New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Zeiss vs Burris
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Zeiss vs Burris

 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: June/25/2006 at 11:14
dirt01 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: June/25/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3

 

I am looking at buying the 3-12x56 Zeiss Conquest or the 4-16x50 Black Diamond.  The price difference that I have been offered right now is around 125 to 150 dollars.  I am kicking around the ideal that the Zeiss is probably better in low light, but has less magnification.  I am hunting with a 10x scope now and really haven't wished for more magnification.   I do understand at 16 the Black Diamond would only have an exit pupil of 3.1, but who is to say I would be using it at 16 in real world situations.  If you compare apples to apple the Black Diamond at 12x has an exit pupil of 4.16 and the Zeiss is 4.66.  I am wondering if anybody has any opinions on the two scopes.  I think the light gathering ability and quality of the Zeiss is making me lean that way because I just haven't been in a situation where I needed more power.  I have never owned a Black Diamond before, but seen that Lazzeroni used to offer them on his site, so that is enough for me to believe they are good.  Any response about the two would be greatly appreciated.  While we are at it what about the new VX-L 4.5-14X56?  Is it any better glass than the VX-III or does it just cost more because they have lowered the sight line?

 

Thanks

 

Jerry Bowden

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/25/2006 at 16:17
mwyates View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 1196

I didn't like the Black Diamond 2.5-10 that I had for a while.  I much prefer the Conquests and VX III's or my VX L.

 

I think there are several reasons for the increased cost of the VX L.  They do have improvements over the VX III, like the Diamond Coat coatings and some other internal differences. I think they all  have to do with durability and repeatability, rather than image quality.  I don't think I've ever read it here, but Leupold seems to have the philosophy that after a certain point, image quality is just a pretty picture and money is better spent on other areas.  I agree. 

 

Most of the increased cost of the VX L probably comes from engineering and tooling.  I imagine it's a lot harder to make a lens with a cutout than it is to make a round lens.  It had never been done before, so the start up costs were probably huge.  Same with the tube.

 

If you're going to put this on a hunting rifle, something you want to come up naturally to the eye, I'd highly recommend the VX L.  Otherwise, consder the Conquest.  They are both fine.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/25/2006 at 16:22
Roy Finn View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Steiner Junkie

Joined: April/05/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4856

 I haven't ran into a big game hunting situation where I felt I needed more than 10x, but that's just me. I have found that the Zeiss Conquest 3.5-10x44 is plenty bright at 10x due to it's wonderful glass. Hanging those big objective scopes off of a big game rifle can lead to awkward shooting positions. Exit pupil is nothing without great glass. Just something to think about.



Edited by Roy Finn
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/25/2006 at 16:31
silver View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/04/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2291

 

 

 

I would buy a Zeiss and not look back.  To give you a pratical example I needed a lens filter for my digital SLR camera. That one filter from my local shop to get the same grade glass that is in the camera lens started at one hundred and twelve dollars.  That is for one piece of coated glass. 

 

Real clear glass cost money.   You may not have the magification, but most likley you will see the target with better resolution.  A clearer lower power image beats a higher magification fuzzy picture. The clearer the image the less fatigue.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/25/2006 at 18:39
dirt01 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: June/25/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3
 I am right there with everybody on glass.  I know you get what you pay for, but occasionaly you find one better than the other.  I have a pair of monarch binoculars and they are far superior in low light than some of the more expensive ones I have and a ton better than some of the $200 to $300 dollar scopes I have.  I want that first and last 15 minutes of daylight that is legal to shoot in to be as clear as possible.  The best glass I own now is the monarch binoculars.  I passed on a deer last year due to not being sure about the rack because I just couldn't see it clearly enough at about 100 yards in the low light at dusk through my scope and had forgotten my binoculars in the truck.  I don't want that to happen again.  I know the nikon glass is good, but if I am going to spend $600 dollars I am not afraid to go on and spend a couple hundred more if I get quality to last and possible just a little better in the first and last light.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/27/2006 at 12:56
solarpimp View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: June/22/2006
Status: Offline
Points: 7
I believe that the Black Diamond is out of the contest on this one.  There is a very similar thread to this one on these forums.  My answer is the same.  I, personally, feel that the 56mm objective is ridiculous.  If the 56mm objective is necessary (different strokes for different folks!) then the VXL is hard to beat, it will make for an easier, more natural cheek weld and will become more "part of the rifle" rather than an "extension of the rifle" from a weight and balance standpoint when compared to other 56mm scopes.  That being said, the Zeiss will always be clearer to the leupold when the playing field is level (i.e. same objective size, same tube size, same magnification, equivelant product line etc.).  So for this reason I would go with a 40-50mm obj Zeiss!   
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/27/2006 at 18:38
ranburr View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: May/16/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1082

What Roy said.

 

ranburr

 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Zeiss vs Burris"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Sightron vs Millett vs Zeiss vs Burris slm9s Rifle Scopes 9
Burris fullfield 6.5-20x50 vs Zeiss Terra 4-12X42 Paul Heydenreich Rifle Scopes 7
Burris Fullfield II Electro Dot vs Zeiss Conquest tntxfour Rifle Scopes 4
Burris Euro vs Zeiss Conquest Alan Robertson Rifle Scopes 4
Burris, Nikon, Zeiss??? Savage Rifle Scopes 11 9/21/2006 1:04:59 PM
Burris VS Zeiss CoyoteCaller Rifle Scopes 5 10/17/2006 12:40:45 AM
Burris Signature Select vs Zeiss Conquest horsesandhorns Rifle Scopes 1 11/21/2006 3:33:18 PM
Burris vs Zeiss nope Varmint Scopes 18 1/3/2007 4:35:57 PM
burris vs. zeiss jimpenny Rifle Scopes 13 1/22/2007 2:56:06 PM
Burris/Zeiss/Swarovski/Kahles? steadyshot Rifle Scopes 61 8/21/2007 3:35:45 PM


This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.