I'm looking at either a leupold vxII 3x9x40 or a zeiss conquest 3x9x40..I know the zeiss is about $100.00 more I've never used either..Is the zeiss a better scope or are they about the same?? I'll be mounting it on a CDL .270 for deer and elk...mostly deer out to 300yds but mostly 100-200yds..

RLB.....

ouch. Here we go.

Look on old threads.

My preference is the Zeiss by far, with nomex already on.

Jeff

Do a search and you will find many threads discussing this.The concensus among most people,is that the ziess is clearer and brighter.It also offers constant eye relief unlike leupold.But there will be one individual that will try to convince you that the only scope to even consider is leupold.He will offer fanastic rumours and unproven opinions to try and convince you.He hasn't even owned a ziess scope,or hunted with one.His name begins with E.

I have owned both and I prefer the Leupolds over the Zeiss Conquest. My name doesn't begin with 'E' though. I think you need to look through both scopes and decide for yourself what is best for you. What other guys like maybe much different than what you will like.

I have owned and shot only Leupold for over 30 years but for various reasons, have just bought a Zeiss Conquest. I think I can give you a pretty fair comparison between the two brands.

Zeiss: To me the Zeiss has superior image quality (although the VXIII is very close). The Zeiss however is more crtical in eye relief. That means that in a hunting situation, when you throw the rifle up quickly, the "sweet spot" where you get the full field of view is harder to find.

Leupold: My Leupold scopes are in general, very good optically but not quite the equal of my Zeiss. However, the eye relief is less critical. When set at equal power ranges, when you throw the rifle up, the Leupold is easier/quicker to find the "sweet spot" If weight matters to you at all, the Leupolds are generally lighter.

For me, what this all means is that each scope has its virtues and each has its faults. IMO the Zeiss is the better optical instrument by a small margin. The Leupold (MAY) turn out to be a better hunting tool.

JimF

I've had both, and like both very much ... they are simply different from each other ... not "better" or "worse" ...

Glass: Zeiss generally has slightly better image quality (only slightly)
Reticle: Zeiss reticles are etched glass, and their reticle designs are (in my opinion) superior to Leupold's, especially comparing the standard duplex versions from each mfg.
Weight: Zeiss is usually a couple (maybe 3) ounces heavier when comparing similar power ranged scopes
Eye Relief and Eye Box: Leupold wins, hands down ... but then again, it's pretty much that way when comparing a Leupold to ANY other brand scope
Overall Scope Design: Zeiss has a larger ocular with the fast focus eye piece ... some like that, some don't ... it can get in the way when mounting your scope very low (due to bolt handle clearance issues, especially if you use Butler Creek caps). The Leupold, on the other hand, can be mounted a bit lower with no worries about bolt handle clearance ... very important to most people that have rifles/stocks that fit them well, and require that the scope be mounted low for proper eye positioning
Aesthetics: Of course this is purely subjective, but generally the Leupold scopes seem to be more "sleek" in design ... As stated above, the Leupold scopes weigh less, but they look/appear to be MUCH smaller and lighter, which makes a big difference to many when they are concerned with how the scope looks on the rifle ... I have to admit, I prefer the look of the Leupold over the Zeiss, even though I think the Zeiss are handsome scopes ...
Accessories: Leupold has a few different styles of target knobs you can have installed ... Zeiss only has one style ... Leupold has sunshades, and even has their own line of "designer" caps for the lenses (some that flip up, and some that just screw on and off) ... Zeiss says they are planning on releasing some sunshades for their conquest line, but has not done so yet (they say they are still working on producing them, and they should be out this year) ... Both mfg's will let you send the scope in for parallax adjustments, and for reticle changes, so that's an even deal in comparsion ...


Bottom line, is that you're not gonna be upset with either ... both scopes have lifetime warranties, and are very good with their customer service. Best to get to a store with both, and persuade them to let you walk outside with a few of each and really compare them in low light ... decide which is best for you, and don't look back ...

WGM, that is the best job I have seen anyone do on these two scopes - thanks for an unbiased viewpoint!

I would suggest that you try a vxIII 6.5x20x40efr before making that statement.I have one on my 22-250 and reguardless of how you mount it,the eye relief changes so much from 6.5x to 20x,that you must move your head to obtain a proper sight picture.I have never had this problem with any scope by any other manufacturer.The only reason that I chose the vxIII is that conquests in this power range were not available with a 40mm objective lens.
As for the eye relief on the conquests,I find the fixed eye relief an advantage,and have never had a problem quickly obtaining the proper sight picture.So on that point,we strongly disagree.However,I do agree with the other points in your post.

Nice comparison job WGM!

I have had Leupy's for over 25 years, no complaints. Tried Cheaper Simmons, Bushnells, Weavers, etc. But have over time replaced all but one so far with Leupold. Knowing what I know now, I'd of bought the Leupy's to start with but hindsight bein 20/20, and at times having to battle budget restaints.....well many here should understand that. But that's just one man's opinion who has done a little hunting and shooting.........


