I've got a .223 bolt gun in the works that will be generally shot at 1-300 yd (once in a blue moon I might stretch it out to 600) and its time to pick an optic. I don't hunt and will only be punching paper with this one. I've got 2 Nikons and like them both. Right now I'm trying to decide between a 6-24x50 Nikon Monarch ($509 at SWFA) and a factory refurb 6.5-20x50 Zeiss Conquest ($699 on the SWFA sample list, $1,029 reg price). There's only one place within 2 hrs that carries higher power scopes like these and looking through them inside a small building just doesn't show me anything. I'm hoping to get some opinions on the optical quality of each from people who have experience either of these scopes. Is the Zeiss worth the extra $190 (or double the price if bought new) over the Monarch? If I looked through both at the same time would the Zeiss be a “yea, that looks better,” or a “wow that looks a lot better?” I don't mind spending the extra money if I get something for it, but if the Nikon will be 95% of the Zeiss I would rather spend the difference on good quality ammo.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 vs Nikon Monarch 6-24x50
- Thread starter rcmigpilot
- Start date
Re: Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 vs Nikon Monarch 6-24x50
REmember it isn't the power it's the clarity. Zeiss, even a refurb, is going to give you that much better than the Nikon Monarch. That said, the Nikon is no slouch.
Having pounded steel with a bunch of them out to 1k and beyond I will tell you I've never been shortchanged by my Nikon Monarchs. I will just say that I've always had a 'slightly' clearer view when looking through something that uses Schott glass.
And FWIW, I've paid upwards of 2k for scopes and the best one I have ever had is a $1500 dollar scope. Sometimes we get too caught up in magnification and not 'clarity'.
REmember it isn't the power it's the clarity. Zeiss, even a refurb, is going to give you that much better than the Nikon Monarch. That said, the Nikon is no slouch.
Having pounded steel with a bunch of them out to 1k and beyond I will tell you I've never been shortchanged by my Nikon Monarchs. I will just say that I've always had a 'slightly' clearer view when looking through something that uses Schott glass.
And FWIW, I've paid upwards of 2k for scopes and the best one I have ever had is a $1500 dollar scope. Sometimes we get too caught up in magnification and not 'clarity'.
Re: Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 vs Nikon Monarch 6-24x50
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rcmigpilot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've got a .223 bolt gun in the works that will be generally shot at 1-300 yd (once in a blue moon I might stretch it out to 600) and its time to pick an optic. I don't hunt and will only be punching paper with this one. I've got 2 Nikons and like them both. Right now I'm trying to decide between a 6-24x50 Nikon Monarch ($509 at SWFA) and a factory refurb 6.5-20x50 Zeiss Conquest ($699 on the SWFA sample list, $1,029 reg price). There's only one place within 2 hrs that carries higher power scopes like these and looking through them inside a small building just doesn't show me anything. I'm hoping to get some opinions on the optical quality of each from people who have experience either of these scopes. Is the Zeiss worth the extra $190 (or double the price if bought new) over the Monarch? If I looked through both at the same time would the Zeiss be a “yea, that looks better,” or a “wow that looks a lot better?” I don't mind spending the extra money if I get something for it, but if the Nikon will be 95% of the Zeiss I would rather spend the difference on good quality ammo. </div></div>
Couple thoughts...
Yes, the conquest is worth paying significantly more for than the monarch. If it has the reticle and all the features <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">you</span></span> want and need, I would forgo the monarch even with the money that would go toward ammo. With that said, they're a lot of really good alternatives used around $700 if the conquest doesn't have everything you need.
The regular monarch line can be a good value, but in my opinion gets cloudy at high magnifications, rendering the top end not as useful. I believe the conquest will be much more useful at 20x than the monarch at 24x.
A few things I would consider either used or new in your price range... (A few different mag ranges)
Bushnell Elite Tactical- 2.5-16, 6-24, 4.5-30 (open box)
Burris Mtac Line 4.5-14, 6.5-20 (new, used)
Vortex Viper, HS (new) (PST Sfp if used) 4-16, 6-24
Trijicon Accupoint 5-20 (used can be found around 700-750) 'big step up'
Leupold vx3 - 4.5-14, 6.5-20 (maybe new, used)
If you've already gone through the gamut then disregard.
