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

I think I like the idea of trying the VX3 3.5-10x40 in talley LWs. Good compromise of the above. Maybe not the best optically but appropriate for the build while still being fun at the range. (not that a 2.5-8 wouldn't). I feel as though 1.6 ounces is worth the magnification for a better all around combo.

mathman,

Ssshhhhh! That information comes directly from the MOSS division of sporting optics.

Mystic
Order of
Secret
Schit

Got'em both. The Conquest has better optics, but not by much. The new VX-3's are great. The 3.5-10x40 has a longer tube and is more forgiving to mount than the 2.5-8x36.

Also, as a CDS fan, Zeiss hasn't offered a zero stop turret and I'm sure if they did, it would be a lot more expensive than the CDS. The 3.5-10x40 CDS is a masterpiece, IMHO.

DF

I don't agree with the above at all!

There is a dramatic difference between the 3-9 Zeiss Conquest and the 2.5-8 Leupold VX-111.

I just compared both scopes again and I have the rifles here beside me. Granted that individual eyes vary and even my Conquest, for instance, may vary from some other 3-9 Conquest. However to my eye I can see much better into the woods here when trying to look at the same thing on a tree in the shadows and determine "what is it?"

Both scopes are clean, quite new, and set to 5X. The Conquest is much brighter and quicker to give confidence to what I am looking at.

On the other hand this Conquest is bigger, heavier and not nearly as good looking as the Leupold.

Thus there is a dramatic, very big difference between these two scopes.

To add I just compared the Kahles 2-7X36 to the above and while smaller than the Zeiss it ability to see "what is it." is about as good. The 2.5-8 Leupold is a distant last however its better looking, smaller and way better than irons!

Although I am old my eyesight is better than average and I have almost 60 years of experience shooting rifles at the range, hunting, and competition. For instance I went hunting Wednesday and I am going to the range today. Yesterday we went to Cabelas. Most oculists tell me I have the best eyesight they have ever tested.

keerist....

All this coming from a guy who thinks a Leupold Switchpower is a top shelf binocular.......

...and a .257 Roberts is a varmint gun and shooting deer with it is a stunt...

We could be here all day posting his stupidshitisms

Sav99,

I disagree with your disagreement, nothing new there...

There is NOT a "dramatic difference" between the Conquest and VX-3. I have several of each and have compared them side by side. The Conquest is brighter than the VX-3 but the new Leupolds are pretty darn good. The Conquest is NOT a quantum leap ahead of the VX-3.

Now the new VX-6 is another matter. The Conquest will be scratching to out run that one.

IMHO,

DF

I see the VX-6 is a 30mm! That's too big for the rifle I want to upgrade for.

VX-6

I want Leupold looks and a Zeiss view.

Perhaps a 4-12 1" tube 36mm obj. with Zeiss optical quality including a reticule that does not fade to pink like the Leupolds I have do.

I'm not too crazy about 30mm, either. But, the VX-6 1-6x24 doesn't look too bulky on a full sized rifle. And the weight is competitive. The optics are more than competitive.

This scope will run with the high end Euro's. The Fire Dot technology with the pod on the turret assembly and not on the ocular, puts it ahead of the Euro's, IMHO.

And, plan on spending $2K+ for a Euro equivalent.

DF

Here is the rifle that I want to get an upscale scope for.

The scope on it now is a handsome VX-111 2.5-8X36mm mattte.

I like the looks of the scope and now it has Conetrol mounts!

The matte looks good to me. I have other gloss scopes and they are ok too. Perhaps the Swarovski badge would be too much!

Didn't the Germans or Austrians kill any of your kinfolk 99?

What makes you think 99's ancestors were on our side...??



99,

Have you examined the new VX-3's. To me they're a jump up from the Vari-X III's. One of those would look great and I don't think you'd be giving up that much optical excellence compared to a Euro. I've got Swaro's, old and new Zeiss, and Kahles. The newer Leupolds don't trail them by much and at a fraction of the cost. Besides, they're sleeker, trimmer and lighter in most cases.

IMHO,

DF

What VX-3 do you suggest that's not over 40mm but up to say 12X.

Pictures would help.

IMHO, the pick of the litter is the VX-3 3.5-10x40 and I would add a CDS.

To me it's very close to my Z3 4-12x50, BT. I'm not crazy about 50mm objectives, but this was the only Z3 with a ballistic turret. The Z3 may edge it at dusk, but not by enough to justify the price differential.

DF

As posted on another thread, VX-3 3.5-10x40 CDS on a 45-70 BPCR.

Not bulky at all. To me, it's a great looking scope and a great scope to look through.

This one should be on the short list for your rifle, IMHO. If I wanted a Euro, I'd probably get a Z3. If you aren't looking for a ballistic turret, there are more choices in the Z3 line.

Conquests are great, but they're bulkier and not as sleek, even as the Z3.

Below is the Swaro Z3 4-12x50 BT with Outdoorsmans turret on an Ed Brown Damara (top gun).

I don't think the 3-9X40 Conquest is as bulky as some say it is. Especially when compaired to scopes of the same power like the the 3.5-10X40 VX3 or 3-9X40 VX2.

To me me it doesn't look out of place at all.


Now the 2.5-8X36 VX3 is one sleek S.O.B. and looks great on about anything.



Both are fantastic scopes.

Terry

Nice guns. What are they?

I agree that the Conquest isn't that bad. The ocular is larger and not as sleek.

I love my Conquests and have posted before that IMHO, the 3-9x40 Conquest is the most glass for the buck, period.

DF