Author Topic: Nikon Gold or Zeiss Conquest??!! (Help needed ASAP) (Read 808 times)

goose7856 · « **on:** November 14, 2004, 04:05:18 PM »

Thanx for reading this.....

My friend wants to get an "exceptional" scope, and he has really narrowed it down to a Nikon Gold 2.5-10x50 or a Zeiss Conquest (doesnt know which model he would want)......

Which has better Glass?
Which is better in general?
Any experience with either?

I can get him the Nikon Gold 2.5-10x50 for $410 right now.....and I dont think it will last very long so I want to tell him to get it, or to pass and get the Zeiss Conquest.....he seems to really like Nikon's and he likes the Gold series.......but the conquest have also been there, and he cant decide......I think the main thing he is after is the Light Transmission, clarity, and simply Optics......The scope will go on either a .270 WSM, 30-06, or .308 (probably the 308)........

Which would you reccomend?
I have heard the Nikon Gold has arguably the best optics on the market.....but Zeiss is also known for the same!! so I guess I/he is in a bind.......

Jon, at the opticzone, which would you reccomend since you deal with both on a regular basis.....Graybeard, lawdog, Zachary, Fisherman, and every1 else....reccomendations are welcome.....

TIA!! Ill tell him about it tom, his jaw will drop at the price.......(he was expecting to pay about $600 for a scope of that "caliber")

THANX!!

Greybeard · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2004, 06:02:27 PM »

If that is the power range you want I'd go with the Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10. That's what's on my .257 Whby. Mag.

goose7856 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2004, 06:05:25 PM »

so is the Bushnell elite 4200 better than both a Zeiss Conquest and a Nikon Gold......I think he just chose that power in the Nikon, because that is all they have (other than the 1.5-6 and he def. wanted more zoom..)

THANX GB, ne1 else??!!!

Graybeard · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2004, 07:38:29 PM »

If he's hunting in the woods the 1.5-6 is a much smarter scope to get. I have two hunting rifles that wear 3-9 scopes and the .257 Whby. which is a strictly long range rifle with the 2.5-10. Nothing else tops out above 8X and most less than that.

I've never owned a Nikon and have no plans to. I've looked thru those of several other folks at the range on several occasions. To me they were far inferior to the scopes I own and use. So my money doesn't go to them. As for the Conquest if I'm not mistaken that's the one Leupold makes for them. Not betting the farm on it but I think that's it. It's not likely optically or mechanically the equal fo the more expensive Ziess scopes. Why you and others seem to have a hang up on the European named scopes is beyond me. They are fine for what they are designed to do but that is NOT what 99% of American hunting is about. Maybe I should take a new look at the Nikons and will if I see someone with one but since I now shoot on my range I've not looked thru one in a few years. Maybe they've improved. But it was Monarch's I was trying out and felt inferior.

308TIKKA · « **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2004, 12:50:46 AM »

there is no way leupold makes the conquest...NO WAY

They are direct competitors. This myth was layed to rest a couple years ago by john barness @ 24hourcampfire

the zeiss is assembled here in the USA with parts from Germany. They are probably the best value going right now and are very popular. Lifetime transferable warranty.
they use great glass.

i would get a zeiss as I have no need for a 50mm objective

Greybeard · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2004, 03:11:29 AM »

Then why the GOLD RING on the objective? In spite of protestations to the contrary I'd bet if you toured the Leupold factory on the right day you'd see them being assembled there. Leupold and Burris are the only two American manufacturers actually making scopes here are they not? So who is putting it together? Can't see Burris using a gold ring on the objective. It might have now been dropped but was there early on at least.

Be very wary of what magazine writers tell you. They tell you what the manufacturers want you to hear. Not necessarily what is true. Their job is to sell you the stuff the manufacturers who advertise with their magazine want you to buy. EVEN if they know it's not the most appropriate for you.

308TIKKA · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2004, 05:30:23 AM »

well i just looked at the conquest and it has no gold ring.

if you really believe leupold makes scopes for zeiss then good but I don't.

i bet jon at the optic zone, bear basin, swfa, and anyone else who sells optics would agree that leupold is a direct competitor of zeiss. Now they did make leica scopes but they are now discontinued.

actually you can call zeiss and ask them. I believe they have headquarters in virginia and thats where the scopes come from and thats where you send repairs. maybe they forward them all to beaverton, oregon>??

Arkie-06 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 15, 2004, 08:47:13 AM »

goose, flip a coin, they are both excellent. I f you can get the Gold for that price , i would get that. :grin:

jlk · « **Reply #8 on:** November 15, 2004, 09:03:04 AM »

I cannot comment on the Nikon as I have never looked through one. I do have a 6.5-20x50 Zeiss on my Encore in .257 wtby. mag. and it does a great job. I used to have a couple of Leupolds, but after doing a side by side comparison, with a B&L 4200, with the scopes on the same power setting I sold the Leupolds. The B&L's were brighter and clearer.

Zachary · « **Reply #9 on:** November 15, 2004, 11:41:25 AM »

Quote from: goose7856

Thanx for reading this.....

My friend wants to get an "exceptional" scope, and he has really narrowed it down to a Nikon Gold 2.5-10x50 or a Zeiss Conquest (doesnt know which model he would want)......

Which has better Glass?
Which is better in general?
Any experience with either?

I can get him the Nikon Gold 2.5-10x50 for $410 right now.....and I dont think it will last very long so I want to tell him to get it, or to pass and get the Zeiss Conquest.....he seems to really like Nikon's and he likes the Gold series.......but the conquest have also been there, and he cant decide......I think the main thing he is after is the Light Transmission, clarity, and simply Optics......The scope will go on either a .270 WSM, 30-06, or .308 (probably the 308)........

Which would you reccomend?
I have heard the Nikon Gold has arguably the best optics on the market.....but Zeiss is also known for the same!! so I guess I/he is in a bind.......

Jon, at the opticzone, which would you reccomend since you deal with both on a regular basis.....Graybeard, lawdog, Zachary, Fisherman, and every1 else....reccomendations are welcome.....

TIA!! Ill tell him about it tom, his jaw will drop at the price.......(he was expecting to pay about $600 for a scope of that "caliber")

THANX!!

Goose,

I own several Nikon Monarchs and a couple of Zeiss Conquests, and both are excellent. The glass is a little bit better in the Conquest in my opinion, although it's a close call. If you want a 30mm tube, then get the Gold, if you can do just fine with a 1" tube, then get the Conquest.

Also, the Conquest has etched reticles while the Gold doesn't. In theory, etched is better, although I've never had any problems with the Nikons.

I'm a huge Elite 4200 fan, but I don't hesitate to buy Nikon Monarchs and Zeiss Conquests. Also, I've heard that the new VXIIIs are excellent as well. (Much better than the older Vari-X IIIs that I own).

Zachary

Graybeard · « **Reply #10 on:** November 15, 2004, 12:48:36 PM »

Quote

Now they did make leica scopes but they are now discontinued.

OK that's probably the one I had in mind. If you'll recall what I said was:

Quote

As for the Conquest if I'm not mistaken that's the one Leupold makes for them. Not betting the farm on it but I think that's it.

It had been awhile since I'd seen the ads and just couldn't remember which it was. But again I say to you, if they are made in the US, WHERE and by WHOM?

I'm aware of no scope maker in the US but Leupold and Burris. Of the two I'd darn sure rather have Leupold making them. Can anyone shed any light on just who is making them where? For sure I can't.

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #11 on:** November 15, 2004, 02:39:59 PM »

Goose,

Just like Zachary stated, if you are in need for a 30mm scope than I would go with the Gold. Optically wise they are both very close, but I still would give the Nikon so slight of an advantage. The Gold is going to add some weight to your set up too, so that is something to thing about.

acearch72 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 15, 2004, 05:25:42 PM »

GB,

I have 2 Conquests and neither have a gold ring on them. I have the 4.5x14x44 & 4.5x14x50. I also have a Leupold vari-x III in 4.5x14x50. The Zeiss are IMO better.

JCM · « **Reply #13 on:** November 16, 2004, 01:29:43 AM »

I've got a Monarch Gold 1.5-6x42 that I love. I haven't used a Conquest, but I'm very impressed with the Nikon. The Nikon will be quite a bit heavier due to the 30 mm tube. Great scope though. I hunt mainly woods, thus the 1.5-6, but the 2.5-10x50 will be my choice when I put together a bean field rifle.

Take care,
JCM