'Ike' Report post Posted February 28, 2013 Anyone have experience with these...I know they make some great glass (Have their scopes!) just wonder how these are on the long range stuff! Coming down to Swaro, Minox and Zeiss in the 12 to 15's for spotting! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest wdenike Report post Posted February 28, 2013 Ike, I would not own or recomend a 45m objective on anything above 10x. I believe you will be very dissapointed. We'll see what others say. Good luck with your decision. Take care, Willie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AverageJoe Report post Posted February 28, 2013 +1 Go with a 15x56 in the 15 power range or step down to 10x42 or 10x50 in the lower power range. You will not be happy with 12x45 or 15x45. Doesnt matter the quality of glass, if the objective is too small you wont get in enough light and the field of view will be too small. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattys281 Report post Posted February 28, 2013 I would steer clear of the Zeiss Conquest line. I had the 12x45 & did a side by side w/ them against the Alpen (don't remember the model name) 12x & Nikon Monarch 12x. Zeiss was the loser, even though it was more than twice the price of the other two. I don't know about their higher end stuff, but there is much better glass available for way less money than the Conquest line. I now sport a pair of Monarch 12x for when I'm doing ultra light hiking/scouting trips & tote my Minox 15x around when I'm spot & stalk hunting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willhunt4coues Report post Posted February 28, 2013 I had a pair of the Zeiss 12X45 and LOVED them to death. I looked through the 15X45 and thought the field of view was way too small. Get the 12x45 and even better yet get the swaros if you can. I thought the Zeiss were JUST as clear as my 15x56 swaros. I had the Nikon monarch 12x and that was before the zeiss and could tell a MAJOR difference in glass CLARITY between the two, Zeiss 12x45 are the ones I had upgraded too from the nikons. Maybe mattys281 you had a bad pair of the zeiss. The zeiss are crisp and clear like the SLC swaro and of course thats what I upgraded too from the Zeiss and the only reason I did not stay with Zeiss is because they did not have a 15x56 just a 15x45 which like I said was a very small field of view but the 12 were perfect IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattys281 Report post Posted February 28, 2013 I had a pair of the Zeiss 12X45 and LOVED them to death. I looked through the 15X45 and thought the field of view was way too small. Get the 12x45 and even better yet get the swaros if you can. I thought the Zeiss were JUST as clear as my 15x56 swaros. I had the Nikon monarch 12x and that was before the zeiss and could tell a MAJOR difference in glass CLARITY between the two, Zeiss 12x45 are the ones I had upgraded too from the nikons. Maybe mattys281 you had a bad pair of the zeiss. The zeiss are crisp and clear like the SLC swaro and of course thats what I upgraded too from the Zeiss and the only reason I did not stay with Zeiss is because they did not have a 15x56 just a 15x45 which like I said was a very small field of view but the 12 were perfect IMO. Did you have the Conquest line or one of their higher end models? I was not happy at all with the conquests. Not only did I think the other binos I compared them to transmitted light/color better, but the Conquests had much worse fuzz around the edges. That combined with a small field of view in the 12x45s drove me nuts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maximus Report post Posted February 28, 2013 i will get the new vortex razor 12x50 not so much difference in price. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CouesWhitetail Report post Posted March 1, 2013 The zeiss 15x45s are a little dark in low light because they aren't large enough to let as much light in as 15x56s do. I would get the swaro 15x56s....or get the new swaro 12x50s....but dang, they are pricey! GREAT GLASS though....lots of people are selling their swaro 15s to get the brighter, lighter, 12x. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted March 1, 2013 You need to look through a pair of whatever you want before buying. Not much difference in the glass in the high end stuff but you may not like the eyecups or be able align your eyes to lenses. Some people can't fit into the Swarovski. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZ8 Report post Posted March 1, 2013 With exit pupil of 3.7 and 3.0 respectively, you are sacrificing light with either bino. During the day you could get away with it, but during dim light conditions, the exit pupils of your binoculars will restrict the light available to your eyes. Reason being as it gets darker, your pupils will enlarge. Depending on your age, much more than the 3.7 and 3.0 these binos offer. 12x50 is a better setup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willhunt4coues Report post Posted March 1, 2013 I had a pair of the Zeiss 12X45 and LOVED them to death. I looked through the 15X45 and thought the field of view was way too small. Get the 12x45 and even better yet get the swaros if you can. I thought the Zeiss were JUST as clear as my 15x56 swaros. I had the Nikon monarch 12x and that was before the zeiss and could tell a MAJOR difference in glass CLARITY between the two, Zeiss 12x45 are the ones I had upgraded too from the nikons. Maybe mattys281 you had a bad pair of the zeiss. The zeiss are crisp and clear like the SLC swaro and of course thats what I upgraded too from the Zeiss and the only reason I did not stay with Zeiss is because they did not have a 15x56 just a 15x45 which like I said was a very small field of view but the 12 were perfect IMO. Did you have the Conquest line or one of their higher end models? I was not happy at all with the conquests. Not only did I think the other binos I compared them to transmitted light/color better, but the Conquests had much worse fuzz around the edges. That combined with a small field of view in the 12x45s drove me nuts. Yes I did have the conquest line. That's why I said maybe something was wrong with yours because the sharpness in mine were superior all the way to the edge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
'Ike' Report post Posted March 2, 2013 Ike, I would not own or recomend a 45m objective on anything above 10x. I believe you will be very dissapointed. We'll see what others say. Good luck with your decision. Take care, Willie Ah, didn't think of that one thanks... The zeiss 15x45s are a little dark in low light because they aren't large enough to let as much light in as 15x56s do. I would get the swaro 15x56s....or get the new swaro 12x50s....but dang, they are pricey! GREAT GLASS though....lots of people are selling their swaro 15s to get the brighter, lighter, 12x. I need to look at those 12's, was wondering why people were going down in power...Interesting! I'm pretty much sold on the Swaro's, just checking...Thanks for the ideas everyone... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
out2hunt Report post Posted March 2, 2013 I love my 15x45 zeiss! You compromise field of view, but when you pack in an average of 5-7 miles on your hunts, every ounce counts and the zeiss are light as heck in comparison. I would love to buy the new swaros, just have a difficult time with the upfront investment of 2000plus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
