New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Sightron SIII or Zeiss Conquest - 3-10X44 mil-dot
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Sightron SIII or Zeiss Conquest - 3-10X44 mil-dot

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/24/2009 at 18:51
fireroad View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/04/2009
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Weighing my options between the Sightron SIII 3.5-10x44 MD or the Zeiss Conquest 3-10x44 MD. Based on the reviews of the SIII glass, plus the 30mm tube, side focus and tactical turrets the SIII seems like a no brainer....but for some strange reason I want a Zeiss in my collection.  Anyone care to chime in? Ilya?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/24/2009 at 19:02
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12713
What are you going to use it for???
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/24/2009 at 19:05
fireroad View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/04/2009
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 85
As an all around scope on a 280 Rem Mnt rifle...low light elk in the timber to antelope on the plains at 500 yards. It will be replacing my Leupold 3-10x40.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/24/2009 at 19:15
257WM_CDL-SF View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: March/18/2009
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 181
I wish  Id had a extra 75 bucks when I got my big sky id have gotten the SIII
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/24/2009 at 19:33
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12713
The Zeiss cost slightly more but for your "mountain rifle" hunting needs it's almost 7 ounces lighter than the Sightron and to my eyes better glass. A side focus for 3.5-10 hunting scope is not needed, as well as target turrets so the only advantage I see with the Sightron is the 30mm tube if you need the extra windage adjustment. Zeiss has better reticle choices available if you decide not to go with the mil-dot as well as a "lifetime transferable warranty".

I'd go Zeiss.

http://swfa.com/Zeiss-35-10x44-Conquest-Rifle-Scope-P613.aspx

http://swfa.com/Sightron-35-10x44-SIII-30mm-Riflescope-P9148.aspx
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/24/2009 at 20:15
fireroad View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/04/2009
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Originally posted by 257WM_CDL-SF 257WM_CDL-SF wrote:

I wish  Id had a extra 75 bucks when I got my big sky id have gotten the SIII
 
Which Big Sky did you get that you didn'ty like?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/25/2009 at 06:10
257WM_CDL-SF View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: March/18/2009
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 181
fireroad I have the 4.5x14x42 HHR big sky  I like it alot.Im just saying  if I had another 75$ Id have gotten  the SIII 3.5x10x44 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/25/2009 at 09:24
Randall45 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: June/25/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 284
The glass on the S3 is hard to beat .I like the warranty of the Sightron no hassle they just send you a new scope no questions asked.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/25/2009 at 14:21
257WM_CDL-SF View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: March/18/2009
Location: NC
Status: Offline
Points: 181
Thats what I  have heard Randall Id love to see one cause I love my big sky It has amazing clarity  And the SIII better than  it
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/27/2009 at 19:09
boliodogs View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: June/20/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 212
My Conquest scopes are my pride and joy. The 3.5-10x44 is a great scope to me. I got one recently with the #4 riticle on advice from this forum. If you have not seen the Zeiss #4 reticle you should. You may like better than the mill dot. The posts are very thick but just before they come together the crosshairs turn thin enough to shoot small groups at 100 yards. To be fair I buy Zeiss, Leupold, and Bushnell and I have never looked at a Sightron so I am not impartial.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/27/2009 at 23:34
fireroad View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/04/2009
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 85
I have not seen the Zeiss #4 reticel, but have looked though other #4 reticles (aka German #4). Found the cross parts a little too distracting for moving shots. I'm sure it's a great reticle, I know it's highly regarded by ILya and I respect his opinion. I have been favoring mil-dot latley as I can (with practice) use it as elevation and windage holdovers while still maintaining a clutter free reticle when compared to the ballistic reticle offer on the market now.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2009 at 01:30
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10981
I have not had a chance to see Conquest and S3 side by side, so I can't easily comment on glass differences.  I suspect that for all practical purposes the differences are negligible.  For low light performance, the most difference will come from reticle visibility.  Zeiss' #4 reticle is likely to stand out more in low light than the MilDot. 

