New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 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.

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: October/23/2008 at 16:24
head hunter View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: September/19/2008
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 68

At dusk will a 3x10x42 A Line give more shooting time then a 3x9x40 Conquest. If so how many more mintues will it add and is it worth twice as much.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/23/2008 at 17:42
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
I'm unsure that you'll see any real appreciable extension in useable hunting time between the two. The Conquest will do the job all the way to the last legal second as it is. Chances are that if you are a healthy younger human, or a very gifted older one. You could easily do the same with a Monarch, Leupold VXIII or Bushnell elite as well.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/23/2008 at 19:37
Obi Wan Kenobi View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/21/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 186
Originally posted by head hunter head hunter wrote:

At dusk will a 3x10x42 A Line give more shooting time then a 3x9x40 Conquest. If so how many more mintues will it add and is it worth twice as much.

 
It depends where you hunt at. If legal shooting time is half our past sunset their is hardly any difference in the 2.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/23/2008 at 20:45
Big Squeeze View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
GOOGLE NINJA

Joined: August/30/2007
Location: Anaheim, Calif.
Status: Offline
Points: 3143
Originally posted by head hunter head hunter wrote:

At dusk will a 3x10x42 A Line give more shooting time then a 3x9x40 Conquest. If so how many more mintues will it add and is it worth twice as much.

..................Comparing the two for the money, go with the Zeiss. In paying double or so for the Swaro, you certainly don`t get double the optical quality or double the low lite performance either. In fact, both are very close to each other in both depts.............If your in the market for a scope and those are your two choices, take the Conquest.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/24/2008 at 06:00
head hunter View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: September/19/2008
Location: kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Thanks guys I know how good the conquest is. I just wanted to get some expert advice on the A Line because I have zero experience with them. I guess it's another conquest and the extra 500 buck's can go a long ways on a new rifle.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/24/2008 at 09:40
bricat View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: April/24/2007
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 1881
Good choice my friend!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/24/2008 at 10:28
ccoker View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: February/13/2008
Location: Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 2032
I have a Conquest, a Kahles CL and had the  Swarovski  in question
the Kahles CL was the best in very low light

if hunting in low light, reticle choice can't be overlooked
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/24/2008 at 11:14
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7694
I have Conquest and Swaro AH, I am considering selling all the Conquests for Swaros; Conquest is a good scope, but the Swaro (with ballistic reticule for most circumstances) is simply amazing.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/24/2008 at 11:29
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12709
Originally posted by Rancid Coolaid Rancid Coolaid wrote:

I have Conquest and Swaro AH, I am considering selling all the Conquests for Swaros; Conquest is a good scope, but the Swaro (with ballistic reticule for most circumstances) is simply amazing.


+1 on the Swaro, I know it's more expensive but there's a good reason, it's better.

The Conquest is a very good scope and if money's an issue I would go this route.




Edited by mike650 - October/24/2008 at 11:43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/24/2008 at 14:22
lucytuma View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: November/25/2007
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 5389
The Swaro is the better scopes hands down, is it worth twice the price, only you can decide.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/25/2008 at 15:12
Pooreyes-2 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: September/02/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 79
I hate to jump in and change the point of this, however do you guys really think a 40 0r 42mm isgood at dust? I had a 40 and could make anything out but dark shaddows, Then i took a higher power scope with a 50mm bell and I saw alot better, both scope were the same brand name.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/25/2008 at 15:27
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12709
Originally posted by Pooreyes-2 Pooreyes-2 wrote:

I hate to jump in and change the point of this, however do you guys really think a 40 0r 42mm isgood at dust? I had a 40 and could make anything out but dark shaddows, Then i took a higher power scope with a 50mm bell and I saw alot better, both scope were the same brand name.


No problem!! I don't think we were comparing 4(x)mm and 50mm, we were just answering the original question.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/25/2008 at 18:30
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Pooreyes-2   No offense, but maybe it was your poor eyes that was the issue, not the size of the objective bell.  The only difference you should see if (and this is a BIG if) both scopes are exactly the same, is that you will be able to use a higher power on the 50 compared to the 40.  Otherwise, they should be the same.  There can be a big difference in low light ability even with in the same brand!  Which two scopes were you comparing?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/31/2008 at 10:35
300grains View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: November/30/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 46
The comparison isn´t quite objective. A Swaro AV/PH/Z6 should be compared to Zeiss Diavari, then at least I would choose Zeiss ( and have done so). No matter what tubediameter difference there is between them.
Conquest is best compared to similarly priced scopes like VX-III.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/31/2008 at 11:50
3_tens View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2007
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7180
Originally posted by Tip69 Tip69 wrote:

Pooreyes-2   No offense, but maybe it was your poor eyes that was the issue, not the size of the objective bell.  The only difference you should see if (and this is a BIG if) both scopes are exactly the same, is that you will be able to use a higher power on the 50 compared to the 40.  Otherwise, they should be the same.  There can be a big difference in low light ability even with in the same brand!  Which two scopes were you comparing?
I beg to differ with you Tips. I have both the conquest 3-9 in a 40mm and a 50mm. In low light there is a very visible difference. The 50mm will out last the 40mm by 10-15 min. I also have the Leupold VX III in 40mm and 50mm. Both have the varmint reticle. The 50 will give you much more hunting time. The 50mm Zeiss is the best in low light of the 4. In bright light here is little difference. The 40 mm may have a slight edge with less flair in some conditions.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2008 at 19:24
Obi Wan Kenobi View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/21/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 186
Originally posted by 300grains 300grains wrote:

The comparison isn´t quite objective. A Swaro AV/PH/Z6 should be compared to Zeiss Diavari, then at least I would choose Zeiss ( and have done so). No matter what tubediameter difference there is between them.
Conquest is best compared to similarly priced scopes like VX-III.
 
