Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Ziess Conquest vs. Burris Fullfield II |
Post Reply |
Author | ||
M7025-06
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/21/2010 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 271 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: December/01/2011 at 18:55 |
|
I've got a Burris Fullfield II (3-9x40) on my 280 and was thinking about upgrading to a Conquest. My main reason is hunting in low-light conditions. I've heard the Fullfield is pretty good in low-light, but I was wondering from someone that has used both, is the Conquest is that much better?
Thanks in advance. |
||
3_tens
Optics Jedi Master Joined: January/08/2007 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 7853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
YES!!! The 3-9 FFII fades some towards the edges where the Zeiss conquest doesn't. You will be amazed at the difference this alone makes in low light. The Zeiss has etched reticle. It looks pure black, an is much more pronounced than the Burris in low light. If you go with the #4 reticle on the Zeiss it is very bold and can be seen with almost no light entering the scope. It is easy for me to say that the Conquest is the best bang for the buck for a hunting scope.
|
||
Folks ain't got a sense of humor no more. They don't laugh they just get sore.
Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow Now the rules have changed again. |
||
M7025-06
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/21/2010 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 271 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks for the info.
How much of a difference does a 50mm objective make over a 40-44mm? Is it enough to spend the extra $200? |
||
tedster
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/21/2011 Location: Muskegon,MI. Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
a 50mm will give yo 5 to 15 minutes extra light over the 40mm i had it proved to me
|
||
Gen.27:3
|
||
3_tens
Optics Jedi Master Joined: January/08/2007 Location: Oklahoma Status: Offline Points: 7853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I have both and there is a visable difference. Whether you can get any more legal time would take a dark day. Normaly the 40 will get me 30 min past sunset. Be sure to get the bolder reticle if low light is your concern. I have a Rapid Z 600 that is a very thin reticle. It is not very sutiable for low light conditions.
Edited by 3_tens - December/02/2011 at 15:57 |
||
Folks ain't got a sense of humor no more. They don't laugh they just get sore.
Need to follow the rules. Just hard to determine which set of rules to follow Now the rules have changed again. |
||
lumberjack149
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/04/2009 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 110 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
M7025-06
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/21/2010 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 271 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks for all of the replies.
I was ready to buy a Conquest until I talked to a guy I work with. He had a practically new 4200 3-9x40 he wanted to get rid of for a really good price, so I snagged it. I know the bushnell and burris are pretty close to same but I really like the bushnell I already have so that's the route I went. I'll get a Conquest one of these days. |
||
tedster
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/21/2011 Location: Muskegon,MI. Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
i had my 50mm and my cousin had the same scope in a 40mm i could see an easy 15minutes more then him my boss talked me into buying the 50mm for the extra light gathering i am a believer in the bigger objective now after seeing with my own eyes
|
||
Gen.27:3
|
||
Sparky
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: July/15/2007 Location: SD Status: Offline Points: 4568 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I think the Bushnell 4200 is several steps above the Burris you have and not close to each other.. And the Bushnell 4200 is probably much closer to the Conquest. |
||
Sparky
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: July/15/2007 Location: SD Status: Offline Points: 4568 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
At what magnification? |
||
tedster
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/21/2011 Location: Muskegon,MI. Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
they were at the lowest setting
|
||
Gen.27:3
|
||
31 bertram
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/15/2011 Location: Gulf Shores, Al Status: Offline Points: 57 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Have a 3x9x40 standard plex in the FF II and a Conquest and I really don't think the Conquest is any brighter, there is a slight better resolution in the Conquest at dark. and not much difference in the reticle in fading light. I actually like the Burris reticle better for my aging eyes. The Conquest sold and the Burris stayed. I know the Conquest is a great scope and a 3x9x40 Conquest is alot of scope for the $$$$. You can't go wrong with any 3 that you mentioned. I have just become attached to my FF II. Your milage may vary.
|
||
31 bertram
|
||
EAGLE
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/08/2011 Status: Offline Points: 346 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
3-9x40 4200 glass is on par with 3-9x40 conquest in the same lighting condition (clarity wise) the reticles stand out about the same.
The Raingaurd on the 4200 is advantage, if you hunt in rain, etc and it also feels more solid to me. However, I like the finger turrets on the conquest much better (dialing), user friendly and easier to grab. I also like the eye box better on the conquest. The glass on the Burris is more equal to the 3200, but the reticle is slightly thicker and stands out in low light better. They all have their advantages and disadvances and if you want more, than you will pay more. I'm a hunter and have a family too, and need the best features for my hunting conditions that won't break the bank. In short, depends what features you are wanting and willing to pay for. Eagle Edited by EAGLE - December/04/2011 at 07:40 |
||
M7025-06
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/21/2010 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 271 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I was fairly happy with my FFII. I really liked the ballistic reticle...nice and simple. The one thing that bugged me about the scope was the entire eye-piece moved when you adjusted the power. I'll definitely keep it and probably put it on my muzzleloader. |
||
Stevey Ducks
Optics Apprentice Joined: December/03/2011 Status: Offline Points: 266 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I have both - 2 3-9X40 Zeiss Conquests and a Burris FF II.
I paid $350 each for the Zeiss Conquests (used sample list) and $200 for the Burris that came with a 8X32 binocular. I guess a new Zeiss 3-9X40 costs about $400 and a new B FFII 3-9X40 costs about $180.00. I keep the binocular in my car to look at things when traveling. As expected for the price the Conquest is much better - optically & mechanically. When shooting this PM near dusk at a temp of 21 degrees I could see what I was aiming at with the Burris but the Zeiss easily beat the Burris, especially the Zeiss reticle which had much more contrast than the Burris. Making elevation and windage adjustments with the Burris was difficult as the cold made the knobs difficult to turn and feeling or hearing the 1/4 min clicks was impossible. The Burris ballistic plex reticle worked - with a 250 yd zero, 3 inches high at 100, using the 2 aiming point under the cross hair I was able to make hits at 400 yds with a 150 gr H SST from a .308 Win. Good thing it did work because I had no confidence in making a quick elevation change at 21 deg. as the elevation knob would not easily turn with fingers and the slot ontop of the knob needed a coin and that was not so easy to do. The Burris does have relatively good optics for a scope under $200 but I think the Zeiss at over 2X more would provide more relability and satisfaction.
|
||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |