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

My Sako 75 should come in at any day now and I've been going insane the past week in researching scopes. I have narrowed the scopes to the following: VX-lll 3.5-10x50 or 4.5-14x50. The 4.5-14x50 I looked at was a Long range scope with the B&C reticle ( not sure about that one because it had an extra dial and it seemed a little complex) I'm seriously looking a Zeiss Conquest in: 3-9x50, 4.5-14x50 or 3.5-10x44, 4.5-14x44. I'm leaning toward a larger objective because the 7mm Sako 75 hunter I ordered comes with rings that are high so I might as well try to fill the gap between the bottom of the scope to the gun. The scope will be used for stand hunting deer up to 300 yards. Also what reticle do you guys like? B&C or Duplex for the Leupold. Do you guys think the Z-plex reticle is a little to thick for longer shots? I have heard alot of good things about the Conquest being brighter and the Leupold being more durable and better because of the lifetime warranty. Please help me out here I swear I'm starting to go bald in trying to decide on a scope.

First some terminology. It's a larger objective lens that makes the scope larger, not the reticle. The "extra dial" on the LR Leupold is the side focus or parallax adjustment.

The Z-Plex certainly isn't too thick for 300 yard shots on deer. My main shooting buddy certainly doesn't feel handicapped by his, and neither did I when I was shooting his rifle.

If you don't really want a big objective scope why not get some rings appropriate for the scope you want?

I had a 2004 vintage VX III 3.5-10x40 on a rifle I sold recently and just purchased a Zeiss 3-9x40 for my new huntin rifle which is the Sako 75 Grey Wolf in .300WSM. At 100 yards I could easily see the bullet holes on the target with the Zeiss not so with the Leupold. Both rifles were .300 caliber. Both good scopes, and both have lifetime warranties. By the way I went out and shot the Sako for the first time today. Terrible conditions with the wind howlin about thirty mph and the temp around 20 degrees but I couldn't wait. Any way I managed to keep 4 of 5 shots within 1.5 inches at 100 yards. I was shootin over the hood of a car which was movin with the wind gusts. I think with a good rest and no wind I can improve that dramatically. Lastly you need to check out www.opticstalk.com, it is a great site which helped me with my decision to get the Zeiss.
Sam

Was it a VX-III? The 3-9x40's are VX-II's. Even so, 30 cal. bullet holes at 100 yards shouldn't have been a problem. I've recently been to the range with an older Vari-X II and a current VX-II, both 3-9x40, and neither I or my shooting buddy had any problems seeing the bullet holes, clearly and easily, at 100 yards.

mathman

Seeing bullet holes is a function of what light is there and what mirage is around. Some days I can see 30 cal holes in the paper at 600 yards so easy its not even funny with a 25X scope. Other days you play heck trying to find them at 100.

Seeing them at the same time side by side is an honest comparison IE if the Zeiss saw it and the Leupy didn't then conditions were on the tough side.

Some days I play heck seeing all of my 224 holes at 200yards with a 25x scope even.

Dann-- used the Z plex on a 4.5x14 to make 2 shots at just over 800 yards on a caribou. Definitely was not a hindrance. I could easily hold on a light colored spot that was the size of a hardball to softball at that range on 14x.

Jeff

Your right it wasn't a 3-9x40, it was a 3.5-10x40 which is the Vari-X III and yes it's not a fair test without both scopes tested under the same conditions. I also wear contacts which do get blurry before they need to be tossed and replaced. That might have been the case also.

Jeff,

I understand what you say about conditions and quality/quantity of available light. Based on how crappy conditions got during my last range trip (where I still did fine seeing the holes), if I can't find 30 cal. holes at 100 with a VX-II set at 9x it's probably too nasty out for me to be having a good time.

I've done side-by-side comparisons in varying conditions at home and at the range, and my buddy's Conquest and my Nikon Gold are both clearly optically superior to the VX-II. But absolute optical clarity isn't the only thing I look for in a scope. Cost, size, weight, anticipated use and mounting flexibility all enter into the equation.

mathman

Simple opinionated answer: VX-III, not a doubt in my mind its more scope for the money. I own both.

