Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold VX-III or Zeiss Conquest?

Savage, I have no financial interest nor do I have any economical gain from Leupold. Neither does my family. E

If a few ounces won't bother you nor will you have clearance issues with the bolt then the Conquest is likely your best best. Optically they'll shine over the Leupold and I quite honestly wouldn't let the rant about being "over-engineered" influence you. You'll find a few folks around here that don't like change/progress . . .

Cfran, I have never been banned here. I was simply asked not to post of the optics forum for a while. During that time I did plenty of posting on the other forums.
Those who are banned here are done so for name calling and other inappropriate behavior.
My comments about the eye boxes on the Zeiss Conquests, the 3-9X40 model and the 3.5-10X44 model come from actually comparing them to the Leupolds.
As to focusing and how we, and others, compare them has been discussed many times. I'm not going to rehash it again. E

Of course not,Leupold would be embarrassed to have you represent them.



Suspended,banned or asked not to post on this forum,not much difference.



Look in the mirror,that description fits you perfectly.

So why were you asked to not post? That's right, for stirring things up like you're doing again. Look in the mirror . . .

I have bought 2 Conquest and I'm down to 1 now. I broke a 2.5x8 on a 300 Wby. It was a demo bought from Doug and the erector failed. I sent it back to Zeiss and had new, not repaired scope in 2 weeks. They also apologized for my wait. I found the customer service to be great but that 300 is wearing a Leupold again.

My own 300ultramags,and my 338x8mmremmag did just fine with Swarovski and Zeiss scopes.

My Weatherby didn't what's your point? It broke and they made it right that's my point.

My point being that not only Leupolds can stand recoil,my rifles produce even more recoil,and I had no problems.Your Conquest was defective,so they made good on it.Your post made it appear that you trust only Leupold on the 300WBY.

40 rounds on the Conquest didn't breed confidence. All of them can/do break, it's how the company stands behind them that counts.

If I lived in the States, I'm sure I would own one or more Leupold, but with the addition of import taxes, they are not so attractive over here.

Having compared an M8 6x42 Leupold directly against a used Swaro 6x42mm Nova, I chose the Swaro simply because the optics were noticably better in difficult light conditions. The adjustments on the turrents were also much more precise and i also prefered the German No4 reticule in the Swaro.

The Leupold did have certain advantages in that it was lighter and offered longer eye relief, plus a smaller ocular unit, but in the end I went with theSwaro and was pleased I did.

I've looked through many Leupolds since then but none have ever grapped me with their optical quality, so I've never been tempted to buy one.

Having said that Leupold do make about every configuration of scope imaginable and if they don' make it, they have a custom shop which will modify an existing scope...Plus Leupold more or less sets the bar when it comes to customer service...

So while I don't class myself as a particular fan of Leupold, I certainly don't think their products are junk, nor would I knock somebody for choosing one as everybody has their own requirements in a scope...

I've owned many examples of both scopes. They both work great and they both will give good service to the owners. To say you don't trust one or have confidence in the other only shows your own misgivings and reflects nothing on these fine products from both companies.

Ray carries on about having broke many European scopes in the past and how they slip in the rings, as if they should all be grouped into one big category. The fact he states they slip in the rings is a dead give away he hasn't used them in over 20 years. A lot of things have changed in that time with both foreign and domestic brands. The Conquest isn't even a "European" scope anyway. The guy's that always say we make too much ado about clarity are the ones who's scopes lack it. If you've spent anytime behind a scope with it you'll prefer it to a scope without it, plain and simple.

On clarity the Zeiss Conquest wins on every example I've ever owned and yes I know how to focus a scope .

On brightness I think the Zeiss may have a slight edge but not enough to say you could actually hunt longer with one. One thing I've noticed that never seems to be brought up is in the last few minutes of light when the scope is about to lose it's usefullness the extra clarity helps resolve images better and makes it more useful. Because of that alone I think the Zeiss makes a better low light optic.

On the reticle I much prefer the Zeiss Z-plex to the Leupold duplex but can use either one effectivly.

As far as weight is concerned the Leupold VXIII is the clear winner.

On exterior design I'll take the Leupold any day of the week. The Conquest is about the ugliest scope I've ever mounted on a rifle. From it's huge ocular to it's nasty finish with plastic turret caps and badging it just looks terrible.

As far as ruggedness goes I'm really not sure. I've mangled a Conquest before by dropping it off a deer stand. The scope looked like Fido's backside but it never lost zero. (I'll post the picture again if anyone wants to see it.) I don't think the thin tubed Leupold would have stood up to it. Both seem to be fine under recoil. My example doesn't take away a thing from the VXIII though. I would take one anywhere with complete confidence in the scope.

I think they are both fantastic scopes and either is worthy.

Terry

Terry,

Thank you for your excellent objective post. For sure you know what 'good' is what with the many fine rifles that you have.

An example of Terry's guns.


I also have a nice Mauser and it came with a 2-7 Leu. I know I can see better with a Conquest. I layed a Conquest 2.5-8 on the rifle and the Conquest is so much larger that it would overwhelm the rifle appearance wise.

Agreed. Lots of ways to prevent scope slippage. Regarding the clarity issue, I think some of the older hunters really don't or can't see the differences in optics so they tend to dismiss them. That's not a slight on them as hunters as I'm sure I'll be there as well one day, God willing. Unfortunately, I think that to get significant differences above the Conquest/VX3/4200 level of scope optically, it will cost you about 500 bucks or more.

Agree completely, my Father's night vision isn't that good anymore, honestly it wouldn't matter what kind of scope he used the increased optics would do nothing for him.

I however still am fortunate to have 20/15 vision and have good eyes in general and prefer good low light performance and a reticle that I can see (etched is far superior in my opinion). That's why if I'm sitting in our cedar swamp at first light for whitetails I need something that will allow me to make the shot - I don't need a good scope to count points just deliver the bullet.

Can't fool mother nature.

TCI,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. Your knowledge of scopes is outstanding for such a young whippersnapper!

Agreed on all points, except what I highlighted above.

In my informal backyard tests, repeated several times, my Conquest in 3.5x10 and especially my Conquest in 1.8-5.5x38mm, get me to that last bit of legal light, when my 2.5x8 Vari-X and VX-III Leupolds are done.

It's just a few minutes, but MAN those are important minutes! In fact, I killed a buck last week at the very end of legal light. I think my Leupolds would worked, but the 1.8-5.5 Conquest was simply awesome. So, there might not have been enough difference there to stop me from killing the deer but I was sure appreciative of being able to see the target so well.

Then again, there MIGHT have been enough difference... dunno. Would have been close. I've been in that exact spot at dusk with my 2.5x8 Loopy's and "called it" before legal shooting hours were technically over with...

It's contrast as much as anything. The older Leupolds wash out to yellow in low light and that kills my depth perception. The Conquest coatings are more blue-white and that really helps my middle-aged eyes stay in the game. And, the Conquest reticle stays darker.

None of this applies to the newest VX-3's. I suspect they hang in there with the Conquests due to the new coatings, but until I do my own tests I won't know, because this really is a personal preference thing... my eyes ain't yours, etc.

I have just spent the last 4 weeks comparing Zeiss Conquests to Leupold VX11's & VX3's. I just ordered 2 custom shop WD Leupy's

IMHO Leupold is simply the best in a 'practical hunting scope'! But the 2.5-8x32 was a very nice option & the pick out of the Conquests for me.
I would like to see the Conquests move to a smaller ocular.

Ray, you're a very nice person. I was expecting to be taken me to the proverbial woodshaed for a lesson

Terry