New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ziess Conquest vs. Burris Fullfield II
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Ziess Conquest vs. Burris Fullfield II

 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: December/01/2011 at 18:55
M7025-06 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/21/2010
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 271
I've got a Burris Fullfield II (3-9x40) on my 280 and was thinking about upgrading to a Conquest.  My main reason is hunting in low-light conditions.  I've heard the Fullfield is pretty good in low-light, but I was wondering from someone that has used both, is the Conquest is that much better?
 
Thanks in advance.
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/01/2011 at 19:20
3_tens View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2007
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7180
YES!!! The 3-9 FFII fades some towards the edges where the Zeiss conquest doesn't. You will be amazed at the difference this alone makes in low light. The Zeiss has etched reticle. It looks pure black, an is much more pronounced than the Burris in low light. If you go with the #4 reticle on the Zeiss it is very bold and can be seen with almost no light entering the scope. It is easy for me to say that the Conquest is the best bang for the buck for a hunting scope.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/01/2011 at 21:10
M7025-06 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/21/2010
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 271
Thanks for the info.

How much of a difference does a 50mm objective make over a 40-44mm?  Is it enough to spend the extra $200?


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/01/2011 at 23:10
tedster View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2011
Location: Muskegon,MI.
Status: Offline
Points: 14
a 50mm will give yo 5 to 15 minutes extra light over the 40mm i had it proved to me
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/02/2011 at 15:51
3_tens View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2007
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7180
I have both and there is a visable difference. Whether you can get any more legal time would take a dark day. Normaly the 40 will get me 30 min past sunset. Be sure to get the bolder reticle if low light is your concern. I have a Rapid Z 600 that is a very thin reticle. It is not very sutiable for low light conditions.

Edited by 3_tens - December/02/2011 at 15:57
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/02/2011 at 18:23
lumberjack149 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: December/04/2009
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 110
Originally posted by tedster tedster wrote:

a 50mm will give yo 5 to 15 minutes extra light over the 40mm i had it proved to me
I dont know if i quite agree with that. The 50mm would give you more magnification at the low light time (exit pupil) but no necassarily any extra hunting time assuming the glass was the same between the two.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/02/2011 at 19:21
M7025-06 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/21/2010
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 271
Thanks for all of the replies.

I was ready to buy a Conquest until I talked to a guy I work with.  He had a practically new 4200 3-9x40 he wanted to get rid of for a really good price, so I snagged it.  I know the bushnell and burris are pretty close to same but I really like the bushnell I already have so that's the route I went.  I'll get a Conquest one of these days.


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/02/2011 at 22:33
tedster View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2011
Location: Muskegon,MI.
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Originally posted by lumberjack149 lumberjack149 wrote:

Originally posted by tedster tedster wrote:

a 50mm will give yo 5 to 15 minutes extra light over the 40mm i had it proved to me
I dont know if i quite agree with that. The 50mm would give you more magnification at the low light time (exit pupil) but no necassarily any extra hunting time assuming the glass was the same between the two.
 
i had my 50mm and my cousin had the same scope in a 40mm i could see an easy 15minutes more then him my boss talked me into buying the 50mm for the extra light gathering i am a believer in the bigger objective now after seeing with my own eyes
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/02/2011 at 23:37
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3194
Originally posted by M7025-06 M7025-06 wrote:

Thanks for all of the replies.

I was ready to buy a Conquest until I talked to a guy I work with.  He had a practically new 4200 3-9x40 he wanted to get rid of for a really good price, so I snagged it.  I know the bushnell and burris are pretty close to same but I really like the bushnell I already have so that's the route I went.  I'll get a Conquest one of these days.




I think the Bushnell 4200 is several steps above the Burris you have and not close to each other.. And the Bushnell 4200 is probably much closer to the Conquest.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/02/2011 at 23:38
Sparky View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire


Joined: July/15/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 3194
Originally posted by tedster tedster wrote:

 
i had my 50mm and my cousin had the same scope in a 40mm i could see an easy 15minutes more then him my boss talked me into buying the 50mm for the extra light gathering i am a believer in the bigger objective now after seeing with my own eyes


At what magnification?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/03/2011 at 10:14
tedster View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: November/21/2011
Location: Muskegon,MI.
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Originally posted by Sparky Sparky wrote:

Originally posted by tedster tedster wrote:

 
i had my 50mm and my cousin had the same scope in a 40mm i could see an easy 15minutes more then him my boss talked me into buying the 50mm for the extra light gathering i am a believer in the bigger objective now after seeing with my own eyes


At what magnification?
 they were at the lowest setting
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/04/2011 at 03:56
31 bertram View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/15/2011
Location: Gulf Shores, Al
Status: Offline
Points: 57
Have a 3x9x40 standard plex in the FF II and a Conquest and I really don't think the Conquest is any brighter, there is a slight better resolution in the Conquest at dark. and not much difference in the reticle in fading light.  I actually like the Burris reticle better for my aging eyes.  The Conquest sold and the Burris stayed.  I know the Conquest is a great scope and a 3x9x40  Conquest is alot of scope for the $$$$.  You can't go wrong with any 3 that you mentioned.  I have just become attached to my FF II.  Your milage may vary.    
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/04/2011 at 07:29
EAGLE View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/08/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
3-9x40 4200 glass is on par with 3-9x40 conquest in the same lighting condition (clarity wise) the reticles stand out about the same.

The Raingaurd on the 4200 is advantage, if you hunt in rain, etc and it also feels more solid to me.
However, I like the finger turrets on the conquest much better (dialing), user friendly and easier to grab. I also like the eye box better on the conquest.

The glass on the Burris is more equal to the 3200, but the reticle is slightly thicker and stands out in low light better.

They all have their advantages and disadvances and if you want more, than you will pay more.

I'm a hunter and have a family too, and need the best features for my hunting conditions that won't break the bank. In short, depends what features you are wanting and willing to pay for.


Eagle



Edited by EAGLE - December/04/2011 at 07:40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/04/2011 at 07:34
M7025-06 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/21/2010
Location: Nebraska
Status: Offline
Points: 271
Originally posted by 31 bertram 31 bertram wrote:

Have a 3x9x40 standard plex in the FF II and a Conquest and I really don't think the Conquest is any brighter, there is a slight better resolution in the Conquest at dark. and not much difference in the reticle in fading light.  I actually like the Burris reticle better for my aging eyes.  The Conquest sold and the Burris stayed.  I know the Conquest is a great scope and a 3x9x40  Conquest is alot of scope for the $$$$.  You can't go wrong with any 3 that you mentioned.  I have just become attached to my FF II.  Your milage may vary.    

I was fairly happy with my FFII.  I really liked the ballistic reticle...nice and simple.  The one thing that bugged me about the scope was the entire eye-piece moved when you adjusted the power.  

I'll definitely keep it and probably put it on my muzzleloader.

 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/07/2011 at 02:40
Stevey Ducks View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/03/2011
Status: Offline
Points: 266
I have both - 2 3-9X40 Zeiss Conquests and a Burris FF II.
 
I paid $350 each for the Zeiss Conquests (used sample list) and $200 for the Burris that came with a 8X32 binocular. I guess a new Zeiss 3-9X40 costs about $400 and a new B FFII 3-9X40 costs about $180.00. I keep the binocular in my car to look at things when traveling.
 
As expected for the price the Conquest is much better - optically & mechanically.
 
When shooting this PM near dusk at a temp of 21 degrees I could see what I was aiming at with the Burris but the Zeiss easily beat the Burris, especially the Zeiss reticle which had much more contrast than the Burris. Making elevation and windage adjustments with the Burris was difficult as the cold made the knobs difficult to turn and feeling or hearing the 1/4 min clicks was impossible.
 
The Burris ballistic plex reticle worked - with  a 250 yd zero, 3 inches high at 100, using the 2 aiming point under the cross hair I was able to make hits at 400 yds with a 150 gr H SST from a .308 Win. Good thing it did work because I had no confidence in making a quick elevation change at 21 deg. as the elevation knob would not easily turn with fingers and the slot ontop of the knob needed a coin and that was not so easy to do.
 
The Burris does have relatively good optics for a scope under $200 but I think the Zeiss at over 2X more would provide more relability and satisfaction.   
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Ziess Conquest vs. Burris Fullfield II"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Burris Fullfield vs. Burris Fullfield II DAVE44 Rifle Scopes 1
Burris Fullfield II vs Leupold VX-II Brett B Rifle Scopes 12
Burris Fullfield II vs. Leupold VX-II bigo_m Varmint Scopes 11 7/7/2006 9:28:07 AM
Burris Sig or Ziess Conquest charles coker Rifle Scopes 4 2/9/2006 6:05:06 PM
monarch or fullfield II or conquest .243 ruger Rifle Scopes 10 12/15/2006 4:51:26 PM
VX2 vs Weaver Classic V vs Burris Fullfield II urbaneruralite Rifle Scopes 6
Burris Fullfield II 4.5x14x42 or ? 93Pirate Rifle Scopes 2
Burris 2-7x35mm FullField II Rifle with Ballistic 1winnen Tactical Scopes 2
Opinions on Burris Fullfield II 2-7x35 LEE IN VA. Rifle Scopes 9
Burris Fullfield 1 Vs II What differences??? Newaygo1 Rifle Scopes 4


This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.