Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold or zeiss

Look at it this way too. About an equal number here are ready to go to the mat for either Leupold or Ziess. That says alot for both brands in my opinion. Considering the average Campfire member spends alot more time using his scopes and rifles in more rigourous hunting and shooting then the average "Joe" who regals his friends and family with tales of hunting deer once every year. That to me is a true testament to either brand.

Personnally, I'll stay with Leupy, as I have said before, they have given me no reason to change.

Reguards, Rob

Were it me looking right now, I'd head for the classifieds here. There is a NIB sealed VariX III 3.5-10 40mm matte/duplex for $360

problem over. but hurry <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

+1 on the NIB Leupy in the classifieds ...

No, it was not directed at you but at the topic in general. But I do agree with you and would like to know what this old system is...

I thought about it myself. Very tempting...But I just have no use for it. I got a conquest.

I cant believe after close to 60 views it still available!

you could get a new vx-III not vari-x III on ebay for a little more than that NIB if you want to....

The best information we have is that many buy brand new Zeiss Conquests and compare them to their older Leupolds. They don't understand that they aren't doing direct, apples to apples comparisions.
Everyone knows that we must be very careful cleaning optical gear, the delicate lense coatings damage easily. Few understand that, over time, even with the best of care, lenses degrade in their ability to transmit clear images simply from cleaning.
Then there is the little understood principle of physics which states that the precieved brightness of an object increaes or decreases by the square of the distance one is from it. What this means is the closer the object is, or the higher the actual magnification of a scope is, thus making the object closer, the brighter the object appears. Anybody who has looked at a target as it gets dark with his scope on 4X, then changes it to 6X understands this.
Compare two brand new fully multicoated scopes, set on the same actual magnification and you will have a heck of a time seeing any difference. They can Zeiss, Leupolds, Nikons, Burris or whatever. Makes so darn little difference, it is ridiculous. But the trick is to understand that some aren't what they say they are when you set the magnification. That's why many are fooled into believing one is significantly brighter than another.
Then there is this clarity argument. One produces a sharper image than the other. Might be, but where is this really coming from ? I've got two 4X scopes. One's an ancient 1972 version of an old, fully multicoated B&L. The other is an older single coated Leupold. Focused correctly, I can easily see .30 caliber bullet holes @ 100 yds. with the Leupold. It's a strain to see 7mm bullet holes. The B&L, however, can easily show me .25 caliber bullet holes. That's a real, but tiny difference. But you tell me you can actually see the difference in Zeiss's image ? Really. How much ? The last time I shot 300 yds. with my heavy .308, I watched the .30 bullet holes appear as I shot a group .87 inches in size with my old VariXIII set on 10X. You really think there is that much difference in top quality, fully multicoated scopes ? Tell me all about it.
Critical eye relief on a Leupold ? The eye box overlaps at the highest magnification. Set the magnification at maximum and set the scope there. You won't have to move your head to find the image as you change magnification. Big deal.
Want to talk about tough ? Leupold is the top choice of all the custom makers when it comes to tough on really hard kickers. Nobody selects Zeiss. Not even second choice. And they've been making rifle scopes far longer than Leupold. Want to know why ? Or does it matter. Lots of scopes have good reps is this area. Besides Leupold, there is the Bushnell Elite line, the latest Burris scopes, even the cheap the Nikon Pro Staff scopes. Then there are the Grand Slam Weavers, the Sightrons, etc. But not Zeiss. So much for Zeiss's "superior" construction. E

This was actually turning out to be a decent thread,unlike the past threads on this topic.Everyone was stating proven facts or giving opinions based on actual experience with both products.But I should have known that it was too good to last,and that E would show up and the attitude that the other posters don't understand how to do a scope comparison,or that our scope comparisons were unfair.He would tell us about those invisible scratches that degrade lens performance and brightness,and how we are all fooled by differences in magnification.Give him time and I am sure that he will get around to the facticious destructive testing that ziess uses on every scope.Then perhaps it will be the inferiority of etched reticals.There will be references to supposed information shared with him by J.B. that no one else knows about.We have heard about it all before,and I am sure that he will use this thread as an opportunity to repeat it yet again.Basically he is inferring that he is the expert on scope testing,and the rest of us simply don't understand optics.Yes until his post it was turning out to be a decent thread based on facts and real life experiences with both scopes. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

E's posts on this subject make me dizzy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />.
But I think he's pro Leupold? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I'm probably going to get flamed for writing this, but I think that we put far too much time and emphasis fussing and fuming over rather small differences in scopes. Any of the better quality brands/models will do a hunter nicely in terms of both reliability and image quality. After all, they are merely a place to store your crosshairs. They shouldn't be used for long term glassing or identifying game.

