Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold or Zeiss?

I have always wondered if the Leupold's were more susceptible to damage because they use a lighter and thinner gauge tube. Sure they probably are OK or the same along the long axis but a thinner aluminum tube makes you wonder if you are sacrificing rigidity, impact resistance for light weight.

Leupold's appearance looks better and the scope is lighter in weight. The Zeiss is bigger more blockey in appearance. The Zeiss optics are IMO have just a littel more image contrast than the Leupold. I have both and hunt and target shoot with both. I like my Leaupolds for hunting because of the weight factor and my Zeiss for target shooting because of tracking and a littel higher image contrast. Good luck with your choice....

savage223: Go with the American made Leupold 4.5x14!
I could NOT be happier with mine!
I have used my Leupold 4.5x14's for MANY years now and the performance and dependability leave NOTHING to be desired.
IF there IS something in the Big Game and Varmint Hunting world the Leupold 4.5x14 can't do I have as yet to find out WHAT that may be - and I Hunt virtually year round!
Buy American.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

RD, again, your memory is faulty. I signed up a long time ago to try out a Conquest 3-9X40. I'm still waiting for it to appear.
I have had that scope put on a rifle stock for me to play with. That allowed me to evaluate it eye relief and eye box. E

If my memory was faulty I wouldn't have remembered Doug from CameraLand offering you one to test. He did so openly, so if you didn't get one from him that's your own fault. You shouldn't be casting doubt about anyone's memory. We've already been down that unpaved road.

He did offer it to me. I accepted. I'm still waiting for it.
Want to explain to me how it's my fault it hasn't shown up ? E

I have both and I prefer the Leupold.

Ever hear of a follow-up just in case you weren't on Doug's mind 24/7 ? The guys busier than a two perkered billygoat. You can be darn sure if he offered, it was a sincere offer.

Why ?

I'm sure he was sincere. When I followed up a little later, I was told it was out of his hands. He had made the request to Zeiss for the scope.
So, it's my fault I didn't then bug Zeiss about this ? Hilarious !
To learn what ? Barsness has already done a better job of comparing them than I would do. I have learned what is important to me which is eye box size, weight and the lack of a locking ocular from my putting it on a rifle stock. E

Only thing that is hilarious is your imagination.

Another vote for Zeiss for all the reasons mentioned�+ better FOV.

I really dislike the 4-14 Leupold. The 3-10, however, is a decent scope.

I have both Zeiss, Leupolds and others. In fact I just traded a Conquest for a Leupold. The only reason I did is I wanted AO in a smaller scope. (Rimfire) Everybodys eyes are different, to my eyes the Zeiss is a much better looking (thru) scope than the Leupold. Kahles is even better than Zeiss. In general terms and in testing I have read by those with more optics knowledge than I most agree that the Zeiss is a "better" scope. What your eyes say to me is what is important.

Because I can't get the Zeiss fully focused at 100 yards, because it's out of focus at 25 yards when it's as good as it gets at 100 yards, and I don't like the way it zooms.

To tell the truth I actually prefer my Nikon Prostaff.

This surprises me none!

TFF

I'm just telling it the way it is. The Prostaff is clearer, it is focused at all ranges, and it tracks perfectly. What's not to like?

When you perpetually keep your head in your azz it affects your eyesight, apparently.

It just proves my point.

Does the Prostaff have super hard lense coatings ?

I guess I would say to Swampy what ever works for you, if you still have the Zeiss I'll trade you a Nikon Monarch (higher quality than a Prostaff) for your Zeiss.