The Zeiss Conquest takes the prize.
-excellent optics
-a sensible easy to use reticle (no silly Z rangefinders that are useless in a SFP scope)
-adjustments that are dead on, shoots the square perfectly
-reasonable weight
-fast focus

Always swore by the various VX Leupold 2.5-8x36 or 3-9x40. While the optics are fine the adjustments are not and the old fine thread and lock ring focus is just a royal pain.

Still love my fixed power Loopies, simple is always better. Sad to say "variablemania" has pretty much taken over. Most folks have never looked through a quality classic 6X (Unertl, Kollmorgen, Zeiss, El paso Weaver K, M8 or Redfield) and have no idea how good they are and how they don't have all the maladies common to variables.

For $400, the Conquest rules until you can afford a Schmidt.

Compared to the "rim to rim" sight picture of a Leupold, every Zeiss I've ever looked through gave the impression of having a very small sight picture with a large ring of black around it. The placement of your eye relative to the ocular bell also seems much more critical on the Zeiss than on the Leupold.

I've always found the adjustments on Leupolds frustrating because the amount of movement for a single click or hash mark varies so much from model to model -- but it is consistent once you "break the code" as to what a hash mark represents. While the the Zeiss Conquests belonging to a friend that I've worked with seem very consistent in movement, the supposed .25" clicks consistently moved the POI by 1.2" for each three clicks. Consistent -- but coarse -- coarse enough that a precision zero is hard to achieve.

Considering that the Zeiss is about 20% heavier than a Leupold of comparable power, as well as an inch or two longer, the Zeiss has simply never seemed to me as user-friendly as the Leupold.

But to each his own -- if everyone preferred the Leupolds the way I do then they would be totally unaffordable in price.

Nikon Monarch

I did side to side 3x9 Monarch to a VX3 2.5-10.

223 holes at 100 yds are easy with the Nikon. The Leupy IS a PITA to focus and not as clear/sharp

Resolving .22 caliber holes at 100 yards is no big deal for even a marginal 10X scope. If it gives you difficulty with a Leupold then you simply don't understand how to focus a scope -- or you were working with a scope with a significant defect.

Despite reasonably good optics (good lenses are dirt cheap these days) it seems that camera companies are a long way from understanding what qualities are important in an optical gun sight rather than just a nice little telescope.

Swarovski Z3 3-9???

quote:

Originally posted by Deon:
Swarovski Z3 3-9???

The Swaro Z3 is considered Mid-Priced?

For glass and optics, I agree. The Conquest 3-9 is superb. I have two and it's a very good scope.

I also agree, the Leupold is lighter and has a more forgiving eyebox. That may or may not be an important factor to you though.

I do have to admit freely - I am extremely tempted to put a 6x36 with LR reticle on my M7 AWR. It's worth 5 oz (1/4#) of weight savings...and would put me at 6.5#

As if I'm going on a sheep hunt tomorrow...

In the meantime I'll stick to my Connie's.