Now, I can see getting all worked up over binoculars, as one can spend hours and hours looking through them, and minute differences in image quality can help in identifying animals and/or avoiding eye strain and headaches. I'd rather spend my money on the most expensive and best binoculars I could afford and then happily settle for a moderately priced scope.

I can see making exceptions for target shooters (time spent behind the scope), low-light hunters, and anyone with a gun whose recoil is in the .375 and higher range. There was a guy at the local range today shooting a .458 Lott with a 2 - 7 B&L scope on it. I wonder how long the scope is going to put up with that level of recoil?!

Lets see, apples to apples. Have 2 scopes, same age, within 2 years. Fixed 6X leupy thats great. Variable Zeiss 40 mm tube that I set on 6 most of the time(zeiss we need a fixed 6!!!) Take them out in the woods and the Zeiss wins it every way around for me personally. Your mileage may vary also so get out there and look.

My personal issue is that a Zeiss, even compared to a LPS still has more light gathering and clarity.

Can't use it unless its after legal hours eh? Well I buy a rifle/scope for that once in a lifetime chance that will probably come early or late. On dark dreary day, the Zeiss may even throw it in before legal hours. But I'll take 10-15 minutes of time any day just in case.

And it do work great at 5x for shooting piggys with stars out. No moon needed. Its a combo of clarity and crosshairs that are much bolder than others to my eye, yet wont' cover up the whole target in the process. Have tried with many differing L scopes over the years on after hours piggys and its just hard with them and while not easy with the Z its workable.

I also kinda agree with the statement abotu needing great binocs. Yet the fact remains if you can find them wiht your great glass, yet can't make the shot with sub par glass, then the great binocs did you no good.

When it comes to saving money I'll spend what I can afford on binocs and scopes and save it by shooting a NEF single shot if I had to. A good enough rifle is the cheapest part by far.

Jeff

Very good post precise and to the point............

+1

Low light hunters you say?Coincidently,I have killed the vast majority of my deer and elk in low light conditions as they travel to and from feeding areas and cover.In many cases,it is a matter of watching game in the early morning, while looking at my watch until it is legal to shoot.

Rost495 also made a very valid statement on this subject.

I'm with WGM on this one.

I own a new 3x9x40 VariXII, nice scope for the money - roughly 300 bucks.

I also have a newer 3x9x40 VariXIII, not much more than the scope above and given the choice I'd save the 100 bucks or so and opt for the variXII.

I also have a two year old 3x9x40 Conquest. Although it has better optics to my eyes than either Leupold (not a huge margin). It is a bit heavy for my tastes and I'm not terribly fond of the big rear ocular for mounting low.

If I had a heavier gun that didn't need ultra low mounting the Zeiss would get the nod, on a lightweight however I'd choose Leupold every time.

I don't believe the eye box is that different to me, at least I can acquire a target just as fast with the Zeiss but will say the Leupold could be a touch more forgiving.

The only problem I have with E is that he always just goes on about his Leupold rant and doesn't own or hasn't tested many of the high end models. His basis for every arguement is an outdated book.

I can already predict "E's" response to your findings. Your Zeiss has a more bold recticle and that is why it appears brighter, in fact your Leupold(s) are actually brighter but the recticle fades earlier than the Zeiss.

Good post I agree with you, the Zeiss is brighter.

I'm not going to touch Swaro, as E is all over me on that one because they are brighter than my conquests and Leu's, and they are compact like the Leu's which I can like!!

I have owned the varixIII 2.5x8x36 and the varixIII 3.5x10x40,but I have never seen a varixIII 3x9x40.When were they sold?

My bad 3.5 x 10 x 40. I should proof better.

Both scope have their advantages. The Leupy's have a more forgiving eye placement and the Conquest has nicer optics than the VX2. Let your eyes be the judge. A better comparison optically would be with something in the VX3 line, say the 2.5-8. Lots of discussions on this topic can be found by doing a search. Mr. E also mentioned some scopes that are in your price target range that should be considered as well, like the Elite 4200, also available in a 3-9 for about $250. That is probably the best bang for the buck and I would take that over the Conquest in a heartbeat for the money. The Rainguard coatings on the Elite really work and set them apart from the others with their incremental differences in optical quality. That, IMHO is money better spent.

WOW...I didn't expect this kind of response..I will go to sportsmans warehouse and look closer to these two scopes..the guy up there tried to get me to but a nikon buckmaster...I have a prostaff on my 06 I just wanted something better and different..

RLB

Newbie around here, been hunting for a few years(about 30 or so, just getting started), and would rather put a great scope on a $300 dollar rifle than a cheapo scope on a high dollar rifle. Either of the two that you narrowed it down to will work. The Zeiss is a little heavier, I just like em better than Leupold where weight is not a concern.
Ultimately, it boils down to which scope you like, as you will be the one behind it, not me or anyone else here. If you like it, then that is all that matters.