Are they worth the money. I need some good optics on my .204 ruger for predator hunting up to 450 yards and low light and or foggy weather conditions ? Im thinking about the conquest 3-9×40 suggested retail is $499.00
“Worth” is a very loaded word because it involves worth what and to whom? You’re also asking a lot of only 9 power IMO. 450 shots with a .204 in low light and fog? Your eyes must be both younger and better than mine. I find it hard enough to take a 400+ yard poke on a clear day with 16 or 20 power.
Zeiss are unquestionably great optics. The clarity is tremendous and the build quality of Zeiss is of a very high standard.
You point to a catch phrase in optics that begs me to bring up an important point. When you say “low light” you have to understand that there is no such thing and the mythical “light gathering ability”. This is 100% pure, unfiltered bullsh!t.
Light waves cannot be “gathered”. All optics only let available light pass through them. Higher quality optics let more of the light that is available pass through to your eye. Therefore, NO conventional optics will make a given scene BRIGHTER than it appears to your naked eye. They only can make it brighter relative to lower quality optics that do not transmit as much light.
Therefore, if you look at a deer through cheap binoculars, and then look at them through an expensive rifle scope, the scope will appear brighter. But not because it’s “gathering” more light. Only because it is transmitting more of the available light to your eye.
At the upper end of the market, it’s difficult to point to a clear (no pun intended) winner. Is a Zeiss better and worth more than a Leupold? Only you can decide.
At this end of the market, I would suggest you compare a couple of other brand’s offerings in a similar price bracket before you decide. My suggestion would be to look at Minox and Leopold as well as Zeiss.
Among these 3 brands, I don’t see a “bad” choice. In the interest of full disclosure, I only own Leopold and Minox, I do not own a Zeiss. I’ve looked through them numerous times with lust in my heart, but IMO they do not surpass the Schott glass used by Minox in terms of overall optical quality.
Grouse
Quote:
You point to a catch phrase in optics that begs me to bring up an important point. When you say “low light” you have to understand that there is no such thing and the mythical “light gathering ability”. This is 100% pure, unfiltered bullsh!t.
Light waves cannot be “gathered”. All optics only let available light pass through them. Higher quality optics let more of the light that is available pass through to your eye. Therefore, NO conventional optics will make a given scene BRIGHTER than it appears to your naked eye. They only can make it brighter relative to lower quality optics that do not transmit as much light.
Grouse,
I know absolutley nothing about optics, but on a snow goose hunt up in Canada a few years back, were scouting one evening and it was low light. We pulled up to a slough (we knew it was there from the map) to look over and it was dark enough that we couldn’t see any birds out there. They were there, because we could hear them. We took out a pair of fairly expensive bino’s and could see them plain as day. Wouldn’t this be considered light gathering?
Quote:
Grouse,
. . . It was dark enough that we couldn’t see any birds out there. They were there, because we could hear them. We took out a pair of fairly expensive bino’s and could see them plain as day. Wouldn’t this be considered light gathering?
The short answer is “no”.
You were simply benefiting from the combined effects of magnification and the optics ability to transmit a large amount of the light that was actually available.
“Gathering” has the implication that the optics can somehow combine or multiply the available light into a greater mass or volume and therefore make a scene appear brighter. The laws of physics make this impossible with conventional optics. By “conventional” I mean passive optics, we’re outside the realm of IR or night vision here.
And this is the reason why it’s sooooooo hard to beat the system when it comes to optics. You can’t make good glass cheap and you cannot make good optics without good glass. I’ve been told by a fairly reliable source who works as an engineering consultant for a major optics firm in Austria, that the optics along for a device like high-end microscope or telecscope can be as much as 70% of the overall cost of manufacture. Compare that to most goods where the cost of the parts are a tiny fraction of the shelf price.
There are a tiny handful of rifle scopes that I believe punch above their weight in terms of performance per unit cost, but overall I don’t think there is a way to beat the system on the high end. Stellar performance comes at a astronmical price.
If you’re used to cheap binoculars, then I would agree the difference between cheap and higher end can be absolutely stunning. When I convinced my father to switch from el cheap bincos to a high-end pair of Leupolds, he was at first reluctant because of the price. After using his new Leupolds for a week of hunting on the western plains, he returned home and literally rounded up and threw all 3 of his older pairs of binoculars in the garbage.
I only knew this because I had made the same mistake in years past when I bought several pairs of $100-200 binocs. Then I tired a pair of high end Stieners…
It’s the same with rifle scopes. I freely admit that I do use low end scopes as well. On guns that I’m testing or on guns that I know will be subject to abuse and extremes, I use low end scopes and there’s nothing wrong with them because I know their limitiations. But when I’m not willing to put up with limitations…
Grouse
I see your from oronoco. Ive got a nikon monarch 6-12×50 and a vortex 4-16x30mm if you wanna meet up and take a look to see the difference glass makes.
The monarch is a 500 dollar scope and the vortex is around 900
The vortex will blow away any nikon,leupold zeis in that price range and more.
Vortex scopes are the best bang for you buck as far as im concerned. Yes they are more the what most people put on a gun but your basically get a 2000 dollar scope.
I will sell you that monarch if you want so i can purchase a new vortex.
If your expectations are to have near 100% light transmission, no distortion, and the best of construction practices, yes, they are worth the money.
I use the Burris XTR line for guiding predator hunts. Not cheap by any means, but for me, they are worth their weight in gold. When you get in that $800 and up range the glass quality of Zeiss, Burris, Vortex are all very good. You’ll find that the differences come from the construction methods, nitrogen used, and sealing.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
