Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Zeiss conquest or VX-2

Sums it up perfectly

I have a couple Vx-2s that I hunt pretty hard. No complaints at all. Looked at Zeiss years ago, but couldn't get past how ugly they are. Don't think I gave anything up with the Leupolds. mtmuley

glass is better in the conquests then the loopy IMO...with that said, would have sightron Bigsky's on all my rifles if people were foolish enough to let them go, but you dont find them used very often and i'm tight !

You hafta take the lens covers off the Zeiss, dumbass.

For several years, I've owned two VXIIIs in 2.5-8 (which I believe is VX-2 glass these days) and this past year bought my first Conquest in 3-9. Yeah, the Conquest is a little longer and heavier but at 15 oz, it ain't a heavy scope. And to my eye, there is no comparison either in clarity or in light gathering capability. This past season was amazed at how bright the picture still was at last light of day - significantly brighter with the Conquest than the leupies.

Have you compared the Conquest with a new VX3?

Hate to be the odd man out, but I run both and really can't say one is better than the other. If I had to pick the one thing I like better than the other it would be that the VX2 is lighter and the ZC has a better reticle IMO.

Sadly most people don't know that a VX-2 and a VX-II aren't the same scope.

I have and would say the old conquest is a little behind the new vx3. They are very close though.

You seem to be in the minority. Sucks, doesn't it?

"In the world!"

Being in the majority doesn't make you right. Take democrats for instance.

In the past I would have taken a Conquest but would now take a new VX-2 with a #4 reticle as they ARE available then use the difference on a nice set of S and K mounts and have lighter, much nicer looking package. The new VX2's are getting a ton of praise from heir owners. As for blowing away a VX3 I know my new VX3 is brighter than my 6x42 M8- so that is saying something. Better contrast and color too.

It seems to me Leupold will hold value better than a Conquest.

Most of them seem to be selling vx-ii at gunbroker.

Conquest.

They track better, their view is crystal clear, and the #20 reticle is about perfect.

The VX-II was discontinued long ago. The VX-2's made after 2011 are much better than previous VX-2's. In fact 2011 and newer VX-2's are in effect pre-2011 VX-3's as far as glass and technology are concerned. My 2012 made VX-2 is a far better scope than the 5 year old VX-3 I own and pretty close to the Conquest.

I'd still rate my Conquest as a TINY bit sharper and when they were selling for $300 or so would have chosen the Conquest by a slight margin. I can buy a VX-2 for $300, $330 with dots and have a 1/4 lb lighter scope. Something to consider if looking for a lightweight rig and if you want dots. If the Conquest can be had for about the same money it is a close call.

If you search around the forums enough you'll find lots of Conquests that don't track worth a crap too. I have one in my possession right now. I see no difference between Conquest and VX3 glass. I've lost count the number of times I've tried.

Not really a fair comparison. Conquest is more comparable to the VX-3 line. Also I don't take into consideration a scope or rifle for that matter holding its value. I use my guns, don't abuse mind you but they get used. Even my "vaunted" Pre-64 Model 70's and classic Lever Guns get put too work. I do believe in the same magnification range that a VX-3 is generally lighter and somewhat smaller than a comparable Conquest. More svelte if you will. I own, use and like both. Many times for me it comes down to which one fits the rifle better. Look at both if you can and pick what you like best.

Feature for feature, the new VX3 is better than Conquest IMO.

I have a NIB Conquest 3-9x40 on the way. It will be my 4th Conquest and 2nd 3-9x40. All the rest have been sold/traded. As I stated earlier, I'm pretty much a Leupy slut, but do like the lower powered Conquests WITHOUT target turrets.

I also have 2 new VX2 3-9x40s here to compare them to. I will even throw in a Weaver Classic 3-9x38, a Leupy Mark 2 3-9x40, a FF2 3-9x40 LRS, and a 1990s Redfield 3-9x40 (with really good glass) for comparison.

The 3-9x40 Conquest I had was very, very good until I had target turrets installed. However, my last Conquest was a 3.5-10x44 that left me VERY unimpressed. Of all said scopes, only the Burris was less bright IMO. The Vortex Viper 3-9x40 I sold was also better.

I bought the new Conquest because of the #4 reticle, and in hopes that it will be as good optically as my previous 3-9x40 was.

Right now, it's like the ugly kid on a saturday night. No guarantees that it ever even gets mounted.....

I have a couple VX2s and the perform extremely well in low light and I have no regrets buying them as they fit my budget. I have used the Conquest and I do think the glass is brighter, however, it is about $150 more. I would definitely buy the Conquest over a VX3 if it was in my budget.