Good luck with your search-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rcmigpilot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've got a .223 bolt gun in the works that will be generally shot at 1-300 yd (once in a blue moon I might stretch it out to 600) and its time to pick an optic. I don't hunt and will only be punching paper with this one. I've got 2 Nikons and like them both. Right now I'm trying to decide between a 6-24x50 Nikon Monarch ($509 at SWFA) and a factory refurb 6.5-20x50 Zeiss Conquest ($699 on the SWFA sample list, $1,029 reg price). There's only one place within 2 hrs that carries higher power scopes like these and looking through them inside a small building just doesn't show me anything. I'm hoping to get some opinions on the optical quality of each from people who have experience either of these scopes. Is the Zeiss worth the extra $190 (or double the price if bought new) over the Monarch? If I looked through both at the same time would the Zeiss be a “yea, that looks better,” or a “wow that looks a lot better?” I don't mind spending the extra money if I get something for it, but if the Nikon will be 95% of the Zeiss I would rather spend the difference on good quality ammo. </div></div>
Couple thoughts...
Yes, the conquest is worth paying significantly more for than the monarch. If it has the reticle and all the features <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">you</span></span> want and need, I would forgo the monarch even with the money that would go toward ammo. With that said, they're a lot of really good alternatives used around $700 if the conquest doesn't have everything you need.
The regular monarch line can be a good value, but in my opinion gets cloudy at high magnifications, rendering the top end not as useful. I believe the conquest will be much more useful at 20x than the monarch at 24x.
A few things I would consider either used or new in your price range... (A few different mag ranges)
Bushnell Elite Tactical- 2.5-16, 6-24, 4.5-30 (open box)
Burris Mtac Line 4.5-14, 6.5-20 (new, used)
Vortex Viper, HS (new) (PST Sfp if used) 4-16, 6-24
Trijicon Accupoint 5-20 (used can be found around 700-750) 'big step up'
Leupold vx3 - 4.5-14, 6.5-20 (maybe new, used)
If you've already gone through the gamut then disregard.
Good luck with your search-
Re: Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 vs Nikon Monarch 6-24x50
i run both the zeiss and monarch scopes---two zeiss 6-20 and three monarchs of various powers including the 6-24.
All have done me well but the nikon is NOT 95% of the zeiss. IMHO there really is no comparing the glass. The Zeiss is a full step or tier or whatever you want to call it in terms of glass quaity. I also like their target turrets better than the monarchs.....If I could, I would replace all of my monarchs with the zeiss scopes.
Having said that, my monarchs do fine work on my hunting rifles. And, for me, I like target turrets and mil dots and when you start adding those to the zeiss the price goes up.
i run both the zeiss and monarch scopes---two zeiss 6-20 and three monarchs of various powers including the 6-24.
All have done me well but the nikon is NOT 95% of the zeiss. IMHO there really is no comparing the glass. The Zeiss is a full step or tier or whatever you want to call it in terms of glass quaity. I also like their target turrets better than the monarchs.....If I could, I would replace all of my monarchs with the zeiss scopes.
Having said that, my monarchs do fine work on my hunting rifles. And, for me, I like target turrets and mil dots and when you start adding those to the zeiss the price goes up.
Re: Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 vs Nikon Monarch 6-24x50
i dont have any Monarch (1" tube) but i have 02 Monarch X. They are super for the $. They are very bright and clear. Nikon get serious with the Monarch X. A little more $.
Bushnell Elite Tactical is useless above 20x power.
Viper HS is good (will sure pick it over reg Monarch).
Conquest looks so...skinny
I have Zeiss spotter, Zeiss binos(used to), even Zeiss lenses for Nikon DSLR...Zeiss glass is best!
Or...just go for Leupold Mark4. Just cant go wrong with Leupold. 01 of mine got dust inside, i sent it back ($15 shipping) and have it 100% checked, cleaned in a week.
. I bought 02 Mark4 6.5-20x50 LNIB, not even a ring mark, for only $850 each. 01 even came with rings
.
i dont have any Monarch (1" tube) but i have 02 Monarch X. They are super for the $. They are very bright and clear. Nikon get serious with the Monarch X. A little more $.
Bushnell Elite Tactical is useless above 20x power.
Viper HS is good (will sure pick it over reg Monarch).
Conquest looks so...skinny
I have Zeiss spotter, Zeiss binos(used to), even Zeiss lenses for Nikon DSLR...Zeiss glass is best!
Or...just go for Leupold Mark4. Just cant go wrong with Leupold. 01 of mine got dust inside, i sent it back ($15 shipping) and have it 100% checked, cleaned in a week.