Ultimately, if you want to use MilDot for holdover, you need to be very aware of what magnification you are on with any SFP scope.  If you are willing to put up wth 21oz scope and want to use MilDot for holdover, perhaps Variable Super Sniper is a viable option for you.  FFP MilDot reticle will also be better in low light than SFP MilDot.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/29/2009 at 08:17
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7710
The turrets on that S3 will snag stuff.  It is a good scope, but it wouldn't be my choice for a timber gun.
My go-to timber gun wears a 3-10 Swaro with ballistic reticle - and I could not be more happy with it, glass is fantastic and the scope is small and bright and very easy to get behind.


I'd buy this ahead of the S3 and Conquest any day of the week!

11033Swarovski 3-10x42 American 52027, Matte finish, TDS-Plex reticle, 1" tube, fast focus eye piece, reseatable windage and elevation, ring marks $1,285.00 $799.95

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/01/2009 at 20:18
PaulD View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/01/2009
Location: Alaska
Status: Offline
Points: 14
I own both a 4.5-14x44mm Zeiss Conquest with Mil-Dot reticle, and the Sightron SIII 6-24x50mm LRMD scope.  I've compared them both together in the field, and the SIII provides notably better resolution and light transmission with both scopes set to 14X.   I compared these two scope for a period of time of about 60 minutes in fading evening light at a distance of 300 yds.  Included in the comparison was my IOR 3-18x42mm tactical scope with MP-8 reticle.
 
The SIII and IOR were equally good in resolution, and better than my Zeiss Conquest.
 
In light transmission, the SIII was better than the Zeiss Conquest, and the Zeiss Conquest was better than the IOR. 
 
FWIW...
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 01:20
danjojoUSMC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/20/2009
Location: NE Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 329
For that to be an even comparison you would have to have the scopes all set at 6x or less.  Between the Conquest and Sightron you compared the Conquest exit pupil of 3.14 against the Sightron exit pupil of 3.57...so the Sightron had about a 15% larger "tube" of light going to your eye.
 
Also it has been stated by a few pro's on here that a larger objective will bring more resolution all else being equal.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 02:21
PaulD View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/01/2009
Location: Alaska
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Your comments are noted. 
 
My comparison and post is what it is, 'For What It's Worth'... using the scopes I owned and had available for comparison.  Never claimed equality. 
 
I am aware of the definition of exit pupil = objective diameter divided by the magnification power.  And I understand the significance of it in lower light conditions when the eye's retina expands - the larger the exit pupil the better.  And I understand that the larger the exit pupil, the greater the ease in getting my retina covered by the scope's exit pupil. 
 
If I owned a 3.5-10x44mm Zeiss Conquest and a 3.5-10x44mm Sightron SIII and had compared them side by side, I would have responded with that exact comparison. 
 
I provided the closest thing to a comparison between the two specific brands and models of scopes of all posts to date. 
 
I prefer to compare scopes at equal powers at the highest equivalent power setting possible.  In my experience, if the resolution is going to go to crap, it will become apparent at the highest power first.  Why you would prefer to run the comparison at 6X?  Is that an effort to get the exit pupil larger than 7mm to match the dialated size of the retina in low light?
 
I will argue that the quality of the glass and the quality of the coatings is much more important than an extra 6mm diameter in the objective lens.  The experts that try to quantify any improvement in resolution based on a 6mm larger objective using equal quality glass and equal quality glass coatings are simply hypothesizing at a theoretical level.  Minor deviations in manufacturing tolerances and quality control will likely have a larger consequence than an extra 6mm in the objective lens - my opinion.
 
I started my comparison with plenty of daylight, and ran it into fading light.  The was no observable differences in how I would rate the resolution of the scopes from the higher light setting to fading light.
 
My light transmission comparison was purposely completed in failing light for my own purposes, not for purposes of comparing light transmission in these two brands of scopes in the 3.5-10x44mm model, or for purposes of responding to this Thread.  I wanted to know which scope would allow me to see better in failing light. 
 
I know which scope I'd buy based on the value I place on resolution and light transmission - the Sightron SIII.
 
FWIW...   For What It's Worth.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 02:59
danjojoUSMC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/20/2009
Location: NE Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 329
I think it will make all the difference in scopes that are very closely matched....and greater light=greater resolution regardless if all else is the same. 
 
Do you suspect that the 4.5-14x44 Conquest would have beaten out a 4-14x50 IOR or the Conquest would of been 3rd on the list?
 
A Nikon Buckmasters or Burris Fullfield 2, both 3-9x40 are easily distinguished as brighter than a Millett TRS 4-16x50 when all on the same magnification.  They are a higher class with a step up in glass and coatings...but if you compare the closely matched Buckmasters and Fullfield 2 and give one a 44mm objective it will seem better than the 40mm one.
 
Light is the image and the only image, unless you are using thermal imaging.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 03:26
PaulD View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/01/2009
Location: Alaska
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Can you quantify the difference?  Do you have a mathematical formula developed by the 'experts' and scientifically proven to accurately quantify the improvement in resolution based on the 13.64% increased objective lens - from 44mm to 50mm, given all the other manufacturing variability and tolerances associated with the manufacture of the entire riflescope? 
 
Once the exit pupil size exceeds the size of your retina, the only increased light that reaches your retina will be virtually solely due to the quality of the glass and glass coatings - no matter how much larger the size of the objective.  So I guarantee that your claim that increased objective diameter > results in increased light transmission > results in increased resolution falls apart at the point the objective lens is large enough so that the exit pupil is sufficiently large to completely cover the retina.  I believe you've latched onto an 'experts' comment and given it way more credit towards improved resolution than the 'expert' intended.
 
By far and away, the greatest factors affecting the resolution of any commercially manufactured riflescope is the quality of the finished glass lenses, and the quality of the coatings placed on the lenses - my opinion.  Good resolution is not possible with poor glass & coatings, no matter how large the objective lens.  I get pretty good resolution with my 8x20mm Swarovski Pocket Binoculars. 
 
FWINW...  For What It's Not Worth
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 04:05
danjojoUSMC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/20/2009
Location: NE Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 329
Steiner -  "The diameter of the lens determines the light gathering ability of the instrument, with the greater light gathering ability of a larger lens translating into greater detail and image clarity."
 
"Generally, a larger objective lens will deliver more detail to the eye than a smaller objective lens....."
 
Nikon  -  "Given the same magnification, the larger the objective diameter, the greater the light-collecting power. This results in higher resolution and a brighter image."
 
Kowa  -  "As the diameter of the objective lens increases, the optic will have better light gathering and higher resolution."
 
It's not just one or two experts, it is the science of optics.  Unless you think the Sightron SIII is just better regardless (which would still just be a guess on your part at this point), you need to match the size of objective to compare.  With as many or more people favoring a Conquest it would be hard to imagine the Sightron SIII is a true step up in glass quality and coatings. 
 
So again...objective size is playing its part...and you should test them on a lower power or else it is not as relevant to gathering any useful information.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 04:10
danjojoUSMC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/20/2009
Location: NE Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 329
Originally posted by PaulD PaulD wrote:

Once the exit pupil size exceeds the size of your retina, the only increased light that reaches your retina will be virtually solely due to the quality of the glass and glass coatings - no matter how much larger the size of the objective.  So I guarantee that your claim that increased objective diameter > results in increased light transmission > results in increased resolution falls apart at the point the objective lens is large enough so that the exit pupil is sufficiently large to completely cover the retina.
 
This is why I mentioned testing them on a lower power to begin with. 
 
Thanks
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 11:10
PaulD View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: October/01/2009
Location: Alaska
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Originally posted by danjojoUSMC danjojoUSMC wrote:

It's not just one or two experts, it is the science of optics.  Unless you think the Sightron SIII is just better regardless (which would still just be a guess on your part at this point), you need to match the size of objective to compare.  With as many or more people favoring a Conquest it would be hard to imagine the Sightron SIII is a true step up in glass quality and coatings. 
 
So again...objective size is playing its part...and you should test them on a lower power or else it is not as relevant to gathering any useful information.
 
I agree objective size plays the bigger role in percentage of the retina covered by the exit pupil.  But once you have enough exit pupil - you have enough for purposes of obtaining quality resolution.  Our disagreement is the level of significance you attribute to increased objective size improving resolution.  It's a minor role compared to glass quality and coatings during daylight hours. 
 
Even a number of your quotes have qualified the relationship between objective size and resolution, whereas their quotes are resolute on the relationship between objective size and light reaching the eye.  None of the experts provide a rigid mathematical relationship between objective size and resulting resolution.  Because it's intangible. 
 
If Sightron markets a SIII in 4-16x44, I'll trade you or any other member my 4.5-14x44mm Zeiss Conquest with mil-dot reticle and target turrets.  My Conquest takes rear seat to my SIII in resolution in broad daylight.  That comparison under full lighting conditions takes the objective size out of the resolution equation and comparison. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 11:20
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7710
After all that, get the Swaro American 3-10, it is a better choice than the S3 or Zeiss (and the glass is better.)

If it is for low light, consider the #4 rather than the ballistic reticle.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 11:39
supertool73 View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar
Superstool

Joined: January/03/2008
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 9534
This discussion is why with the more I learn about optics more I realize that these debates are pointless.  As there are far to many choices these days that are so good that will exceed our needs.

Its like arguing a 4200 vs a VX3.  They are both good optically, and are reliable.  I say just get the one that fits your gun and shooting needs the best. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 12:03
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12713
Originally posted by supertool73 supertool73 wrote:

This discussion is why with the more I learn about optics more I realize that these debates are pointless.  As there are far to many choices these days that are so good that will exceed our needs.

Its like arguing a 4200 vs a VX3.  They are both good optically, and are reliable.  I say just get the one that fits your gun and shooting needs the best. 


I would have to say this is probably the best answer so far.  Thunbs Up
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/02/2009 at 12:50
danjojoUSMC View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/20/2009
Location: NE Ohio
Status: Offline
Points: 329
I think the Sightron is pretty bad-ass all in all PaulD, no doubt about it.  Especially the 100 MOA of adjustment and you guys saying how great it is at 24x. 
 
The Sightron company though, bothers me a little bit, especially their crappy website and catalog.  Just horrible....they have to show more care for their customer and pretend to give a damn about presentation.  It seems as though a middle school child whipped them together for a project.   It is not acceptable to me and throws them out of any consideration until they give a damn.
 
 
 
 
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Sightron SIII or Zeiss Conquest - 3-10X44 mil-dot"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
need help with mil dots on 10x44 viper stifun Rifle Scopes 1
Sightron SIII 6-24x50 mil dot scope Fotis Rifle Scopes 3
Mil-quad vs. Mil-dot onfinal Rifle Scopes 4
sightron VS. Zeiss conquest rob70 Tactical Scopes 0 8/26/2004 6:33:32 PM
Zeiss #43 mil dot Anton Chigurh Rifle Scopes 5
Help with a Sightron 6-24x50 SIII mildot tammons Rifle Scopes 2
Zeiss Mil-dot Question isnbe Rifle Scopes 1 1/15/2005 5:28:25 PM
Zeiss mil dot reticle pictures, help nope Tactical Scopes 3 1/23/2007 5:57:16 PM
Sightron SIII binoculars koshkin Binoculars 2 4/5/2005 8:17:31 PM
mil reticules other than mil-dot space_weazel Tactical Scopes 8


This page was generated in 0.467 seconds.