Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: Detailed comparison of Elite 4-16x50 vs Conquest 4.5-14x44 and HD5 3-15x42

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Carlisle, Lakes UK
    Posts
    2,659

    Post Detailed comparison of Elite 4-16x50 vs Conquest 4.5-14x44 and HD5 3-15x42

    I thought I’d answer a question that’s becoming more common these days as the prices seem to get closer: “Is it worth spending a little extra to buy a Zeiss Conquest over the excellent Bushnell Elite?”
    I’m also comparing the old Conquest with the new version, the Conquest HD5

    Where the Elite scores is its remarkable brightness. Bushnell claim they are the brightest scope in the world. That’s not true but by god the brightness is really something.
    They are also rock solid. Rainguard is most useful. The little semi-target turrets are quite versatile.
    They have good contrast and offer really good unfussy eyeboxes.

    I’ve had dozens over the years
    I’ve also tried Monarchs, Burris, Leupold and more. The safest bet below £350 second hand has always been the Elite for me.

    However, now that the previously much more expensive Zeiss Conquests have been superseded by the new HD5 version, they are now only fetching perhaps £80 more than Elites so I just had to buy a 4.5-14x44 to compare to my excellent 4-16x50 Elite.

    To make things even more interesting, I also got the new version of the Conquest, the HD5, which essentially carries on the 1” elegant scope tradition but with Lotutec (Zeiss’s version of the anti-fogging/water-beading coatings, like Rainguard) and later coatings ( I heard straight off a Victory from a couple of years ago) AND a 5x mag range, plus the option for some nifty looking and still lightweight target turrets with zero stop. So the HD5 3-15x42 would also be thrown in to the test. These are about $1000 so won’t be the same price as the old version second hand for a long time yet but I thought I’d test one anyway.

    You might think that testing an Elite against a Zeiss is unfair but they punch way way above their weight….

    First impressions of the Elite 4-16x50 will always be that massive unfussy bright as hell eye box just jumping out at you.
    The Conquest 4.5-14x44 has that too, which is impressive.
    I’m never really keen on 4.5-14x, always thinking why am I not getting a full 4-16x ?!
    However, the field of view on the Zeiss is actually as good at 4.5x as the Elite on 4x so you don’t actually lose.

    As you zoom up, both maintain constant eye relief but at the top the Elite is a little more sensitive, blurring the ret and or shadowing/ghosting if the light isn’t good.. The Zeiss is more steady and easy and sharper. The Elite is still killer bright though!

    In challenging light, however, things change and the slight fussiness of the Elite right at the top changes from barely noticeable in high light to a distinct issue when doing things like looking towards the sunset, or with a bright light in the corner of the scope view. Here the Zeiss shows its class and allows you to see through the ret cleanly and perceive the target.
    At max mag, when the Conquest is still able to make useful adjustments with the side focus the Elite has given up and the ret and image are more of a mess.
    In daylight, many would actually say the Elite has the punchier image and the brightness can’t be argued with but at dusk and in challenging light the Conquest is mighty impressive and pulls away.
    I would certainly pay the bit extra for a Conquest, now I’ve tried them side by side. This really is a big statement for me after so many outstanding Elite 4200s over the years.

    It is always disappointing not to have Rainguard/Lotutec though, which is one of the things that’s cool about the new HD5 version…

    Now the new one, the HD5 3-15x42 is initially actually less impressive than the Elite. Yes. It isn’t as bright as the Elite and the field of view isn’t quite as good as the older Conquest. Oh dear, though I, until I really started testing it.
    The eyebox is perfect at 3 and right up to the top at 15x. The image just sits there, no messing.
    At the range, the control of purple fringing was great and the focus enables those dots to really jump out. But in low or challenging light, it just starts walking away from the Elite and the older Conquest.
    It’s not obvious as dusk starts approaching but as the light really starts to fail the old Conquest just stays in there and the new one with it. Then finally right at the last, the new version can see details that the old one can’t and that’s that. It’s a scope that has class in depth but isn’t actually jump out and smack you bright like the Elites are. It goes without saying that the old version is a 3.5x mag range and the new one is fully 5x, which is remarkably better and more versatile. It certainly has better much contrast than the old Conquest, and the Elite. Flare and stray light control are absolutely top class with the new Zeiss; it has some serious coatings.

    Resolution of all three is about equal. None are a patch on a Sightron S3, for example, for out and out sharpness and resolution. My far more target-orientated S-TAC 2.5-17.5x56 smashes them all for resolution and edge to edge. Yet it falls behind the Conquests at last light....Horses for courses. As hunting scopes these Conquests are outstanding and for picking out a distant fox approaching bait at last light, the new HD5 is really a very impressive and versatile purchase.


    During this test I have learnt that when testing really good scopes, you really do have to almost shelve your first impression and test even-handedly in lots of difficult conditions. Only with careful evaluation can you actually tell these things apart properly. At first, I though the Elite was brighter than the new HD5, worth twice as much (and that’s not the first time I’ve heard people say Elites were better than much more expensive scopes) but under challenging circumstances the Zeiss just walked away with it somehow. Same with the old Conquest – at first it actually seems brighter, wider and nicer than the new one! But again, when push comes to shove it is clear that the new one is superior optically.

    A useful thing to note about the HD5 3-15 is that it has side focus. For DIY NV users, it is hard to find a premium scope with low mag that has SF. This solves that problem as it is a 3x scope that has SF, enabling you to get everything tack sharp when using your NV

    So in summary I would say that the magnificent Elite is always a mega safe bet but if you can find a little more money for an old-style Conquest then you will definitely be pleased.
    And the new HD5 version is fine progress: Lotutec, turrets, better optics, especially low light contrast.

    I’ll be posting a more detailed review of the HD5 5-25 Varmint ret/ tactical turrets in the next day or two.

    Hope this helps, Richard Utting
    Last edited by richness; 24-06-2014 at 11:19 AM.
    Marksmanship = Accuracy, Consistency, Observation and a little of The Force
    SharpshootingUK www.sharpshootinguk.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •