# Zeiss or Swarovski?



## jrg_80 (Aug 13, 2009)

I'm looking at debating between two scope and needed some 2cool input

Zeiss Conquest 4.5x14 50mm 

VS

Swarovski Z3 4x12 50mm

Cabelas is running them with a sale that puts the two close enough in price range not to matter but i was wanting some input on the + and - between the two, or from those of you that have both and which one you feel performs better than the other.

Jason


----------



## nate56 (Dec 11, 2010)

that's easy, The Swarovski, if their the same price that is. I've put mine in some rough stuff, humidity,cold,rain,hot you name it and it's been nothing but awesome..At dusk time is when it really shines, when other scopes you can't see out of, the Swarovski still has plenty of light, and with an extra 10 min of shooting time with it, it does all the world of difference..


----------



## spotsndots (May 20, 2005)

x2 on the Swarovski.


----------



## jrg_80 (Aug 13, 2009)

Does the extra 2x zoom with the Zeiss play a part or make that big of a difference?

Thanks


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

I've told this story several times on 2cool, but here it is again. I have a very good friend who was an elk guide in New Mexico when I lived there. He told a story of him and another guide scouting elk prior to the season. It was very early, and they were both looking at what appeared to be a very nice bull.

The guy with the Zeiss binoculars said it looks like a nice 6 pint.
The guy with the swarovski's said. Nope it's got a kicker, 6X7 and it'll score about 335.

I know you asked about scopes, and this story is about binos, but same companies, same glass, same coatings.

SWAROVSKI'S ALL THE WAY

THE JAMMER


----------



## Power Pole (Jul 13, 2010)

don't even debate it. Swarovski all tha way


----------



## nate56 (Dec 11, 2010)

jrg_80 said:


> Does the extra 2x zoom with the Zeiss play a part or make that big of a difference?
> 
> Thanks


It may but quality of that 2x is the real question...The only crappy thing is when you look in most scopes at the store you don't get a real good feed on them.Yeah that all look clear across the other side of the store, but see if you can take it outside when its dark and then see the real difference for yourself. look at street signs or light poles 1000 yds off then see for yourself..


----------



## thardie1972 (Dec 6, 2010)

*z3*

the z3 for sure. had a buddy out hunting with me and his son. we were loading the truck and my buddy jimmy was looking at the rifle i brought with me and his son, who was 18 at the time asked to look at it. well after jimmy handed him the rifle, he looked thru the scope and then dropped it. he was standing in the back of the truck. ( i almost cried) the rifle is a weatherby accumark short action mag,in 30-06. stainless fluted barrel with a custom muzzle break, and a sweet aftermarket stock.did i mention the scope is a swarovski z5?? when it hit the concrete it left marks in the bell and after it would not site back in. i sent the scope to swarovski with a note about what happened, and 9 days later i got a brand new scope with a note that said no charge for the replacement. stand up company, and the make the best optics in the world..


----------



## bobbyoshay (Nov 29, 2008)

Swarovski hands down....


----------



## jfox (Feb 16, 2006)

Swarvo! The 2.5 X 10 X 56 will hunt what any bino can find. Sell the wifes' ring and upgrade. Took care of my wife problem too.

Swarvo; No Questiono!


----------



## hillbilly deluxe (Jun 7, 2007)

Swarovski


----------



## Wolf6151 (Jun 13, 2005)

Both are excellent scopes and don't think you'd be disappointed in either. I've never owned either scope but I use Swarovski binoculars and love them. I've had them for approx. 20 yrs. and they're great.


----------



## Evdog (Mar 11, 2005)

I put a Z3 4x12-50 with the BRX reticle on a Browning X-Bolt .300 Win Mag. All I can say is that this scope rocks. Low light, no problem. Long range, no problem. Clarity, excellent. Eye relief, excellent. They are not cheap scopes by any sense...but they do exactly what you want them to do and they do it with perfection. Once sighted in, you can go to Swavroski's website and download your ranges on the reticle for specific animals. Needless to say, I couldnt be happier with my selection.


----------



## jrg_80 (Aug 13, 2009)

Evdog said:


> I put a Z3 4x12-50 with the BRX reticle on a Browning X-Bolt .300 Win Mag. All I can say is that this scope rocks. Low light, no problem. Long range, no problem. Clarity, excellent. Eye relief, excellent. They are not cheap scopes by any sense...but they do exactly what you want them to do and they do it with perfection. Once sighted in, you can go to Swavroski's website and download your ranges on the reticle for specific animals. Needless to say, I couldnt be happier with my selection.


The BRX adds another $100 bucks to the equation, is it worth it vs the Plex reticle?

Thanks for all the info guys
Jason


----------



## Grande Venado (Aug 11, 2005)

Swarovski


----------



## elkhunter49 (Jun 7, 2004)

I replaced my Zeiss Conquest with a Swarovski and I'm very pleased with the change. Buy the best glass you can afford and you'll never regret it. 
I believe that unlike many things you *DO get what you pay for in optics.*
There is nothing in the world wrong with a 400$ scope but it's just not as
clear as a top end scope when the sun gets low. People like to argue this
with cheaper optics but I've compaired them side to side in the field and MY eyes don't lie. Later Baker


----------



## mywifeshusband (Nov 19, 2006)

I have the Conquest on my rifle and it does a hellva job that said if was to do it again I would go with a Z3. Beau


----------



## BF (Jun 7, 2007)

have both brands on my rifles---Swarovski is the better of the 2----when it comes to low light conditions is when Swarovski stands out


----------



## BigPig069 (May 20, 2006)

Swarovski!!!!!!, ENUF Said!!!!!


----------



## Buck Tag (Dec 19, 2010)

I have the Zeiss Conquest 4.5x14 50mm and I have no issues... Love the scope!

I've never looked through a Swarovski, but from what I read and hear they're top notch.


----------



## stickem (Oct 30, 2009)

Swarovski !!!!!!


----------



## steverino (Mar 8, 2006)

*Swarov vs. Zeiss*

I do not have a Swarov scope, yet, but do have a pair of their binoculars. I have a lot of Leupold, a Nikon Monarch, two Mueller Eraticators and a couple of Zeiss scopes. The Swarov binos are only 8X but are extremely clear and bright, now. They laid around for years and when I found them and tried to use them they were cloudy on the inside. Sent them to Swarov USA and they refurbed them and sent them back free of charge! Now that's service, and product endorsement!!!


----------



## fishit (Jul 12, 2007)

i don't think you will be dissappointed with either. it would come down to features. hard to beat having parallax adjustment - so i would opt for the zeiss.


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

Are we seeing a trend toward Swarovski here????

THE JAMMER


----------



## h-meier (Jun 22, 2010)

Go with Swarovski, and look into the ballistic turret. I have a Z5 w/ a ballistic turret and I am very pleased.

Good luck.


----------



## THE JAMMER (Aug 1, 2005)

Zeiss vs. Swarovski

It's kinda like what I say about Air Force pilots. " I have a lot of respect for Air Force pilots- probably the 2nd best pilots in the world."

THE JAMMER


----------



## Cool Hand (Mar 24, 2010)

Swarovski, i don't own one,but have looked through one a few times and it's up there with my Schmidt and Bender anyday.


----------



## fishit (Jul 12, 2007)

forgot to add that cameralandny had some demo zeiss at a good price


----------



## Evdog (Mar 11, 2005)

jrg_80 said:


> The BRX adds another $100 bucks to the equation, is it worth it vs the Plex reticle?
> 
> Thanks for all the info guys
> Jason


I like it as a added feature. Makes it a little quicker than Mil Dot to judge target size and distance. Guess it depends on what you are use to. I like the BRX over the Plex personally and would do it again in a heartbeat.


----------



## zrexpilot (Jun 14, 2007)

neither, go nightforce


----------



## Chunky (Oct 15, 2006)

I love my Swaros


----------



## Cool Hand (Mar 24, 2010)

zrexpilot said:


> neither, go nightforce


Exactly!


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

I just made a purchase of a Zeiss at Carters. I went in with a budget and feeling like I wanted a Leupold. And the Zeiss and LP were so close in price that I decided to pay the extra 2 bills and keep up with the high end optics. ..... BUT I held the Zeiss and the Sorv. with near matching specs side by side.

There were some lower end Sorv. that Carters did not carry, and I was told not all the optics from the same mfgs. are the same.

Compa,ring apples to apples, you pay much more for the Sorv. than the Zeiss .... and it was a good jump.

I own a Sorv. on my 22-250 and it is great in low light no dought ..... and I have not yet gotten the new Zeiss in a stand to give you an honest opinion .... I have yet to sight it in

I just want you to know I had not seen a dollars to dollars match of even Zeiss and Sorv yet.........


----------



## 22century (Aug 30, 2005)

Had a guy at the lease this year with a swaro on his weatherby accumark. It was an older swaro. i have a zeiss on my gun and hands down my zeiss was far clearer than his swaro. I know his is older, but no way i would trade him.


----------



## great white fisherman (Jun 24, 2008)

Leapold 4.5-14X50 VX-3. Shoot pigs in the dark!


----------



## ATE_UP_FISHERMAN (Jun 25, 2004)

Between the two Swarovski hands down....

Not to highjack but have you seen Leica scopes. For a smaller, lighter scope it has a brighter, clearer FOV. 
http://en.leica-camera.com/sport_optics/rifle_scopes/ER_3.5-14x42/


----------

