I have a Remington .243 with a Leupold VX-II 3x9x40. I'm thinking about replacing the Leupold with a Conquest 3x9x40. The Leupold is fine, but I feel that the Conquest is better glass than the VX-II. Has anyone compared the two, and if so, what did you find? Thanks.

The conquest was better to my eyes...but everyone see's a bit differently. I felt the conquest was "sharper".

In my opinion, the Conquest is a much better scope than the VX-II. You won't be disappointed if you switch the scope.

It is considerably better glass than a VXIII or a Nikon Monarch, though the Nikon is closer than the VXIII. For the price, but don't pay over $399, it's the best deal around in optics. You will not be disappointed.

LWD

My understanding is that eye placement is somewhat critical with the Conquest. It would be advisable to check it out before buying to see if this is a problem for you.

By the way, what kind of shortcoming are you finding with the VX that makes you want to replace it?

No shortcomings at all with the VX-II. I think it's a fine scope, but if I can get noticeably better glass at $399, I want to do so. Thanks for the comments folks.

quote:

My understanding is that eye placement is somewhat critical with the Conquest. It would be advisable to check it out before buying to see if this is a problem for you.

I have not had a problem with this. 4" fixed eye relief, and I have been using mine on a 3756H&H, where it has done nicely.

For the record, I am a big fan of the Zeiss Conquests. For the money nothing else touches them.

LWD

quote:

I have not had a problem with this. 4" fixed eye relief,

I'm not speaking of eye relief, but rather the depth and width of fore-aft and lateral placement of the eye relative to the scope's occular housing that still allows you to see the entire sight picture. Some shooters complain that with some scopes they have difficulty in quickly acquiring the sight picture due to a short or narrow "eye window", as some call it. The Burris compacts and the Zeiss Conquest are two models that are frequently mentioned as having this problem.

I have observed it with the Burris, but have never used the Zeiss, so I have no personal experience that would indicate whether this complaint has merit. I have heard it from several sources, the most recent being a dealer whose experience and opinions I have always found dependable.

quote:

Originally posted by LWD:

quote:

My understanding is that eye placement is somewhat critical with the Conquest. It would be advisable to check it out before buying to see if this is a problem for you.

I have not had a problem with this. 4" fixed eye relief, and I have been using mine on a 3756H&H, where it has done nicely.

For the record, I am a big fan of the Zeiss Conquests. For the money nothing else touches them.

LWD

I'm with LWD. I have Conquests and the "eye box" as defined by Stonecreek where placement of the eye is critical to getting the sight picture is not a problem, in fact I would say that the Conquests actually excel in this feature. Perhaps it is because they are all well mounted at the proper distance.

I have noticed a problem with a Burris Black Diamond I have when it is on 16 power that eye placement is critical and there is a little bit of a black tunnel effect, but not with the Conquests. It seems that getting a sight picture is always much harder with higher magnification, with any manufacturer.

quote:

I'm not speaking of eye relief, but rather the depth and width of fore-aft and lateral placement of the eye relative to the scope's occular housing that still allows you to see the entire sight picture.

Don't have a problem with that either. I'd call it a pretty generous eyebox.

LWD

quote:

Originally posted by woods:
I'm with LWD. I have Conquests and the "eye box" as defined by Stonecreek where placement of the eye is critical to getting the sight picture is not a problem, in fact I would say that the Conquests actually excel in this feature. Perhaps it is because they are all well mounted at the proper distance.

I have noticed a problem with a Burris Black Diamond I have when it is on 16 power that eye placement is critical and there is a little bit of a black tunnel effect, but not with the Conquests. It seems that getting a sight picture is always much harder with higher magnification, with any manufacturer.

Thanks for your observations. As I say, I have not used the Conquest, so I could be misinformed by others. The Burris line seems to be consistently reported as having the "small eyebox" problem.

Several years ago I mounted an old-style 4-12 Leupold Vari-X II with AO on a hunting rifle. I immediately noticed that it required much more careful eye alignment than I was accustomed to. Very shortly thereafter, Leupold modified that scope model to make the "eye box" bigger. A company tech sent me the serial number of the changeover (but I have long-since lost it.) At any rate, the restrictions with that scope caused me to pull it off and replace it with a 3-9 that featured much more forgiving eye placement (I didn't need the 12x magnification for a hunting rifle, anyway, but it happened that the 4-12 was the only loose scope I had around at the time).

The VX-II or Burris are definetely a league lower than the Conquests. If at all, you may compare them with the VX-III and Nikons.

I have both, no contest at all: conquest is better than ANY leupold for optical clarity, equal eye relief, etc.

The Conquest scopes have reticules that don't fade like the leu's do in bright light. In general the Conquests have superior optics.

Before the Conquest line came out I had purchased 10 leupolds to update the old scopes here. Now I have 7 Zeiss scopes and will not buy another leupold.

I just purchased two 2.5-8 Conquests from Cameraland.

