Author Topic: 4200 Vs Zeiss Conquest (Read 2334 times)

HoCoMDHunter · « **on:** March 23, 2004, 04:31:36 PM »

I need a new scope for my 30-06. I've been doing a lot a research and had decided to save up for the Elite 4200 2.5 - 10 x 40. I had been considering it against the Nikon Monarch, Leupolds, and Burris scopes in the same price range. I now see that the Zeiss Conquest is also in the same range. All I know is that Zeiss commands a very high price for most of their scopes. The Conquest 3-9x40 can be had for under 400 new on Ebay. Is this a scope I should consider?

Zachary · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2004, 07:15:15 AM »

I own several Elite 4200s, most of which were bought from the optic zone, one of our sponsors.

An acquaintence recently sold me a NIB Conquest 3x-9x-40mm. Although I have used these scopes quite a bit from friends' guns, I had never owned one.

The conquests are similar in quality to the Elite 4200s. The differences are as follows:

1. Zeiss has etched reticles (which is a plus).
2. Elite 4200s have rainguard.
3. Elite 4200s, especially the 2.5x-10x-40mm don't have a great deal of eye relief - 3.3mm. The 3x-9x-40mm conquest, however, has a constant 4mm eye relief.
4. The conquests are more expensive than the elite 4200s.
5. To me, the optics in the Conquest are very similar to the Elite 4200s. I think that the Elite 4200s are just a tad better, but not by much - it's really too close a call to make.
6. The Elite 4200s are generally a tad bit heavier and longer than the conquests.

Based on the foregoing, see which factors are most important to you and make your decision accordingly.

Zachary

akpls · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2004, 07:49:08 AM »

Quote from: Zachary

13. Elite 4200s, especially the 2.5x-10x-40mm don't have a great deal of eye relief - 3.3mm. The 3x-9x-40mm conquest, however, has a constant 4mm eye relief.
Zachary

I think that should be 4 inches. 4mm would be OUCH! :eek:

Bushnell Boy · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2004, 08:01:28 AM »

I have never actually held on of these scopes in my hand but I went to there websight and read about them and the elite is definitely better.

Both have good eye relief with in .2 inches of each other, both are waterproof, length and weight are almost the same, both have transferable lifetime warranties. But the elite has the raingaurd coating, is 5% brighter ( the conquest only has 90% light transmition) the elite is made out of titanium, and the elite has a one year money back garrentee.

I shoot the Elite 4200 2.5-10x40 on my Savage 116U .30-06. I will never take this scope off this rifle. In my opinion there is not a better scope for your money.

Link to Zeiss
http://www.zeiss.com/C1256BCF0020BE5F/Contents-Frame/E34E4125AA548D6685256BCF0061320D

Link to Bushnell
http://www.bushnell.com/productinfo/riflescopes/elite4200.html

jlk · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2004, 10:20:08 AM »

I have the 4200 and the Zeiss Conquest, both are very good scopes. I like the rainguard on the 4200, it is a real plus and it works as stated.

I just recently sighted in two Browning A-bolts for a friend, mounted on them were the Zeiss scopes. At 300yds you could not see with the naked eye. I put the rifle to my shoulder and was amazed at how well I could see with the scope. That was the next scope I bought. While I still like the 4200's and still own some of them.

I think the Zeiss has a little better light transmission. And I prefer the 4200's any day over the Leupolds after I side by side compairson that I did.

johnk

longwinters · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2004, 10:57:33 AM »

I also have both scopes as does my hunting partner. Both of us would take the Conquest hands down over the 4200. We both think that the conquest is clearer. However, I must say that our opinions are subjective, but based on target shooting and hunting from Michigan to Colorado in sun, rain, snow etc...

Zachary · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2004, 11:57:54 AM »

Quote from: akpls

Quote from: Zachary
13. Elite 4200s, especially the 2.5x-10x-40mm don't have a great deal of eye relief - 3.3mm. The 3x-9x-40mm conquest, however, has a constant 4mm eye relief.
Zachary

I think that should be 4 inches. 4mm would be OUCH! :eek:

Yes, my bad... I meant 3.3" and 4" respectively. :wink:

Zachary

big6x6 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2004, 04:05:32 PM »

"is 5% brighter ( the conquest only has 90% light transmition)"

You'll have to admit this means absolutely nothing. Only IF they were tested side by side AND independently would these numbers mean anything in a brand to brand comparison. They ARE useful WITHIN brands, but mean nothing otherwise.

The eye relief of the 4200 2.5-10 IS excessively short and the tube is excessively LONG for this power range scope. I'll pick the Conquest 3-9 and the Conquest 3.5-10X44 is even better.