Ford vs. Chevy. It's funny, like .280 Remington, I own both (own many Leupolds actually) and there is no doubt in my mind the Zeiss Conquest is more scope for the money than the VX III.

Both are great scopes with an excellent warranty. Let your eyes decide.

One thing that the Conquest has over the Leupold is that it has an etched reticle instead of the usual wire reticle used in most other scopes. That is a more durable design. Optically, it is a no brainier, the Conquest 3.5-10x44 Z-Plex has the Leupy beat hands down.

My eyes tell me to tell you to buy Zeiss...............I only have 1 but that "WILL" change.

Having owned several leupolds and conquests and comparing both side by side,my eyes tell me that the conquest is clearer and brighter.

dann,

To my eyes the Zeiss Conquest scopes have noticably better resolution and contrast than Leupold scopes. Some call one scope or another brighter but either you can define some thing or you cannot and the Zeiss technology performs for me.

Now don't get a big scope just because of some rings! Make sure the scope is not too high for you on your cheek weld.

Make sure to get a quote from Camera Land

I've had them all..Leupold, Swaro Ph series, A-line series, Conquests, Schmit & Benders etc, mostly 50mm and larger. I think my beliefs have come with age but I think l agree with most here. A 40mm VXIII is all you ever really need. The 3-9-40 Conquest has a very nice sight picture with a better fov than the comparable Leupie but I also consider aesthetics. My opinion, the Conquest tubes are too long and heavy and I'm not sure about the internal adjustments. I like the 3.5-10-40 VXii or iii on a LA and the 2.5-8-36 on a SA, both in low mounts. Again my opinion, best looking and functional combos available. As far as rugged reliability and customer service; they have no equal. Never had a Leupie fail and when I did send some in for reticle changes, I recieved a postcard within a week acknowledging the delivery and advising me of the turn around which was a matter of two weeks. I think Leupold missed the boat with VXL. They should have come out with a 2.5-8-42 on the 6-42 FX frame. That would be the ticket.
Rugged example: dropped my rifle this past season while fumbling with a gate lock before daylight. The scope cushioned the fall of my rifle, dead on the deck. No way it held zero. I was wrong, did not move poi at all. As far as light gathering, you can see plenty late enough to get caught speeding. If you wanna do donuts in the mayor's yard, just hold on of those small lithium flashlights in your forward hand and wallah, instant outlaw. No different than a $1500 3-12-56 European. Don't misunderstand me, the high dollar optics are nice if you can afford them but not completely necessary. BTW, I also used to think supersonic arrow speed was needed out of my bow but have come to the realization a quiet, forgiving, accurate bow is much more practical. Also put the latest and greatest supposedly longest driver in my golf bag every summer. Not the cure all either. I think I'm just getting older.

Another vote for the Zeiss Conquest here and I've owned several of each brand. A 3-9x40 sits atop my Sako 75 7mm mag. And if the warranty is a concern, let me just say that Zeiss's warranty service is excellent in my experience. I had to return a 4.5-14x44 Conquest that I had damaged when I dropped my rifle onto the paved parking lot at our shooting range. I asked them to fix it at my cost since the damage was my fault. Instead, they sent me a brand new scope at no cost to me and I had it on my doorstep exactly 7 days from when I sent them the damaged one. You'll have a tough time beating that.

Dann the difference in the cost of buying lower scope mounts should be offset by going to a scope with a smaller objective I would think. I like 42- 44mm scopes and think D R Brown had it right when he said Leupold should have made a 2x8x42. Any of those listed would make you a happy camper but if I could go Zeiss I would.

IMO, zeiss beats the leupold every time. I have a Leupold mark4 sitting in my gun room that has never been used because a Zeiss stole its job.

I strayed and bought a Zeiss, now I find myself crawling back to Leupold begging for forgiveness.

what did you ever do with that Zeiss? <hint hint> PM me ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Sent it back and got a refund. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Two out of three scopes being defective was enough of a headache and lesson for me. My next real scope will be a Leupold VXIII 2.5-8x36.

You would think for the extra ten pounds Zeiss weighs compared to others, they would get it right. LOL