Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss conquest 3x9-40 or Leupold 2.5x8-36?

Leupold post and duplex is a bit heavier than the Conquest duplex. However, the Conquest duplex is heavier than most duplexes and not that far behind the post and duplex in low light viewing.

One can actually see both reticles until the background is almost black.

A post and duplex in the new VX-6 beats them both, especially with the Fire Dot. But it costs more than a Conquest and a VX-3 combined.

DF

My 51 yr old eyes do not see much, if any difference in the VX3's or Conquests I have but maybe it's just me. I like the Leupy reticles better because I can see them better at dusk-thirty.

On a light rifle in a mild cartridge the 2.5-8 Leupold is a fine choice. If it was a heavier kicker, the extra eye relief of the Zeiss would push me quickly in that direction.

Both are great scopes, but it's a short action build and weight is a consideration....this points you to the 2.5-8.

Thanks for everyone's input. It's been great.

What he said...

I have both scopes and I tolerate the 2.5-8 Leupold because it fits on a custom Mauser. The larger ocular on the Conquests would hit the bolt handle unless higher mounts were used. The Mauser is also a handsome rifle and the Leupold is better looking.

Optics wise for me the Conquests have it all over the Leupolds who's reticules turn pink in the evening sunlight.

My Kimber 243 Montana has a 4.5-14 Conquest on it. That rifle is so light that it can handle the extra weight.

I say to get both and switch them around on rifles. I am going to look at what I have for extra scopes right now.

The spares are a 2.5-8 Conquest, Weaver K4, 10X Lyman Wolverine, 2-7 Redfield, 30 Lyman Supertargetspot and a 4X Zeiss Diatal C.



If I were to buy another scope it would be a 4.5-14 Conquest.

Here is what the 3-9 Conquest with it's superior optics looks like on a M70 custom 300 Win. Mag.

The little dink 2-7 'spare' Redfield came as a trade on this rifle.

I just compared the 3-9 Conquest to the 2.5-8 Leupold by looking out the back window into the woods. The sun is out and to the East and I am looking West.

The Conquest is far superior in every respect in terms of what I see. However its big.

Savage - you buy a Montana in an Edge and stick on a Conquest ??? I don't know man, seems like buying heavy boots cuz ya own thin sox. but whatever floats your boat- it's your rig.

For same size and weight and cost as a Conquest I would opt for a 3-9x42 Meopta Meopro. Actually saw one at SWFA with a BDC for $317....might have to buy it just cuz!

I like the Leupold P and D heads and shoulders above the heavy duplex, if you haven't tried one you really should. I just aint a duplex fan - #4's rock.

And slaps a Harris on the front to boot..

Leupold vx3 3.5-10x40 is only 12.6 ounces vs 15 of the conquest? Seems like a good compromise of size, weight and magnification.

The Conquests feel and look big. The ocular just misses the bolt etc. The Leupolds look cool with that gold ring!

Heck some here say irons with a receiver sight is what turns them on today.

An easy shot with almost any sight is easy.

When I was waiting for that buck to turn for a broadside shot at 280 yds I did it with the 2.5-8 Leu and wished I was looking through the 4.5-14 Conquest.

Oh we ain't done with you yet.......

Shouldn't we now compare the Zeiss 3-9x40 to the Leupold 3.5-10x40??

My feeling on optics in the VX3, Zeiss Conquest, Meopta Meopro, Bushnell 4200, Minox ZA-3, Sightron, 36-40ish mm / price range is that they're all really good.

Some might work a wee better than others for individual eyes but anyone that claims vast superiority from one over the other is......

Jeff O, funny. Hey meant to mention that the first post of yours on this thread was a good one.

Savage- I hear ya, sometimes more can be better.

I couldn't agree more. These posts where "one blows the other away, etc, etc, etc" are just laughable. I look through most everything that our hunters show up with in camp from $2K+ to $300 stuff. I know first hand, when comparing optics of the same $$$ class/competitors, what to believe and what not to believe, and the vast majority of these types of "optical superiority" posts around here pure crap.

You're right on the money SKane.

I gotta agree with this.....I just don't see the quantum leap in optical goodness until it hits the S&B, high end Zeiss and Swaro,etc level.

And it still isn't as big as some would have us believe.