Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold LR/T vs Zeiss conquest

looking to top a long range rig- target and hunting purposes, although hunting with be 200 yards to maybe 300 yards at most.

leupold Mark4 LR/t 4.5-14x40 at $750

or Zeiss 6.5-20x50 at $650

Feel like the 4.5-14 magnification is about right, but feel like Zeiss is a better product.

Anyone care to give a review on either of these scopes?

I prefer Zeiss over any Leupold I've owned. I recently purchased a 6.5-20x50 but I haven't shot the rifle it is on yet. Great glass though, of course.

Why not the Zeiss 4.5-14x44 or 50? I have the 50mm version of this one and it is my favorite scope.

Can you find a zeiss 4.5-14 for around $700? The ones I find are 2-300 more than that....

Oh hell. Just Google searched and they are out there. Duh!! Thanks for the help tatelaw!

If you don't need the field of view on the bottom end the 6 1/2-20 has 14X in it, but the 4 1/2-14X does not have 20X in it.

FOV in the 14x leupolds suck....badly.
Ive owned multiples of both scopes you are considering and would choose a Zeiss over any 14x Leupold every time.

Call cameraland, they had a 4.5-14x50 conquest on the deal of the day last week for $499, I bought one.

For all of those who rave about the Conquest 4.5-14, I just don't see it. I currently brought home my buddy's Tikka mag, topped with this model in a 50mm target knob version. The FOV and eyebox at higher mags is awful, and the tracking has been, let's just say, very unpredictable. A known, accurate 160 accubond load of 66g RL22 grouped 5MOA @ 100. That's 5 inches, not 1/2 inch. That's with 10, 4 shot groups. I switched it out for m 4.5-14x50 VX3 LR w/SF, and first 3 shots after sighting in went into .605 MOA with the same load. People seem to be in love with Conquests, and by and large I like 'em too, but just because it has Zeiss stamped on it doesn't make it worthy, and this one flat out sucks. I'll take the LR VX3 every time over this model Conquest.

PS, the Conquest thin regular duplex reticle in this scope sucks too.

Have had a schitty conquest (sub-par glass) as well but not a tracking issue like you are dealing with, JG.
A sample of one does not mean much and I am not defending the conquest line. Have seen much better ($$) scopes take a fart as you probably have too. Have been fortunate enough that I dont own any connies or lupys anymore.

PS, I like the thin reticle in the conquest

To each his own I fully agree, but my point with this particular model Conquest is that the user friendliness of this scope is a major PITA. FWIW and obviously IMO, both the 4.5-14 Conquest and VX3 LR pale in comparison to the VX6.

Now that I can agree with. If the VX6 was FFP I might be tempted to buy one.

The Leupold eyebox is easily better, especially on higher powers, than the Zeiss IMO.

The last Conquest I had, 4.5-14X had subpar glass in it. Very unimpressive. The very 1st I had, a 3-9x40, had very, very good glass. The 3.5-10x44 glass was not impressive either compared SxS to a Viper, VX2, and Redfield. It was the worst of the 4. About as good as a FF2 I have.

Not sure why, but Conquest glass quality varies, at least in my experience. So does Vortex IMO. 3-9x40 was great, 6.5-20x44 not so much.

I think Zeiss target turrets suck horribly compared to Leupolds.

I do like the Z-plex, #20 reticle very much. And eye relief on the 3-9x40 is about 4". Definitely better than the newer Terra 3-9x42.

A lower powered Conquest, in which I'll not spin turrets, is the only Conquest worth having IMO.........

I have two of the Conquests. Before I purchased them I borrowed a friends rifle with the Leupold 4.5-14 on top. To me the eye box was worse with the Leupold, the reason I finally went with the Conquest. I've been very happy with these scopes.

Send it back, they'll make it right. I personally think the z plex is about perfect, fine enough for precise range work, heavy enough for low light hunting.

I tried a lowly 1.8-5.5 x38 Zeiss Conquest against a 30mm LR VX3 in 50mm and a 30mm VXL in 56mm. At the same 4.5 the conquest held its own with the 56mm and was slightly better than the 50mm. Maybe I got a good set of lenses IDK but I am now in the market for a Diavari in the same power range. I don't spend as much time as others running up and down the dials so can't comment there. Have been fortunate knock on wood that only one scope has crapped out on me over all the years hunting and that was an old Weaver wide view that came on a 22 I got.