Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5x10 vs Nikon Monarch 2.5x10 vs Zeiss Conquest 3x9
They are all about the same price, which one would you get?
I have never owned a Bushnell scope, I've owned a pair of Nikon Binos and a Zeiss scope. I liked both.
How durable are the Bushnell and Nikon scopes? Do they hold zero's well? Anybody had problems with them or had problems exchanging them with the manufacturer?
Looking to get one of these but can't decide which...
I have several of the Elite 4200 scopes. Great product - good optics, very robust, holds zero. Had bad experiences with Nikon, no longer own. Never owned a Zeiss, but the ones I've used were nice
I have two Nikons, 3.3-10x44 and 5-20x44 Monarchs. Both are very clear and I highly recommend them.
Picked up a Bushnell elite 4200 in a store a couple weeks ago and was very impressed with clarity and focus. Never fired one, but it looked like a very high quality scope. Probably about the same clarity I get with my Nikons.
Don't know Zeiss, excellent reputation but that's it.
I used to have an article that compared these three makes, which found their clarity and brightness to be almost exactly equal. I have compared my Bushnell 2.5-10x50 to my friend's Zeiss 3-9x40, and I would have to say the Bushnell is brighter (due to the larger objective?) and that the clarity is about the same. They are both good scopes, and certainly beat the crap out my Leupold Vari-XIII as far as brightness.
I bought the 4200 for the extra field of view, magnification range and the Rainguard. The latter feature is really nice in the field. I have 4200s on a 270 WSM (2.5-10x50) and a 375 H&H (1.5-6x36 Firefly); both scopes have performed perfectly, and neither has had any problems with the fairly stout recoil. The Bushnell warranty of the Elites is the best in the business, although I have never had to use it. The only downside of the 4200s IMHO is that they are relatively long and heavy.
I have a couple Nikons and am a big fan. Hold zero well, good low light performance.