Zeiss Conquest 40mm vs 50mm

[de novo]

I was planning on getting a Conquest 3.5-10x 50mm scope before next season. However, I've found the 3-9x40 on sale for $399. The scope will be going on a Browning A bolt .30/06. I mainly hunt deep woods with most shots under 100 yards. Rarely a shot up to 200 yards. Do the bigger scopes justify the increase in price? Thanks.

3-9x40 - $399
3.5-10x44 - $699
3.5-10x50 - $749

 

[Hatchee]

I've got one Conquest 3-9x40. Where could I find one for $399? Wouldn't mind having another.
That 3.5-10x50mm is a whole bunch of scope to be toting around for woods hunting. I use the 3-9 for woods hunting and love it. Great in the low light. Plenty scope for 200 yards like your talking about.

 

[TheLBLman]

If most of your shots are under 100 yards, I'd definately go with the 40mm objective.

 

[pass-thru]

3-9x40 for sure.

 

[B&C chaser]

Cabela's has them now for $ 399, 3 x 9 x 40 that is. If all of my shots were fairly close range as you stated and for the price difference I would have to go with the 3 x 9 x 40.

 

[Model70Man]

$399 is the new retail price for the 3-9x40 Conquest matte #20 reticle for 2010.

IMO, there really is not a significant difference between 9x and 10x to justify a $300 price increase for the same quality glass. Heck, you can almost buy two 3-9x40's for the price of one 3.5-10x50.

 

[pass-thru]

$399 is the new retail price for the 3-9x40 Conquest matte #20 reticle for 2010.

New retail for Cabelas or everyone? ....they're still $499 at SWFA.

 

[Model70Man]

Should be $399 for everyone. Of course there are going to be some places that will charge more, but for the majority of retailers, it should be $399. SWFA will match the price. They are generally higher than everyone else.

 

[mr.big]

I have the 3-9x40 ,,hunted with it in Ky from daylight to dark 10 days in a row and never wanted for anything

 

[redblood]

The objective size has nothing to do with distance. The variable power range does, but not the objective. I would go with the 40 if they were the same price. The 50's are too heavy and bulky.

 

[TheLBLman]

The objective size has nothing to do with distance.

Correct, but if you go above 9x, that 44mm objective will be a little "brighter" in low light. At 9x or less magnification, there is no significant advantage to an objective larger than 40mm, and IMO, a larger objective is just in the way when it's not needed.

The 50's are too heavy and bulky.

I agree, for most of my hunting.
That's why I went with the 44mm on my most recent 3x12 purchase.
But above 12x magnification, the 50mm will have a lot more light gathering ability in low light (yet still not needed if you dial the magnification down).

I sure wish Leupold would offer something in between the 40mm and the 50mm.

 

[megalomaniac]

a 40mm will give you an exit pupil of 4.5 or so on 9x

a 50mm will give you an exit pupil of 5 at 10x.

But where it really comes into play is the maximum power you be able to use the scope in really low light.

The maximum your own pupil can dilate is 7mm, so a 7mm exit pupil will allow the maximum amount of light through the scope for your eyes to use in really low light.

the 3-9x40 will give you an exit pupil of 7mm at 5.7 power
the 3.5-10x50 will give you an exit pupil of 7mm at 7.1 power.

is that enough of a difference to justify another $300? Probably not, but there IS a difference.

 

[TheLBLman]

I may be wrong, but I believe the maximum exit pupil most human eyes can utilize is around 5.0.

a 40mm will give you an exit pupil of 4.5 or so on 9x

a 50mm will give you an exit pupil of 5 at 10x.

This may vary between lens quality and scope make.

For example:

The Burris Fullfield II 2x7 with 35mm objective provides an exit pupil of 5.0 when on 7x.
(This is why Burris saw little need to manufacture the objective any larger than 35mm on their 2-7x model.)
The Burris Fullfield II 3x9 with 40mm objective provides an exit pupil of 5.0 when on 9x.

However, the Burris Fullfield II 4.5-14x with its 42mm objective provides an exit pupil of only 3.0 on 14x, clearing indicating a disadvantage in low-light if set on 14x. But if you were hunting with this scope, you could simply reduce your magnification down to 9x and have an exit pupil above 5.0.

 

[redblood]

Good point. For me the biggest deterent of the 50 mm is having to go to high rings. Not only does it affect the look of the rifle, it also seperates the line of bore from the line of sight. This creates 2 more problems. Seperation of LOB from LOS negatively impacts accuracy. It also detriments head position on the stock, depending on the comb. Plus, to me, 50 mm are butt ugly. I prefer light, slim rifles wrapped in nice walnut and do not want the focal point to be on a big gaudy looking scope. Not a browning man because of their rough actions, but they make some nice looking walnut guns- a bolt medallion for example. If it was a black plastic job, it wouldn't matter as much to me, but I wouldn't want the big objective for all the other reasons then. Weight, height, cost.

 

[Tiny]

The objective size has nothing to do with distance. The variable power range does, but not the objective. I would go with the 40 if they were the same price. The 50's are too heavy and bulky.

Yep and have to be mounted in higher rings unless its Leupold VXL

 

[Kimberman]

40 mm all the way, I cant stand putting a bowling pin on a rifle.

 

[redblood]

40 mm all the way, I cant stand putting a bowling pin on a rifle.

I am with ya kimberman. Seems it is a trend around here for people to buy a cheap rifle with a plastic Stock and put the the hubble telescope on it. Know a guy that bought a small plastic stock handi rifle and put a 50MM +. Scope on it that was almost as long as the barrel. But hey, to each his own I guess.

 

[redblood]

That vx L is a good idea, but man is it ugly and heavy.

 

[TheLBLman]

That vx L is a good idea, but man is it ugly and heavy.

Not to mention, over-priced.

 

[redblood]

Roger that. Have u seen the price on the vx 7's?

 

[TheLBLman]

I'd be afraid to look!

Seriously, I don't NEED anything better than a VX-III.
But I'd take that 7 if they'd give it to me. :)

 

[JeepKuntry]

BPS has them for $499. And they wouldn't price match Cabelas because it wasn't within 50 miles. I ended up buying a Leupold, to me it was more in line of what I was looking for but the Zeiss was a great scope. I ordered my scope online and returned the 200 dollars in items that I was going to buy from BPS. Bought them at Gander and I doubt I'll ever go to BPS again because I was told the night before that BPS would match Cabelas!

 

[Tiny]

That vx L is a good idea, but man is it ugly and heavy.

Not to mention, over-priced.

There ain't much that ain't over priced today whih is the main reason I haven't gave one of them a try ,and I don't need no 50mm yet. BTW They have one model thats has a 56mm OBJ

 

[TheLBLman]

BTW They have one model thats has a 56mm OBJ

There's no question that an objective larger than 40mm is a significant optical advantage on higher magnfications (like 12x and higher).

But do most hunters in most circumstances need magnification above 9x, and can it not sometimes be as much disadvantage as advantage overall?

I know if all my shooting were at 500-plus yards, that 16-lb rifle with the 8-32x magnification would be an advantage for that circumstance, but a huge disadvantage for the other 99% of my deer hunting.

 

[redblood]

So true wes. We all know guys that hunt in thick cutovers shooting 70 yards or less and carry a 300 mag with a 26 inch tube and a 24 oz 50 mm scope because they can see a patch of ground on a distant hillsides.