Daniel · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2004, 09:41:44 AM »

I don't own a Bushnell Elite 4200 but I do own a 3200 with Rainguard and Firefly reticle. I also own two Conquests, a 3-9x40 and 4.5-14x44. I've actually been disappointed with the Rainguard. I can remember one cold morning in particular last season when I accidentally breathed on the ocular lens of the 3200 while raising my rifle to look at a deer. The lens was fogged and I could barely see through it. I thought this was the sort of thing the Rainguard coating was supposed to eliminate or at least greatly reduce. Am I wrong about that?

On the other hand I've been totally satisfied with the Zeiss Conquests. They are as nice a scope as I've ever owned and that includes the $1,200 Swarovski I once had and the new Leupold VX III that I bought last month. They offer excellent optics, plenty of eye relief, user friendly features, a great warranty and ruggedness to boot. I really like that etched-in-glass Z Plex reticle. I can't imagine a better scope in this price range.

Rustbucket · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2004, 10:07:38 AM »

You state the Zeiss have only 90% transmission VS B & L at 95% transmission. Do not be confused by purposely confusing advertising claims. One company may claim 95% transmission (through each lens component), while the nesxt company may claim a certain %light transmission (through all lens components). Often times the companeis do not specify what they are advertising, or they make it diffacult to find what the advertised % relate to.

They are both really good scopes and close quality wise. I would take the B&L scope on a 270 or lower (it has short eye relief). On 30 06 or "stiffer" rifles, I would go for the Conquest. I had a short eye relief scope on a 300 WM, and got "bit" several times, so I traded out the scope.

Zachary · « **Reply #10 on:** March 26, 2004, 01:46:51 PM »

I just got my Zeiss Conquest 3x-9x-40mm and did a direct comparison with my equally new Elite 4200 2.5x-10x-40mm - both at low light conditions and bright conditions.

To be perfectly honest, I really can't tell the difference - it's really that close. At times, I forgot which scope I held in my hand, and they both looked just as clear and bright. Also, both scopes had crisp viewing from edge to edge.

For the money, the Elite 4200 is it, especially with the rainguard. However, the eye relief on the Conquest is long - 4" and I love it.

Zachary

Bushnell Boy · « **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2004, 11:20:54 AM »

The 95% light transmition for the 4200 is through the whole scope at 550 mn.

oldelkhunter · « **Reply #12 on:** April 02, 2004, 07:44:25 AM »

Here are the scopes strong points and weakpoints as I see them.

4200

Great Optics
Rainguard
Poor eye relief
Weight and Length excessive for that power range

Conquest

Great Optics
Better Length and Weight dimensions then 4200
Quick Focus
Etched Reticle

I know that Bushnell misleadingly advertises these scopes as having a titanium tube when in fact they use an alloy of both metals. How this affects strength is anyones guess. Light transmission figures are probably real close between the two scopes certainly I could see no difference. Cheapest price I have seen on Zeiss comes from www.europtics.com and it is very comparable to a 4200 when using them. I have really been making an effort to buy Bushnell scopes but they are way too bulky for any application I have in mind. The Zeiss Conquest is not exactly compact in dimensions either but it easily beats the 4200 in that area.

Bushnell Boy · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2004, 05:40:48 AM »

Yes the elites are made from a titanium allow which gives them about 30% more strength than an aluminum tube.

Zachary · « **Reply #14 on:** April 07, 2004, 06:25:31 AM »

In theory, I guess that the 30% titanium will make it stronger. But then again, I never had any problems with my pre-30% titanium elites. For that matter, I never had any problems with ANY of my scope tubes from Nikon, Leupold, Burris, etc., that are all aluminum.

Don't get me wrong, I just love my Elites, but there's one interesting thing - the new Elites supposedly have 30% titanium, which is lighter than aluminum, yet they still weigh the same weight. If indeed they have 30% titanium, shouldn't they be a little bit lighter? :?

Zachary

Brasso · « **Reply #15 on:** April 08, 2004, 12:31:01 PM »

I guess it's kind of like the listed rifle weights. Although a smaller bore should technically weight more than a larger bore of the same model, it's just not enough to take the time to list the exact weight and they give a general weight for the entire model line.

Zachary · « **Reply #16 on:** April 08, 2004, 03:28:52 PM »

That's a good point...I never quite thought about it that way. Still, I think that scopes are a little bit different than rifles in terms of publishing their weight.

Zachary

tominboise · « **Reply #17 on:** April 09, 2004, 04:08:50 AM »

And actually, Titanium is heavier then aluminum, lighter then steel.....

.10 lbs/cu.in for AL
.16 lbs/cu in for Ti
.283 lbs/cu in for steel

azshooter · « **Reply #18 on:** April 09, 2004, 04:32:52 AM »

Here is a different spin - if you like them equally - remember where the ultimate destination of your dollars is ... and which country just released a 9/11 terrorist.

oldelkhunter · « **Reply #19 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:32:26 AM »

azshooter your absolutely right about that...supporting a country that absolutely hates us and looks down on us.