Good luck, Rob

Rob,

Your experience parallel's my own, after buying and selling many different brands of scopes (Kahles, Zeiss, Simmons, Redfield, Nikon, Leupold etc.) the Leopold�s and the Nikon Monarchs are all I have left. These two scope brands for me are the best overall scopes you can buy for the money.

Ken,

I don't think that were alone in that boat either. Boils down to sticking with a quality scope brand that works hard and proves it's self reliable to the user. If a scope manufacturer like Leupold, Nikon, or Ziess promotes it's self well and the end user buys one and REALLY uses it in harsh conditions, where in the scope proves it matches the "sales hype" than that company probably has a life long consumer. Leupold has earned that with me, and I will probably stray no more, unless something radically changes with their product. As for Simmons and Weaver, etc., they will never get any buisiness from me again. Leupy's won me over, and has yet to let me down. Could have easily been Ziess, but then circumstance and oppurtunity put a Leupy in my lap 1st. And though I strayed a few times to save a buck, I ended up coming back to leupolds every time.

Rob

If the heavier and longer Conquest is not going to bother you then you will get much better optics with the Zeiss technology.

I wish all my nine Luppies were Zeiss.

In most hunting there are all kinds of shots but the scope is very important. Leu's system is old. Buy the Zeiss.

I've heard you mention this before ... but I have to now ask ... what is this "system" you keep referring to?

and before you get going with your explanation, please understand I realize that Zeiss has different glass and coatings (that some consider superior) ... and that the design of the Zeiss ocular is different in that it's got fixed eye relief and a fast focus ... However, that "system" has been around a while too, and is hardly considered "new" ...

I believe VX-II's still have 2 piece tubes.

The Zeiss 3-9 x 40 has their boxed erector assembly, constant eye relief (close enough to constant to call it such), an etched reticle that I prefer to flattened wire, and 4 inches or so of that eye relief.

More precise adjustments, better zoom range (more closely approximating a 3-9), better image, and a one piece main tube are all found on the Conquest.

Yawn, here we go......... again.

Hopefully, the poster has enough information to make a decision. If so, he won't be distracted by all the dust and skirts flyin'

JimF

Ken ... if directed toward me (about the "yawn, here we go again") ... I truly don't wish this thread to go that way ... I simply want to know what this "old system" is that Savage_99 is talking about, that makes the Leupold scopes inferior. I asked, for information's sake ... not for an argument or to flame ...

If you meant the comment to be directed toward the topic in general, yah, I agree ... which is why I said in my earlier post that this has already been beaten to death ...

I strongly suggest that you race down to the local Boxmart and procure a Tasco. Then proceed to use it alot and let it aggravate the f*** out of you.

When completed with that part then buy either of the 2 mentioned scopes and be happy with your selection as it will be a good one either way.

get the vx3 instead opf the vx2 if you want the better leupold.

They both work for ANYTHING DURING LEGAL HOURS IN THE USA. If you want to hunt at night, get an illuminated or heavy reticle and they will both STILL work. I have compared them enough now to know.

Very well said! I just want to help prevent the "Tasco Troubles" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> scenario for someone if at all possible.

Rob

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.

The whole Leupold "eyebox" issue is a joke. Get your cheek and face where it belongs (the same place every shot). WDO

LOL ...

Can't argue with that.

The whole eye box thing might be a joke to some of you, but, to some us that hunt everything from triple digets to single digets and use everything from standing to prone, I've found it's very nice to have. Makes a confidence difference and a speed difference when I need to get on target in a hurry.
Ah, yes. The fable of the superior Zeiss being available at the last of the legal light when the inferior Leupold fades out....
I've got a buddy who bought into that once. Had a Redfield on his rifle at the last of the legal light. Couldn't see the huge buck through his scope. The guy next to him was using a Zeiss. He killed the buck. He could see it fine. My friend saved for three years to buy that special $1500 Zeiss. Did it work ? Oh, yes. Is it better than his Leupolds ? My friend doesn't use his fancy Zeiss anymore. He's discovered how to select the right Leupolds and, even more important, how to use them. He's a bit worried about reliability issues.
I got a chance to play with his fancy Zeiss scope for a while. I finally had to ask him about what made it so special. By then, he understood that he had fallen for the hype. He just shrugged and said nothing.
All my fully multicoated Leupolds work well after legal shooting hours. Guys like JJHack and John Barsness have been trying to tell us that there is no one brand better than another as far as brightness is concerned. JJ found that even scopes with objectives as small as 32mm's work fine if equipped with an appropriate reticle. He, like Barsness, have seen them all and used them all in the field. JJ uses his at night sometimes. He's seen about 6000 critters shot under all kinds of conditions. Anybody want to argue with that ? E

I like the response by whitedogone.





It is always a fable when it contradicts your point of view.But your opinions are always fact,even when you are plainly proven to be wrong.



A very common start to many stories <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



It is always hype when it contradicts your point of view.

Of COURSE they want to argue. That's the only reason those ladies post.

