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

I'll give you a couple more.
I love it when guys misquote me. For instance, I've never said that there were no very small differences in the image quality between a fixed eye relief Zeiss with an eye box half the size of a comparable Leupold. What I've said is that when there is much of a difference, I suspect that's a difference in focusing procedures.
Another very funny thing is every time this comes up, it's always about the VXIII vs. the Conquest. What should be the comparision is the Leupold VXII, and the Conquest. You rarely see that.
Then we can go on to the silly stuff. Leupold's reticles aren't as sharp as Conquest's. Quite true if you just go far enough focusing them until they "look sharp enough." It's image and low light performance are better. The fact that the Leupolds transmit as much light for all practical purposes as the Conquest and that that means nothing at all. Hilarious considering the previous statement. And, of course we never discuss eye box, or impact/recoil testing, etc.
Lots to laugh about. E

Why is that?

When you post something there sure is.

Because he was asking about a 3-9X40 Conquest. There is no 3-9X40 VXIII. Virtually the same glass and coatings, cheaper price. E

Eremicus,

I wonder why you are such a consistent supporter of Leupold products?

Do you or any member of your family have a financial or any other ecomomic interest in Leupold such as a job, dealer, investment or other benefits?

I think to many people the Conquest does have a brighter,clearer image. What you do compromise though is the much larger eye piece which can create issues with bolt clearance.You also have a heavier scope in the conquest.Another down side for me is the conquest eye piece doesn't lock like a leupold. Both are great scopes I have owned a pile of both. The differences are not going to matter in the field.

Funny how you think you are the prime source of knowledge on the captioned subject when you haven't used (let alone looked through) a Conquest. Couple items of observation you may want to take under consideration before you dig a deeper hole on the subject at hand . . .

-Why should the VXII be the comparison model to the Conquest when a Conquest bests the VXIII in optical capabilities? You can't explain it and Leupold is getting it's butt kicked in this category.

-If you can focus a Zeiss you can focus a Leupold - why is this so difficult for you to understand? Sure the Leupold focuses slower but nonetheless anyone (I mean anyone) can fine tune a Leupold to their liking! End of story here E.

-I've used a Conquest for 4 years and run it over my shoulder on a sling (w/pack) and have yet to have focus ring move. You seem to think this will happen (to everyone), even though you've never experienced it. One further point, ever think some people don't hunt like you - odviously you don't think about that??

-Image is better with the Conquest with no noticable difference in EYE BOX, I've got a VXIII - 3.5 x 10 and a 2.5 x 8 for comparison. Yes they are different but the 3x9x40 Conquest is just as solid in this category. Now as for the other Zeiss models, you may have a point, but I haven't used those therefore won't comment (it's a novel concept you should try it!!).

-Tell us more about recoil testing - drop it E, this arguement has been killed to death and even people like JB have told you to shut up.

I hope this post makes it back to the people that banned you from the optics forum awhile ago, clearly you are reverting to your old ways.

I gave a Conquest a whirl for a year on a rifle, but even though the glass is undeniably better than the Leupold, its bulkiness, weight, non-locking eyepiece (kept spinning around on me with B/C's) led me to sell it and return to a VX-III. The quality of the glass just isn't a big selling point to me when I spend very little time behind a riflescope (unlike Binos or a spotter). And the fit and ergonomics of the Leupies is just plain better to me on just about every rifle I own.

Right on, and it's nice to hear from someone that has used the Conquest and post intelligently about it, thanks. E says the glass isn't better, now how is it that you and I see a difference? Oh that's right he hasn't looked through one.

In the end, to each his own, I run Leupolds on some of my lighter guns and yes they are still a good choice. If I just stand hunt and want good optics, the Zeiss is a better mousetrap. I also agree with your point on the eyepiece moving if you run BC's, that can happen but it doesn't on mine because I don't use a rear BC.

Actually if you want to check contrast and resolution of scopes, try an optical lens contrast board test between the Conquest and the VX-3. You can find these contrast test images online. Get one and run some comparison tests at say: 4x and 9X. However, you may have to test at 50 yards if you go higher than 9X. Contrast and resolution ar the two attributes that cost the most money to build into a scope.

Compare a Leupold VX-3 and a Zeiss Conquest and find out which is really better. These forums are long on opinion and short on objectivity. The German's have done some subjective testing of various scopes including the Nikon Monarch and Leupold VX-3. Try and find some of these articles. They are very open minded and interesting to read.

1. That's kinda funny coming from you don't you think.
2. Is this a guess, on eye box size? Are you going to tell us that you have "played" with a 3-9 Conquest recently?
3. That's another guess and arrogant or ignorant depending on how you look at it. You have posted your preferred way of focusing Leupold's quite a bit, so why do you assume that not one single person on this forum has tried your way. You automatically state they haven't or couldn't strictly because the results don't make you happy.
4. I wouldn't say it means nothing at all, but it doesn't tell you what the image looks like. Of course, this is just another spin from the famous JB mis-quote, "all glass and coatings are the same". Like you said, hilarious.

Of course nothing I say will derail you from saying whatever you want, no matter how foolish, to whomever you want, regardless of how insulting it comes across to all who participate here. It was nice while it lasted.

I've had the non locking eye piece on conquest move while hunting several times.On nikon monarchs I've had the same issue. The leupold's don't move on me hunting and I like that.

I own and like my Leupolds but after buying my first Conquest, I prefer Zeiss.

I have both models and makes you're looking at.
One of the major resons I recently bought a Zeiss 4x32 and a 3-9x40 was eye relief and large eye box. These two scopes are the best of the Conquest series for that reason.
And, as mentioned above, the images and clarity are excellent.

DMB, add the 1.8-5.5 to that group. It also has 4" of eye relief... however, like the 4x32, it's discontinued...

The simple fact is that there is no Leupold VX scope that offers a magnification range of 3x to 9x.The VXII does offer a true magnification range of 3.3x to 8.6x,but no 3x to 9x.

My Austrian and German design riflscopes all have Butler creek lens covers on them. These serve two purposes, one to keep dust and rain off the lens surfaces and secondly, to prevent eyepiece focus ring movement because you can immediatly see and correct any radial movement by looking at the lens cover.

I want to thank everyone for their input on this subject. It will be a few weeks before I make my purchase, and to be honest, I still haven't made up my mind. I have always wanted a Zeiss scope, and at 61 years of age, that may be the deciding factor, as I don't know how many more scopes I will buy - I am still using a 4X Redfield purchased in 1973! But I also like the several Leupold scopes I have, dating back to the M8 series and including a Vari-X III. The discussion on eye box and objective size was appreciated, as I have another scope that has good optics, but the rear eye piece does nearly interfere with the bolt handle. Weight is not a big factor, as a few ounces either way is not a big deal for me as I am not trying for the lightest rifle since most of my hunting will be from a stand that is only a few hundred yards from the truck.

Keep the comments coming guys as all input is appreciated!

I don't particularly like any of the over engineered European scopes, they are too heavy, too bulky, typically german and some have a coating that is hard to get rings to hold under heavy recoil...I am not a power nut, a 2.5 to a 7X is all I want to hunt with and my favorite is the 1x4 Leupold or the old 3X. I don't want any more power than 12X on a varmit rifle and 9X will suit me fine.

I think some folks get really anal over clarity, light gathering ability, etc. etc.....If you stay within reason most of todays good scopes have enough of that stuff to get the job done with some left over. the human eye can only accept so much of that anyway so the rest is proud flesh IMO...

I don't think you can beat a Leupold and that is what I have used for the last 50 or so years and with very few problems and if I had one they fixed it and sent my scope back in a week at no charge..and on two ocassions sent me a new one at no charge. One of which my horse rolled on and broke it in half, they sent a new scope as oppose to trying to fix it, that was their decision and certainly not covered under any warranty, they didn't have to do that..

I trashed some high dollar European scopes on big bores and they wanted an arm and a leg to fix them, called recoil abuse??

A scope serves one purpose with me and that is if I can put the cross hair on an animals and see it well enough to kill it then that is all I require..I dont' need to count the ticks in its ears or to check his tear ducts. I am happy with the shoulder for a sight pictures up until nearly dark without a light..Most any good scope will do that. I want it water and fog proof. thats it...the rest is pretty much gobbley goop IMO., at least for a hunter.

Apparently you have zero experience with the Swarovski AV line of scopes,since they are shorter and lighter than comparable Leupolds.But don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.