Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold or zeiss

The whole Leupold "eyebox" issue is a joke. Get your cheek and face where it belongs (the same place every shot). WDO

LOL ...

Can't argue with that.

The whole eye box thing might be a joke to some of you, but, to some us that hunt everything from triple digets to single digets and use everything from standing to prone, I've found it's very nice to have. Makes a confidence difference and a speed difference when I need to get on target in a hurry.
Ah, yes. The fable of the superior Zeiss being available at the last of the legal light when the inferior Leupold fades out....
I've got a buddy who bought into that once. Had a Redfield on his rifle at the last of the legal light. Couldn't see the huge buck through his scope. The guy next to him was using a Zeiss. He killed the buck. He could see it fine. My friend saved for three years to buy that special $1500 Zeiss. Did it work ? Oh, yes. Is it better than his Leupolds ? My friend doesn't use his fancy Zeiss anymore. He's discovered how to select the right Leupolds and, even more important, how to use them. He's a bit worried about reliability issues.
I got a chance to play with his fancy Zeiss scope for a while. I finally had to ask him about what made it so special. By then, he understood that he had fallen for the hype. He just shrugged and said nothing.
All my fully multicoated Leupolds work well after legal shooting hours. Guys like JJHack and John Barsness have been trying to tell us that there is no one brand better than another as far as brightness is concerned. JJ found that even scopes with objectives as small as 32mm's work fine if equipped with an appropriate reticle. He, like Barsness, have seen them all and used them all in the field. JJ uses his at night sometimes. He's seen about 6000 critters shot under all kinds of conditions. Anybody want to argue with that ? E

I like the response by whitedogone.





It is always a fable when it contradicts your point of view.But your opinions are always fact,even when you are plainly proven to be wrong.



A very common start to many stories <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



It is always hype when it contradicts your point of view.

Of COURSE they want to argue. That's the only reason those ladies post.

JimF

And that obviously includes you,as proven by your posts on this thread. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

E says . . .

Guys like JJHack and John Barsness have been trying to tell us that there is no one brand better than another as far as brightness is concerned.

E, this is the one thing that gets me, this is an outright lie and you have zero yes zero to back this up - regardless of what you heard from a buddy! Now we can argue all day about the outragous price of some of the Euro's, which I frankly can't justify in many cases. I can also add that the new VariXII's are great scopes for the money but again just like their big brothers (VariXIII) but everyone has different financial situation and what they do with their money is their own business. But please quit telling us that other manufacturers aren't brighter than a Leu. Let's stack some S&B, Swaro's & Zeiss against Leupold and see what happens.

You already know the response to fact, "These differences are of no consequence to a hunter".
That is another one of my favorites bested only by twilight factor. Yep, no need to waste time in evaluating optics at Cabela's anymore, just do the math. Why didn't I think of that.

John Barsness has already done that cfran. So have many others. Barsness takes new scopes and uses a special grid to adjust them to the same actual magnification. He sets them low enough to off set any advantage a larger objective would have over a smaller one. He, of course, makes sure they are all focused properly.
He's found that Zeiss, but not Swaro or S&B, are the tiniest bit brighter. Fine. We are talking maybe 2% or even less. Want to go to all that trouble yourself ? Be my guest.
Make no mistake, magnification is the biggest factor in false readings. Just .2X off (5.8X) and a 3.5-10X40 Leupold is about 3% less bright than a Zeiss 3-9X40 when set at 6X. If the actual difference is really .3X, then it's about a 5% difference. The difference between a fully multicoated scope and one with single coatings is roughly 7-9% less bright. So, you set them at the same actual magnification or you get distorted results.
Me, I'm not going to worry about such nonsense. I've watched too many critters long before and long after legal shooting hours with not only Leupolds but other scopes as well. E

E,

Suit yourself, your going to stand behind a book and have no face time to draw any comparisions yourself. Doesn't sound like you have much to fall back on, does it? What you state is inaccurate and a flat out lie, furthermore you have NO actual experience to back up any of these claims, what a joke!

E,
You surley do put yourself through alot for a company that cant make its own glass.And whose business practices are lower that whale poopoo.
dave <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Actually Dave it really isn't Leupold. It's the guys that claim that their scopes are better because they appear brighter or sharper, etc. The usual excuses for justifying the purchase of something that runs several hundred to almost two thousand dollars. and has a big euro name.
We've got more than just a few around here who know better. Guys like Flinch who shoots ground squirrels at 500 plus yds. with a VXII 3-9X40. Or Parrie Dog Shooter who doesn't even bother to buy the fully multicoated Leupolds for his long range PD's or late/early kills. He just buys the excellent VXI's and does it. Then there is Big Stick who is much more interested in results than hype. I've already mentioned JJHack and MD. Any of these guys has more actual experience than any three of the other camp put together. E

Hmmm... I don't know... rost495, Blaine, and Jamison come quickly to mind as guys with plenty of trigger time who find non-Leupold scopes superior for their eyes.

Don't really matter, though, cause this [bleep] got old months ago.

Any of y'all that want to continue piling feces on top of the rotten [bleep] already here are more than welcome to do so, though.

E, you are like reasoning with an 80 year old man, so set in your ways you fail to grasp simple concepts. It gets old arguing with you but when I feel as strongly about something as I do here I'm not going to just sit on the sidelines and listen you your biased rant. Fact is you haven't ever tested some of the Euro's against Leupold, your statements stem from an outdated book you read. You keep saying the Euro's aren't brighter, well that is a flat out lie, why don't you prove it to us if you believe it???

What about Bino's, surely the Euro's do alright on these don't they? I believe you own some.

Here are a few things for you to ponder before you spout off again . . .

Most of my hunting rifles wear Leupolds, for the money they are tough to beat. I do own a Swaro, I bought it at a Leupold price. I don't and have no plans to buy 1,000 dollar scopes, to me it's not worth it. But I have tested a number of them and they ARE BRIGHTER than Leupolds - that is my only point that you can't get through your thick skull.

The only difference between E and David Copperfield is that Copperfield is actually successful at making people believe his illusions.On the other hand E is not nearly as successful at making people believe his delusions. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I am not sure where veryone buys their scopes but since most people are talking VXIII vs Conquest, I have found the Zeiss to be priced lower than the Leupold and that makes it a no brainer. I like 'em both but Leupold is pricing themselves out of the market. If we are comparing the VXII to the Conquest as the original poster asked then it is not a fair comparison and the Zeiss wins hands down. This of course is my opinion and not backed by any facts and YMMV but I don't really care 'cause I will make up my own mind.

pace ...

MSRP vs. actual prices is different, and varies depending on how/where you procure your goods ...

I've found that you can easily find both scopes for far less than MSRP, especially if you're too scared to buy used optics ... They are both close enough in price for me to throw that factor out the window ...

get behind both, and make up your own mind which is better for YOU ... that's really all there is to it ...

That is the best thing that you can do.Do this under actual hunting conditions and ignore what people say about what your eyes are seeing or how you are letting magnfication fool your eyes.Trust your eyes.

Wouldn't you rather trust what some lab rat tells you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />