I am ready to buy a scope for my Rem LVSF 22-250. It is gonna be a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 or a Leupold VX3 4.5-14x50.I plan on using it for coyote hunting. Which is better? Any info would be help-ful. Thanks Tom.
The Zeiss, I have had both and it's not even close to me.
Zeiss... better optics, clearer in low light.... better scope all around
Leupold and Zeiss each have their places. For your purpose, that conquest would be hard to pass up. However, I really, really like the 10.5oz Leupold 6x36 for lightweight rifles
Like the previous posters, I have had both models you mention and would choose the Zeiss Conquest hands down. I find that as I age, I need clarity and superb resolution to clearly make those longer shots at small targets. The Zeiss does that for me. It addition to the optics and features the Zeiss 4-14 gives you, I find the Zeiss scopes track perfectly. So perfectly it takes the challenge out of zeroing the scope! I could never say this about any Leupold I have ever owned. This isn't intended to start a flaming war.....just my honest experience.
If you're looking to save ounces (about 2-3 that is) go with the Leupold. If not and you want better optics, go with the Zeiss.
The best information I have from testers who understand how to test indicates that the Leupold VX3 line is every bit as sharp as the Zeiss Conquests. We apparently still have some that believe that all you can focus with a Leupold is the reticle but not the image.
With the new dual spring adjustment dials, the VX3's track as well as anything.
That particular Leupold is a 50mm vs. a 44mm Zeiss. That means it can use more magnification under low light conditions and thus see further than the Conquest can.
Leupolds also have other desirable features. Their oculars lock and don't change nearly as fast once set. This is nice for those of us that have had such thing move on us while packing the rifle. Nobody wants to try a quick shot with an out of focus image.
The other is the fact that the VX3's use super hard coatings which resist degradation of the scope's fine optics from cleaning and abuse.
And let's not forget the differences in eye relief and eye box. Both are better on the Leupold. E
The best information I have from testers who understand how to test indicates that the Leupold VX3 line is every bit as sharp as the Zeiss Conquests. We apparently still have some that believe that all you can focus with a Leupold is the reticle but not the image.
With the new dual spring adjustment dials, the VX3's track as well as anything.
That particular Leupold is a 50mm vs. a 44mm Zeiss. That means it can use more magnification under low light conditions and thus see further than the Conquest can.
Leupolds also have other desirable features. Their oculars lock and don't change nearly as fast once set. This is nice for those of us that have had such thing move on us while packing the rifle. Nobody wants to try a quick shot with an out of focus image.
The other is the fact that the VX3's use super hard coatings which resist degradation of the scope's fine optics from cleaning and abuse.
And let's not forget the differences in eye relief and eye box. Both are better on the Leupold. E
e you think you know everything and leupold is the best. get over it. you know nothing and everyone wishes you would go away. that goes for optics talk as well
The Leupold is not every bit as sharp as the Zeiss... I have never had leupolds track as well as Zeiss and I have owned alot of them. The zeiss has better glass, tracks better,etched reticle and a side by side comparison of the two is not even close in favor of the Zeiss. Compare them side by side and see for yourself how much difference there really is. E I am not sure how you could be more way off. But I do like your determination about hunting, we just have a huge difference of opinion when it comes to scopes.I have heard alot of complaining about Leupolds the last couple years and really think Leupold needs to step it up to compete with the quality of some of the others.
My experiences in the matter are that the Conquest will be clearer, brighter, and track great. Unless you are building lightweights the Conquest is the way to go at the price point.
Lots of Zeiss lovers here!
I've heard from those who know because precision scope mounting is their business, that the Zeiss Conquest is about the worst they've tested in regard to click values, reticle subtensions.
ie. when you dial 7 MOA does the reticle move precisely 7 MOA?
There's a lot more to a scope than glass clarity. It needs to function properly so's you can hit what you're shooting at!
The Zeiss Conquests that I've used all seem to pass the box test with flying colors...
E I am not sure how you could be more way off.....
He's only guessing about the Zeiss Conquest. He was even offered by many to "test" a Conquest and he declined. That allows him to remain in the dark.
E I am not sure how you could be more way off.....
He's only guessing about the Zeiss Conquest. He was even offered by many to "test" a Conquest and he declined. That allows him to remain in the dark.
e is a blowhard azz hole
I'll buck the trend, 3.5-10x40 VX3 with M1 vertical turret.
Never done a box test with my Zeiss' but I have shot from 100, to 500, to 200, to 700 to 100 and the turrets always hitting where need be!
That said, my predator AR has a Leupold on it (just because I personally cant justify that much scope on a predator rifle). But my serious big game rifls all wear Zeiss.
I am a Zeiss man through and through. The 4.5-14x44 with added turrets is THE gift of the optics God to hunters everywhere.
Lots of Zeiss lovers here!
I've heard from those who know because precision scope mounting is their business, that the Zeiss Conquest is about the worst they've tested in regard to click values, reticle subtensions.
ie. when you dial 7 MOA does the reticle move precisely 7 MOA?
There's a lot more to a scope than glass clarity. It needs to function properly so's you can hit what you're shooting at!
I have never owned a Zeiss that was anything but precisely on the money whether it moved inches per click or centimeters per click. I have never heard of one that did not either. I have heard of a couple that broke and couldn't adjust properly.
Names these people who know please.
I know one Conquest that doesn't track. Last week a friend of mine who doesn't shoot much asked me to help him sight in his rifle. He had burned up a couple boxes of ammo trying to get it set 3" high at 100. He has a Zeiss Conquest variable that tops out at 10X. Long story short-the crosshairs don't always move when you turn the knobs. When I saw what was going on I had him turn it up a couple minutes past where he wanted it and then come back down to the new setting. That worked.
The scope is a fine piece of glass and its nice to look through but it doesn't track!
In my tests, on average several Conquests have been slightly brighter and sharper than several VX-3's, but it's close enough that there's some overlap.
Same deal with the adjustments. Both have been pretty darn repeatable, but how closely each click matches the advertised amount has varied a little.
The Conquests have been a little better in consistent eye relief from low to high magnification, but the VX-3's have been fine there too. The most variation I've measured is about 3/4" from high to low, with the X-3's closer to 1/2", which is meaningless.
The Leupolds weigh somewhat less, which may or may not be important to some hunters.
I have always wondered if the Leupold's were more susceptible to damage because they use a lighter and thinner gauge tube. Sure they probably are OK or the same along the long axis but a thinner aluminum tube makes you wonder if you are sacrificing rigidity, impact resistance for light weight.
Leupold's appearance looks better and the scope is lighter in weight. The Zeiss is bigger more blockey in appearance. The Zeiss optics are IMO have just a littel more image contrast than the Leupold. I have both and hunt and target shoot with both. I like my Leaupolds for hunting because of the weight factor and my Zeiss for target shooting because of tracking and a littel higher image contrast. Good luck with your choice....
savage223: Go with the American made Leupold 4.5x14!
I could NOT be happier with mine!
I have used my Leupold 4.5x14's for MANY years now and the performance and dependability leave NOTHING to be desired.
IF there IS something in the Big Game and Varmint Hunting world the Leupold 4.5x14 can't do I have as yet to find out WHAT that may be - and I Hunt virtually year round!
Buy American.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
RD, again, your memory is faulty. I signed up a long time ago to try out a Conquest 3-9X40. I'm still waiting for it to appear.
I have had that scope put on a rifle stock for me to play with. That allowed me to evaluate it eye relief and eye box. E
If my memory was faulty I wouldn't have remembered Doug from CameraLand offering you one to test. He did so openly, so if you didn't get one from him that's your own fault. You shouldn't be casting doubt about anyone's memory. We've already been down that unpaved road.
He did offer it to me. I accepted. I'm still waiting for it.
Want to explain to me how it's my fault it hasn't shown up ? E
I have both and I prefer the Leupold.
Ever hear of a follow-up just in case you weren't on Doug's mind 24/7 ? The guys busier than a two perkered billygoat. You can be darn sure if he offered, it was a sincere offer.
I have both and I prefer the Leupold.
Why ?
I'm sure he was sincere. When I followed up a little later, I was told it was out of his hands. He had made the request to Zeiss for the scope.
So, it's my fault I didn't then bug Zeiss about this ? Hilarious !
To learn what ? Barsness has already done a better job of comparing them than I would do. I have learned what is important to me which is eye box size, weight and the lack of a locking ocular from my putting it on a rifle stock. E
Only thing that is hilarious is your imagination.
Another vote for Zeiss for all the reasons mentioned�+ better FOV.
I really dislike the 4-14 Leupold. The 3-10, however, is a decent scope.
I have both Zeiss, Leupolds and others. In fact I just traded a Conquest for a Leupold. The only reason I did is I wanted AO in a smaller scope. (Rimfire) Everybodys eyes are different, to my eyes the Zeiss is a much better looking (thru) scope than the Leupold. Kahles is even better than Zeiss. In general terms and in testing I have read by those with more optics knowledge than I most agree that the Zeiss is a "better" scope. What your eyes say to me is what is important.
Because I can't get the Zeiss fully focused at 100 yards, because it's out of focus at 25 yards when it's as good as it gets at 100 yards, and I don't like the way it zooms.
To tell the truth I actually prefer my Nikon Prostaff.
Because I can't get the Zeiss fully focused at 100 yards, because it's out of focus at 25 yards when it's as good as it gets at 100 yards, and I don't like the way it zooms.
To tell the truth I actually prefer my Nikon Prostaff.
This surprises me none!
TFF
I'm just telling it the way it is. The Prostaff is clearer, it is focused at all ranges, and it tracks perfectly. What's not to like?
When you perpetually keep your head in your azz it affects your eyesight, apparently.
Does the Prostaff have super hard lense coatings ?
I guess I would say to Swampy what ever works for you, if you still have the Zeiss I'll trade you a Nikon Monarch (higher quality than a Prostaff) for your Zeiss.
I don't know about the lens coating, but I can see what I'm shooting at.
I'm going to try to get use to it. If I can't, I'll sell it and buy another VX-II.
That would be a serious down grade.... LOL