Swarovski vs Zeiss

[WV Sendero]

I'm looking into getting a new hunting rifle that is lighter and shorter than my current rifles (Edge, and Ultra mags) and I am trying to decide on a scope. I am interested in a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14 and Swarovski Z3 4-12 or possibly a Z5 3.5-18. What are your thoughts between the Zeiss and Swarovski? Also is there any difference between the Z3 and Z5 other than magnification range? This will not be my long range gun and most shots with this gun will likely be well under 300yds. Any info would be appreciated.

 

[Greywolf18]

I have a couple of Zeiss Conquests and love them! I've never owned a Swarovski so I am a little biased towards the Zeiss, but I've never had any problems with mine. I had one atop a Remmy 700 in .308 that survived a week of walking around in Canada going after Caribou & bear as well as numerous times in the field going up and down tree stands in NC/VA after deer. Like you, it is not on my long range rig. Plus I think they are a lil cheaper in price than the Swarovski's. Just my 2 cents, but then again I don't have near the experience most of the guys here have!

If it were me and money wasn't an object, I would say to just go to a store and look through all of them and see which one you happen to like the best.

 

[WV Sendero]

I have a couple of Zeiss Conquests and love them! I've never owned a Swarovski so I am a little biased towards the Zeiss, but I've never had any problems with mine. I had one atop a Remmy 700 in .308 that survived a week of walking around in Canada going after Caribou & bear as well as numerous times in the field going up and down tree stands in NC/VA after deer. Like you, it is not on my long range rig. Plus I think they are a lil cheaper in price than the Swarovski's. Just my 2 cents, but then again I don't have near the experience most of the guys here have!

If it were me and money wasn't an object, I would say to just go to a store and look through all of them and see which one you happen to like the best.

I have a Conquest and like you said I couldn't be happier with it but I just wondered how the Swarovski compared. And yes the Zeiss is cheaper so I want to make sure there would be a noticable difference before I would spend the extra money for the Swarovski.

 

[LRSickle]

I have Ziess Conquests and I like everything about them except the thick crosshairs on the Z-Plex reticles. Honestly, I have no Swarovski scopes to compare my Zeiss to, but while out with a co-worker, I was able to compare his Swaro with my Conquest. We both adjusted the ocular lenses to our own eyes and compares each other's scope. Neither of us could tell the difference at any power setting. I paid $750 for mine and he paid $1100 for his.

 

[mtelkhntr78]

I have a couple of Conquests and one Swaro. The Swaro was more money so I thought it would be a better scope but to be quite honest I like looking thru the Conquests much better. The Zeiss looks clearer to my eyes.
Another vote for Zeiss!

 

[300grains]

I prefer Zeiss, but the more expensive models.
Conquest is very good. Of your choices Swarovski Z3 or Z5 if price doesn´t matter.

 

[bullfrog]

I have the Zeiss 4.5-14x44 conquest model and the Swaro 6-18x50 1" scope they no longer make but it is the same line as the 4-12x50. To my eyes the 6-18 Swaro has noticeably better definition and clarity. But my last purchase was the Zeiss because of the money savings and the cool Z800 reticle (although the TDS reticle on my Swaro works very well out to 600). If it was in the budget I would've bought the Swaro.

 

[tCarter]

I have a Conquest on one of my rifles right now and I like it. I used to have a Swaro and LOVED it. To my eye, the Swaro had considerably better clarity and light transmission than the Conquest. It was the older model 1" that they don't make anymore and had very course turrets on it so I sold it to buy a more user friendly LR scope. If I was looking for a short to medium range scope I would spend the extra money in a heartbeat.

 

[Ian B]

I have a Conquest on one of my rifles right now and I like it. I used to have a Swaro and LOVED it. To my eye, the Swaro had considerably better clarity and light transmission than the Conquest. It was the older model 1" that they don't make anymore and had very course turrets on it so I sold it to buy a more user friendly LR scope. If I was looking for a short to medium range scope I would spend the extra money in a heartbeat.

I agree with that.
The glass on the swaro z series has better clarity and light transmission.
But I dont think its a huge difference between the two but enough for me to notice.

 

[MSLRHunter]

I have the older swaro, the PH 3-12X50 with 30mmtube on a hunting rifle and have also shot the zeiss conquest scopes a lot. The swaro, no doubt has the best glass. However, like a previous poster mentioned on another thread a zeiss conquest 6.5-20 for under $800 is a great price for a good scope.

 

[MSLRHunter]

I have the older swaro, the PH 3-12X50 on a hunting rifle and have also shot the zeiss conquest a lot, and to me the swaro has the best glass hands down. The zeiss conquest is a nice scope substantially less than the swaro in cost.

 

[300 ultra]

I have Swarovski A series and a PH and the glass is amazing. I just bought a Zeiss recently and really like it but it isnt Swarovski. Either way you are going to have the best glass out there. OH and I would go with the Z3 I just received a Cabelas flier that has all the Z3 $1000. or cheaper on sale.

 

[WV Sendero]

I think you guys are talking me into the Swarovski. I really like my Zeiss but it sounds like the Swarovski may be worth a try and I always like trying scopes and guns I have never had.

 

[orangeride]

Between my brothers and my dad and myself we have several big rifles in 6.5 rum to 340wby and .338 rum. At first we all had different scopes, leopold vx3 4-14x50, swar av 4-12 and ziess conquest 4-14. All the rifles have brakes. My dad busted the lupie so bad you could hear something lose in the turret. It was one of the older ones ie 1995 and it never really tracted good, but would hold zero good. Leopold customer service was great. Next was the ziess on my .338rum. The optics where great. I would say better than an equal price lupie, but not as good as my dads new swar. Heres my gripe with ziess. It broke two different times, and no I never dropped the rifle or miss treated the scope. It would not hold a zero. Customer service was bad! One time I sent it in, and it took 4 months to get back. And it was the worng scope! I finally broke down and bought a new swar z-6 2.5-15x56. We now have 4 swar scopes and 3 swar binos in the family. Never one problem. We have one that been switched from rifle to rifle tons and has thousands of rounds from big mags and never a problem. When it comes to ziess I think there Euro made stuff is better made, and more like the swar. Just my 2c.