Author Topic: Zeiss conquest and nikon monarch varmint scopes (Read 867 times)

TDK · « **on:** March 04, 2005, 09:18:08 AM »

Considering a varmint scope for a 22-250 rifle. Have looked through the Monarch scope but not the Zeiss. The Zeiss is approx $300 more than the Nikon. Is the Zeiss $300 better? Both are 6.5-20x. Also, looked through a Weaver Grand Slam 4.5-14 but it did not seem to be as clear and bright as the Nikon. Not set on brand yet.

ranburr · « **Reply #1 on:** March 06, 2005, 05:24:59 PM »

I would say that the Zeiss is defineately worth the extra money. Having said that I would not feel bad about the Monarch if I wanted to save a few bucks. You might want to consider a Bushnell Elite 4200. It is close the Zeiss and much better than the Monarch.

ranburr

Daniel · « **Reply #2 on:** March 09, 2005, 10:04:40 AM »

Take a look at the site listed below. They don't mention the Nikon, but they do talk about the Zeiss. Make sure you scroll all the way down to see everything on the page.

http://www.6mmbr.com/optics.html

IowaBuckHunter · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2005, 10:14:54 AM »

if you buy a ziess, dont buy the conquest- they are nice, but not for the price. They are not MUCH better than a monarch, actually when it comes to light transmission (which is everything with optics) they are about the same. both are right at 95%. so is the bushnell elite 4200- 95%, and so is the leopold vari-x III. all perform the same, only price differences between them. but to say that an elite 4200 is better than a monarch is to say that a chevy silverado is better than a GMC Sieera- same thing. for the money savings, buy the monarch or 4200. if you want a GOOD ziess, buy the diavari series, but look at spending at LEAST $1000.

Daniel · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:46:59 AM »

The Conquests are worth every penny if you ask me. They're practically neck and neck with the higher dollar scopes (Swarovski PH, etc) I've owned.

victorcharlie · « **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2005, 07:43:22 AM »

My thinking is if your going for a Conquest you better do it soon........The dollar keeps taking a beating against the euro, and the prices on the Conquest, or any other european manufactured goods will probably be going up.........A friend just bought 2 Austrian shot guns (Sig? O/U) at the 2004 price as the 2005 price list was $1500 higher for the same model.....Now there may have been a few "improvements" but that much?..............$2000 versus $3500........In the short term, the Ziess might be a good investment as you might be able to sell it 6 months or so down the road at a good profit....and then get a good American Leupold! Sure wish I'd bought some Euro's a year or so ago!

Squeeze · « **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2005, 09:02:13 AM »

Well I do not know about the Ziess, so I will defer to those that do, but I will speak
to the Nikon. I really liked my Nikon Monarch(5.5-16.5x44), and I really liked my
Bushnell 4200 Elite(6-24x40). But I like my Bushnell even more once I had them
side by side, on my shooting bench, working up loads for the rifles they sit on.
After shooting a group with each rifle, I noticed that the Nikon just did not have
that little extra crispness, and brightness, that the Bushnell 4200 had. So I back
and forthed the two, looking at details on my gridded paper targets, and I came
away saying, the Bushnell was slightly clearer, and even a bit more bright. I did
dial them to the same magnification, at several different magnifications, and the
Bushnell kept impressing me. It could be that it was just these two individual
scopes, where the Bushnell is a very good instance of this model, and the Nikon
is not one of the better instances of this model. I will say that the Mueller Optics
4-16x50 Sport Dot, is giving the Nikon a run for it's money, in similar tests, so I don't
know if I will buy another Nikon. Now that I look at it more closely, it is not as impressive
as I once thought it to be.

Squeeze

tmagnum · « **Reply #7 on:** March 10, 2005, 05:35:36 PM »

Hey squeeze, were you comparing the bushnell and the nikon in low light or middle of the day. It has been my experience that my nikon scopes have been substantially brighter than my other leupolds, weavers, ect...in low light conditions, but I have not compared to a bushnell.

Squeeze · « **Reply #8 on:** March 11, 2005, 05:17:30 AM »

I was comparing these scopes on a partly cloudy day, with the sun quartering into
the objective, over snow cover. I craft my own target design, with a grid, and four
1" diamonds, spaced at the corners of what would be a 6" square. So clarity gets pretty
easy to determine, looking down range 100 yards, with different scopes. I did have
some mirage coming off the snow, so I tried setting the scopes at similar magification
settings, to get real world samples of brightness, and clarity. I would pay attention
to brightness when the sun would go behind the clouds. My range has the first
50 yards, in an open meadow, and then there is 100 yards, cut into a northern
hardwoods ridge, flat to the 100 yard backstop, and rising 10' for the last 50 yards.
Granted this is not a scientific test, but I don't hunt in an optics lab

My next real world range test will be a Leupold VX-II(4-12), a Bushnell 4200(6-24),
a Nikon Monarch(5.5-16.5), a Weaver V16(4-16), and a Mueller Optics Sport Dot(4-16).

When I first got my Nikon, I compared it to my Leupold VX-II, out the patio window,
and I was impressed. But I never compared it to the Bushnell, until I happened to
have both rifles on the bench, for some load work. It just never occured to me
that given the reviews on these two brands that there would be much of a
distinction in clarity, and light transmission. My eyes were opened at the range!
So given that surprise, now I am going to repeat this empherical test for all of
my adjustable objective scopes, side by side. This one should be interesting.

Squeeze

TheOpticZone · « **Reply #9 on:** March 11, 2005, 05:48:00 AM »

My opinion would be to go with the Nikon. I think that the optics are just as good as the Zeiss for less money, plus with the 6.5-20 you get a sunshade and an extra set of target knobs. The Bushnell is a very good scope, but I still lean towards that Nikon. Just my eyes and my opinion.

Squeeze · « **Reply #10 on:** March 11, 2005, 07:35:01 AM »

Jon,

Your testimonial, about Nikon, that I interpreted as having an edge over Bushnell,
contributed to me ordering the Nikon, over another Bushnell. So I purchased the Nikon,
from you. I am not that dissapointed in the Nikon, that I would be selling it, but this one sure
cooled my enthusiasim for Nikon, after I did this adhoc comparision. I probably ought to
check out a few more Nikons, before I totally write them off. The difference
could easily be individual eye sight. I am a bit suspicious of this particular Nikon,
because even the Mueller, that I recently received from you, is comparing well to
the Nikon. That was very unexpected. Of course, I could just be one of the lucky
ones that have eyes that like less expensive scopes

Squeeze

Zachary · « **Reply #11 on:** March 14, 2005, 01:20:27 PM »

Wow, I'm surprised to hear you say that. I own several Nikon scopes (moth Monarch and Pre-Monarch), and the Monarchs clearly have better optics than even the older Leupold Vari-X IIIs. I agree with Jon that the Nikon Monarch's glass is very comparable to the Zeiss Conquest, yet the Monarch costs significantly less.

Zachary