Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Compared a Zeiss to a VXIII tonight.

Can you put turrets on a zeiss?????


George

Yes! You can have turrets installed on any 1" conquest. BTW, I just had turrets put on two 3x12x56 VMV's. So far I really like them, though I've not used the turrets much yet.

Man, if I played in that league I wouldn't mess with a 44mm Conquest at all. It would be the 2.5-10x42 Diavari for me.

The Optical equipment in my Eye Doctors office is Ziess, never saw an office with Leupold
Even my Dentist uses Zeiss optical equipment

I own more Leupolds than anything else. That being said...the only reason is because they are lightweight, and have good eye relief. I have never been impressed with the resolution though. It is adequate, but not great. I have owned VX1's, 2's, and 3's, and they all seemed the same too.

The original poster's observations are in line with mine... I've seen the Conquest rifle scopes to be slightly superior to VX-III's every time I've compared them. I have a 3.5x10 Conquest and numerous Loopy's....

That said, there's things I really really like about the VX-III's I have, which are mostly 2.5x8's, and I'm not in any hurry to switch them over!

However, for new scope purchases, the Conquest line is getting a lot of attention from me. The next scope I "need" (yeah right <g>) is for my long-range Sendero... when I compared the Leupold and Conquest 4.5x14's it wasn't hard to see which was OPTICALLY superior anyway.

I agree with the what the 2 last posters said about the Leupolds. Sometimes optical quality isn't the most important thing, Scopes now are so good it isn't always bad to give a little optically to gain a little in; lightweigh, eyerelief, perfect reticle(LR)

When I was choosing a scope for my NULA 257BOB I didn't really have a real limit within reason on what I would spend on a scope but chose a rather inexpensive VX-II 3-9X40 with the LR reticle.
The weight and reticle were the selling points for me.
I am very happy with it.

I still for the life of me can't figure out why every company thinks they need to put Mil-dots UP-DOWN-LEFT AND RIGHT in big game hunting scopes instead of a nice LR like LUPY has.

To be honest I have lot's of Leupolds also and for the same reasons DC223 mentions. For example I have one of the limited run Lipsey Ruger #1AH, light 24" barrel and Alex Henry forearm. No other scope looks right except a 2.5-8x36 Leupold and I just found one for it. The 2-7x33 was close but the 2.5-8 is JUST RIGHT.

Dave

It's called wind.

Some it appears adore inferior designs

I'm in need of another scope and that one is on my list of candidates.

I like Conquest glass, but cant like the monster size of the scope.I dont spend much time viewing through em either. Got to remember there are viewing instruments (binos and spotters) and there are aiming instruments (rifle scopes), for my uses the Leupies win hands down. But what I wouldn't give for a Leupy VX-III 3.5-10x40 w/ Zeiss glass in it....Now that would be the cats meow!

For a minute there, after reading this post, I was wondering where all the Leupold fans were. I knew I was just going to have to offer my 2 cents. I have many VX III's. Love them. I looked through my cousin's nearly $2,000 Zeiss (Not sure of which model it is though it has a ill. dot in center, no cross hairs). It was very bright and clear. I can honestly say it was more bright and clear than my vx iii's, but not $1,500 worth of clearness. I told him I could buy 4 vx iii's for what he paid for his one. Also I love the raincote for the VX III's. Everyone will have their opionion and base it on their needs. They are all great scopes.

raghorn,

Someone sugested going with a 3-9 rather than the 3 1/2-10. When I was comparing like you did, I compared the 9X with the 10X. I was looking at a line on a roof a couple block away. Event the best Swaro and Zeiss showed me a line. When I finally tried the 10X, the line became an extension cord.

After that is when I switched to the 3-15X power Sightron 2. Big field of view on 3X and way better top end.

You know I here this aiming instrument vs. viewing instrument all the time. Actually it is a pitiful cop out. Sure it is true in a limited sense. I would just like it explained how inferior optical qualities are even equal to much less better than having finer optical quality to aim with. Now if the price difference was large, sure spend more on binocs, and get what will work for aiming to save a bit. In the Leupie vs. Conquest situation, there is no price difference just a quality difference.

Its really not that hard to understand...at least to me. How long do you spend behind the crosshairs of a rifle scope? Not very long for me. I am more concerned that the scope is waterproof, fairly stout, and maintains a POI and that when the split second shows up that I need to put crosshairs on hair.... x marks the spot. I do try to avoid crappy optics that will fog up, move POI, allow water to penetrate em, or not withstand heavy recoil but where I see great value in the viewing instruments that you spend a lot of time behind (binos and spotters) I just dont need the same glass for the few seconds I spend behind the scope. I like scopes that are unobtrusive, low profile, provide generous eye relief when I am half upside down shooting practically downhill or straight uphill. The rest is just not neccessary or an advantage to anything I hunt. And I dont believe in skimping, I just dont believe that I need FL or ED glass in a rifle scope, I dont spend enough time behind one. I had a Conquest and though I thought the glass was good I just couldn't like the massive size of it, I didn't like how close the bolt was the ocular piece and I didn't want to run higher mounts. They are good scopes just not what I want in a scope physically and ergonomically speaking.

Being as its a loopie.You just might have to.
dave

another zeiss plus, etched reticle, more expensive to make, more durable, and stays black not orange!

Uhh I understand what mil-dots are for, and why they have windage mil-dots to the left and right. I have used them a lot prarie dog hunting. Might try rereading my post. Talking about companies like zeiss and bushnell not offering a cleaner and just about as useful reticle like Leupold does in their LR-Dot.

Mil-dots have their place and uses but a guy can get pretty far and do alot of hunting with a regular D-plex with a couple dashes or dotz.

Oh and yes I do know how far certain winds can move bullets at certain distances. I shoot my rifles quite often at my range to test this.

Every year in some Candian hunting camp that I'm at there's inevitably some joker that is a "glass expert" and will speak to the inherent virtues of top-end glass - generally to the point of nauseum. Surely was refreshing not to have "a glass prick" in camp this year.