Zeiss conquest 3-9x40 for $349

Or

Vx-3. 3.5-10x40 for $400

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/1564261/1

Conquest. Both are great but I like conquest glass better and it's cheaper

Would depend a little on the rifle. Most lilely the Conquest though.

Another vote for Zeiss. Unfailing optics.

The CDS on the VX3 is really a neat tool, I find Conquest optics a tad brighter though.

I like the glass in the conquests, but have never cared for the shape, weight, etc., compared to a leupold. I've got a couple of them and I use them, just not wild about how they look on the gun.

Conquest. I've owned a couple of VX-3s and wasn't terribly impressed. However, they were both 4.5-14 models and those seem to get the most complaints. The 3.5-10 may be much better.

No doubt the VX3 is more svelte. But too my eyes, I'd choose the Conquest even if it was $500, and $349 is a, "hot damn!" price on an excellent scope. You've gotta look at 'em, and through 'em, for yourself.

FC

I'm far from an expert but, I've had and used both. I like almost everything about the conquest better than the VX3. The VX3 is not as bright and clear to me as the Conquest, and I love the #20 reticle on the Conquest. The last rifle I put together (a Kimber Montana 308), I used a VX3 only because the eyepiece is alot larger on the Conquest, and I don't think it would clear the bolt mounted like I like it.

The conquest is a demo I found on euro optics site. Might give it a try

Did you spend the requisite half hour adjusting the focus correctly on the Leupold ?

VX-3 costs more than Conquest for a reason. It is a better scope in every way. I don't find Conquest glass to be better. Both are very comparable IMO. The Leupold wins in every other aspect, hands down....

The Leupold has an options available advantage and the Zeiss has the eye relief advantage. According to JB/MD the Leupold has an eye relief range of 3.3-3.7 inches. The Zeiss is a constant 4 inches.

Leupold claims 3.6"-4.4" of eye relief. I'd say that is fairly accurate. I'd also say your numbers are definitely "low".

As for Zeiss being a perfectly constant 4", I'd say no way. It isn't. Although, that said, it is still plenty good.

I have never heard of anyone complaining of short eye relief on Leupolds. They are known for excellent eye relief, and IME, it is a deserved reputation. The eyebox on VX-3 is easily better than Conquest, IMO. No "black donut hole" like Conquests have. The Leupolds are easily cleaner, edge to edge.

Conquests are also bricks. Far heavier. Rubber eye ring gets chewed up, and fast focus is non-lockable. Plastic turret caps and sub-par turrets. Especially their target turrets.

You don't hear it talked about much, but glass can vary greatly. Even on same model from same mfg. The 3-9x40 Conquests I owned were both very good, optically. The 2 3.5-10x44s were worse, side by side, than the 2 Leupolds, the Viper, and the Redfield I compared them to. Only a Burris scored lower in that particular test.

Optics are a VERY subjective thing. When I hear folks talk of how Conquest glass is better than Leupold I quite honestly don't get it. If I thought it was, I would readily say as much. I think the lower powered Conquests are very good scopes. Heavier than my liking, but very good. Once you get past a 3-9x40 I consider them about as overrated a scope as there is. Even more so if they have target turrets.

For all those Conquest lovers, I'd get them while you can. The newer Terras are nowhere near the optic, and I'd happily take a VX-1 over a Terra, based on the higher price, heavier weight, and crappy eye relief alone.......

I agree 100% with all of this......I own, or have owned and compared them side by side many times.

Don't fire the messenger. You'll have to find out from JB/MD how he arrived at those measurements. I remember he said he tested two brand new VX-3 3.5-10x40 Leupold scopes and they both measured the same. I'm not a Conquest lover so it makes no difference to me. If it helps, I seem to recall him also saying that the new VX-3 had very comparable glass to the Zeiss. I believe what JB said as there is no reason to doubt him. If anything, I'd call him a Leupold "lover" way before any other brand.

I have owned or own both scopes. The 1.8-5.5x38 is the best scope I've looked thru in a long time. Much better to me than the 3-9x40. The 3-9x40Zeiss is good glass but has a flare to me when I look thru it. The 3.5-10x40 Leupold is a sleek yet excellent glass for any hunting anywhere. It covers a multitude of variables and circumstances. I ordered mine from the pro shop w/a post and duplex reticle w/the center cross hairs cut to .6 which is the same diameter as their 6x42. The custom shop's offerings and their warranty are qualities that just can't be had in any other scope. powdr

I own several Zeiss Conquest scopes and several Leupold scopes. I only own one Leupold VX3 which is a 2.5x8 all the rest are VarXIII or older. I feel like there is something special with the coating on my VX3 scope which none of my other scopes have when it gets close to dark the VX3 just seems to see real well. I noticed it whitetail hunting right before dark. I just kind of like it.

I have to say the Conquest does seem to look brighter when I just look through them during daylight.

Eye relief has got to go with Leupold with the scopes I own. They seem to have the longer eye relief.

What JB found, as I recall, is that the eye relief on the latest 3.5-10X40's, the VX3, not the VXIII, or the old VariXIII's, were very close to the standard for constant eye relief scopes at 3.7 inches. My own casual examination of one indicated this was true. The older VariX/VXIII's varied a good bit more.
What hadn't changed was the large eye box one gets with a Leupold. particularly at the lower magnifications. Compared to the Conquest's 3.5-10X44, both it's eye box and eye relief are much better. The 3-9X40 Conquest, while not as good in the eye box, it does have what I call acceptable eye box.
The other thing no one has mentioned is the fact that the Leupold comes with super hard coatings, something the Zeiss doesn't have.
Just based on these two factors alone, it would be the Leupold for me.
BTW, Leupolds take very little time to focus these days. But you still need to understand that you focus both the reticle and the image, not just the reticle.
At least the VX3 allows you to lock the focus ring and doesn't have the concern of one's focus moving easily. Something most euro scopes do have a problem with. E

I agree there is something weird with the Conquest 3.5-10 as I do not like the glass configuration. I bought one and could not sell it fast enough. I do like the 3-9 50mm Conquest which I own. I also own the 1.8-5 Conquest. They look good when you look through them but they are a little big for safari guns. I had trouble with one on a 375 H&H hitting the iron sites. I would probably buy a smaller scope next time. I ended up buying another 375, a Winchester which the scope worked OK on.