Sirs

I'm planning in change my leupold scopes ( varix II and I ) with zeiss conquest scopes

My rifles are Ruger 7mm STW, sako 22-250 , Winchester pre 64 338 Win mag , Ruger 257 wby ( rechambered ) and Winchester pre 64 super grade 30-06

In all of them I have Leupold scopes in different models.

What is your oppinion in doing this change ?

What is your oppinion in zeiss conquest scopes ?

There is nothing wrong with your vari-x I & II scopes but if you want to upgrade the Zeiss Conquest is a step up. IMO it is on par with the Leupold VX-3 line. Some may argue one to be better then the other. Either are very good choices.

As compared with the sight picture of the Leupolds, with the Zeiss you will feel as if you are looking at a small picture surrounded by a large ring of black. This may or may not bother you, but I've never been comfortable with the Zeiss sight picture.

You will also find that the placement of your eye must be much more precise with the Zeiss. If some of your stocks have too much drop at the comb or in some other way are not a perfect fit, you may have difficulty in quickly acquiring the sight picture of the Zeiss.

The optical qualities of the Zeiss (in terms of resolution), like most optical products these days, appears to be excellent.

I have no idea what the Zeiss service facilities are like in Uruguay, but in the U.S. I would stick with the Leupolds for the fine warranty service they provide. You may never need that service with either brand, but then again, you just might someday.....

The Leupold top of the line scopes have optics good enough for any hunting needs I've ever seen.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
As compared with the sight picture of the Leupolds, with the Zeiss you will feel as if you are looking at a small picture surrounded by a large ring of black. This may or may not bother you, but I've never been comfortable with the Zeiss sight picture.

The only Zeiss model I have noticed this 'tunnel vision' or poor field blending with is the Duralyt. The old German Zeiss scopes blended perfectly (like the edge of frameless spectacles) and the Conquest is as good as most Leupolds and better than an expensive one I've looked through.

My only complaint about a Conquest 1.8-5.5 we have is some reflections noticed around the edges when there is light is behind the ocular end.

But why are you intending to replace all your scopes, Raul? Why not buy one Zeiss and give it a try? Better still, select the rifle that needs the best scope and put all the money into one Zeiss Victory or perhaps a Swarovski Z6 for it?

I too have noticed a difficulty in acquiring sight picture quickly with the Conquest. I have one on a 30-30 lever action.I have even added a lace-on leather cheek pad to get a better fit but it can still be frustratingly difficult to see anything. I have an old Weaver 4x that came with something I bought and I consider it a "better" scope for that reason alone.

I am quite tempted to try Leupold on an 8x57 mauser that is nearing completion. Partly because of their reputation and partly because they are made locally and I kind of have a thing for that.

However, nothing beats Swarovski in my experience. If not for the temptation to try something new, Swarovski is what I'd go with.

Thank you all for your replies and opinions.

I have in other rifles ( remington 25-06, Steyr 6.5x65 RWS , Mauser 375 H&H ) Leupolds European with #4 reticle.
That reticle is for me the best to hunt where I hunt , because the poor light conditions.
Leupold reticles are generally too thin , for me , qnd this is one of the reasons for the change.

Perhaps is my opinion too subjective , but when I see through both , Leupold and Zeiss , the last ones are more clear and with better definition .

Sambarman338 you are right when you said that a Victory is better than a Conquest , but again the same , with the price of a Victory I can bu 3 Conquest , and the question is , are Victory 3 times better than Conquest ?

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
As compared with the sight picture of the Leupolds, with the Zeiss you will feel as if you are looking at a small picture surrounded by a large ring of black. This may or may not bother you, but I've never been comfortable with the Zeiss sight picture.

You will also find that the placement of your eye must be much more precise with the Zeiss. If some of your stocks have too much drop at the comb or in some other way are not a perfect fit, you may have difficulty in quickly acquiring the sight picture of the Zeiss.

The optical qualities of the Zeiss (in terms of resolution), like most optical products these days, appears to be excellent.

