New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Zeiss V  3-9x42  1" scope ???
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Zeiss V 3-9x42 1" scope ???

 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/30/2004 at 19:38
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246
THis is basically a 3-9 conquest with a 2mm larger obj. and t* coatings or is there mor to it than that? i know it has a 2nd plane reticle. It has 3.5" eye relief. It costs 3 times as much almost. Why? FOr T* coatings and 2mm obj size increase???
I want to get one but am having trouble justifying it
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/31/2004 at 05:27
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20479

The V will be a little lighter and provide a slight advantage w/ FOV, if my memory serves me.

 

If you want the best hunting scope "in it's class", get the Conquest. Save some money...

 

You wont notice "much" difference. I don't. 

 

 



Edited by cheaptrick
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: October/31/2004 at 19:39
tbone1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/31/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 195

The VM/V scopes are built in Germany using totally different glass and are very different scopes.  Having said that I was wondering the same thing several months ago just prior to purchasing a conquest.  I have a VM/V with a 30mm tube and I compared the conquest to it for an hour or two as the light faded.  The conquest seemed to be a great scope and had excellent resolution however there was a noticable difference between it and my VM/V.  The VM/V was producing a noticably clearer, cleaner, and brighter image and it got more and more noticable as the sun set.  I performed this same test several days later except comparing my conquest to my Schmidt & Bender to see if the difference in brightness would actually allow me to shoot something after I could no longer see it through the conquest.  The answer was yes.  Don't get me wrong, I believe the conquest is as good as it gets in its price range.  Also keep in mind that the VM/V and S&B had 30mm tubes.  Some think that a 30mm is brighter than a 1" and some think that it doesn't make a difference.  I don't know but I thought it was worth pointing out.  I know that the 3-9x42 VM/V is going to be a better scope, but I can't say how much better without having tested it myself.  I hope this helps.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/01/2004 at 04:07
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20479

As I said, the Conquest is the best scope "in it's class." I believe tbones test results.

 

I also like a 30mm tube. And the Conquest has come out with a 30mm tube, with a FFP reticle. 

 

I don't believe that the V series is worth twice the money of the Conquest though. If I'm going to pony up over a grand on a hunting scope, it's going to say "Schmidt und Bender" on it somehere.. 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/10/2004 at 11:07
Chris Farris View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
swfa.com

Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 7765
Conquest uses MC coatings and different glass than the VMV.  The only similarity is that they are both lead and arsenic free which all optics glass will have to be soon.  There is a 2% difference in light transmission between MC coatings and T* coatings (PER LENS SURFACE).  This is huge.  I think the V also uses one less lens which would also make it brighter.  The VMV uses the new AOS optical system and the "Thin Lens Technology" which allowed them to achieve a 35% increase in field of view over the Conquest, 12% more eye relief and 30% less weight.  If you compare the Conquest 3-12x56 to the VMV 3-12x56, the VMV is half a pound lighter and two inches shorter.  The VMV also use a 3 rail system to slide the erector tube in its variable scopes.  Only the rails gets greased instead of the whole tube, this makes a big difference as well in light transmission because it cuts down on internal reflection.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/10/2004 at 11:21
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246
chris
2% per lens? so a scope with 6 lens will have 12% difference in total light transmission, that would put the conquests at under 90% if the v had 100%, which it can't. I could see a 2% total difference but not per lens.
It doesnt have 12% more eye relief than the 3-9x40 conquest, it actually has less right. 4" vs. 3.5"

Based on the above, zeiss doesnt index match their lens either which i had never noticed, they just give them all a multiple coatings of either MC or T

By the way what color is T as the MC is purple

Thanks


Edited by SAKO75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/10/2004 at 12:19
Chris Farris View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
swfa.com

Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 7765

Say the VMV is transmitting 95% of the light per lens surface, then the Conquest would be transmitting 93% of the light per lens surface.  The 95 and 93 are just arbitrary numbers as I don't know for certain what the actual numbers are.  I have not been able to get a clarification on the eye relief.  I think the 12% came about by comparing scopes with the same power/objective on the lowest power and since the Conquest has a constant eye relief it will not compare favorably to a like scope set on the lowest power but this is just speculation.  Everyone at Zeiss is on the road right now as the "show season" has just kicked off.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/10/2004 at 16:09
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20479

Chris, interesting stuff there. But in laymans terms, how much "better" is the V series compared to the Conquest? In my eyes, theres not a lot of difference.

I concede that the V is a better all around scope, but haven't felt that they were worth twice the $ of the Conquest. Not a knock on the V, just like the Conquest too.... 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/10/2004 at 16:53
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246
the V is 3 times the price
is it 3 times brighter or 3 times more durable or both? is it twice as bright or twice as durable?

its just hard for me to justify the price of the V when the conquest is that good
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/10/2004 at 17:27
Chris Farris View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
swfa.com

Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 7765

I agree that you reach a point of diminishing returns where you are paying a whole lot more money to gain a little.  The VMV is the best Zeiss can make and some people want the best no matter the price and as long as there is a market someone will fill it.

 

I talked to a guy the other day going to Africa on a $75,000.00 hunt of lifetime, he wanted the best possible scope that would give him every advantage possible in low light.  So to him spending $800. more on a scope that could give him 20-40 minutes more a day of hunting is worth it....especially for leopard.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/10/2004 at 17:47
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20479
Originally posted by Chris Chris wrote:

 

I talked to a guy the other day going to Africa on a $75,000.00 hunt of lifetime, he wanted the best possible scope that would give him every advantage possible in low light.  So to him spending $800. more on a scope that could give him 20-40 minutes more a day of hunting is worth it....especially for leopard.

 

Right, why skimp when you have that much $ on the line. I totally agree with that line of thought.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/11/2004 at 05:18
SAKO75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/29/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 246
i have seen leupold LPS and khales avertisements claiming 99.5% or 99.65% light tansmission per lens, therefore I would think that the v would be at or near that and not 95%. Besides if each lens was only passing 95% it would not total 95% light transmission. Lens 2 would only get 95% of what lens one had and lens 3 would miss the 5% from lens 1 and the 5% from lens 2 and so on.
I still dont see how it could be 2% per lens brighter because zeiss says the conquest's light transmission is markerdly above 90%.
I assume thats total because if it per lens, its pretty bad and we know its not a dark scope.

Therefore I could see the conquest having 93% total and the v 95% total or 94% and 96% but i am still not sold on the 2% per lens and not on the eye relief being longer either. Zeiss plainly states that it is 3.54" for the v and 4" for the 3-9 conquest

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: November/11/2004 at 13:47
Chris Farris View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Admin
TEAM SWFA - Admin
Avatar
swfa.com

Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 7765

Maybe this previous post by Koshkin can help you better understand.

 

"A couple of comments

 

To get total light transmission you multiply the transmission coefficient of one surface by itself as many times as there are surfaces in the scope .  For example, 99.65% for one surface means 0.9965 of incoming light is passed through one surface.  For two surfaces it is 0.9965x0.9965=0.993 (or 99.3%)  I do not know how many surfaces a LPS scope has, but for 10 surfaces total light transmission is 0.9655 or 96.55%.  Interestingly, if each surface only transmits 99.65% to get a total light transmission of 98% you can't have more than 6 optical surfaces, i.e. no more than three lenses.  I do not know exactly how many lenses a scope typically has, but it is certainly more than three.  Fixed scopes have fewer lenses than variable ones.  That's why all other things being equal a fixed magnification scope will be brighter.  Light transmission does depend heavily on the wavelength.  For a narrow wavelength range it is quite feasible to get a multicoating with transmission of 99.99% or slightly better (I've worked with these in telecom industry and there are several companies that can readily supply superefficient narrow band coatings).  Leupold's claim of 98% total light transmission has to be for a particular wavelength (color) of light. 

 

Burris website has a cutaway picture of a scope that shows 5 lenses.  For 10 iotical surfaces at 99.5% each, total light transmission is 95.1% which matches their statement.  We still do not know which wavelength range they are measuring.

 

Total light transmission is just a function of the light transmission of individual surfaces.  The catch is that a scope can be very bright, but have poor resolution.  Resolution depends heavily on coatings as well as on quality and polish of the lenses.  The surface finish of the lens is typically measured in a test called "scratch and dig" which basically looks at scratches and nonuniformities of the surface.  Another useful test is an interferometric measurement called "wavefront transmission" it looks at how long it took each wavelength to go through a lens (light travels at different speed through different materials).  Nonuniformities in lens material, surface finish and coating quality can all result in poor wavefront transmission performance which correlates directly to poor resolution.

 

A good example here is with Burris Signature scopes vs. Fullfield II scopes.  They have the same coatings, hence total light transmission is going to be roughly the same for the same magnification range.  However, lenses in Signature line scopes are ground and polished to stricter tolerances resulting in better resolution than Fullfield II scopes.

 

I think I saw some tests somewhere that said that Burris Fullfield II fixed 6x scope is easily among the brightest in the world easily holding its own against expensive Euro scopes.  However, that does not mean that it's the best scope since total light transmission does not garantee top resolution.

 

I think I'll stop here. This post has been a bit too long anyway.

 

Ilya"

 

here's a link to the whole thread this was pulled from "Light transmission question"

 

Here is a link to a 2 page thread that you were part of that covered this same scenario in depth, "Conquest vs. Swarovski, Kahles"

 

Hope this helps.

 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Zeiss V 3-9x42 1" scope ???"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Another "which scope" thread GunsIsFuns Rifle Scopes 7
Zeiss diavari V 3-9x42 T* Robster80 Rifle Scopes 0
Scope adjusting "screwdriver"? T/C kent Tripods, sun shades, lens covers, etc. 3
"Claimed" scope weight rustic Rifle Scopes 19
Weaver "Marksman" scope trythisagain Rifle Scopes 1
Zeiss Terra 3-9x42 CJarvis Rifle Scopes 33
Zeiss Terra 3-9x42 bbush Rifle Scopes 5
Zeiss Conquest 3X9-40 VS. Kahles KX 3-9X42 SSgtSmitty Rifle Scopes 24
Know a scope with "narrow" "turret base"??? leakycow Rifle Scopes 1
Redfield Battlezone 3-9x42 scope covers sizes? hawkeye24270 Tripods, sun shades, lens covers, etc. 0


This page was generated in 0.547 seconds.