The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Optics Zeiss ConquestGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Zeiss Conquest | Login/Join |
One of Us |
Does Zeiss make these scopes in Europe or are they made by someone else for Zeiss? | ||
|
One of Us |
It is my understanding that Zeiss makes the parts and they are assembled here in the US. Excellent value even if they cost twice as much. ____________________________________ There are those who would misteach us that to stick in a rut is consistency - and a virtue, and that to climb out of the rut is inconsistency - and a vice. - Mark Twain | Chinese Proverb: When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with others. ___________________________________ | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yes, Zeiss parts assembled by Zeiss in the USA | |||
|
| One of Us |
Do you feel it is better than a Leupold scope of equal value/cost??? | |||
|
| one of us |
The conquests do seem to be superior optically. | |||
|
| one of us |
In my opinion, the Zeiss is a better scope than the Leupold. Jon Jackoviak The Optic Zone - Discount Rifle Scopes, Spotting Scopes and More! Email: info@theopticzone.com | |||
|
One of Us |
Yes...and I think most will agree the Conqests are optically a bit better. I have owned Leupolds, Nikons, and the true European Zeiss scopes and find the Conquest to be the best "bang for the buck".
Contact Jon regarding any of the Conquests...I think you will find his prices more than fair! I have a 3.5-10 from him on a 375 RUM that just takes a beating and has never changed zero and is still clear as can be. | |||
|
one of us |
Instead of comparing what the manufacturers are putting on paper you should spend a little time out in the field with both.  Terry -------------------------------------------- Well, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? | |||
|
| one of us |
Yea, I think it was Stonecreek once that made the observation that it's all trade offs when it comes to optics. Personally for me the Zeiss works better, but I agree you can't go wrong with a VX111 either. Terry -------------------------------------------- Well, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? | |||
|
one of us |
Yes-- noticeably. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The discussion of Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold has no definitive answer. It is like Ben & Jerry's vs Hagen Daz. Both are excellent and neither one is a bad purchase. It is a matter of personal preference. The decision should be based on what the buyer feels is.... Most pleasing to their eye both optically and esthetically. Personal knowledge of customer service and which, if ever needed, would you rather have dealings with. Price These are all something that should be given consideration when deciding. The answer to which of the two is "better" will never be agreed upon. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, so far you have stubblejumper Jon Jackoviak JMJ888 TC1 RandyWakeman and me assuring you that Zeiss Conquests are noticealby better than Leupolds. I find it's easy to convince other shooters of the same thing, just hand them my rifle with a 3x9x50 Zeiss Conquest on it. After they get out of the shock and close their mouth from their jaw dropping, you can see the light bulb come on.  ____________________________________ There are those who would misteach us that to stick in a rut is consistency - and a virtue, and that to climb out of the rut is inconsistency - and a vice. - Mark Twain | Chinese Proverb: When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with others. ___________________________________ | |||
|
| one of us |
I have the Zeiss, Leupold, Nikon and Buris scopes on my rifles. I can tell you, for sure, that when it starts getting dark, the Zeiss scopes (all are Conquest 3x9's) are SLIGHTLY better than the Leupolds and Nikons....and marginally better than the Burris's. The Zeiss scopes are every bit as crisp as any of the others. They are a great value for the $$ spent. Gary DRSS NRA Lifer | |||
|
| One of Us |
and counting ____________________________________ There are those who would misteach us that to stick in a rut is consistency - and a virtue, and that to climb out of the rut is inconsistency - and a vice. - Mark Twain | Chinese Proverb: When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with others. ___________________________________ | |||
|
One of Us |
Put me down for the Conquest too... The Conquest has "fixed" eye relief and a laser etched reticle as well. Two things I like. cheaptrick.....out!! | |||
