Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Monarch vs Swarovski vs Zeiss |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Heavishot
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/31/2008 Location: Dallas, TX Status: Offline Points: 117 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: December/31/2008 at 02:18 |
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!
|
|
frankb
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/08/2008 Location: Piedmont of NC Status: Offline Points: 88 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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!
|
|
Do it because you want to, not because you think you have to!
|
|
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14560 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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
|
|
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
|
FunShot
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/18/2008 Status: Offline Points: 91 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
SamC
Optics Professional Joined: October/01/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 902 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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
|
|
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill |
|
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
id take the swaro too but the conquest isnt any slouch either, but for another $50 why not?
|
|
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
|
tahqua
MODERATOR Have You Driven A Ford Lately? Joined: March/27/2006 Location: Michigan, USA Status: Offline Points: 9042 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have used all three in 3-9 trim and for them, the Swarovski glass wins.
|
|
lucytuma
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: November/25/2007 Location: Wisconsin Status: Offline Points: 5389 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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. |
|
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
trigger29
Optics Master Extraordinaire X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ? Joined: September/29/2007 Location: South Dakota Status: Offline Points: 4353 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." |
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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 |
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
Heavishot
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/31/2008 Location: Dallas, TX Status: Offline Points: 117 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
trigger29
Optics Master Extraordinaire X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ? Joined: September/29/2007 Location: South Dakota Status: Offline Points: 4353 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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
|
|
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." |
|
Heavishot
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/31/2008 Location: Dallas, TX Status: Offline Points: 117 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
trigger ask mark about his |
|
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
|
Horsemany
Optics Journeyman Joined: February/28/2008 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 643 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
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.
|
|
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
|
Post Reply | |
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 |