Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Conquest Eye Relief

JonA
Sorry, but giving you an option between two positions is not ad hominem. He is stating either something "else" biased the test or he is lying. Note he did not suggest the bias was intentional, malicious nor suspected by the reporter; Simply that it was there.

My records show I have a 3.5-10x40 Vari-X III with an N. If there are examples of each out there it seems the reporter should have stated the exact model. No?

When Zeiss claims "constant" (and they did and do so claim) and actual measurement exceeds Leupolds (and they do not so claim)there is something very wrong. Either Zeiss needs to be taken to task for their bogus claim or the serious discrepency requires research and justification, not a dismissive "If you take in consideration the differences of real magnification and according exit pupil diameters, there is no "winner", concerning ER."

Or, far more opinion than fact "6 mm "advantage" towards the Leupold at low mag does not count much becauseER of both scopes are quite ok even for quick shots on running game.
Much more important: At high mag, where, with prone or similar stance, your eye is much closer to the ocular bell, the Conquests ER is 4 mm MORE compared to the Leupold."

As I have stated repeatedly, I have nothing against Zeiss.

I do not consider either range of eye relief in the Zeiss tests "slight" and have one serious question to ask. If it is fair to question how leupold can get away with naming their scopes with rounded off powers, though the spec sheet gives the actual... Why is it other scope manufacturers can make up their eye relief numbers, for a prime example, Burris and these numbers for Zeiss?

Let's take a look at what the numbers are, not as a function of comparison to another, but as a function of manufacturers' specifications.

Assuming the first Leupold is a Vari-X III, second Leupold is a VX-III and the Zeiss are both Conquests per the spec sheet in the 2004 Gun Digest (my specifications source for the Vari-X III and the Conquests), let us compare the test results as reported to the claims.

The Conquest specifications are 4" at all powers or 101.6mm. These tests show deviations from that of 6.5mm, 16.3mm, 5.9mm and 16.5mm for a total of 45.2mm deviation from the spec sheet of 406.4mm (101.6mm times the four eye relief measurements). That is an average deviation of 11.3mm per measurement) Is variation in excess of 11% slight?

Taking the four Leupold measurements converted to metric (116.8 compared to 113.8 and 91.4 compared to 91.7) yields a total disecrepency of 3.3mm. On the other scope (113.8mm compared to 111.8mm and 81.4mm compared to 88.9mm) yields a total discrepency of 9.5mm for a combined total of 12.7mm, or just slightly more in total than the average measurement on the Zeiss. Is 1/8" per measurement "slight"? (403.4mm vs. 406.2mm)

Now, what do I take from the numbers? On the Leupolds, the eye relief numbers look to be very close to what the manufacturer says they are. But the Zeiss numbers are so far out of line with what I expect of the company making the binocular I have doted over for more than two decades, that I am suspicious of the results. Do the results make Zeiss look bad? No, they make them roughly equal with Leupold.

Can a company capable of making such great optics measure what they build? Why are the discrepencies between claim and actual so great? When I measure eye relief I am not looking for precision to the nearest mm, or even three, but I know I can do better than the average of 11mm in the Zeiss tests.

One more time... I am suspicious of the tests for reasons stated above and have nothing against Zeiss.
art

Don't fret all this talk. If you can see and aim better from one scope over the other then follow the path of least resistance.

For me the Conquest riflescopes are much better than the Leupold scopes and I own both unlike some here.

And I, the opposite result, I like the Leupolds.....

Roe Deer
I apologize if you take offense to the numbers and my comments here. I asked a number of questions in the post I just made to JonA, feel free to answer any you feel I erred in asking.

The reason I state you have a bias is simple, it shows!

Added into the data generated by the lab are your comments:
"If you take in consideration the differences of real magnification and according exit pupil diameters, there is no "winner", concerning ER."

"6 mm "advantage" towards the Leupold at low mag does not count much becauseER of both scopes are quite ok even for quick shots on running game.
Much more important: At high mag, where, with prone or similar stance, your eye is much closer to the ocular bell, the Conquests ER is 4 mm MORE compared to the Leupold."

Into hard data you interject your bias. Having had to deal with a friend that dropped his eyelid over his eye because of insufficient eye relief I beg to differ with your opinion.

Having measured the Conquest (just had to do it yesterday afternoon on a brand new Conquest) I find my numbers are far short of what the lab found but the range did not change much from the second set. But a new VX-III came in right where the lab and the spec sheet said they would. (plus or minus, eyeballing the scale sans glasses)

If my numers match Leupold specs and your lab numbers match leupold specs and my numbers are much closer than the lab on the Zeiss and closer to the spec sheet (but on the other side of the lab's numbers) I get suspicious.

Can you explain these discrepencies? I cannot accept them just because anyone dismisses them as nothing.
No insult intended.
art

RDFinn
"You have to remember, that Leupold scopes are sold through this site."

And you should note Zeiss are sold here on this site by Cameraland and Doug is a great guy to deal with! This is not about not buying Zeiss! This is about test results that do not match the Zeiss spec sheet.
art

I was responding to Norwegian post regarding the light transmission figures that were posted in ROE DEER's original post. Doug sells just about every major brand. What's your point?

Why don't ya'll just ask Stick and get the definitive opionion on this matter?

RDFinn
"Norwegian, stop waisting your breath here. Seems like the folks here will defend their Leupold choice to the bitter end. Frankly, I don't understand why ROE DEER takes the time to share the info he does. You have to remember, that Leupold scopes are sold through this site. There is lots of good info here elsewhere."

Yet you characterize the post as "I was responding to Norwegian post regarding the light transmission figures that were posted in ROE DEER's original post." ???

You confused me. I thought your comment was suggesting I was defending Leupold scopes to the bitter end. And you were obviously suggesting Roe Deer's numbers are above comment or reproach... As I am providing comments relative to those numbers I assumed you were sniping at me through an aside. I am simply asking a few questions about numbers I cannot come close to reproducing, though I have tried... Yesterday.

And since the manufacturer says I should get a certain set of numbers and I get a set of numbers much closer to their numbers I remain cautious.

My point remains Leupold is not the question and Zeiss really is not the question, but rather, why are the numbers so different from the 4" constant eye relief claimed?
art

It's pretty clear you don't know what you're defending. From the same thread:

I could quote a dozen more.

I'm guessing that's explained by this:

That shows about 5mm difference from each test to 4" median, assuming the 4" wasn't rounded for the advertising copy. How many significant digits does the 4" term in your specs contain? Is it listed 4.000"?

JonA
Just had a very funny thing happen... Decided to look for a Conquest specification sheet rather than relying on my 2004 Gun Digest. Seems the authorized Zeiss America dealers have a different specification for eye relief... Seesm they call it 3.5" constant on all but a small handful of the line. Now we have a significant digit that moots your question, no?

Now we find a single measurement that is literally 21.5% different from the specifications.

Let me explain something you seem to misunderstand; eye relief at any given power IS a single number. Period. End of story! When authorized Zeiss dealers claim the Conquests have a constant 3.5" of eye relief and do not get corrected by the home office, one would assume they are using the numbers authorized by Zeiss... I would assume anyway.

But assuming the fairy tale were true and it was a median measurement, Zeiss could have added a legitimate 7.6mm to their specifications, according to this test lab. Smells very fishy to me. Especially since other manufacturers are willing to spend the ink to rate their eye relief measurement at each end of the power ring.

Funny thing I mentioned at the start? Whack that .5" off the numbers and retain the smaller range of the second scope and the numbers I got yesterday match real well on a brand new Conquest...

Again, I am not saying anything against Zeiss, ESPECIALLY in light of the 3.5" specification. With that I see the only question is the use of the word "constant" when specifying eye relief.

Now, is Zeiss capable of measuring what they build? How is it possible for a lab test to be this far off?
art

It tells us they'll at least break it into 1/2" increments instead of rounding off to the full inch, but nothing more than that. 5 mm is still pretty small potatoes in a world of 3.5" and 4". Really, they don't have a single model that falls in between the two, not even by a single mm? Sure, feel free to take those out to ten digits....

Stretching a bit I see. So now these scopes suck because they have too much eye relief? And you said Roe Deer had bias "that showed...."

So, we can now agree that Roe Deer isn't a liar for posting lab results that show the eye relief is not constant--because that's what you confirmed for yourself yesterday! Yay, we are making progress....

I guess I feel you should have been saying something against Zeiss in the first place for failing to advertise their eye relief in a manor acceptable to you. I'd be fine with that. I wasn't fine with your calling Roe Deer to the mat over reporting lab results, some of which you confirmed yourself yesterday as being correct.

That 1/2"? First, please confirm you measured the same model. Second, confirm you did it by the same ISO 14490-1 methods the lab used. Since you speak of things such as median values as "fantasies," I'm guessing you haven't taken your own advice and:

In short, I'm guessing your methodology differing from the lab's as a more probable explanation than some Leupy-hating lab making stuff up just to make you mad.

JonA
Sorry, but your math and comprehension skills are not up to the task of unfolding what I wrote. Clearly, that could be my fault and I take full responsibility.

A significant digit on a 3.5" standard is .1", not 1/2"... Huge difference. That also means the numbers should be within .05" of the standard.

Please show me how 21.5% is a stretch. The spec is 88.9mm and the reading misses it by 19.2mm (measured by the lab to the nearest .1mm) and if you do the math you will find over 21.5%. I don't have to make it up as it is a matter of record from Roe Deer's post.

They do not suck because they have more or less eye relief. They do not suck. What remains questionable is the data the lab reported. It matches neither the spec sheet nor the numbers I found.

You took my statement completely out of context by removing the part where I said my numbers match AFTER you adjust them by .5".
"Whack that .5" off the numbers and retain the smaller range of the second scope and the numbers I got yesterday match real well on a brand new Conquest... " Sorry I did not use standard terminology there. My measurements did NOT confirm the lab results, at all. The shorter 3.5" spec made the numbers even farther off than previously reported.

Notice I have not posted my numbers? Notice I stated more than once the system I use is pretty loose? Leupold numbers come in well within 1/8" of what the spec sheet says and that works for me.

Now, nothing makes me mad about this. I find humorous your attempt to debate specifications without a clue what the specifications are, willingness to accept any number put out by an unidentified lab and desire to accept anything from one source even though it conflicts with all others.

I am done here unless you say something really funny and different from your past errors.
art

Some of you guys definitely have too much time on your hands! That said, the Leupold vs Conquest argument can never be won especially if the players have never even owned both. I do have several of each. I don't know what the actual measured eye relief is, I do know that a Leupold 1.75-6x on a .416 Rigby and a 3.5-10x Conquest mounted on a .375 H&H (and not a very heavy one) both have enough, as they won't brush my eyebrows from a bench or prone. I do know the Zeiss eye relief is less critical, but is certainly not constant through the magnification range, neither is it on any other scopes I own. Therefore, I set it up where at low power, I see the full view for a quick shot, may have to lean my neck forward a bit on a long shot at full power. No big deal. E always brings up 'eyebox'. I can say I have owned virtually every scope made over the years, as well as ran a retail store for five years and shoot a lot of running game and have never had a problem picking up game because of eyebox. Other folks experiences may be different. The Leupold is not as good in low light, period. The etched reticle on the Conquest is superior, period. I have a bit more confidence in the Leupold holding up to a really hard kicker like the .416 than a Zeiss, just because I have used them for years on big bores. The fact is we could hunt with either one forever and if the other was unavailable, we wouldn't kill any less game, therefore these arguments are pretty meaningless, as are most discussions of calibers for various game, as they will all work with good shot placement. I have sent Leupolds, Nikons, and Burris scopes back for repairs in the past, all were repaired quickly or replaced in less than 10 days. I haven't sent back a Zeiss, so can't comment on warranty service. The end result is that as long as there is enough eye relief, it matters not whether it is 3.8 in or 6 inches to me. Both of these have enough, neither are constant through the power range. I think some of the Euro scopes with the reticle in the first plane, may truly have constant eye relief, but have never used one personally. Unlike some I neglect to comment on things I have no experience with.

