Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold VX-III or Zeiss Conquest?

I have several Leupold scopes, mostly older Vari-X IIIs, and I am very happy with them. I recently looked at the Zeiss Conquest 4X32, and the 3-9x40, and liked them also. I have a new 257 Roberts that I want to treat right, and so if anyone has experience with the Zeiss Conquest and the Leupold VX-III scopes, I would appreciate any thoughts you have on how these compare.
I realize that either will work well in normal light, so I was hoping to gather info on how well they work in the critical first and last 30 minutes of legal shooting light. Any comparisons would be very helpful.

I have owned alot of each. I just have not been very impressed with zeiss lately. They are heavier than they need to be. The eye piece is bigger than it should be in my opnion. I do like the fact that the zeiss has a etched reticle. For me after having alot of each I have went back to leupold,they are a great scope and the zeiss's down falls for me are more than the leupold.I have used them first light and last light. The zeiss has really given me no real advantage for hunting.I also like how the leupold's focus locks, the zeiss can move around on you and I'm not fond of that.Leupold's warranty is also better to deal with

That sums it up.

On the other hand,I prefer the optics of the Zeiss.

Optically, I think the Zeiss gets the nod over the VX-3. While I have not compared them with the newer VX lines, I have compared them with the VX-III and the glass on the Zeiss does seem bighter with better resolution. Now, it is hard to discount Leupolds reputation with customer service, and the eye box on them are hard to beat. Honestly, I don't think you can go wrong with either, all though I would give a slight nod to the Zeiss simply in terms of glass.

I dont do scientific testing with any of my optics. That said, I prefer the VXIII's I have had over the Conquest. I believe the Victory series is a notable improvement, but 4X the cost.

I had some issues with a couple of Zeiss Conquest's. Flakes of debris in the sight picture. I think it was internal anodizing flaking off. Doug took care of it promptly, but after the second consecutive, I sold the replacement off.

Not a huge deal, but I think I prefer the Leupys overall.

neither is perfect. I have had better luck recently with the conquest adjustment mechanism, but neither is perfect so the point is....what do you expect for $4-600 US depreciated dollars these days? Get the one that you like the best and go hunting. There are a lot of worse choices than either of these and there are some more expensive better choices.

I have owned both, but just recently sold my Conquest's off and replaced them with Leupolds.

My opinion is the optics may be slightly better over the older VXIII, but I am not so sure about the VX 3. I don't think that slight increase has absolutely any impact in the field during normal dawn to dusk hunting hours in North America though.

The Conquests are bigger and heavier than they need to be.

Nothing can be added about Leupold customer service. I have never had a Leupold fail me, but I did have an idiot at the gunshop crack the front objective lens on a VX III 1-5. Sent to Leupold, and no problems with the fix.

All of my hunting rifles used to wear Leupolds,but all have since been replaced.

Coke vs Pepsi

You are going to have to trust your own eyes.

Absolutely. Clarity and brightness can be somewhat subjective, so your best bet is try both out prior to buying.

I will never own a Zeiss again. Leupold or Swarovski for me.

I will never own a Leupold again. Zeiss for me.

Owned both, both are good for anything I will ever do. Can't we all just get along!!!

PS. I like Coke way better than Pepsi, but that is for another thread

I've never had a bad experience with a Zeiss Conquest. They've served me well for the last 8 years. In my experience they track better than the Leupolds and offer slightly better optics. And the etched reticle stays black and sharp.

On the other hand, the Leupolds are excellent too. I bought a new FX-3 recently. I think they're better looking than the Conquests by a fair amount.

As duckear said, Coke vs. Pepsi.

Having owned both, I now own the conquest in favor of the VX-III. I prefer the reticles on the conquests as they stay dark and sharp in any light conditions, and I think they are a touch better optically. That being said, I like the eye box of the VX-III better, and the warranty service of Leupold can't be beat. If a good deal comes along on a VX-III I wouldn't hesitate to buy another. I think they are both great scopes, and agree with the Coke/Pepsi comparison.

If a Conquest will not overwhelm your rifle with its greater bulk and weight then you may find as I do that my eye sees better with the Conquest.

The Conquest, Zeiss Diatal and Kahles AH scopes that I have show reticules that stay dark and sharp over difficult conditions and those scopes are just better all around except for the fore mentioned size and weight.

I have a sweet 'custom' Mauser here by the computer. It came with a 2-7 Leu. which is a barely adequate scope optics wise. I considered putting a 2.5-8 Conquest on it. I layed the Conquest on the rifle with the Leu. already mounted. The Conquest is so much larger and not as 'pretty' as the Leu. This rifle weighs too much already. I kept the Leu. on it.

As compared to the VXIII.....Zeiss gets the nod for optics, etched reticle, adjustments. Leupy for customer service.

I have 11 leupold hunting scopes. I am glad that I bought them when I did. Better to have them than some cheap stuff.

When I am about to scope a rifle now I try to fit a Conquest on it. The bigger Conquests go on a Kimber Montana quite well as the rifle itself is so handy and light.

An elite 4200 3-9x40 will be much better optically than that "barely adequate" Leupy 2-7. Eye relief on my '06 is not an issue, and Elite 4200 glass is excellent.