Decisions, decisions.
Not sure if this has been recently hashed, but looking for preferences/ dislikes on either/ both.
Have a VariX III, VX III, and Zeiss Victory binos, so I'm somewhat familiar with both products.
Thanks for any opinions.
wow do a search.....this has been hit 400 times
the leupy is lighter, has a better eye relief usually
the zeiss is bigger, heavier with a bolder style duplex reticle
the 3-9x40 conquest is my favorite and can be had for 369 new
the 3.5-10x40 VX3 is around 100$ more
bot hhave lifetime transferable warranty
the leupold has more custom options
what do you need it for?
I just mounted a Conquest 3x9.... I still prefer the VX3 3.5x10...that said either is a good choice
This looks interesting, don't think I've seen a Conquest/VX3 thread before lol
Oh wait, yes I have. Many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times recently. Just look beyond the first page and you'll find a few of them.
wow do a search.....this has been hit 400 times
the leupy is lighter, has a better eye relief usually
the zeiss is bigger, heavier with a bolder style duplex reticle
the 3-9x40 conquest is my favorite and can be had for 369 new
the 3.5-10x40 VX3 is around 100$ more
bot hhave lifetime transferable warranty
the leupold has more custom options
what do you need it for?
I concur, except you forsgot to add that the Conquest has better glass.
When compared to the VX3, under low light conditions, they resolve the same.
The standard reticles for them are equally heavy/bold or sharp. E
The Conquest also has more or less constant eye relief. You'll really notice this at full power settings.
If money matters, in my opinion at $369 from Doug the 3-9 Conquest is a clear (groan) winner in the value department. It's a heck of a scope.
The points of seperation I see are:
-the Leup is about an inch shorter, and a couple ounces lighter;
-the Leup has that awesome looong eye relief (ER) and huge eye box at low power settings;
-the Conq has much better ER at full power;
-the Conq adjustments track very, very well;
-the stock turrets on the Conq are completely usable as a low-profile turret. The stock Leup turret, not so much. But the Leup has the CDS available.
-the Leup has "bling" with the wide gold (oooh... gold) ring and gold medallion and nicer box and blankie and printed materials. Then again, guess who's paying for all that?
I've been forced by the economy to be price-concious lately and because of that, along with the excellent glass and tracking, my last 5 scopes have been Conquests. I wouldn't change a thing. Very pleased. That said on my lightweight rifles Leupold rules the day.
When compared to the VX3, under low light conditions, they resolve the same.
The standard reticles for them are equally heavy/bold or sharp. E
I'll repeat my orginal statement....The Conquest has better glass!
The 3.5-10X44 Conquest has shorter eye relief and a much smaller set of eye boxes than the VX3, 3.5-10X40. The 3-9X40 has more eye relief than the above VX3, but have half the eye box at 3.5X and 6X.
Let's not forget the super hard coatings on the VX3. Well worth the extra money for them. E
Dunno about the coatings. I only touch my lenses very rarely, as in every couple years usually, and then only with the proper fluids and optical cleaning tissues etc.
The eye box of a 3-9 Conquest is indeed smaller than a Leupold. What isn't? The Leupold eye box is massive- at low powers. But you pay for that. At high powers, the 3-9 Conq kills the Leup.
The 3.5-10 Conq is one of their 3.5" ER models. I had one. Great scope, but on a long action M700, I wanted more ER. So far I can't find one thing the 3.5-10 would do that I cannot do with a 3-9, however.
It takes a 3.5-10 VX3 with a CDS at $500 to match the functionality of a 3-9 Conquest at $369. Might not matter to some, but me, that's $130 I can put to good use funding this expensive hobby in other ways- powder, bullets, etc.
Glad the loopy has hard lens coatings as I clean all my lenses with gravel.
what do you mean by "eye boxes"?
Eye box is, I think, loosely defined as the size of the visual sweet spot behind the scope. How forgiving the scope is of head position etc.
Damn that sucks!
Maybe someone else will give you a better definition.
The 3.5-10X44 Conquest has shorter eye relief and a much smaller set of eye boxes than the VX3, 3.5-10X40. The 3-9X40 has more eye relief than the above VX3, but have half the eye box at 3.5X and 6X.
Let's not forget the super hard coatings on the VX3. Well worth the extra money for them. E
What proof do you have to support your claim that the Leupy coatings are harder than the Conquest coatings?
Is it because the Leupy "Diamond Coat" is made from real "Diamonds?"
Let's not forget the super hard coatings on the VX3. Well worth the extra money for them. E
They are a first class scope. They feature coatings made from diamonds, which are ten times harder than other coating compounds. This means the light transmitting ability, and image quality of the scope, will not degrade from tiny scratches on the lenses, that occur even with the best of care, at anything like the rate of other scopes.
Its not so much what he says.Its the way he says it.
dave
That is the major point here.Everyone has an opinion ,and they do often conflict.However,most people here have actually used all of the products that are being discussed,and base their opinions on their personal experience.On the other hand a certain person here,has not used all of the products,and bases his opinion totally on another persons opinion or what that person has written in a book.When the majority of the people here find that one product appears superior in some way to his personal favorite,that certain person accuses the rest of the people of not knowing how to focus a riflescope.If a question is asked as to how a certain company tests it's products,most people will accept the word of a representative of that company as being the truth.However,a certain person here states openly that the company representative is lying,because some writer has written something that contradicts the company representative. When proven wrong,most people here will accept the facts and admit that they were wrong,while that certain individual will never admit being wrong reguardless of the evidence presented against him.
So all in all it come down to that individuals personality and the attitude that he conveys,more than what he actually says.
Eremicus,
A Schmidt & Bender that didn't resolve any better than a 6x Leupold? Maybe you just don't know how to focus an S&B.
_________________________
JB
At $369 the Conquest is a no brainer. Great glass, etched reticle, very tough.
At $369 the Conquest is a no brainer. Great glass, etched reticle, very tough.
Actually $369 is for a USED SCOPE demo scope...
Not the same as brand new.
Let's compare apples to appples when talking about cost vs quality here.
I've bought a couple of Doug's demo scopes. You can't tell they are not brand new. There are no signs of use or handling whatsoever. If you order a demo and brand new Conquest from Doug at the same time you won't be able to tell which is which. They include the warranty card so for arguments sake they are new.
i have seen both, like both, but for the money i would go with the zeiss cuz its cheaper
Does not matter..
New is NEW..
Used is used..
Period.
My point is be FAIR in the comparison.
I think it is funny how the Zeiss fans bring up the $369 USED scopes to compare them to a NEW VX3 Leupold at $400+
OK then jim62, how about a new $399 3-9x40 Conquest vs. a $479 3.5-10 VX-3.
Still $80 cheaper and still the better value.
But I'll take the $369 Conquest with the identical warranty and save $110.
Does not matter..
New is NEW..
Used is used..
Period.
My point is be FAIR in the comparison.
I think it is funny how the Zeiss fans bring up the $369 USED scopes to compare them to a NEW VX3 Leupold at $400+
It's because those demo Conquests [\I]exist[I]. So they are a player in the game so to speak.
I wish demo Leupolds existed, and if they did then I'd quote those prices. But they do not.
I wouldn't call Doug'd demos "used". At least not the 3 I've bought. They had never been mounted and showed NO signs of "use".
If you'd ever ordered a demo from from Doug you would understand the $369 for a Zeiss statment. I can order a 3-9X40 scope that's probably never been out of the box for $369.
I like both but would opt for the 2.5-8X32 if I was going with the Leupold.
Terry
Yeah, last 2 Leupold's were 2.5X8. That's what I'm lookin' at on the VX3. Looking at the 3X9 Conquest, as apparently the 2.5X8 Zeiss is done.
Both are 399 on Cabela's.
Got my "DEMO" Victory's from Doug. To say they were less than perfect would be laughable...
To all the "Ziess sluts" here..
Comparing 3-9 Zeiss to a Leupold 3.5-10 is also Bullschit.
Zeiss makes a 3-10 Conquest at $589.
THAT is the one you should be comparing to the 3-10 VX3s if you were AT ALL interested in a fair comparision.
But then, that would not suit your agenda, would it?
Like I said guys, if you want to compare APPLES TO APPLES, then have at it.
Otherwise, it's just a lot of noise.
I've got 6 Leupolds in the safe here and 1 Zeiss. I'm a real Zeiss slut
Then the Leupy falls way behind, since it is not realy a 10 power
Then the Leupy falls way behind, since it is not realy a 10 power
You really should stop drinking so heavily before you post here..
I've got 6 Leupolds in the safe here and 1 Zeiss. I'm a real Zeiss slut
Mark..
Doesn't matter..
Apples to Apples only ..
To the OP,
Screw all the nit picking and just compare the 2 and buy what you like.
It's your money.
JM
WOW! DID THAT EVER MAKE SENSE!. Probably the most sensible post made in this "mine is better than yours" optics forum. mtmuley
To the OP,
Screw all the nit picking and just compare the 2 and buy what you like.
It's your money.
JM
I also agree to that.
Then the Leupy falls way behind, since it is not realy a 10 power
You really should stop drinking so heavily before you post here..
Apparently you are one that's drinking to not know that Leupy's are a lower power than marked
To all the "Ziess sluts" here..
Comparing 3-9 Zeiss to a Leupold 3.5-10 is also Bullschit.
Zeiss makes a 3-10 Conquest at $589.
THAT is the one you should be comparing to the 3-10 VX3s if you were AT ALL interested in a fair comparision.
But then, that would not suit your agenda, would it?
Like I said guys, if you want to compare APPLES TO APPLES, then have at it.
Otherwise, it's just a lot of noise.
You probably preffer Leupy's beacause of the super hard coatings.
They are a first class scope. They feature coatings made from diamonds, which are ten times harder than other coating compounds. This means the light transmitting ability, and image quality of the scope, will not degrade from tiny scratches on the lenses, that occur even with the best of care, at anything like the rate of other scopes.
Then the Leupy falls way behind, since it is not realy a 10 power
You really should stop drinking so heavily before you post here..
Apparently you are one that's drinking to not know that Leupy's are a lower power than marked
WOW.. 9.7 actuall magnication.Big diff. 3 tenths of a power..
I also DOUBT Zeiss scopes are all the actual mags listed on the scope itself.
Most rifle scopes are not.
Compare the Leupy beside the Zeiss at the top power and the image is larger in the Zeiss
To all the "Ziess sluts" here..
Comparing 3-9 Zeiss to a Leupold 3.5-10 is also Bullschit.
Zeiss makes a 3-10 Conquest at $589.
THAT is the one you should be comparing to the 3-10 VX3s if you were AT ALL interested in a fair comparision.
But then, that would not suit your agenda, would it?
Like I said guys, if you want to compare APPLES TO APPLES, then have at it.
Otherwise, it's just a lot of noise.
You probably preffer Leupy's beacause of the super hard coatings.
They are a first class scope. They feature coatings made from diamonds, which are ten times harder than other coating compounds. This means the light transmitting ability, and image quality of the scope, will not degrade from tiny scratches on the lenses, that occur even with the best of care, at anything like the rate of other scopes.
Actually.. if you look at this thread, I NEVER said I prefered the Leupold..
I just think if these guys are going to argue a point between the two brands, they should compare the same basic models.
That's all.
Then the Leupy falls way behind, since it is not realy a 10 power
You really should stop drinking so heavily before you post here..
Apparently you are one that's drinking to not know that Leupy's are a lower power than marked
WOW.. 9.7 actuall magnication.Big diff. 3 tenths of a power..
I also DOUBT Zeiss scopes are all the actual mags listed on the scope itself.
Most rifle scopes are not.
Droptine,
Understand the jing factor all to well.Seeing as your from the pig hunting capital of the world.And most people I know in Texas arn't clock watchers when deer hunting.I feel its in your best interest to stay away from optics that.---
Rely on 1930s focusing technology.Hard to believe they still are selling outdated chit like that.Really highlights just how far behind they are in technology.
Johnney cant seem to get the power ingraved on the power ring in the proper location.Several years ago on Sniperhide there was a post on the optics board.Hunderds of posts.Seems law inforcement all over the country were finding out that mil-dots were not at the right spacing because of poor QC at the big L.
If you were to just read this board.All you would hear is that lupies Xs are low and are at a disadvantage in low light.Actually becaues of very poor QC there all over the lot.Some are high and some are low.This explanes the wide difference in how lupies "look" from scope to scope .Think snow flakes here.Everyone is different.
Only the latest scopes should be tested.Oddly enough I kinda agree with this one.Tasco had fully multi coated glass before lupie did.You dont have to go back that far to find a turd lupie without full coatings and trust me,they are pathetic.The tiny invisible scratchs we hear about so much are very simple to explain.Lupies MC4 coating is a mass market,cheep,very low quality coating that degrades pretty quickly over time.Whether you clean it or not.Hard use make the view go south even faster.
Your talking about Zeiss "T" coating against MC4? Nuff said.
dave
According to E the slight difference in power makes a huge difference.
dave
I have several Leupolds on rifles and 1 Conquest. To me the Conquest is clearly the better glass, but I prefer rifles on the lighter side so the ones with Leupolds usually go hunting. While I think the Zeiss is clearer, I can't think of any time the Leupolds have not been good enough.
JMR..
Are your Leupolds the latest VX3 Models with the newer coatings??
Just curious.
You mean the ones with the tough Diamond Coat?
They are a first class scope. They feature coatings made from diamonds, which are ten times harder than other coating compounds. This means the light transmitting ability, and image quality of the scope, will not degrade from tiny scratches on the lenses, that occur even with the best of care, at anything like the rate of other scopes.
When compared to the VX3, under low light conditions, they resolve the same.
The standard reticles for them are equally heavy/bold or sharp. E
While I will agree that they resolve very close to the same, The Conquest is Brighter and the reticle, is much darker and sharper!!!
Eremicus, Diamond Coat is more scratch resistant than what standard coating?
Is Nikon's UCC a standard coating?
Is Sightron's 7-layer Zact-7 Revcoat a standard coating?
Is Zeiss's LotuTec� lens coating a standard coating?
How about Burris's HiLume� multi-chemical multicoated?
Or, XR coatings, exclusive to Vortex?
Get the picture???
In lowlight comparisons that I have done with a deerhide on a sawhorse in various settings the Leupold VX3 3-10 with the German #1 reticle was a noticably better performer than the Conquest 3-9 with the Zeiss #4.
However, against other Lupy reticles in low light, I prefer the Conquest with a #4.
In good light they both look pretty damn good, concerning the coin involved, relatively speaking.