Agreed that the reticle on the conquest is better as is it's performance in low light - I own both and feel like I have experience to draw upon.

As for the eyebox, I don't notice a difference, I cannot say the Conquest or Leupold is any better. E will claim otherwise but he as ZERO experience behind a Conquest.

What is all the animosity for. I have always owned Leupys, but have looked through Conquests, to be honest I can't make out the difference in brightness, but I can't really say that I can make out the difference in brightness between my 7 year old Vari-x III, and my 1 year old VX-III. Does the Conquest have a slightly better reticle, yes. Is the Leupy lighter, yes. Does the Leupy give you more adjustment inside the rings, yes. But most of all I know my Leupy is one tough son of a gun, the jury in my mind (notice I said my mind) is still out on the Conquest.

Another thing, the scope is a sight, not a viewer. If you run into a situation where you can plainly make out game with your binos, but can't even find it in the scope- you need a brighter scope badly. I have never, ever........ had a problem finding game during sunrise or sunset with my old Vari-x III, but people tell that my VX-III is brighter so I will have to take their word for it, but I can't say that I have bagged more game because of the extra brightness.

I am not blindly loyal to any manufacturer, if Zeiss makes a significantly brighter, tougher, more repeatable scope for less money, and it fits my rifle correctly I am all over it baby.

I guessed you failed to comprehend how unlikely it is Zeiss' entire line either has exactly 4.0" or 3.5". The lack 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, etc suggests rounding to the nearest 1/2", not accuracy to two significant digits. You're reading more into the listed specs than is there in an effort to show the Lab's results incorrect. It's quite amusing.

The stretch is your use of 88.9mm. You got that number from Zeiss? Your spec sheet specifically says that's what it will have at 3.5X? No, it doesn't. You stretched.

Yes they did. I was referring to your measurements confirming to yourself the eye relief does not remain perfectly constant on these scopes. The big reason you called the lab results into question in the first place was because they didn't measure a perfectly constant eye relief throughout the range of magnification as you expected. You said they must be in error but have now discovered for yourself that it was your expectation of "constant" that was in error instead.

I find it humorous you'll call lab results wrong based upon your "pretty loose" methodology which doesn't even give you numbers accurate enough to publish. That you called them to task in the first place due to your misinterpretation of the specs, not their measuring error since you've now confirmed the same thing (eye relief changes on Conquests too). You haven't confirmed you even measured the same model scope, much less measured it in the same manor as the lab. In short, if you want to prove them wrong, you need to bring a lot more to the table. While a good step or two better than E's "Because I say so" argument, it still falls quite short.

Please help me out (and your case) by pointing me to the "all others" these results conflict with. There are other published independent test results on this matter? Please, point me to them. Show them to me. If there are and they do conflict, then I'll stand right with you in questioning these results.

If "all others" means just you and E, like I said, I remain unconvinced.

JonA
Last post on this, I promise. You win! Your utter lack of logic leaves me speechless!
art

Thanks, but I'm guessing most will see pretty clearly it had more to do with your utter lack of evidence to back up the claim you made. Cheers.

Lack of logic, in regards to testing and standards? I think not. JonA is an Engineer by profession and is quite cappable of understanding. How scientific are your Standards of testing?

And he does not know what a significant digit is? Yeah, right...