Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Compare Minox ZA3 3-9 X 40 with Leupold

I recently bought a rifle with a Minox ZA3 3-9 x 40 with duplex reticle included. I'm used to my Leupold scopes, as I hunt with a Vari-X III 3.5-10 x 40 made in 2001.
How does the Minox stack up against the Leupold?

P

You should be asking how does the Leupold stack up to the Minox.

Just saw Minox has a 2x10 and a 1.5x8 scope too. That's two good options around the 3x9.

I'm trying to find sizes now, see what weight and length they are myself. My original plan was to put on a VX3 (OP - make sure you are looking VX3, not VXIII when you compare these optics).

One thing nice about the Leup is you can cust shop most to anything you want (color, logo, reticle...)

Wardman

Pretty tough statement on something that's been on the market for a year or so.


I'll let you know after I've run mine for 10 years.

Pharmseller,

How 'bout you do some side by side comparison in good light and low light and tell us about what you see. Do some tracking test and let us know how both work.

That isn't going to mean much. What counts is how well they compare when hunted and how well they hold up over the years. E

mine still works after 1 year, means nothing. Use it to see if its any good, they have a lifetime warranty. The Euro focus on mine turns "too easy" only complaint.

Very ironic that I find this post. I just mounted this Minox on a 220F slug gun since I was disappointed with the low light performance of the VXI 2-7 I had on it this year. I got one of the open box specials from Cameraland. I am a Leupold slut and have them on everything except a couple rimfires. I just trust them and like the eye relief, size, and �eyebox� but also like to play with stuff so thought I�d give the Minox a whirl.

The Minox arrived in one day and only weighs about 2-3 ozs more than the small Leupold it is replacing. It is much smaller than many other EU models I have seen but is still largest scope I have on a hunting gun so it looks �big� to me. It has turrets which can be spun for longer shots if you remove the caps. The only negative I can initially report is that is does have a fairly narrow field of view by comparison but eye relief is right in line with the Leupolds.

I took a piece of cardboard and wrote A B C is blue, black, red and green. My simple testing was just to see how many letter/color combos I could make out at ~65 yds. I have been looking through 5 scopes: VXI 2-7, Cabelas 3-12, Leupold VXII 2-7, Leupold Vari-X II 2-7, and the Minox A3 3-9. All the scopes were set at 7x and easily made out the blue and black letters. The red and green were much harder to discern, only the Minox and Cabelas scope could make out both these colors crisply. This is early afternoon in Ohio on a very overcast day. The results thus far were a little surprising to me listed from best to worst:

1 Minox (best)
2 Cabelas 3-12
3 Vari-X II
4 VXII
5 VX I (worst by far)

I am going to try again at dusk as this is where there should be more separation amongst these scopes. Most shocking is how good the Cabelas scope picked up colors and how bad the VXI really was. I hate to say it, but in terms of optics this sucker is over priced. My old Vari-X II is still a real sweet heart.

Again, I am just reporting visual observations above. This has nothing to do with durability or tracking.

Djb---I just replaced a VX I with a Minox z5 3x10 and it was no comparison. But, I do have Zeiss too and without being the least bit scientific the Minox is very impressive. Mounted it today and hope to do some shooting next weekend. Doug is a heck of a nice guy btw.

The Minox is much brighter and clearer however the one I had blew a turret after about 50 rounds from a hard recoiling rifle..and I have never had a leupold do that !

Had the same experience with Cabelas XT bino's. Have been very good and everyone I let use them say the same. Don't know who Cabelas is buying from for some of their glass, but it is pretty good IMO.

"Had the same experience with Cabelas XT bino's. Have been very good and everyone I let use them say the same."

As hard as it might seem to those who have not looked through my Nikon 7-15X35 everyone who used them says the same thing.

djb,

I have tested a couple of Minoxes now, and the optics are the brightest for the price I've yet seen. But comparing a $200 VX-1 with a $400 ZA3 isn't exactly reasonable.

The adjustments on the Minoxes have been good but not outstanding. The first test scope, a 5-15x, had parallax problems. The second test scope, a 3-9x, held up well on my .338, but one scope (or dead deer, or rifle, or anything) is an iffy sample.

Am always still amaqzed at how many shooters rank scopes mostly on optical quality, when there's relatively little difference in $500+ scopes these days.

So how do you rank scopes, if not on optical quality?

P

MD,

I wasn�t expecting the VXI to be on the level of glass as the Minox. I was looking for relative comparisons and was surprised at the considerable drop off in clarity from it and the other scopes, especially considering daylight conditions � although it was really cloudy. Yes, this is a sample of one VXI and may be an anomaly as well. I had finished my early test after mounting the Minox and just happened upon this thread and chimed in. Again, I specifically ordered the Minox to replace this VXI as I was not happy with its optical performance this year. I can be quoted from previous posts that I do view a scope as an aiming device I have binos for �searching� duties. However in this instance, I just wanted a brighter/sharper scope on this gun for my own personal satisfaction.

I tested again at dusk and the Leupolds both surpassed the Cabelas scope in lower light but the old Vari-X II was still better to my eyes than the newer VXII, and I actually tested 2 individual scopes as this model �should have� been brighter. I can only hypothesis that just as occasionally a company may put out a lemon maybe sometimes a scope comes off the line better than it should?

My observations at dusk
1) Minox (best)
2) Vari-X II
3) VXII (2 tested)
4) Cabelas
5) VXI (worst)

To reiterate, I was keying in on one particular aspect of these scopes - optical clarity/brightness. Ohio gun season is often very cloudy and I am a woods hunter where natural light is further restricted. There are many facets (durability, tracking, ect) that are all important characteristics of a good scope. In terms of glass, this Minox is really nice.

I'd be "testing" a FX3 6x42 under those circumstances, with HD reticle. It's a fantastic package.

Tracking, durability, ability to hold POI, reticle, ease of mounting, eyebox (is it easy to "get behind") to name a few.

Like lots of scopes nowadays, the Minox has Chinese turrets/assembly. Nothing particularly wrong with that unless it bothers you (it does to some people, not me). They also use Schott glass I believe. It's not like they've reinvented the wheel here. It remains to be seen how well they hold up.

I'm sorry to appear so uninformed, but what is tracking when referring to a scope?

Tracking is the ability of the adjustments to shift point of impact exactly where it's supposed to go, every time. It's handy in any scope, but essential when dialing-in for longer distances.

Perhaps you should read some of ILya Koshkin's reviews on riflescopes. I can't think of a single person who's ever done "long term testing" on a group of scopes purchased new, used in the field for an extended period (or a period worthy of your acknowledgment) and then reported how they held up, tracked, held zero.....etc. etc...