Leupold vs. Zeiss

B

BangFlop

Member
I need some help with a decision. I've always been a Leupold fan, I have a Leupold VXIII 4.5-14x40 on my ADL 204 and a few others. I have a Rem. 700 Mountain Rifle 7mm-08, and I want to put another high quality scope on it. But I want something that is not going to be bulky on the rifle. I am between the following 3 scopes:
Leupold VXIII 2.5-8x36
Leupold VXIII 3.5-10x40
Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40

I'd really like to have the 2.5-8x36 however I am concerned with the light gathering abilities? I would also like to stay with Leupold unless someone can tell me to make a long drive to see a Zeiss.

Please help.

Steve
 
Zeiss conquest optics and generally pretty good and would be in comparison to the ones mentioned. I believe any of the three would serve you well. There is not gonna be much difference in the 36 and 40 mm objectives. Low light is not going to be a factor unless you are shooting at night and in most places that is illegal anyway.
 
What determines the light gathering ability? Is it objective size and glass quality or just the objective size or is it something else? I heard that the human eye can only utilize a certain amount of light, does anyone know what that is and how to figure it?

Thanks, and I appreciate any advise anyone can offer.

Steve
 
Zeiss have 3 of them a real quality product no low grade scopes the only one better in my opion is a Swarovski I have 2 of these Leupold really stands behind there scopes and I have had to send several back to factory for service with the Zeiss and the Swarovski never had a problem plus they give a new meaning to clearness Mauser
 
As Steve said, none would be a bad choice. I've shot more whitetails with the 7-08 than any other caliber. My first one wore a 3-9x40 Nikon Monarch. My current Sako Finnlight wears a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. I own and have owned many scopes. I really like this Zeiss so far. I also own/ have owned, several of the other 2 you mentioned. Light gathering ability is determined both by lens coatings and objective size. A smaller objective with better coatings can be better in low light than a cheaper model with a bigger objective. 2 scopes with the same coatings, the bigger objective will be better in low light. Of course, there are trade-offs. The bigger scope is heavier, more susceptible to recoil, and will have a smaller field of view. As far as how much light one's eyes can gather, i.e., exit pupil, it is true. I used to actually know the formula to figure it out, but I've forgotten. I want to say that with a 40mm objective, 5x is the max in low light. With a 36mm 4x is max, and with 42-50mm 6x is the max. What this means, basically, is that this power is the maximum power that you can set your scope of a given objective size, and still have it transmit the maximum amount of light transmission to your eye in low light. ----2MG
 
Bangflop,
I have a couple of zeiss scopes and own or have owned leupold,burris black diamond,nikon monarchs and the zeiss is hands the finest scope.I've did side by side comparisons with many scopes and optically the zeiss scopes excel.
I have no idea about zeiss's service department for one reason!
I'm going to ask about the firefly reticle bushnell on a new thread if i don't get good feed back i'll buy another zeiss.ME
 
Here's my take on the two, I'm a loyal Leupold customer and think the 2.5-8 would be perfect for your lightweight rifle I own two and you will have all the light gathering ability you'll need.

As for lense quality I think Zeiss has them beat, my buddy has a 4 power german Zeiss scope that is so clear and bright at dusk you just have to see it to believe it. Downside is it's a heavy scope for a straight 4 power, one of the trade offs. I heard that the mechanics gave a little trouble in the conquest line (internet rumor?)but my local gun shop has sold too many without any problems for this to be a concern. I have seen a few Leupolds with problems.

Bottom line, if it's for a lightweight gun I'll keep my 2.5-8's but my next heavy rifle will probably get a 4-14 Zeiss.
 
Thanks guys, I guess I am going to go with the 2.5-8 because it is almost 1 inch short than the 3.5-10 and 2 inches shorter than the Zeiss, not to mention 4+ oz. lighter than the Zeiss.

Thanks all.

Steve
 
What size objective you need is determined by what power you will be using in low light conditions. The eye can only use about a 5mm exit as that is what most pupils can dilate to. Simple physics, divide the objective diameter by the power and as long as it is 5 or above you have the best low light scope your eye can see.

The light percentage transmission matters but not much since most better scopes are above 90%.

A 50mm objective is only of any benefit if you are using more than 10X. A pretty rare thing in low light shooting which is usually at pretty short range in my experience.

Jack
 
Bangflop,
Since you have specified that less bulky was desireable you have made a great choice. I have every scope on your list, plus a few 4.5-14 LRs that you also mentioned liking. They are all great scopes but the Zeiss occular bell is far from slim and trim. It can easily make the difference between low and medium ring heights.
 
The optimum amount of light a pupil can use , is 7mm, but that is a perfect eyeball, most of us dont have those, so jack,s figure is probarbly nearer, in practical terms. However, this figure will give two perfect scope configurations, namely, 6 x42, and 8 x 56,because, 7 times 6 is 42, and 7 times 8 is 56, do you see now how its worked out? My opinion is, buy the best lenses you can afford, over objective lens size anyday, small quality lenses will perform better than larger cheap ones.
 
The Ziess Conquest is a steal at the price when compared to Leupold. Superior optics for sure. Very rugged scope too. And I like the bolder plex reticle on my Conquest, it could be a help at sunrise or sunset with those clear, bright optics.
 
I am disappointed that no one uses the "made in USA" as a reason to go with a scope. I generally like leupold over burris because of the slim lines in the leupold scopes. Just my .02
 
I know Leupold is made in the USA you need to know this when you send thme back for repair Never hsd to send a Germany made scope back
 
falfan

Nobody uses the made in usa excuse till we start talking about Burris vs. Leupold, then they all come out of the woodwork. Zeiss is a step above the other two mentioned in several ways, people know this, thats why made in the usa isn't an issue /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Guys , i own both brands. And have also owned a Swarovski 3 x 9 , and could never get it to focus (for me) so i sold it.The zeiss conquest isn't of the same quality as the older (?) german zeiss scopes . I own too many leupold's to count and for dollar value, cannot be beat. Also when size and handling is figured in leupold tops the list , hands down. A person can spend thousands of dollars on a scope, and say he has the best. If he is happy, well good for him or her.For those who say the euro's are better checkout leupold's L.P.S. series. Other than their size and weight are of the best quality out there.
 
Bangflop,
Buy either scope and you won't regret it. I use to be a diehard Leupold fan until I tried the Zeiss. The Zeiss has not failed me from a -30 Muskox hunt on Nunavik Island, AK to shooting jackrabbits in the middle of summer in the Mojave desert at 115 F. To me the Zeiss has better optics and is a steal at their present price.
 
I have the 2.5-8x Leupold VXIII on my .223. Wouldn't trade it for love or money. Hope to get a Swift or 22-250 and will put the same scope on'er.
 
Back
Top