zeiss or leupold

B

bigsky_songdogs

Active member
Not trying to start a debate, just wondering your votes on which scope in this particular case;

For 300wm:

Zeiss Conquest 3-9 @ $340

Or

Leupold VX3 3.5-10 @$366

what's your thoughts gentlemen?
 
I haven't compared the Zeiss glass to the newer VX3 glass, but the glass in the Zeiss was better then my VarXiii 3.5-10 and my VXIII 3.5-10.

I own both Leupold and Zeiss and like them a lot. I have had way more Leupolds then Zeiss. You can't beat Leupold warranty, reason I'm a huge Leupold fan.

Only negative thing I don't like about my Zeiss are the big eye piece.

Pick one and run it. Both scopes are very good.
 
I have both scopes in question, my vote would go to the VX3. I will agree with SS110 on the size of the ocular bell, on some rifles you can mount the Leupold lower than the Zeiss because of the bolt handle hitting the scope.
 
I sold both my Zeiss scopes. Still own a boat lod of Leupys.


I know a lot of guys think the Conquest is "brighter" because of the types of coatings Zeiss uses. The image looks "glossier". IMO, Leupold has a flatter image and better color resolution. Fact is, they both have very good glass.

Anyway, I like to be able to customize my scopes. For a 300 WM, I would be wanting some kind of raised style elevation turret. Leupold wins hands down as far as customizing. They also make better turrets. Plus, Zeiss turrets spin "backwards" of what I'm used to. Leupold is an easy choice for me. And yes, I've dealt with Zeiss USA customer service. The people were very nice, but not very knowledgable, and the service was slow compared to Leupold. When I got my scope back, the turrets were mushy feeling......

This.......

100_0385.jpg


Over this.....

100_0339.jpg


all day long........
 
I also have way more Leupolds than I do Zeiss. But I was late into trying Zeiss so already had several fine Luppys and am still happy with them.

BUT, having said that if I were starting all over today buying fine scopes for my rifles I think that a Zeiss Conquest would be sitting on top of every one of them. When out at the range is where I notice the clarity the most when going from one of my Leupolds to a similar powered Zeiss. Just noticing the print on the target or the texture of the wood frame that the targets are stapled to is pretty apparent when comparing them. Out in the field the difference is not quite as vivid as it is at the range, but often it will mean being able to tell the difference between a clump of dirt or a ground squirrel at the longer distances.

I have a bought and used a lot of different makes of rifle scopes over the years and for me Zeiss Conquest makes the best higher end scope out there.
 
Originally Posted By: SuperSeal110I haven't compared the Zeiss glass to the newer VX3 glass, but the glass in the Zeiss was better then my VarXiii 3.5-10 and my VXIII 3.5-10.

I own both Leupold and Zeiss and like them a lot. I have had way more Leupolds then Zeiss. You can't beat Leupold warranty, reason I'm a huge Leupold fan.

Only negative thing I don't like about my Zeiss are the big eye piece.

Pick one and run it. Both scopes are very good.

Pretty much sums it it for me too.

If you are like most hunters I know, and aren't going to be spinning the dials, not as big of a deal IMO.

I do like the Leupold turrets better and I think there scopes might be lighter. Not sure about the weight.
 
I would not exactly call a Conquest a higher end scope. I had a higher end Zeiss, and the glass in it put the Conquest to shame.......
 
Originally Posted By: 2muchgunI would not exactly call a Conquest a higher end scope. I had a higher end Zeiss, and the glass in it put the Conquest to shame.......

Well, after all I did not say high end. I did say higher end. My 6.5-20X Conquest goes for the other side of $1000 these days. To me that would be a higher end. And the scopes that I was comparing that one to were my VX-III and my Vari-X III Leupolds of the same power as the Zeiss. And to be sure those Leupolds are fine scopes and I doubt that they will ever be for sale. But to my eyes and my shooting friends that have compared them the Zeiss is the clear (no pun intended) winner.

And for sure you must have much better eyes than me for while I have seen better optics on scopes that cost upward or more than twice what a Conquest does, I have yet to see a scope that will but a Conquest to shame. Doubt that I ever will either.
 
I like the glass in the Conquest just fine. Just don't like the rest of the package too much.

Look through a top end Zeiss sometime, and you will understand what I mean. The glass in the Conquest does not compare. I think it may be the best glass of any I've seen, except maybe a March. Better than S&B, better than Swarovski.

Zeiss owns Schott glass. Therefore, they get the best of it......
 
I like both of the scopes. I have both(Conquest and VX-III's), and both serve me well for what I want. As stated above you have a few more options with the Leupold over the Zeiss. And I believe the Leupold warranty is better than the Zeiss. Especially in the long run.

The problem with Leupold is it gets too much undeserved bad internet hype. But then the most popular is almost always the most picked up on.

In a way I think the Conquest line tries to ride a bit too much on the coat tails of the higher end-parent German Zeiss scopes. And those are accolades that the Conquest does not deserve. But people think Zeiss. So they think WOW-top end.

I know I just bought a Minox that also has the Schott glass. When comparing the colors of bark on a Sycamore tree at 200 yards the colors and edges of the bark are more discernable with the Minox than they are with the Conquest. So IMO the glass in the Minox(at least in the two I compared) is slightly better.

Will that make a big difference when hunting?? I don't know for sure. But I prefer the better glass.

Usually when people say a scope is "clear"-I have no idea what that means. And they say the glass is "brighter"-that is also a term that means nothing to me.

When I can see color and edge distortion better with one scope than another. Then that is something I deem to be tangible. I would like to have one of the new VX-3's to compare at 200 yards.

I do know when I look at that same Sycamore bark with my Swaro binoculars and scopes, not only can I see the colors and no edge distortion, but I can also see distortion or ridges on the actual smalll pieces of Sycamore bark. That is when you definintely know you have some quality glass. A Sycamore tree and bark may be a simple way to compare. But trust me-you can see the differences. Tom.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable way to compare to me.

I don't think there is such a thing as "bad" Schott glass, but not all Schott glass is equal. Zeiss probably has the most advanced(best)lens coatings in the industry, but they only use them on their top end(expensive) scopes. None of their stuff doesn't look good, though.....
 
One spec that hasn't been mentioned, but should be considered for a magnum is eye relief. Leupold is a half inch shorter at max magnification than the conquest. The leupold is probably is ok, but its a painfull mistake to make.
 
Leupold is listed at 3.6" @ 10X.

Zeiss 4" @ 9X.

Turn the Leupy down to 9X, we are talking about less than 3/16".

Hardly worth worrying about. Not to mention, I have shot that scope on more rifles than I can remember with no troubles.

Leupold doesn't even bother to put rubber on their eyepieces. They figure if you manage to bleed due to one, you probably earned it......
 
scope comparisons with quality optics are usually give and take.

after comparing my VX-3 to a conquest i traded most of my leupolds off and replaced them with zeiss and IORs. i'd agree with all that have pointed out that the clarity and resolution of the zeiss is better. i was sold when i compared the zeiss to my vx-3 at 200yds looking at gravel. with the leup i could see gravel; with the zeiss i could see individual rocks. might be a vague comparison but i was sold.

however, i had a problem with an IOR and its in the valdada shop right now. i'm a little nervous about the outcome (cost). whereas with a leup i wouldn't sweat it. i hope i didn't "upgrade" and get less for my money.
 
Like Tom said earlier, I do not get what people mean when they say a scope is "clear" either. It is a term which is simply not used by people in the optics industry..........
 
Back
Top