Yes very very true. This is how people get confused.
 
The Zeiss Conquest line is for the American hunter where legal shooting time is half hour to 45 minutes past sunset. The Conquest line has multiple coatings but the scopes in the Conquest line do NOT get the multi T coatings. The Conquest line of scopes are assembeled here in the USA & don't get the multi T coatings because Zeiss wanted to keep the price down. Thats why you get more magnification such as 4.5-14. If they put their best coatings on the Conquest glass you'd be looking at starting around 800-900 bucks.
 
The Swarovski A line is made in Austria and those scopes get Swarovski's best coating on the glass, same coatings as the Swaro PH line of scopes. Thats why the price is higher & thats why you will get better low light usesage in the Swaro A line.
 
Now going head to head for the top dog, Swarovski's PH line doesn't quite measure up to the Zeiss Diavari models. The Zeiss 2-10x50 and the Zeiss 3-12x56 are incredible low light scopes.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/02/2008 at 23:53
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12709
Originally posted by Obi Wan Kenobi Obi Wan Kenobi wrote:

Originally posted by 300grains 300grains wrote:

The comparison isn´t quite objective. A Swaro AV/PH/Z6 should be compared to Zeiss Diavari, then at least I would choose Zeiss ( and have done so). No matter what tubediameter difference there is between them.
Conquest is best compared to similarly priced scopes like VX-III.
 
Yes very very true. This is how people get confused.
 
The Zeiss Conquest line is for the American hunter where legal shooting time is half hour to 45 minutes past sunset. The Conquest line has multiple coatings but the scopes in the Conquest line do NOT get the multi T coatings. The Conquest line of scopes are assembeled here in the USA & don't get the multi T coatings because Zeiss wanted to keep the price down. Thats why you get more magnification such as 4.5-14. If they put their best coatings on the Conquest glass you'd be looking at starting around 800-900 bucks.
 
The Swarovski A line is made in Austria and those scopes get Swarovski's best coating on the glass, same coatings as the Swaro PH line of scopes. Thats why the price is higher & thats why you will get better low light usesage in the Swaro A line.
 
Now going head to head for the top dog, Swarovski's PH line doesn't quite measure up to the Zeiss Diavari models. The Zeiss 2-10x50 and the Zeiss 3-12x56 are incredible low light scopes.


The Z6 is Swaro's "top dog", not the PH, but even so the Zeiss Victory Diavari may still have a  slight edge in the low light conditions. The Z6 will have better FOV and power range. It would be nice to hear from someone who owns both a Z6 and a Victory that could give us a better low light report between the two.


Edited by mike650 - November/03/2008 at 00:09
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/03/2008 at 14:05
flashpoint View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: October/17/2008
Location: manresa
Status: Offline
Points: 105

good for Theodore Roosevelt

 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/03/2008 at 14:28
Rancid Coolaid View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7694
Originally posted by flashpoint flashpoint wrote:

good for Theodore Roosevelt

 
 


For all the things he did wrong, this doesn't even the field.

Now, back to optics talk.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/03/2008 at 14:32
Tip69 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
Tip Stick

Joined: September/27/2005
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Originally posted by 3_tens 3_tens wrote:

Originally posted by Tip69 Tip69 wrote:

Pooreyes-2   No offense, but maybe it was your poor eyes that was the issue, not the size of the objective bell.  The only difference you should see if (and this is a BIG if) both scopes are exactly the same, is that you will be able to use a higher power on the 50 compared to the 40.  Otherwise, they should be the same.  There can be a big difference in low light ability even with in the same brand!  Which two scopes were you comparing?
I beg to differ with you Tips. I have both the conquest 3-9 in a 40mm and a 50mm. In low light there is a very visible difference. The 50mm will out last the 40mm by 10-15 min. I also have the Leupold VX III in 40mm and 50mm. Both have the varmint reticle. The 50 will give you much more hunting time. The 50mm Zeiss is the best in low light of the 4. In bright light here is little difference. The 40 mm may have a slight edge with less flair in some conditions.
 
3_tens, that is contrary to everything I've leaned here at the OT.  If the coatings are the same and everything else for that matter are the same and the only difference is the size of the objective, since we can only see what our eyes allow, which is like 7mm or 8mm, the 50 wouldn't provide any more light at the lower power levels.  Has to do with exit pupil I think.  For example, if you are using 9x on both scopes, the 50 would be better, but at say 5x, they should be the same.  Only difference would be the variance in the manufacturing process.  Your 50 Conquest may have been made better just by chance.
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Swarovski vs Zeiss"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Cost of Swarovski VS Zeiss and leica Sako .308 Win Binoculars 4 9/26/2004 10:40:08 PM
Swarovski vs Zeiss Pibb Rifle Scopes 3 4/9/2005 12:22:30 AM
Swarovski vs Zeiss ??? billiam13 Rifle Scopes 6 3/15/2007 10:53:30 AM
Monarch vs Swarovski vs Zeiss Heavishot Rifle Scopes 15
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


This page was generated in 0.703 seconds.