Zeiss HD5 5-20x50 DUPLEX RETICLE

[barryb]

Wondering if anyone has had any experience with the above Zeiss. I've had Conquests in the past , usually good record except one sent back for focus rectifying. Bloke I know's looking at one that Cleaver is advertising in the last Australian Shooter. Doesn't look like Magnum has any in the 5-20X50 , only the 5-25's. Any information would be appreciated.
Barry

[kickinback]

Hi Barry. They don't make a 5-20, only a 5-25. The 5 in hd5 is the multiplier of the base magnification. 5x5=25. Hope this helps.

PS. I have a hd5 5x25 and am a happy customer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[trevort]

I have one also and though I haven't used it much it appears high quality. I believe they had a 5-20 in an earlier model an iirc humpy has one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camel]

I have one also and though I haven't used it much it appears high quality. I believe they had a 5-20 in an earlier model an iirc humpy has one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3

While they are now a bit out dated, they are still adequate for my uses. I do like the HD5 as well, but wont be changing

[barryb]

Thanks Glen, Trev & Mark for your input. You can tell me I'm dreaming but I'm again looking at page 21 of The Australian Shooter , March 2017 edition & it's telling me again SPECIAL NEW $969 , HD5 5-20 x50 duplex reticle, matte finish. There's no worries at all if it is a 5-25 , but seems strange that's how they have it printed. Anyhow , seems you are all happy with your HD5 & that's what I wanted to know.
Thanks again
Barry

[Branxhunter]

I have a HD5 5-25x50 on the .20-222, and an older 6.5-20x50 Conquest on my .22-250, both with hunting turrets and duplex reticles. On the older Conquest the inner fine section of the reticle is wider, which I really like under the spotlight. The older Conquest is a physically longer scope, and can look a bit out of proportion on a shorter action rifle.

I am happy with both of them; both great at night. If I had the opportunity to buy either at about the same price I would buy the HD5, and not because of the extra 5x.

image.jpeg (150.46 KiB) Viewed 484 times

image.jpeg (204.6 KiB) Viewed 484 times

image.jpeg (173.35 KiB) Viewed 484 times

The 6.5-20x50 Conquest:

image.jpeg (129.67 KiB) Viewed 484 times

The 5-25x50 HD5:

image.jpeg (114.17 KiB) Viewed 484 times

Marcus

[kickinback]

Barry, I believe the 5-20 is a misprint.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Camel]

Barry, I believe the 5-20 is a misprint.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Could well be, or they have found some old models somewhere.

Marcus, that is a very good comparison, I also much prefer the wider duplex of the older Conquest scopes, and weight/physical size doesn't matter any as they are on spotlighting rifles and not walk about hunters.

[B4408]

Branxhunter, good comparison pics.
Barry, Cleaver's website lists it as 5-25 at that price. So a misprint.

Bruce

[trevort]

And that's a great price


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kickinback]

I think they may be dropping the hd5 from what I can't see on Zeiss' website.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[barryb]

Never ceases to amaze me of the helpfulness of people on this forum. Yes folks it was a misprint & the 5-25x50 is still at the price of $969. Thanks everyone for you contributions, game over & now over to the bloke whose after one
Barry

[Tony Z]

Read a PRS blog again the other night where they did a test of all the scopes used by the top shooters. Usual stuff rating them on features pertinent to those sniper matches. He threw in one Zeiss a 6 -24 Victory I recall. It was bottom of the heap for not having a wider range of magnification, the only scope not FFP, no zero stop knobs etc etc. Basically piled a heap of shit on the scope and rated it dead last behind the March FFP scope that he rated as having the poorest optics. Even below a fucking goddam Bushnell that is better suited to being used as a dumbell in a ladies gymnasium.
But here is his last comment after bagging the Zeiss. Of the 20 scopes tested the Zeiss had by far and away the clearest optics head and shoulders beyond the rest including the S&B P2 5-25. The HD series of scopes use the same lenses as the Victory line. My point is you cannot hit what you cannot see. So the high end, in their view, PRS scopes are superior to a Zeiss overall. With my HD5s long after the sun sets I still hit bunnies and hogs. This time of day a FFP star picket and share price numbers crosshair up high and hairline cracked lense on low end magnification needs to be substituted for an Adler A110. Absofuckenlutely useless over rated pieces of alloy and glass. There will never be made a Bushnell worth $3000.

Putting the competition side away for a bit and back to the paddock, I, like many on here, have been about for a long time and used lots of brands of scopes. Value for money this is my pick of what I tell a new fellow to the game of general field shooting. Any of the Zeiss Conquest line of scopes. There is a reason they sell instantly on used guns. Any of the soon to be discontinued HD5s in 2-10, 3-15 and my favorite the 5-25 with lockable turrets. Any Z3 Swaro especially the 3-10 ×42 plus the uncluttered BRX reticle or just the simple unobtrusive 4A. All the above scopes have brilliant optics, simplistic operation and are not priced acording to the latest reticle or number of times "Tactical" is witten on the box. With the dollars saved buy a good range finder.

Before the HD5s were released here I brought in a 5-25 LT from the US after reading several reviews online . Originally it was to be used for 1K BR. At around this time I decided to exit the sport and sold up everything. Except the HD5 which I have on a switch barrel varmint rifle. In our mirage there are few better scopes and those that may be better cost double or more.