|
| One of Us |
and counting, get the picture? ____________________________________ There are those who would misteach us that to stick in a rut is consistency - and a virtue, and that to climb out of the rut is inconsistency - and a vice. - Mark Twain | Chinese Proverb: When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with others. ___________________________________ | |||
|
| one of us |
Clem I like to compare optics by using them and don't give a shit what specs are on paper. The Zeiss is better optically and noticeably brighter when I test them out my window by moonlight. I still have a bunch of Leupolds and the big advantage is normally eye relief, so the big calibers are wearing Leupolds. I have used the Zeiss on .375's with no trouble. I have yet to send a Leupold or Zeiss in for service as well, so both have done a good job. A shot not taken is always a miss | |||
|
One of Us |
Another vote for Zeiss; although I prefer the looks of the Leupold. Talk is cheap - except when Congress does it. Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin' NRA Life Member | |||
|
| One of Us |
To my eye, the Conquest has noticebly better optics than Leupold VX3. You want a surprise?? Go compare the Burris FF2 to a Leupold VX3. | |||
|
| one of us |
+1 more Don | |||
|
one of us |
I'll have to admit I do think the Zeiss is a better scope. I prefer the Zplex reticle, the 44 objective, and the looks when compared to the Leupie. The optics are pretty close although to my eyes I can see better through the Zeiss. When I'm at the range I can see bullet holes at 200 much better with the Zeiss when compared to equally powered Leupies. I have heck getting the Leupie eyepieces focused just right for my eyes but I haven't seemed to have that much trouble w/ the conquest. Both good scopes w/o a doubt. Good Luck Reloader | |||
|
| One of Us |
This could go on forever, but hopefully we have made a point. Are you guys voting on the other thread? Was at the range today. Last shots to check 338 and 300 before going Elk hunting Thursday night. Had a friend sighting in his nephews gun. It had a cheap 4x scope on it so he got a spotting scope from the range shack. He would shoot and I would tell him where he hit by looking through whichever gun I was shooting. The 338 has a 2.5x10x50 VM/V Zeiss and the 300 has a 3x9x50 Zeiss Conquest. He shot once and we couldn't see the hole through the spotter or the VM/V. So I benched the 300 with the Conquest and found the hole. The $419.00 Conquest was clearer than the $1,500.00 VM/V. Kinda pissed me off after spending so much on what I thought was "the best scope money can buy". ____________________________________ There are those who would misteach us that to stick in a rut is consistency - and a virtue, and that to climb out of the rut is inconsistency - and a vice. - Mark Twain | Chinese Proverb: When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with others. ___________________________________ | |||
|
| One of Us |
Even being a swede I still fall in the Ziess and euro scope line... Had one leo VXII 2-7x32, to dark a scope to use to any extent here in Sweden. My .22 Hornet now wears a 70`s vintage Steeltubed Helia Super 8x56 and that my fellow shooters is glas sufficient to shoot way beyond the range of the .22 hornet.. On my 9,3x62 M98 Husqvarna there is a Ziess Diavaria in 1,5x42 nr 11 reticle probably the best scope in the world for short range up and until 200 yards at big game.. I shot a wild boar with this outfit at 5:15 last week, couldn´t make out the pig with the bare eye but in the scope it was all clear and harwested as the boar it was. Do your self a favor and try the Conquest line, when hooked join the dark side and buy Diavaria or Swarowskis.. Best regards Christian | |||
|
| One of Us |
I stand corrected, this can be decided. Here on AR it is quite clear that Zeiss is the way to go. It is amazing how this thread has leaned in one direction. In other threads that we participate in the Zeiss vs Leupold discussion has been quite heated with no agreements. This makes me even happier that we back Zeiss and decided against being Leupold dealers  | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have 2 Conquests and I like them alot better. Mainly, because I have had the Leupold internals fail me. The only Leupold that appears as bright as the Zeiss is the 2.5x8 VariX 111. Butch | |||
|
| One of Us |