I have been using a 3.5-10 Conquest for several years, including in Africa and Alaska. It has seen extreme abuse, a week worth of rain, dropped hard enough to dent it twice and has never been on a rifle smaller than a .338. I have had no problem with any-the optics and especially the reticle are better than a Leupold and I own a lot of Leupold scopes. They are great hunting scopes, the Zeiss is better.

I did a lot of side by side comparison and now use Conquest when ever I buy, or recommend, a scope. I put the 4.5-14 on my .243 and have used it on marmots out to 566 yards. I also have a 3.5-10 and a 3-9. I have found their click values and tracking to be very accurate as well.

First hand experience...
One night I was with a brazilian client waiting for pigs near a feeder. Half moon.

I asked the client if he can see the feeder clearly and his answer was "perfect".

I thought to myself "poor man, he doesn't know how is looking through a "real" scope like mine (I was carrying a 1,700 bucks Kahles 1-6x42 illuminated ret.)

After some minutes I told the man: "take a look with mine and tell me.."

He gave me back my rifle saying it was ok. Then he asked me "do you want to try my scope??"

Till today I remember that day with pain. His 500 bucks scope was as clear as mine

So I think that Conquest scopes are one of the best scopes for the money in the market, and I have try leupold's, Swaros, Schmidt&Bender, etc.

The other good scope I remember that wasn't expensive and that also was a very good one was the old Tasco Titan made in Japan...

L

I have a 3-9 and a 2.5-8 and love them both. I prefer my Swarovski 3-10 but only slightly and it cost almost 3 times as much. I prefer the Conquests over the 3 Leupolds I have.

An old Leupold fan for many years, I was highly impressed with the Conquest.
Only one so far (3,5-10x44 ), but just as clear as my S&B scope, and defenately better than the Leupold VXIII 3,5-10x50.
If they stand the use and abuse, only time will tell.


I only whish they could make one in the classic European configuration 1,5-6x42 with the #4.
That would be an instant hit for hunting wooded terrain and open glends.

I swithched all my scopes to Zeiss Conquest and have not had any problems in 3 yrs of hunting.

I have a 6.5 x 20 x 50 Ziess conquest I would dearly love to sell. I like it nowhere near as much as my Leupolds. The first $650.00 takes it.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodrow S:
The conquest was better to my eyes...but everyone see's a bit differently. I felt the conquest was "sharper".

I agree! I like my Ziess much better then all of my Leupolds...

Once I get the money around I will most likely sell all of the Leupolds and replace with Ziess

quote:

Originally posted by Indlovu:
I have both, no contest at all: conquest is better than ANY leupold for optical clarity, equal eye relief, etc.

Yes,sorrowfully I found that to be true too.

Post deleted by Savage 99

Am an old retired guy to whom money does not come easily anymore. Have to be careful with it. I have some Leupolds, Zeiss Conquests in 1.8-5.5x38 and 3-9x40, and one S&B 1.5-6x42.

Have used the Conquests on calibers up to .416 Rigby.

Have taken them to Africa.

You can buy better scopes ... but expect to pay a LOT of money for them! The Conquests are the high water mark for optical quality at a rational price. Have not found a Leupy anywhere near that combination.

quote:

Originally posted by mstarling:
You can buy better scopes ... but expect to pay a LOT of money for them! The Conquests are the high water mark for optical quality at a rational price. Have not found a Leupy anywhere near that combination.

Well stated! +1 from my side!

- mike

About six years ago I went to buy leupold number 10, they were the only scope I would buy and all my "go to" guns wore them. The optics dealer asked if I had looked thru one of the new conquests yet, no I hadn't seen or looked thru one. He set up his comparator with a 3.5x10 Vari X lll and a 3.5x10 conquest....handed it to me and told me to give em a look. After a couple minutes of focusing them both and looking at stuff around the store I moved to the door and looked up the road at a distance. I walked back in and bought the conquest on the spot, took about a year to slowly sell all the leupolds off and replace with conquests. After long hours using them for hunting and at the range I find the eye box to be every bit as forgiving and good, the constant eye relief is better, the fast euro style diopter focus is nicer, the reticle is simply perfect....black and easy to see in any light conditions, flare-out is pretty much non-existant with the conquest compared to the leupolds. Optics are a little brighter and more resolute with the conquests and the color correction gives a sharper sight picture for me.

That first conquest has wore out two barrels on my one hunting rifle and finally seemed to be developing a tad of parallax after about 4500+ rounds down the tubes. Sent it off to zeiss wondering if the service would be to the level of leupolds. After a week I called and found out they had replaced the entire erector and objective lens. It arrived back in a new box with new paper work as well as a complete zeiss lens cleaning kit (lens cleaner - lens wipes - lens cloth - and a carrying case) along with a $25 gift cert. to apply towards any zeiss purchase in the next year. Scope was perfect again and the parallax was gone. I'm happy with the service and the scopes....best in price class for my eyes!

Dave