Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Sightron SIII or Zeiss Conquest - 3-10X44 mil-dot |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | ||||||
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: September/24/2009 at 18:51 |
|||||
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?
|
||||||
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14560 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
What are you going to use it for???
|
||||||
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
||||||
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
257WM_CDL-SF
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/18/2009 Location: NC Status: Offline Points: 181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
I wish Id had a extra 75 bucks when I got my big sky id have gotten the SIII
|
||||||
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14560 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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 |
||||||
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
||||||
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
Which Big Sky did you get that you didn'ty like?
|
||||||
257WM_CDL-SF
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/18/2009 Location: NC Status: Offline Points: 181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
Randall45
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/25/2009 Status: Offline Points: 284 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
257WM_CDL-SF
Optics Apprentice Joined: March/18/2009 Location: NC Status: Offline Points: 181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
boliodogs
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/20/2009 Status: Offline Points: 212 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13181 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
Rancid Coolaid
MODERATOR Joined: January/19/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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!
|
||||||
Freedom is something you take.
Respect is something you earn. Equality is something you whine about not being given. |
||||||
PaulD
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/01/2009 Location: Alaska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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...
|
||||||
danjojoUSMC
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/20/2009 Location: NE Ohio Status: Offline Points: 329 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
"When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be"
"Every part of life comes into focus just as you are about to pull the trigger." |
||||||
PaulD
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/01/2009 Location: Alaska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
danjojoUSMC
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/20/2009 Location: NE Ohio Status: Offline Points: 329 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
"When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be"
"Every part of life comes into focus just as you are about to pull the trigger." |
||||||
PaulD
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/01/2009 Location: Alaska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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
|
||||||
danjojoUSMC
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/20/2009 Location: NE Ohio Status: Offline Points: 329 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
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.
|
||||||
"When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be"
"Every part of life comes into focus just as you are about to pull the trigger." |
||||||
danjojoUSMC
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/20/2009 Location: NE Ohio Status: Offline Points: 329 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||
This is why I mentioned testing them on a lower power to begin with.
Thanks
|
||||||
"When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be"
"Every part of life comes into focus just as you are about to pull the trigger." |
||||||
Post Reply | Page 12> |
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 |