Zeiss for me, except on very light rifles. I like the etched reticles and the constant eye relief. The Leupold reticle "blooms out" when looking into the sun while the Zeiss stays nice and dark! I hadn't noticed this until Savage99 put me on to it. The Leupold is lighter in weight and seems more "at home" on a light rifle. Either will work under differing circumstances. By the way, a VariX-II in 6X36 costs about half of the Zeiss, if that's a factor? | |||
|
| One of Us |
I had a gunshop clerk have me compare a Leupold varix-II 2X7 with a 33mm bell against a sightron with a 42mm bell and concluded the sSightron was better because it was brighter?  Butch, I usually don't get into the "brightness" debate since most want to argue apples against oranges. Comparing a 36mm bell against a 42mm bell for brightness is not a good comparison! Usually the bigger bell will be brighter!  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Love the comments! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Don, I'm not trying to debate anyone. I'm just saying that one works better in low light. I have an 8x56 Zeiss and it works real good in low light. I certainly agree with you that the diameter of the bell makes a difference. Butch | |||
|
| One of Us |
I recently bought a 3 - 90 x 40 mm Zeiss Conquest from Jon at Optizone, not having seen one in the flesh before; purely based on comments here on AR. I can now say, having compared it with my Leupold (VX2) and those of my friends (VX3's)that it is brighter, suggesting it has better glass. However the Leupold is cosmetically more pleasing with its gold ring and somewhat smaller & lighter. In sunny SA we generally have adequate light. I have never worried what happens during the last 10 minutes before the sun goes down as that brings other risk factors into play when something goes wrong and you have to follow up. Chris | |||
|
One of Us |
With astronomy as one of my hobbies I can shed some light (pun intended) on the whole brightness issue.. You will find that all of the name brand scopes will pass between 95 and 99 percent of the light per lense surface.... That said, the average human eye can not decern the difference between the two except in very low light conditions... There are differences between models and manufacturers as to how many lenses are involved which will obviously make some difference to light transmission.. The bottom line is that with the same number of lenses, the larger the objective, the more light it will gather.... A good example of this would be between two telescopes of the same design and light transmission per surface... A 10 inch scope has almost three times the light gathering of a 6 inch scope and almost 60 percent more then an 8 inch... In this case gentlemen, size does matter.... You will also find different coatings on scopes that improve the light transmission by a great deal.. The Leupold LPS scopes, for instance, have a coating that allows 99.65 percent light transmission per surface which is one of the best in the industry... The quality of the glass itself will make the difference in clarity... Most manufacturers use either white water glass (don't know where the name came from but it's extemely clear) or pyrex glass... From there the only determining factor is the quality of the grind... If a 10 inch telescope mirror in a scope that costs a mear 1500 dollars can be ground to 1/4 wave (that would be a quarter of a light wavelength), any riflescope lense glass can be ground to that quality for a fraction of the cost (smaller = easier).... Just my two cents... Ken.... "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. " - Ronald Reagan | |||
|
| one of us |
Clem, Take your Leu and Conquest scoped rifles out someday when the sun is shining and try to aim at something towards the sun. The reticule on the Leu will fade away to a light brown transparancy and also the definition in the Leu will become poor. The Conquest is a far superior optical and aiming instrument. The are somewhat heavier and larger however and even more expensive than the VX2. I have nine Leupolds and have bought my last one. Since I got the first Conquest a few years ago I now have five Leu's were Zeiss. Join the NRA | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
Clem, Your observations and conclusions seem to be objective and unbiased. This brings me to the point that I did not mention in this topic but have in others that each person sees optics in their own way. Just as the eye doctor does not look in a book and say that this eyeglass lense is best for you or I but instead asks us which is better A or B,,,,, I was at the range today and, for me, the reticule turned pink on the VX3 2.5-8 just as it does on all Leu. type scopes and that reticule was far sharper, darker and better defined in the Zeiss Conquest 3-9, 4X Diatal and 4.5-14 Conquest. I am not dumping my Leu's as they are a little better than my old Lyman All Americans nor am I buying anymore of them. Join the NRA | |||