JimF

And that obviously includes you,as proven by your posts on this thread. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

E says . . .

Guys like JJHack and John Barsness have been trying to tell us that there is no one brand better than another as far as brightness is concerned.

E, this is the one thing that gets me, this is an outright lie and you have zero yes zero to back this up - regardless of what you heard from a buddy! Now we can argue all day about the outragous price of some of the Euro's, which I frankly can't justify in many cases. I can also add that the new VariXII's are great scopes for the money but again just like their big brothers (VariXIII) but everyone has different financial situation and what they do with their money is their own business. But please quit telling us that other manufacturers aren't brighter than a Leu. Let's stack some S&B, Swaro's & Zeiss against Leupold and see what happens.

You already know the response to fact, "These differences are of no consequence to a hunter".
That is another one of my favorites bested only by twilight factor. Yep, no need to waste time in evaluating optics at Cabela's anymore, just do the math. Why didn't I think of that.

John Barsness has already done that cfran. So have many others. Barsness takes new scopes and uses a special grid to adjust them to the same actual magnification. He sets them low enough to off set any advantage a larger objective would have over a smaller one. He, of course, makes sure they are all focused properly.
He's found that Zeiss, but not Swaro or S&B, are the tiniest bit brighter. Fine. We are talking maybe 2% or even less. Want to go to all that trouble yourself ? Be my guest.
Make no mistake, magnification is the biggest factor in false readings. Just .2X off (5.8X) and a 3.5-10X40 Leupold is about 3% less bright than a Zeiss 3-9X40 when set at 6X. If the actual difference is really .3X, then it's about a 5% difference. The difference between a fully multicoated scope and one with single coatings is roughly 7-9% less bright. So, you set them at the same actual magnification or you get distorted results.
Me, I'm not going to worry about such nonsense. I've watched too many critters long before and long after legal shooting hours with not only Leupolds but other scopes as well. E

E,

Suit yourself, your going to stand behind a book and have no face time to draw any comparisions yourself. Doesn't sound like you have much to fall back on, does it? What you state is inaccurate and a flat out lie, furthermore you have NO actual experience to back up any of these claims, what a joke!

E,
You surley do put yourself through alot for a company that cant make its own glass.And whose business practices are lower that whale poopoo.
dave <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Actually Dave it really isn't Leupold. It's the guys that claim that their scopes are better because they appear brighter or sharper, etc. The usual excuses for justifying the purchase of something that runs several hundred to almost two thousand dollars. and has a big euro name.
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. He just buys the excellent VXI's and does it. Then there is Big Stick who is much more interested in results than hype. I've already mentioned JJHack and MD. Any of these guys has more actual experience than any three of the other camp put together. E

Hmmm... I don't know... rost495, Blaine, and Jamison come quickly to mind as guys with plenty of trigger time who find non-Leupold scopes superior for their eyes.

Don't really matter, though, cause this [bleep] got old months ago.

Any of y'all that want to continue piling feces on top of the rotten [bleep] already here are more than welcome to do so, though.

E, you are like reasoning with an 80 year old man, so set in your ways you fail to grasp simple concepts. It gets old arguing with you but when I feel as strongly about something as I do here I'm not going to just sit on the sidelines and listen you your biased rant. Fact is you haven't ever tested some of the Euro's against Leupold, your statements stem from an outdated book you read. You keep saying the Euro's aren't brighter, well that is a flat out lie, why don't you prove it to us if you believe it???

What about Bino's, surely the Euro's do alright on these don't they? I believe you own some.

Here are a few things for you to ponder before you spout off again . . .

Most of my hunting rifles wear Leupolds, for the money they are tough to beat. I do own a Swaro, I bought it at a Leupold price. I don't and have no plans to buy 1,000 dollar scopes, to me it's not worth it. But I have tested a number of them and they ARE BRIGHTER than Leupolds - that is my only point that you can't get through your thick skull.

The only difference between E and David Copperfield is that Copperfield is actually successful at making people believe his illusions.On the other hand E is not nearly as successful at making people believe his delusions. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I am not sure where veryone buys their scopes but since most people are talking VXIII vs Conquest, I have found the Zeiss to be priced lower than the Leupold and that makes it a no brainer. I like 'em both but Leupold is pricing themselves out of the market. If we are comparing the VXII to the Conquest as the original poster asked then it is not a fair comparison and the Zeiss wins hands down. This of course is my opinion and not backed by any facts and YMMV but I don't really care 'cause I will make up my own mind.

pace ...

MSRP vs. actual prices is different, and varies depending on how/where you procure your goods ...

I've found that you can easily find both scopes for far less than MSRP, especially if you're too scared to buy used optics ... They are both close enough in price for me to throw that factor out the window ...

get behind both, and make up your own mind which is better for YOU ... that's really all there is to it ...

That is the best thing that you can do.Do this under actual hunting conditions and ignore what people say about what your eyes are seeing or how you are letting magnfication fool your eyes.Trust your eyes.

Wouldn't you rather trust what some lab rat tells you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

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="" />