New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Monarch vs Swarovski vs Zeiss
  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 Swarovski vs Zeiss

 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/31/2008 at 02:18
Heavishot View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: December/31/2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 117
I need glass for a new Browning X-bolt in .270.  For the last 14 years I've been using a pre-Monarch Nikon 3-9x40 on my trusty A-bolt and have no complaints at all but figured it was time to upgrade. (I once compared this scope with a buddy's Leupold VXIII and was surprised my Nikon looked much better.)

I want something with a little more magnification, great clarity and brightness so I've narrowed it down to a few contenders.... 
Nikon Monarch 3-12x42         - $429
Zeiss Conquest 4-14x44         - $749
Swarvoski American 3-10x42 -  $799 (Samplelist)

I'd prefer a little more than 10x magnification but maybe it doesn't matter if the Swarov. is that much better??

I've looked at the Nikon and Zeiss side by side and I'm not sure I see any difference. (Hard to tell inside a store.)  So is the Swarovski is worth the $$$ over the Zeiss or the Nikon.  I'm willing to spend to get quality but can't justify much over $800.

Anyone have firsthand "field" experience comparing these?  

Thanks!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 07:09
frankb View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: February/08/2008
Location: Piedmont of NC
Status: Offline
Points: 88
I recently purchased two new Browning X-Bolt rifles. One in 7MM-08 and the other in .308. I put the Zeiss Conquest 3-9X40 on the 7MM-08 and love it. My shots are really no more then 200 yards, but I know it would do more if I asked it to.
I am now trying to decide if I want to go with the Zeiss Conquest fixed 4X or the 2.5-8X32.
I will be watching this post closely to see which way you go. It may help me decide. Tomorrow is our last day of deer season, so I am not in a hurry now to get the .308 in service.
Good luck!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 07:34
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12712
Yes, the Sawarovski IS that much better.  All three scopes you listed are very good tools for hunting and can't go wrong with either of 'em
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 08:25
FunShot View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: February/18/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 91
I own a monarch and at up to 10x or 12x magnification, it's arguably just as good as a conquest. Above 12x magnification, the conquest has more clarity and resolution at least in my eyes. I have looked thru a swaro though i haven't compared it side by side with a monarch, based on what i recall, i'd say it's as good as scope as it could be. Would put it on top of the three considering feedbacks from other users with a variety of optics.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 08:38
SamC View Drop Down
Optics Professional
Optics Professional
Avatar

Joined: October/01/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 900
I own both Conquest and Swaro and love them both. I think the Conquest line is a good bang for your buck but that Swarovski sample list price is attractive, I'd go with the Swaro!
Sam
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 09:02
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
id take the swaro too but the conquest isnt any slouch either, but for another $50 why not?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 09:05
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8047
I have used all three in 3-9 trim and for them, the Swarovski glass wins.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 09:12
lucytuma View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: November/25/2007
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 5389

I own a swaro av 3-10 which I purchased off the sample list, if its a demo or refurb I don't know, because it looks brand new to me.  Yes I do believe the swaro deserves your consideration, it is brighter and clearer than either the conquest or monarch, but in turn it is more expensive.  As with almost any product, there are deminishing returns on your investment, but I believe the sample list AV is a good example of getting the best product at a fair price.  I doubt you'll have second thoughts with the swaro, its that fine of product.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 11:04
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4305
More magnification in the Zeiss means it will come with a side focus. Many will tell you that you don't want to mess with this on a hunting rifle, but that is the scope i have on my go to deer rifle, and it's never bothered me. The swaro will have the best glass, with the Conquest over the Nikon. As long as you don't mind a samplelist scope, I say the Swaro would be tough to beat.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 11:23
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14324
I have the 3-10X42 Swaro AV too, as well as various models of Monarch and Conquest, and I would concur.  Though I don't necessarily think the Swaro is worth the considerable difference over the Conquest at its retail price new, I think it's well worth the extra $50 over the Conquest at the Sample List price.  IMO, there's a MUCH narrower gap between the Monarch and the Conquest than the Conquest and Swaro, optically speaking.

Edited by RifleDude - December/31/2008 at 11:23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 11:49
Heavishot View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: December/31/2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 117
Originally posted by frankb frankb wrote:

I recently purchased two new Browning X-Bolt rifles. One in 7MM-08 and the other in .308. I put the Zeiss Conquest 3-9X40 on the 7MM-08 and love it. My shots are really no more then 200 yards, but I know it would do more if I asked it to.
I am now trying to decide if I want to go with the Zeiss Conquest fixed 4X or the 2.5-8X32.
I will be watching this post closely to see which way you go. It may help me decide. Tomorrow is our last day of deer season, so I am not in a hurry now to get the .308 in service.
Good luck!


I'm not a big fan of large objective lenses (50mm and up) but I'm wondering why you're thinking about going to the smaller scope?  

BTW... how do you like the X-bolt?  I haven't bought mine yet but have pretty much settled on it.  I was also looking at the Tikka T3 and Sako A7.  I thought the X-bolt just felt better in my hands.  I was a little dissappointed that the Stainless Stalker trigger guard doesn't quite match the barrel color.  I may just go with the Hunter model.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 11:50
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4305
Ted, have you ever looked through a Nikon and Conquest of about the same configuration in about the 14x top? Just curious if the Nikon holds it's sharpness, and mine is maxxed at 9x
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 12:05
Heavishot View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: December/31/2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 117
I looked through a Nikon 4-16x42 at 14 and a Conquest at 14.  I thought MAYBE the Nikon looked better, my buddy thought the Conquest looked slightly better.  I need to find somewhere that will let me look at them outside at dusk.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 12:20
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
Originally posted by trigger29 trigger29 wrote:

Ted, have you ever looked through a Nikon and Conquest of about the same configuration in about the 14x top? Just curious if the Nikon holds it's sharpness, and mine is maxxed at 9x

trigger ask mark about his
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 15:27
Horsemany View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: February/28/2008
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 640
Trigger I own both of those.  The Monarch is nearly as good in the bottom half of the mag. range.  Up around 14 the Zeiss is noticeably sharper and less critical of head movement.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/31/2008 at 15:36
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14324
Originally posted by trigger29 trigger29 wrote:

Ted, have you ever looked through a Nikon and Conquest of about the same configuration in about the 14x top? Just curious if the Nikon holds it's sharpness, and mine is maxxed at 9x
 
Sort of.  I have a previous generation Monarch 6.5-20X44, and I've also used a Conquest 6.5-20X50, but don't own one.  I do own a couple lower powered Conquests, though, and I'm pretty familiar with Conquests and Monarchs generally.  I haven't compared them side by side, and I haven't seen one of the new Monarchs outside of a store yet.  Just on what comparisons I have done, I think both series are pretty equivalent, but I would give a slight edge to the Conquest if I had to make a call. 
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Monarch vs Swarovski vs Zeiss"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Swarovski V6 v Zeiss Victory HT DonDavis Rifle Scopes 7
Swarovski 10x50 or Zeiss 10x54HT Dr.Pepper Binoculars 1
swarovski Z3 vs zeiss conquest billiam13 Rifle Scopes 30
Need more help - Swarovski or S&B or Zeiss mantley Rifle Scopes 13
Swarovski, Zeiss, Leupold or Nikon bird_hunter66 Rifle Scopes 18
Varmint scope - what's after Swarovski and Zeiss tpcollins Varmint Scopes 11
Zeiss Diavari Z or Swarovski PH brodeur272 Rifle Scopes 5
Zeiss Victory and Swarovski BDL Binoculars 17
Swarovski or Zeiss Cuz-Pat Rifle Scopes 15
Swarovski Z3...or keep Zeiss ? Robster80 Rifle Scopes 31


This page was generated in 0.781 seconds.