and may be the best 1" scope going for the money.  You're comparing good scopes and you most likely won't be dissapointed with your decision.  Keep us posted as to your progress.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/05/2006 at 15:10
Acenturian View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: September/07/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 543

Both are very nice scopes and you can't really go wrong either way.  I would give the Conquest a slight edge over the Monarch.  Is it worth the extra $100?  That is always the question, well I look at it like this if you are willing to pay the money for something that is even a tiny bit better, then yes it is worth it. Some people just wont pay for a minimal gain and that ok as well, as long as you the sportsman is happy with the choice.  Optics advice 101...always buy the best that YOU can afford.  Now that does not mean that there are not good buys out there. 

 

Let's take some of the suggestions mentioned here the Bushnell 4200 Elite is a fantastic buy and a great scope and very very close to the Conquest in optics.  If I had to pick which one is the better of the two between the 4200 and the Conquest, I'd personally say Conquest by a very slight edge.  However, if I was going down today to buy another scope and not on a magnum shoulder breaker (the 4200 has less eye relief) but on a standard cartridge hunting rifle ..............well put me down for the 4200 Elite

 

HAPPY SHOOTING

AC

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/06/2006 at 08:25
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131

yeah, if money isn't the deciding factor on the three above mentioned scopes........

 

close your eyes and pick one.......they are all good.

 

J

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/06/2006 at 22:07
martin3175 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 3773
For the money- the Elite 4200 is value leader in it's price class. Optically, I believe they are virtually identical,but would give the nod to Bushnell for the rainguard coating .
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/07/2006 at 07:35
jonbravado View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: October/05/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1131

that coating does sharpen that image - i don't know how/why, but it does.

 

i am a big fan of the image produced by the 4200's - it is as good as the conquests, IMO.

 

J

 

 

 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Monarch vs. Conquest ?????"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
VX-III or MONARCH or CONQUEST upcreek2 Rifle Scopes 13 2/28/2006 10:56:30 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
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 vs Monarch Gold vs Titanium royy2 Rifle Scopes 1 9/21/2006 2:26:34 AM
New MONARCH vs. ZEISS CONQUEST? DAVE44 Rifle Scopes 10 6/6/2007 5:22:57 PM
Conquest, VX-III, Monarch UCC, or 4200? bryansd8 Rifle Scopes 9 2/21/2007 2:37:41 PM
Conquest vs "new" monarch yellolab Rifle Scopes 10 10/19/2007 5:41:54 AM
Monarch UCC vs. Monarch Gold JohnRov Rifle Scopes 1 1/16/2007 11:28:04 AM


This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.