Leupold VX-III or Zeiss Conquest

The size of the objective lens has nothing to do with field of view. Everything else being equal a 20mm objective has the same FOV as a 50mm. FOV is determined by only three things:
The size of the rear(occular) lens, bigger is more FOV
The eye relief, less is more FOV
The power, less power is more FOV

Jack
 
I already have a 3-9x50 on my Savage 10ML-II so I am probably going to get the 3-9x40 for my new LVSF. Just have to decide now if I want to put Tally Lightweight mounts on it or use the standard Leupold mounts I already have. The Talley's only weigh 2 ounces! I need to weigh a set of Leupold rings and bases to see the difference. Since this is a .17rem I'm not worried about recoil so the lihter the rings and mounts the better.
 
Is a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 for $379 a better way to go even if I can get a Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40 with a free sling and raincoat for $249? I have heard the Elite 4200 is better than the Leupold VX-III, but I have never had one. I will say the price of the Elite 4200 sure does seem great if it is in the same class!
 
Quote:
Is a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 for $379 a better way to go even if I can get a Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40 with a free sling and raincoat for $249? I have heard the Elite 4200 is better than the Leupold VX-III, but I have never had one. I will say the price of the Elite 4200 sure does seem great if it is in the same class!



I have two Leupold 6.5-20X scopes. One I bought about 15 years ago. It has a 1" tube and a 40 mm bell. My newer one has a 30 mm tube and also the 40 mm bell. The newer one with side focus. Both are fine, clear scopes. BUT, I also have two 4200 Bushnells. One is a 4-16 power, the other a 6-24. If I was pressed hard as to what scope is more clear, I would have to say the 4200's. This pains me in a way, as I have more Leupolds than any other scope, but the truth is the truth. Neither 4200 is perhaps as clear as my 6.5-20 Conquest, but it is so close you may as well say that there is no difference. I think that the 4200 and 3200 Bushnells are the best scope that you can buy for the money. And I dont think that I am alone with this either.
 
I have 15 or so VX-III's or its parent Vari-X III. I tried a Conquest some three yeas ago and did not like it. Didn't like the reticle, the finish or the clarity. It now has a new home. Recently tried the new LUPE VX-7.....WOW!
 
Quote:
I have 15 or so VX-III's or its parent Vari-X III. I tried a Conquest some three yeas ago and did not like it. Didn't like the reticle, the finish or the clarity. It now has a new home. Recently tried the new LUPE VX-7.....WOW!



Claimbuster

I cant help but wonder if you somehow got a "lemon" when you tried that Conquest. Mine is the clearest scope of the many dozens that I have ever owned. Everyone at the shooting range that has ever looked though it just marvels at how clear and sharp that it is. As long as Zeiss stays in operation, I think I may have bought my last new Leupold.
 
+1 for the Zeiss. Leupold is a fantastic scope, with great glass, great options, and great service. Zeiss is better in glass, has more options than you think, (Call the opticzone and jon will give you the scoop on what he has in stock) and the service (if it is ever used) is right there with Leupold.

Just my .02 cents.

-BANDIT
 
yotecaller,
FWIW, I took an older 2.5-10 Vari-X III off my .270 and replaced it with a 3-9 Conquest an like it better. It seems to focus much easier and has better contrast in low-light situations.
 
Perhaps if you read my post more carefully.....

VX-II 4-12x50mm

Length (A) 12.2 in
Tube Length (B) 5.3 in
(C) 1.5 in
(D) 2.2 in
Eyepiece Length (E) 3.2 in
Objective Length (F) 3.8 in
Objective Diameter (G) 2.3 in
Eyepiece Diameter (H) 1.6 in
Tube Diameter (I) 1.0 in
Actual Magnification 11.2 (4.3)
FOV @ 100 yds (ft) 13.1 (33.0)
FOV @ 100 m (m) 4.4 (11.0)
Eye Relief (in) 3.8 (4.2)
Eye Relief (mm) 97 (107)
Obj. Clear Aperture 2.0 in / 50 mm
Weight 14.5 oz /411 g
Elevation Adj. Range (MOA) 55
Windage Adj. Range (MOA) 55


VX-II 4-12x40mm Adj. Obj.

Length (A) 12.4 in
Tube Length (B) 5.3 in
(C) 2.0 in
(D) 2.2 in
Eyepiece Length (E) 3.1 in
Objective Length (F) 4.0 in
Objective Diameter (G) 2.1 in
Eyepiece Diameter (H) 1.6 in
Tube Diameter (I) 1.0 in
Actual Magnification 11.2 (4.3)
FOV @ 100 yds (ft) 11.0 (22.8)
FOV @ 100 m (m) 3.7 (7.6)
Eye Relief (in) 3.7 (4.7)
Eye Relief (mm) 95 (119)
Obj. Clear Aperture 1.6 in / 40 mm
Weight 14.0 oz / 397 g
Elevation Adj. Range (MOA) 55
Windage Adj. Range (MOA) 55
 
Like other have posted here leupy is OK but to get the glass quality of a bushnell 4200 you'll need to pay leupy 2X the money. For less than that range of cash the zeiss is better in terms of clarity from edge to edge and FOV. the specs are not apples to apples if you just compare them from one manufacturer to another. Grab the two scopes and spend some time looking through them. Then you'll see the difference. Zeiss now has what I feel is a complete offering of reticles and their knobs are fantastic.
 
I would say neither. I agree with Rustydust. As many of you probably know I am a Bushnell fan.3200 or 4200 doesnt matter. Save the money that you were going to pay for the lupy or the zeiss and go buy yourself another toy.
 
Back
Top