That is is a "VERY" accurate description you gave....except it describes all 4 of the newer Leupold VX-II AND VX-III scopes I have purchased in the last several years rather than my Zeiss. (4.5-14X40,3.5-10X40, 4-12X40 and 6-18X40 - all VX models) I have been very disappointed with the new Leupold VX-II and III line. I have one rifle/Leupold VX scope combo that I can not get the scope far enough ahead to get a clear and full image with the scope on a low power setting. Had 2 but was able to correct one with a extended base. Haven't been able to do that on the second rifle.

I own one Zeiss Conquest, a 4.5-14X50 with the tactical turrets and side focus/AO and I believe a #20 reticle, and it is by far the best scope I own in terms of clarity, contrast and tracking when adjusting the turrets. The reticle is fine (in the center) and precise. I have actually held on a fly sitting on a target at 200 yards and could clearly distinguish both fly and reticle. None of my ten Leupold scopes, with the possible exception of one older Vari-XIII 4.5-14X40 AO scopes that I have, can come close to the optical quality of that particular scope. I cannot speak for any other model of Zeiss or higher end Leupold scope ie; VX-6, etc., but, I am also planning on up-grading a few to Zeiss Conquests.

Alberta Canuck is spot on about Leupold's warranty and service. I don't have a clue about Zeiss's service center as my Conquest has not had any issues.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
As compared with the sight picture of the Leupolds, with the Zeiss you will feel as if you are looking at a small picture surrounded by a large ring of black. This may or may not bother you, but I've never been comfortable with the Zeiss sight picture.

You will also find that the placement of your eye must be much more precise with the Zeiss. If some of your stocks have too much drop at the comb or in some other way are not a perfect fit, you may have difficulty in quickly acquiring the sight picture of the Zeiss.

The optical qualities of the Zeiss (in terms of resolution), like most optical products these days, appears to be excellent.

I couldn't agree more. The VX3 is the way to go IMO. I've looked through many side by side with the Conquest and can't determine a difference one way or another.

quote:

Originally posted by Raul Urrestarazu:
Sambarman338 you are right when you said that a Victory is better than a Conquest, but again the same, with the price of a Victory I can bu 3 Conquest, and the question is, are Victory 3 times better than Conquest ?

No, Raul, all steps up the quality ladder are subject to the law of diminishing returns (a Mercedes Benz may be only 10% better than a Chevy but probably costs twice as much). However, if you have a favourite rifle for dangerous or very wary game, it could pay to spend the extra money anyway.

As you may have observed, I am very fond of reticle-movement scopes (dissembled as 'first-focal-plane' in the Newspeak of those surrendered to the populist image-movement system) because of their optical integrity. They need extra care in mounting but pay off with better field-blending and a better compromise in the field-of-view/eye-relief trade-off. With the odd exception these scopes are made in Germany or Austria, none are cheap and you may have to opt for them. Zeiss, Swarovski, Nickel, Kahles et al offer this option and I regard it as more important than the quality of the lenses or coatings for the close-range hunting I do.

I have seen image-movement Nikko-Stirling and Bushnell scopes with extremely good field blending, largely because of the tapering rear-end of the ocular housing, and am quite happy with a humble Leupold VX 1 I bought recently - but would think twice before putting one on my 338 WM or .450/.400.

I know this is old, but I just ran across it; I have a Leupold rifleman 4-12 on a 338 RUM, and one on a Ruger 450-400; they work fine and are the best value in a scope made today. And the RUM is far more punishing in recoil than the 450-400. I had to put a brake on it because it dislocated my shoulder. (At least it hurt a lot)

Another good post to remind everyone that optic beauty is in the eye of the shooter. I love the Conquests and think they are light years better than the VX series up to at least the VX3 and think that the Rifleman has a mediocre image at best and that the new Redfields are terrible. Some of the folks here hate looking through the Zeiss Conquest compared to Leupold and think it is hard to find the eye box. I have a few different scopes that seem to do well for me that others dislike and vice versa - almost any of the decent lifetime warranty scopes will do an adequate job in 90%+ of hunting situations and the $175 - $500 price range has the biggest selection of models that meet most needs well but you have to go with what works for your eyes.