Kahles vs. Zeiss

Gestuhlm · Guest

Got my brand spankin' new 300 Wby Mark V Dlx and I'm looking for a scope. I have taken a liking to the Zeiss Conquest 3-9 x 40 (http://www.opticsplanet.net/zeiss-3-9x40mm-conquest-rifle-scope-with-z-plex-reticle1.html) and the Kahles 3-9 x 42 American Hunter (http://www.opticsplanet.net/riflescopes-kahles-ah3-9x42-4a.html).

The Zeiss is on sale for $400 (nice price) and the Kahles is about $650. Is the Kahles worth the extra $250? Can I still use a low mount on a 42mm scope? Does either one have flip-up lens covers available?.

Thanks for any input.

MrGman · Guest

The Kahles is only worth the extra money if you really think you need $250 worth of factory pop up lense covers. The Zeiss is a great scope, they both already have lifetime warranties, you can't buy more "lifetime" for the extra $250.00. The Zeiss has the fast focus rear eyepiece and you may not be able to fit a pop up cover on it that works quite right but some one else might know how to slip one over on that. I reallly like that feature.

Either scope will fit with the low mounts. 42mm is not big enough to start banging into the barrel with standard low mounts. I have mounted up to 44mm scopes with no problem.

There is nothing wrong with the Kahles scope (its a great scope as well) but I don't think you will ever see the $250.00 difference in price, in optical quality or overall performance. Smile

Andis · Guest

Guest · Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: Re: Kahles Versus Zeiss

Andis · Guest

MrGman · Guest

Steven-L · Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 1089

I deleted the reply from Andis.

Let's keep it friendly.
_________________
Aim Hard!

Steve at OpticsPlanet
www.opticsplanet.net

fr3eqqq · Guest

enough said

boondoggle · Guest

If the german optics are so superior, how come american
makes the Hubble, keyholes and other assorted space/defense optics that have no equal or even competetion for that matter??
gn

fugglestick · Guest

I can tell you now, from 30 years experience the only test is looking through that scope, late dusk and see the difference in the optics. many people see things differenctly and you apy your money and take your choice but I will also tell you, that Kahles, Swarovski, Meopta, Smidt and Bender and leupold, are in the order of superiority. Wouldnt waste time on the Hawk and some of the others. The cheap price they cost says it all. Laughing

MrGman · Guest

So where does Zeiss fit in in all of that, surely they aren't on the not to be bothered list.

And although your optical test is very valid its not the ONLY test. The other one is durability in use. If the reticle breaks loose and point of aim goes to crap, or the lenses fog over because the seal went away, that is also an important criteria, why, because it very definitely happens.

Optical quality and durability/ruggedness are the 2 key features that make a great scope great. Usually of course when you pay for the optical quality the manufacturer usually makes it rugged also but they are not necessarily all in the same order on that end.

fuglestick · Guest

All fair comments MrGman. The golden rule still is of coursepay more for the optics than you do for the rifle. Pay this sort of money and durabilty is built in. Unfortunately the leupold recticle can be a bit fragile, and tends to fail more frequently. Get the reticle etched on the lens like Kahles, Swarovski, Meopta, the others being mechanically constructed are not quite so rugged and do fail. Having said that, I still use a 8 x42 Leupold that I bought years ago and its still OK yet I know leupold has seal and reticle problems. If I was pushed for the best, Kahles. Only because Ive used one for years and its taken everything, even been run over by a landrover, and it holds zero for ever it seems and takes out to 400yds no problem. [Its the eyes that give the problem after that!!!!] As I said, pay your money takes your chance. You only buy quality once, rubbish over and over again.

stubob2517 · Guest

I was watching a hunting show last year that did a segment on goat hunting in the Alps. They told a story about a guy that shot a goat and put his weapon down to get the goat, he became disoriented while getting the goat and couldn't locate his weaopn afterwards. Same guy was goat hunting later and found a rotted stock, corroded barrel and scope and realized it was his weapon. THe scope was in perfect internal condition, although having been buried in snow the body was pretty messed up. Long story short, the scope was lost for something like 20 years in a snowfield in the Alps. Seals were still good, optics tight -- it was a Kahles. I don't own one or work for the company, I liked the story and your posts brought it to mind. Cheers.

MrGman · Guest

That's a great story about 20 years of outdoor life of a rifle scope, to show why the great ones are worth the money. In this case a Kahles. But that doesn't say that Zeiss or Swarovski or Leupold, etc would not have faired just as well. Nobody is going to wait 20 years for another side by side comparison test. they should all be able to hold up a lifetime on your rifle, its just a matter of what features you need and what degree of optical quality you can afford and appreciate to buy.

I certainly would not ever turn down a Kahles scope, but for my level of work, the Zeiss Conquest is more than adequate and I am sure it will last my lifetime.

Acenturian · Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 112 Location: California

Nothing wrong with either one. I own a Conquest and looked through a kahles, I personally (just one man's opinion) think the Kahles is a slightly brighter scope perhaps more in-line with my friends Swarovski scope.

So if I had the extra $250 would I spend it on a slight increase in performance? Hummm tuff one, both are great scopes I love my Conquest (think it is one of the best buys out there) Yeah, I would if I was mounting it on a fine Weatherby like what you purchased and I was willing to spend the money then I'd go Kahles.

Happy Shooting
AC
_________________
"If your in a fair fight, you didn't plan it properly"

Guest · Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject:

I've just been through this choice myself and ended up with a Kahles 3.5-10x50AH.

Compared to my 3.5-10x40AO Leupold my ageing eyes could not tell the difference during daylight. HOWEVER, on dusk and at night the Kahles was significantly better with less flaring of light into the scope. Set on 6x it was only just ahead of my Pecar 6x.

You get what you pay for. For daylight a Tasco 6x40 would have 'done the job' but as hunting light diminished the Kahles gave me an easy extra 30+ minutes.

Guest · Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:46 am Post subject:

I have Zeiss Conquest, Kahles CL and Swarovski AH
all in similiar power ratings (3-10)

the Kahles is optically superior, period.

rick · Guest

I am at the moment trying to work out which is the best way for me to go . i am comparing the zeiss conquest 3-9 x40 and Kahles CT 3-9 x42 . Have just been comparing them both in the twilight and find them both so similar it isnt funny. It really has come down to the price as the performance at low light are the same for my my eyes. As the Zeiss are cheaper it is way that i will go. They are both nice scopes and i would be happy with either one.

lowlighthunter · Guest

The Kahles Helia CT 3-9x42 is far much better than the Zeis Conquest, or the Kahles American Hunter. But the price is also on a different level. Kahles Helia CT 3-9x42 is abt $1400.

I would suggest to check the Docter VZF 2.5-8X48 for $800. That is a scope much better than the Conquest and equal to the european Kahles Helia CT but at a lower price.

_rain_ · Joined: 23 May 2008 Posts: 1 Location: USA

Maybe you may choose Zeiss Riflescopes here. Zeiss is a brand and it will be good choice