Has anybody compared the Leopold vx3i to a zeiss conquest in low light?
Also would consider Minox or Vortex.

Going to go with either 3-9x40 or 3-9x50.


What is your favorite low light scope for deer hunting?


Regards,
Dan

Leupold 6x42 with a Post and Duplex or Heavy Duplex reticle are good in low light.

I hear Schmidt and Beneer is pretty good too, I've never looked through one.

I have a VX6 1-6, and it is very impressive at dawn.

My favorite is a Kahles CL 3-10X50. It's better than a Conquest 3X9 and better than the new Conquest HD5 2-10X42

It's all moot though since I could shoot during legal light even with my oldest 2-7X33 Leupold Vari X.


Unless you are bumping up to the high end Vortex Razor, I would pick the Leupold. I just have more confidence in it as an all around good scope with a balance of features.

"Best" is an ambiguous word. The Schmidt & Bender 3-12x42 Klassic is about as good as it gets in low light. Yes I own one. powdr

Powdr speaks truth. "Best" in this instance gets into scopes costing far more than either that the OP mentioned.

All I can say is that the VX3 from 4-5 years ago was spanked pretty good by the same-era Conquests, to my eye. It was a color balance thing as much as anything; the Leup coatings went a bit yellow in really low light and the Conquest was more blue-white. Made a very noticeable difference for me, at the bitter end of low light, in the western Oregon jungle.

A LOT has changed since then, optically, and almost all for the better.

Ok let's say in the under $700 range....

For under 700 it will be hard to be the conquest.

For my short range rigs I also run Kahles Helia C but 3-12x56.. They can get you in trouble

Anything with a good German #4 reticle!

AMEN TO THAT! :>)

Trijicon 2.5-10x56 Amber dot.

David

The Trijicon would be tough to beat if low light was your normal hunting condition, heavy cover cloudy days. Objective diameter makes a difference my 3-9x50 beats my 3-9x40 Conquest any time for low light and the HD 5 3-15x50 beats them both. If you found a 30mm tube and 56mm objective in your price range it might not be light or sleek but would.be bright in low light.

Leupold, Zeiss, Nikon, take you pick

I'm a Leupold guy but my Zeiss 3x9x40 Conquest is definitely brighter at first light!

I hunt low light and in thick woods quite often.

This year for deer I be rockin' 2 Leupolds. Both are 2-7x33. One with #4 firedot, and one with heavy duplex. I like both of these reticles for low light hunting and have taken may deer using HDs and #4s. The Trijicon with amber or green triangle is also very good.

Even though I am a Leupold slut, I feel what reticle you use will make more difference than what brand, given similar priced models.....

X2
Too many folks focus on the brand scope and completely forget about the reticle. It doesn't matter if you can see the deer if you can't see the reticle. A more practical approach to scope decisions would be to pick your brand based on the reticle.

Amen. Any $400 scope nowadays will get you past legal shooting light, easily. I've owned several Euro scopes that had, IMO, inferior reticles (too thin) and were virtually worthless to me. The S&B Summit is one that comes to mind.

Hate to disagree with my old pal JG; but Ive aimed at 100's of deer past shooting light with my Summits, and have never lost a reticle on an animal yet.

Until it was night time of course.

If I were REALLY worried about it I wouldn't use it.

Since I haven't seen a Vortex I would buy I will mention some I have purchased. If you get a good Swarovski z5 5-25X52 it is excellent in low light. I had four and two were terrible in low light. I have two Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's. One is better than anything I have compared it to in any light. The other is like the two Swarovskis....terrible in low light. I bought three Bushnell 4200 4-16X40. They didn't seem as bright, but were better than the two bad z5's and the one 6500 scopes in low light. Better than all except the one 6500 was the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52. It was so close to the good 6500 that had to go back and forth between the two before deciding the 6500 was better. My son-in-law took about one second to tell me the 6500 was better. I asked him to check again. He said, "Yep. It's clearer and brighter."

With all that said, the Leupold has the boldest reticle.

Is it possible that eye sight may have something to do with it?

Under $700? Easy. Meopta Meopro

Spend 300 more and get Swarovski Z3 4-12x50 you'll be glad ya did!

In my case it most definitely does!

One of the benefits of the S&B Klassic is having a FFP reticle. You can make your reticle any size you want. For me on my scope w/a #4 reticle I do almost all of my killin on about 5.8 power. Much over that at dark thirty and my scope has some flare to it. I mean really dark here. powdr

It could be eyesight. Just how we see things differently....of course. We don't all take the same eyeglasses either.

The "best" low light reticle I have used is the Swaro version of the Duplex found on the old PH 2-10x. Even at 300 yards looking back into timber after legal shooting light, that reticle simply would not quit and was visible to aim for me after a Zeiss Conquest faded out.

I don't wear eyeglasses except to read. I had lots of trouble with that S&B, Swaro Z5 and Z6, all plex reticles. I think Swaro thickened up those from when they first came out though.

I could see the thin wires on the conquests I've had better than that Summit.....go figure.

I've got an old older Swarovski 2.5x10-42 obj FFP and like Bob said, it doesn't quit. Awesome scope for a hunting rifle.

I've also got a 2-12 VX6 with the Firedot 4. It doesn't beat the Swaro.

For my OLD EYES I settled on a Leupold FX-3 6x42
that I had Leupold install their German #4
Bright with a Reticle I can SEE at
DARK THIRTY
AMRA

X2^^^^^^

Mine's a Kahles Helia L 3-12x56mm with a No. 1 reticle in the first focal plane. The reticle gets larger and easier to see as magnification increases.

I also have a German built (grayish) Zeiss Duralyt 2-8x42mm that's fantastically bright.

Both of these scopes were built for the Euro market where hunting at night is legal.

I can't remember my last scope that wouldn't make it to legal shooting light was over, and I don't alpha glass for riflescopes.

For your $700 budget, it's more about the features you want.

Just my $.02

2 6x42's

6x42 Leupold is good.

In that price range the 3-9 Conquest is hard to top for viewing.

I can't wean myself off old M8's, especially the eye relief. I have one SWFA 10X, but it's on a play rifle.

Reckon I'm a old fuddy duddy

You might be able to find a Kahles CL or KX for 700 or a tad more. They have no competition at that price. The next would be a Zeiss Conquest HD and then down to Meopta/Zeiss 3-9x40 3-9x50 etc.

I agree with Jeff, the Conquest was definitely better than the two VXIIIs of the same vintage and cost in low light performance, but right now both Leupies are mounted on rifles and the Zeiss is in the box. Up a little in cost are the VX-6 and Accupoint which both are illuminated and are excellent low light scopes. For under $700, I'd go Zeiss Conquest if my main criteria was light gathering capability. It is bright.

Gotta keep in mind exit pupil though. Some deal about dividing the objective by power. So I think the average pupil is 5mm and whenever it works out to less than 5 your losing light. 42mm OBJ / 6x = 7 (bright) 40mm OBJ / 10X = 4 (not so bright)

Something like that, read it on the back of a box of Cap'n Crunch. Mighta been the crunch berries....

I had a Zeiss 6x42 Diatal that was very impressive in low light. I had the ASV+ turrets added to it. I let it go to finance trying something else. That was an epic mistake. They don't make them anymore and the folks that have them are astute enough to hold on to them.

There's a Schmidt & Bender 6x42 on the classifieds that would at least equal the Zeiss 6x42 if not even better it:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...Schmidt_and_Bender_6x42_Cla#Post11476006

John

The price range has kicked up a notch.... my Swaro 3-10x42 is really good optically in lowlight, though as others have mentioned the reticle is a little thin. I don't know if they've changed the reticle thickness on the very similar Z3's.

Warning, bit of a ramble.... funny how circumstances change. Low light performance has sunk down the priorities list for me in the last 5 years... It was very high on the list but might not make top 3 now! I drew a coveted high desert mule deer tag THREE TIMES in that span, a tag that should take 4-5 points to get, plus one year I was building a new house and desperately cranking to get the roof on before the rains hit; I didn't hunt much that fall. And concurrently, the private land honeyhole I still-hunted blacktails on for all those years kinda dried up.

I'm in deer camp right now and bailed from my stand well before last light. Much of what I was watching was 400+ yards away, and/or cross canyon, and at a certain point I'm not taking that shot anyway then having to hike way over there in the dark anyway. And finding the deer, etc.

Check this one out I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Fixed. 6x great #1 reticle very bright and clear glass

http://www.eurooptic.com/meopro-6x42-riflescope-1-560800.aspx

I am kind of with Jeff O on this as far as low light priority goes. Not because it has somehow become less important but because any scope I look at now will have greater brightness than most costing much more just a few years ago. As a result things like a preferred reticle, positive and repeatable click adjustments and perhaps weight are allowed greater consideration. For example the 3-9 VX3 variable I bought rather recently is brighter than the fixed 6x42 M8 that was a gold standard of brightness to many for years. Either gets me past legal shooting times.

If I wanted to go for max brightness now I would likely look at an FX3 6x42 with my favorite #4 reticle.

I'll also go with a Meopta 6x42mm with a #4. Outstanding glass and a great reticle.
Bob

Got one of those too- an Artemis.

Are you talking Meopro?

That is the only 6x42 Meopta makes currently. I would look for a Meopta r1 with a 4c reticle and call it good

Don't own any scopes that cost over $700.00

The reticle is very important to me also, as others have mentioned.

Where I hunt, my perception is that I see most of the animals I shoot very early or very late, so low light capability is at the top of the list.

I have a Meopro 3.5-10x44 with German #4 that is great to my eyes. A Conquest 3-9x40 with German #4 that is great and a VX-3 1.75-6x32 with a Custom Shop #4 that is pretty decent. My Elite 4200 3-9x40 is pretty good but I lose the reticle quite often, it is a duplex.

I've owned two Vipers that to my eyes were noticeably inferior in low light to my other scopes - for my eyes. The Nikons I've looked through were about the same as Vipers. I've had a couple of Fullfield II's that were surprisingly good in low light.

all my low light scopes are ziess conquest and meoptas.


itll get me later than i need to shoot.

To me the best money spent on a scope is the $350 3-10x44 meopta doug sells.

Owned just about every scope made under $2500, so I'm going with Trijicon green dot. It'll give you a shot in darkness if you can still see outline of animal.

Definitely. Bright and clear optics that is available with either a #4 or Meopta's slightly thicker duplex.
Bob

Thanks for all the input guys.... I have a used ziess conquest on loan (with possible sale) for the last few days so that I could look through i at dusk... and it looks very good.... But I have decided to give it back to him (Ring marks on scope)

So I just ordered a Meopta 3-10x44 From Cameraland bases upon the recommendations here..

Thanks for all your input and pictures... You guys have been a great help!


Regards,
Dan