Quote:

---

So the “Zeiss” stories recounted above are interesting indeed.

Curious: Were they top end premier lines or were they cheaper “made for the American market” price point scopes and binos that were dumped on an unwitting American buying public to bolster the corporate bottom line. Cheap and cheerful, and aimed at a frugal deal hungry buying public, but there is no free lunch. Shame on the purchaser with thin wallets and high expectations.

It makes me think of the significant marketing that goes into the Conquest line or the Z3 line...two different Euro brands making scope lines that won’t go head to head with a Leupold on any level except maybe price. The advertising is certainly there.... but they sure ain’t what I’d call Euro scopes in the spirit of which most refer to when they talk about high end Euro glass.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am certainly no apologist for any manufacturer. Just trying to understand what happened in these cases. I’ve been caught out buying shit that leveraged the good name of what is thought to be high end, so it makes me curious what was actually sold by Zeiss.... Diavari or lesser lines?

---

The Zeiss Conquest line was a lower end Zeiss scope as to "their" product line.. still was not cheap ..but way cheaper than a Diavari.. In my experience the Diavari is a good scope..again just a bit too heavy for my liking...

I see NF with their NX8 models are reducing weight a bit while still maintaining very good optical quality..have not personally seen or used one...

My experience has been to this point, Swarovski has a better product than Zeiss.. but this can be very individual.. everyone's eyes are different as are their preferences regarding size,weight and intended use..

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras