Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold or zeiss

I usually buy used when I can. My two most recent scopes are new only because I wanted specific models. I bought a Leupold EFR 3x9 because it is perfect for my T-Bolt and no one else makes anything close in my opinion. I also ordered a Conquest 3x9 with the #4 reticle for several reasons: 1- the #4 reticle makes all the difference in the world for low light shooting, even more so than the glass, 2- the view through the Zeiss looks better to me and 3- it was cheaper than the VXIII 3.5x10. I still would have rather bought used.

[Quote] by Eremicus
We've got more than just a few around here who know better. Guys like Flinch who shoots ground squirrels at 500 plus yds. with a VXII 3-9X40. Or Parrie Dog Shooter who doesn't even bother to buy the fully multicoated Leupolds for his long range PD's or late/early kills.[Quote]

I wonder how many he coudn't see?

Of course not,don't you realize that a lab rat can't properly focus scopes or adjust magnification. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

EXCELLENT VX1's............ Now, I know he's all #$%^&# up. WDO

I have no doubt you saw what you saw cfran. But the plain, simple truth is you fooled yourself. You set the Leupold on 5X and the Swaro on 6X. Surprise, you saw a significant difference. So would I. Barsness has tested both many times. Set on the same actual magnification and using brand new scopes, he's found the Leupold's brighter. Just like the lab tests.
Same thing with Stubby. He ignores Barsness's results because he has seen the difference. But even Swaro and Leupold admit that there is at least a .3X difference between them. What the actual difference is can only be guess at. He ignores this because he doesn't understand how these things work and why. He's fully convinced that the next time he runs into that special buck during the last 15 mins of light, he will prevail simply because he has a "brighter" scope. Little does he realize that he probably has a partial loss of his night vision which no rifle scope can help. That's why guys like JJHack and I can see at night what he cannot see during twilight. E

RLB----As you can see, this has again boiled down to a Leupold vs. Ziess war with a swarovski thrown in here or there just for good measure.

Just go and look at some of the Ziess and Leupold scopes at a sporting goods store. Buy whichever one YOU think is best, and you will not regret it. Leave the bickering over these brands here at the Campfire, because it will never end. Both brands build a quality scope, so both have astrong following.

Good Luck and Good Hunting,

Rob

[Quote] by Eremicus
That's why guys like JJHack and I can see at night what he cannot see during twilight. E [Quote]

WOW Infered eyes...................... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

And just think of all of those optometrists that spent all of those years at university and they actually have to see a patient to diagnose his eyes.Then we have E who didn't waste all of that time in university and he can diagnose eyes on the internet. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The fact that I can see better in low light with my swarovski scopes than with my leupold scopes reguardless of the magnification setting would prove that the swarovski scopes are brighter reguardless of whether my night vision is normal or not.The fact that my swarovski scopes allow me to see just fine at twilight also proves your diagnosis wrong.I guess that your diagnosis is worth every cent that you charge,just like the rest of your opinions.

"E", especially for your benefit I just finished testing my 2.5 x 8 Leupold against my 3x9 Swaro, both with 36mm objectives. Both scopes are less than two years old.

My target was a 5 digit fire number which was 120 yards from my testing location. I should note that my scopes are both focused to my eyes and the reticle makes no difference in this test as my main objective is to see how long I could read the sign.

I set the Leupold to approx 5.3 to 5.4 and left the Swaro on 5x. I should note that both scopes are mounted on guns and I had them side by side on a table both sitting in a gun vise so I could easily shift from one to the other.

8:10 p.m. - I can clearly read the numbers still but light is fading fast as it's a pretty overcast

8:13 p.m. - Leupold is somewhat dimmer than the Swaro, now it's getting a little more hard to read.

8:15.40 p.m. - Leupold is done, still can read with the Swaro.

8:19 p.m. - can just barely make out the numbers with the Swaro

8:20.35 p.m. - Swaro is done

There you go E now tell me again the Swaro isn't brighter, I'm listening. This is the third time I've done this test and each time the Swaro outperforms. The original test I had both scopes set on the same power, this time I increased the Leupold as you stated I needed to do.

One of these next nights I will compare my Conquest 3x9x40 to my VariXIII, 3.5x10-x40.

There must be something wrong with your eyes. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I like OldRemmie's response. Look through them both yourself and buy the one that you like.

To illustrate my earlier point about the importance of scopes vs. binocs, I have the same gun that my father gave me when he deemed I was ready to start deer hunting - a Rem 660 in .308 (obviously I'm on the wrong side of 50). It still has a Weaver K3 mounted on it, too. Now, that old scope is dimmmer than just about anything else you could buy today, but otherwise it works just fine. Somewhere here at home I have an old, cheap pair of no-name Japanese binoculars that I also got from my dad. If I were to leave tomorrow to go elk hunting up on the Muskwa, where one can spend hours glassing the slopes looking for bulls, I wouldn't be significantly handicapped carrying that old .308 with the Weaver K3, and I'll bet that I'd come home with a nice bull (matter of fact, my youngest shot a young bull moose with it a few years ago - and it was early in the morning at first light), but those old binoculars would be a serious hindrance, and there's no way I'd consider taking them on a hunt like that - I get a migraine just thinking about spending time behind them.

Come on "E", tell me what I did wrong. How is it possible that Leupold isn't the brightest?

I bought a luepold VXII 3x9x40 today at DICKS sporting goods..they were on sale for $275.00 now I need a set of rings. I was thinking about a set of tally one piece..I believe they mount directly to the reciever without the need for bases..is that correct??
Some people say to stay away from warren products..I did purchase a set of leuopld bases and rings while I was there..they were also on clearance for $5.00 for bases and $5.00 for rings....come to think of it everything in that store was on clearance..still I'd like to find some one piece rings..

RLB....thanks for all the help the clearance sale sealed the deal for me.

That's a good price on that scope, nice job. Yes, Talley one piece lightweights the are great system and that is the way I would go on your gun . . . no bases needed they are ring and base combo unit. The price you got on your rings/bases is very good, but I'd still go with Talley's, you won't regret it.

After shooting untold numbers of animals with my .280/7mm Gibbs & .257 Weatherby custom rifles that wear Zeiss scopes its nice to know they don't work. As I look around my trophy room with 35 mounts its hard to believe my Zeiss scopes will not work. I also own a few Leupolds, but I don't try to bs.

Yep, another hunter fooled by the "hype". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yep, the "hype" gets um everytime....................... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I thought the Chuga Chuga Machine is what gets'em!!!!

I own both a vx3 and conquest. At this moment I like them equally. There are features on both that I like. I dont think either one has anything wildly better than the other. the leupy lighter, the zeiss has a little better lowlight plex reticle. I like the leupolds eye relief, looks, and weight. I like the alumina lens covers. they both do the job

The Chuga Chuga Machine ware's them out before you purchase one, the "hype"makes you think they still work................ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />