How do these scopes compare wtih a Leupold VX-III? I was considering changing a couple of my Leupolds over to the conquests. But they dont seem very expensive compared to the swarovski american 1" scopes. Any help would be appreciated....wapiti7

I find the conquest brighter than a comparable vxiii.

Recently I have heard quite a few people say that they have had Conquests take a dump on them. I was about to buy one last week but didn't because of all the bad reports that I heard. If I were you I would stick with the Leu's or go with the ultra premium's like Swarovski's and S&B.

Check out this thread.

http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=...psed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

I personally think the Zeiss Conquest is a better scope than the Leupold VX-III. Their constant eye relief is nice and the optics are outstanding.

Jon

what about their reliability?

They are very reliable. We have been carrying Zeiss for over 2 years now and we have not had one come back due to problems of breaking in those 2 years. Yes we have had a couple come back, but that was due to some minor problems once the customer had opened the box.

I shoot a Ziess Conquest 4.5 X 14 on a .338 Lapua, it has been to Colorado in extreme cold and functioned perfectly. I use the 4.5 X 14 on a .270 WSM and while I have killed many targets it has not been in the field. I also shoot a 3 X 9 Conquest on a .416 Remington and .416 Rigby. The .416 Rem in Model 70 Winchester has been to Tanzania for Buffalo and never missed a lick, and performed perfectly in extreme heat. I also have several Leupold Vari X III's and they are fine but not as bright as the Conquest. I am in the process of buying a new Conquest for a .243 WSSM. They are clearer-brighter and shoot as precisely as anything on the market today without spending $1,500. Good shooting.

I have a bunch of leupolds, have two Zeiss Conquests. the conquest is a lot better optically, one of mine really took a knock slipped off my shoulder straight onto a granite boulder, putting a 1/4 in dent int the objective bell. I was on a stalk on a mountain zebra, shot him in the shoulder, sights were still on. This one has been on a .375 for a couple of years and now is on a .338-06, no problems after a lot of hunting and airline miles.

My limited experience, was with a conquest 3-9x40 nice scope clear bright a little heavy but well built. it lasted almost 10 shots on a 375 h&h model 70 before the magnification ring locked up and would not turn anymore. it was returned, the assocoate i talked to at bass pro houston said they had had several come back this way. They are still good scopes and i would by another but not for scopeing a larger caliber rifle.j

I have both - Zeiss Conquest and Leupold VX III. By far, the Leupold looks the best to me. It is also more durable. I have banged by Leupold's several time and never had one go off on me. The Zeiss was banged once and was off by 9" at 25 yds. I have laid them out side by side on sunny days and dark days - for my eyes the Leupold is very noticeably better and brighter.

This last weekend I went to the range with a 7 mag that had a 3.5x10x50 Leupold VXIII and a 300 mag with a 3x9x50 Zeiss Conquest. The 7 mag belongs to a friend who was having a problem so I loaded some to see if I could solve his problem.

After shooting with the gun with the Leupold, I could not see the bullet holes at 100 yards. Now I adjusted the ocular on that Leupold from one end to the other and got the best picture possible with it.

I had to put the 7 mag in the rack and pick up the 300 with the Zeiss and I could see the bullet holes as plain as day, even the ragged edges.

I was also shooting a gun with a Burris Signature 3x12x44. With it I could make out the holes but it was not as clear as the Zeiss.

In 40 years I have only had 3 scopes fail. 1 Simmons, 1 Redfield and 1 Leupold. I have never had to send a Zeiss, Kahles or Burris back yet.

Leupold may be serviceable and may have a good service department, but they are not as good optically as the Zeiss. JMHO

I have had a Zeiss 3-12x56 on a .375 HH for about 20 years, never any problem. Today I have a Swaro 3-12x50, and the only reason why is that this Swaro is a bit lighter. I forgot to mention that the Zeiss was the old Z series not the new lightweight V series. I don´t have any of those Z series left anymore all are changed to V series, but didn´t care to change scope again on my .375 beacuse swaro is good enough.
About Conquest my only experience is a bino 8x30, and i find it excellent.

quote:

Originally posted by bwanajcj:
My limited experience, was with a conquest 3-9x40 nice scope clear bright a little heavy but well built. it lasted almost 10 shots on a 375 h&h model 70 before the magnification ring locked up and would not turn anymore. it was returned, the assocoate i talked to at bass pro houston said they had had several come back this way. They are still good scopes and i would by another but not for scopeing a larger caliber rifle.j

Just goes to show you that any of them can go tits up. I had a Leupold Vari X III 1.75x6 last less than 20 rounds in a Marlin Guide Gun before it became a paperweight.

I have a couple of Conquests and a bunch of Leupolds. IMO - the optics on the Conquest are better. I like the size and weight of the Leupolds though.

This is from someone who is asking the same question as you. When I went to look at scopes this past weekend, I pretty much had figured I'd end up with a VXIII. The retailer showed me a Conquest and there was a noticeable difference in my opinion. I know very little about scopes but the Conquest looked much clearer to me. That says nothing about low light conditions but for someone who hadn't even looked at the Zeiss, it certainly opened my eyes. Their warranty and customer service is what I need to get comfortable with now.

Just an opinion from a neutral perspective.

quote:

After shooting with the gun with the Leupold, I could not see the bullet holes at 100 yards. Now I adjusted the ocular on that Leupold from one end to the other and got the best picture possible with it.

I had to put the 7 mag in the rack and pick up the 300 with the Zeiss and I could see the bullet holes as plain as day, even the ragged edges.

I agree, maybe just my eyes but, the Zeiss is better IMO. Both good scopes, very rugged and reliable.

I like the Zplex reticle as well. The only qualm I have w/ the Conquest is the plastic turret caps, I'm sure they'll last but, I prefer aluminum caps.

Good Luck

Reloader

quote:

Recently I have heard quite a few people say that they have had Conquests take a dump on them. I was about to buy one last week but didn't because of all the bad reports that I heard. If I were you I would stick with the Leu's or go with the ultra premium's like Swarovski's and S&B.

Zeiss Conquest was not mentioned at all in that thread you provided..they seemed to be all German made 30mm tubed Zeiss scopes. BTW they are head and tails above a 3.5-10x40 Leupy

I have a Zeiss Conquest in 3.5x10x40 and would gladly trade straight up for the Leupold VXIII 3.5x10x40 is anyone wants to trade.

For whatever reason, the Zeiss and my laser enhanced eyes do not get along.

I have had 3-9x40 Conquests for maybe 4 years. One is mounted on a .375 H&H and the other on a very light pre-64 M70 in .338 WinMag.

The one on the .375 has never given me any problems. The scope on the .338 WM failed at about 200 rds ... just started to shoot erratically. Zeiss replaced it immediately and it has shot well every since.

The recoil moment of the light .338 is rather high. In addition, the mounts on the .338 are such that the scope is using a lot of its windage adjustment to move its impact point to the right place. I think that is the problem.

The Conquest has generally clearer and brighter optics than the Leupolds I use.

Would not recomment the Conquest for anything larger than the .375 H&H, but then there are few scopes I would recommend for anything heavier.

The 3-9 Conquests were the first scopes that had far better definition and easier to see crosshairs than the usual scopes that I was familar with and that included nine Leupolds.

The take back on the current Conquests is that they are bigger and heavier than a Leu. Much of the time almost any scope that does not break will do the job. Thus the Conquests are best on stand guns or even a lightweight that can take the 15 oz.

Smaller Conquests are due out this summer. I will buy one and if it's a "Conquest" I will start replacing scopes with them.

I have conquest scopes mounted on some of my rifles, perhaps the better example for its sturdiness can be the fact that I have one mounted on my .375 H&H (some 850 shots ago ) and I have nothing but praises to say about it ... IMO they are much clearer than the Leu ... mechanically they are also excellent ... also I think Zplez reticle are just the perfect solution for both day and night shots ...

Go to your nearest retailer and check them side by side by yourself, I am sure you will also consider conquest just better than Leupold´s VX III ...

quote:

.....Smaller Conquests are due out this summer....

Smaller as in lighter or in power?

I would really like a 2-7X Conquest. A 1.5-4 would be too much to ask for!!

I'm a avid fan of the Conquest, even after I had one go south on a .300 win mag.

The good people at Zeiss promptly and courteously replace with in 10 days of the scopes demise.
The Zeiss CS lady sounded HOT on the phone too!!

The only problem I have with Zeiss is that they used to use a fluorite coating to correct for chromatic aberation. This coating doesn't handle temperature extremes very well and can crack. Canon uses the same process on their camera lenses. Leupold, S&B, Swarovski all use a low dispersion glass to correct for Cromatic aberration which is a little more expensive but less fragile.

John

I have Zeiss Conquests in (4) different power combinations and think the optics are superior to VX III's. I do prefer the looks and weight of the Luppys though and still have (5) of them. Both good scopes, but my eyes prefer the Zeiss!

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
[QUOTE
Smaller as in lighter or in power?

I would really like a 2-7X Conquest. A 1.5-4 would be too much to ask for!!

Here's the powers that I heard are supposed to be out.

