Burris Euro Diamond vs. Zeiss Conquest

Servo77 · March 26, 2011, 01:35 PM

I am thinking of upgrading the current scope (Fullfield II) on my Icon to something more "respectable"

. I am looking at the Zeiss conquest 3-9x40 or the Burris euro diamond (closeout) 3-10x40. I have several fullfield II's and generally like Burris and with the closeouts I can get the euro diamond for the same $$$ as the Zeiss. The burris has a 30mm tube (Zeiss 1") and weights about 1 oz more.

Which would you recommend and why? Unfortunately no one in the area stocks these types of scopes so I cannot go look at them in person.

silvrjeepr · March 26, 2011, 02:52 PM

The last zeiss that I used spoiled me. It was so clear that I now continually wipe the lenses of my Simmons and Leupold vxII scopes. I highly recommend the Zeiss.

woodguru · March 26, 2011, 05:21 PM

All Zeiss scopes are not equal, the conquests aren't that much different than a Leupold or Nikon Monarch, IMO the Black Diamond is a better scope. You have to get the higher end Zeiss to get a difference and that will cost you a grand more. Look at the high end Vortex and they are way better than the Conquests.

big al hunter · March 26, 2011, 06:59 PM

Burris all the way. I have them on some of my guns and love them as I am sure you do. The biggest reason I have for the burris is the tube diameter. The 30 mm will let more light pass through it giving you a brighter image in low light hunting situations. Hurry before it sells out!

mapsjanhere · March 26, 2011, 07:02 PM

Tube diameter has NOTHING to do with the amount of light passing through a scope, it's strictly a function of objective diameter.
That said, I own both Zeiss Conquest and Diavary etc., and I agree, the "stunning" optical quality of the Diavary is lost with the Conquest series. High grade scopes, but comparable to high grade Leupold etc.

Wildalaska · March 26, 2011, 09:26 PM

Burris should not even be mentioned in the same sentence with Zeiss

WildlongtimeburrisphobeAlaska ™©2002-2011

Fusion · March 26, 2011, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Tube diameter has NOTHING to do with the amount of light passing through a scope

I was going to tell him this also after seeing the post claiming it did, but I see someone already beat me to it. Tube diameter doesn't make any difference in light transmission.

big al hunter · March 26, 2011, 10:24 PM

PLEASE explain to me how a smaller tube diameter will let the SAME amount of light through it. Physics tells us that more of anything will travel through a larger pipe. The same holds true with light. The objective diameter will control the amount of light entering a scope tube but the diameter of the tube can only allow so much light to pass. In fact there is no reason to have a 1 inch tube and a 50 mm objective as the amount of light that will pass through the tube will only be equivelent to that from a 42mm objective. In order to get any more light transmission you MUST have a 30mm tube for a 50mm objective. Glass coatings are the only other way to control the amount of light that will be efficiently passed through a scope tube.

jmr40 · March 27, 2011, 08:05 AM

The Zeiss Conquest is not as good as the Divari line, but still a lot better than the Burris.

I honestly don't know how much a 30mm tube effects light compared to a 1" tube. I'd like to see some documentation to prove this one way or another however.

Servo77 · March 27, 2011, 09:32 AM

How durable is the Conquest? I have always enjoyed my Burris scopes because I have experience banging them around with no loss of zero.

Fullboar · March 27, 2011, 10:57 AM

Go the Zeiss Conquest,
IMHO the best value scope on the market without spending at least a $1000.
The difference in size (around 5mm) of the tube wont mean that it will be anymore brighter between the 1" and 30mm. For those that say it does cut a 12" long piece of pvc pipe in 1" and 30mm and look through it, see no difference. Quality of the glass as well as what it is coated with has more to do with it. Besides whats better a 1" tubed scope with great glass or a 30mm tubed scope with crap glass?

big al hunter · March 27, 2011, 01:29 PM

I believe if we are going to compare scope brands fairly both scopes should be from the same market range ie; low end, mid grade, top notch for each brand. I have heard many good things about bushnell elite and other high end bushnell products but my experience with bushnell has not been good or even acceptable. If the Burris model is usually more expensive than the ziess model and has better specs. the only way I could decide is to look through both at the same time so as to compare the glass and features of each. I would venture that top end Burris could out perform mid grade of any manufacture in field testing. That said I would say that all things being equall in the specs and glass get the one with the better warranty. All scopes are made by man and therefore are occasionally going to have problems regardless of brand. REMEMBER YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

March 26, 2011, 01:35 PM	#1
Servo77 Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2005 Location: Southeast OH Posts: 905	Burris Euro Diamond vs. Zeiss Conquest I am thinking of upgrading the current scope (Fullfield II) on my Icon to something more "respectable" . I am looking at the Zeiss conquest 3-9x40 or the Burris euro diamond (closeout) 3-10x40. I have several fullfield II's and generally like Burris and with the closeouts I can get the euro diamond for the same $$$ as the Zeiss. The burris has a 30mm tube (Zeiss 1") and weights about 1 oz more. Which would you recommend and why? Unfortunately no one in the area stocks these types of scopes so I cannot go look at them in person. __________________ "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?!" Last edited by Servo77; March 26, 2011 at 02:12 PM.

March 26, 2011, 05:21 PM	#3
woodguru Senior Member Join Date: September 14, 2010 Location: Placerville, Ca Posts: 589	All Zeiss scopes are not equal, the conquests aren't that much different than a Leupold or Nikon Monarch, IMO the Black Diamond is a better scope. You have to get the higher end Zeiss to get a difference and that will cost you a grand more. Look at the high end Vortex and they are way better than the Conquests. __________________ Fiction is harder to write than the truth, fiction has to make sense, the truth can be unbelievable.

March 26, 2011, 07:02 PM	#5
mapsjanhere Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: Albuquerque Posts: 2,832	Tube diameter has NOTHING to do with the amount of light passing through a scope, it's strictly a function of objective diameter. That said, I own both Zeiss Conquest and Diavary etc., and I agree, the "stunning" optical quality of the Diavary is lost with the Conquest series. High grade scopes, but comparable to high grade Leupold etc. __________________ I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying.

March 26, 2011, 09:26 PM	#6
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,172	Burris should not even be mentioned in the same sentence with Zeiss WildlongtimeburrisphobeAlaska ™©2002-2011 Last edited by Wildalaska; March 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM.

March 27, 2011, 09:32 AM	#10
Servo77 Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2005 Location: Southeast OH Posts: 905	How durable is the Conquest? I have always enjoyed my Burris scopes because I have experience banging them around with no loss of zero. __________________ "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?!"

March 26, 2011, 02:52 PM	#2
silvrjeepr Senior Member Join Date: January 6, 2009 Posts: 213	The last zeiss that I used spoiled me. It was so clear that I now continually wipe the lenses of my Simmons and Leupold vxII scopes. I highly recommend the Zeiss.

March 26, 2011, 06:59 PM	#4
big al hunter Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 2011 Location: Washington state Posts: 1,558	Burris all the way. I have them on some of my guns and love them as I am sure you do. The biggest reason I have for the burris is the tube diameter. The 30 mm will let more light pass through it giving you a brighter image in low light hunting situations. Hurry before it sells out!

March 26, 2011, 10:24 PM	#8
big al hunter Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 2011 Location: Washington state Posts: 1,558	PLEASE explain to me how a smaller tube diameter will let the SAME amount of light through it. Physics tells us that more of anything will travel through a larger pipe. The same holds true with light. The objective diameter will control the amount of light entering a scope tube but the diameter of the tube can only allow so much light to pass. In fact there is no reason to have a 1 inch tube and a 50 mm objective as the amount of light that will pass through the tube will only be equivelent to that from a 42mm objective. In order to get any more light transmission you MUST have a 30mm tube for a 50mm objective. Glass coatings are the only other way to control the amount of light that will be efficiently passed through a scope tube.

March 27, 2011, 08:05 AM	#9
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,809	The Zeiss Conquest is not as good as the Divari line, but still a lot better than the Burris. I honestly don't know how much a 30mm tube effects light compared to a 1" tube. I'd like to see some documentation to prove this one way or another however.

March 27, 2011, 10:57 AM	#11
Fullboar Senior Member Join Date: January 4, 2011 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 218	Go the Zeiss Conquest, IMHO the best value scope on the market without spending at least a $1000. The difference in size (around 5mm) of the tube wont mean that it will be anymore brighter between the 1" and 30mm. For those that say it does cut a 12" long piece of pvc pipe in 1" and 30mm and look through it, see no difference. Quality of the glass as well as what it is coated with has more to do with it. Besides whats better a 1" tubed scope with great glass or a 30mm tubed scope with crap glass?

March 27, 2011, 01:29 PM	#12
big al hunter Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 2011 Location: Washington state Posts: 1,558	I believe if we are going to compare scope brands fairly both scopes should be from the same market range ie; low end, mid grade, top notch for each brand. I have heard many good things about bushnell elite and other high end bushnell products but my experience with bushnell has not been good or even acceptable. If the Burris model is usually more expensive than the ziess model and has better specs. the only way I could decide is to look through both at the same time so as to compare the glass and features of each. I would venture that top end Burris could out perform mid grade of any manufacture in field testing. That said I would say that all things being equall in the specs and glass get the one with the better warranty. All scopes are made by man and therefore are occasionally going to have problems regardless of brand. REMEMBER YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR! __________________ You can't fix stupid....however ignorance can be cured through education!