Conquest 1.8-5.5x38

Conquest 2.5-8x32

Conquest 4x32 fixed power

Upon arrival in Africa my Conquest was off by 3 inches at 50 yds. I assumed and still do that this is a common problem with all scopes after traveling in an airplane for 20 hours. Any thoughts on what air travel does to good scopes would be appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by stevie:
Upon arrival in Africa my Conquest was off by 3 inches at 50 yds. I assumed and still do that this is a common problem with all scopes after traveling in an airplane for 20 hours. Any thoughts on what air travel does to good scopes would be appreciated.

What kind of rings do you have on that weapon??

ruger rings

quote:

Originally posted by stevie:
ruger rings

Curious.

I have no experience with Ruger rings.
Nor have I ever transported a weapon via an airline, but my gear has been in some VERY rough conditions and I have had no problems maintaining a zero.

I would humbly suggest using Talley, Conetrol or Badger Ord. rings in the future though, friend.

When I do travel over the road, I usually take a back up scope mounted with a quick detach system of sorts.
Even they have maintained zero for me.

Stevie,
I have had two different scopes go south on me after the round trip to Africa. One was a 1-5 and the other a 4-14..both were VX3 and both lost their ability to adjust the cross hair. Leupold was quick to repair them. I have had other Leupold scopes do fine so I can not blame them all. I do think the flight over there is tuff on scopes. BTW I have taken a Swarovski PH and a Conquest over there twice now and have not had any problems with them.

Stevie
I wouldn't lose any sleep about the Ruger rings, they've been durable for me and I have one that's logged a lot of miles as many as 10000 at a time. Any of them should be checked by firing after a long plane or car trip, it's just good common sense. That said, I have taken some long trips with several rifles with Talleys, ruger rings, Leupold and Leupold QD rings, factory CZ rings and have required only very minor adjustments upon arrival.

Maybe I misunderstood Stevie.

Did the Conquest puke or did the rings allow movement??

You just resighted the Conquest upon arrival??

Never lost zero. Hunted the rest of the season with it looking just like this. That's tuff enough for me. I couldn't convince Zeiss it was a factory defect, but they fixed for me no charge anyway.

I think these scopes are tops in thier price range.

Terry

Holy Christmas, Terry!!
Amazing that you could still accurately shoot with it looking like that.

Probably should not post this, but it's getting a little boring here, so maybe some controversy will make things more interesting.

Whenever I am at the range and I see someone with a Leupold scope I think that they are either not well informed about optics, have not tried better scopes, or are so narrow minded that they would use Leupold regardless. In contrast, a rifle with a Zeiss, Swarovski, Kahles, Schmidt & Bender, even a Burris says that the owner knows optics.

It's wrong, I know it, working on it, but true regardless.

I have been a Leupold user for decades. However, I have had situations in the field where the brightness just wasn't up to snuff.

I bought a Conquest 3x9 last summer. I couldn't be happier. It looked brighter and clearer than anything else in its price range.

At the gun range, the improved sharpness was incredible. And the 4" eye relief is great on a .338.

Hunting leopard at night with no artificial light- no problem. We had another gun with a Leupold VXIII. Nowhere near as clear or bright. I would not be comfortable using it in low light conditions.

By the way, the only scopes I have had go belly up on me were a Leupold and a B&L.

quote:

Originally posted by woods:
Probably should not post this, but it's getting a little boring here, so maybe some controversy will make things more interesting.

Whenever I am at the range and I see someone with a Leupold scope I think that they are either not well informed about optics, have not tried better scopes, or are so narrow minded that they would use Leupold regardless. In contrast, a rifle with a Zeiss, Swarovski, Kahles, Schmidt & Bender, even a Burris says that the owner knows optics.

It's wrong, I know it, working on it, but true regardless.

Thats a little rough but I have been tough on Leu's as well. In defense of the Leupold scopes they do cut the mustard in that they don't break, you can see your game thru them quite well and the company really cares. Thats quite a bit.

Now after all this time has gone bye Ziess has come up with some competition and maybe others as well.

This is a bit off topic, but my buddy has a Zeiss Conquest and both turrets are marked U/R...which is kind of confusing because the other day we wanted to make an adjustment and couldn't remember which knob did what and from past experience thought it was opposite of my Leupold. However we didn't feel like clicking one turret all way over just to see what it did because we had already shot a fair amount of ammo and were wrapping things up. We just wanted to tweak the scope a bit. So can any one tell me which turret does what on a Zeiss so I can tell my buddy.

Thanks,
Conrad

The turret on top moves it up and down - U is for up.

The turret on the side moves it left and right - R is for right

This brings up a good point too.

I deplore the plastic turrets and caps on the Conquest.
And the fact that they couldn't dedicate the proper turrets for elevation and windage, but used "universal" turrets instead.

Love the Conquest though.....Best scope in it's class right now.