|
| one of us |
Ok I've got a Conquest 4.5X14 and a Leupold Vari III 4.5X14 with the older multi coat 4 lens coatings. I like the Leupold best. Its smaller and lighter. I've had both out on the SAME power in the SAME full moonlight and the Zeiss was slightly better. But with both I could have shot a deer at 140 yards. Yeah there was a real live deer out there. I live on a farm. The main advantage of the Zeiss is its etched crosshair. Its heavier and easy to see in dim light. And it stays black and won't reflect back light like the Leupolds do. But Leupold makes heavier crosshairs if you want them. In daylight I liked the color rendition of the Leupold best. The Zeiss made stuff off natural color.Too blue. The leupold seemed better at giving me the color I like. I don't like the side focus on the Zeiss (or Leupolds for that matter). Just another knob to hang and knock. I like the streamline front focus of the older Leupolds MUCH better for a hunting rifle. For a target rifle on a rest I like the side focus. Both scopes seem equal in resolution in my tests at the same power. I like the Leupold's thread locking eyepiece. I'm always scared the Zeiss will be turned by accident but so far it hasn't happend. Now on to reliability. Not used the Zeiss enough to test. But get this...I carry my rifle on my tractor while I'm bushhoggin. Carry it resting on the butt on a footboard. The vibrations are intense to say the least! I would guess the 3 leupolds have rode that way for about 40-50 hours each. They have never gave any trouble and held exact zero. That is a real torture test for a scope.Both scopes are nice and both have great re-sale value. My last scope I bought was a Leupold EFR air rifle scope. One thing about the Zeiss....I've read several places that they are internally Metopa (spelling?) scopes from the Czech republic. The parts are sent over here and put together by Americans in much the same way Leupold has their parts/lenes made in the far east and "craft" them in the USA. So if your wanting to "buy American" there isn't much diff in them. Either one will serve you VERY well. FNMauser Strike while the iron is hot! Look before you leap!He who hesitates is lost! Slow and steady wins the race! Time waits for no man! A stitch in time saves nine! Make hay while the sun shines! ect. ect. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I thought I would chime in here with a real world experience that I recently had with the 2 scopes in question. I went to the range about three weeks ago with two of my rifles a 338WM and a 300Wm. One has a Leupold VX-III 3.5-10x40 on it and the other has Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. I was shooting each rifle at the same 5 spot target (obviously at different points on teh target) and was switching between shots to let them cool (I was trying new ammo in both). The Zeiss was by far clearer than the Leupy. I am making the statement of clearer based on the fact that I would have to look through the spotter to examine my shots that were close together to see exactly what the group looked like and then when shooting the 338WM which has the Conquest on it, I could clearly see the groups from the previous rifles shots without having to use the spotter. I could argue all day long that the Conquest has better glass and the issue on the Leupy cross-hairs fading yellow in any kind of sunlight vs the etched reticle on the Conquest. But , the reality is that the Leupold fits certain guns better than the heavier bulkier Zeiss does. I recently bought a new Kimber Montana in 300WSM and when deciding what scope to put on it I really wanted to slap a Conquest on it, but at over 15oz and its bulky ocular piece it just wasn't the right fit. So my next go to scope was the VX-III in 3.5-10x40. Each has their place in my arsenal, but I will say whole heartedly that if I could get the Leupy shape and size with Conquest glass and reticle, I might just have the perfect scope. Thats my $.02 for what its worth. | |||
|
| one of us |
I had a chance to compare a 2.5-8 VariX-III and 3-9 Conquest and a 3-10 Swaro AV in a 100yd indoor tunnel. It was lit only by one bulb at the far end. I was using the orange site-in targets with the 5 squares and a 1" grid. With the Leupold I could see the squares but not the grid lines. With the Zeiss I could clearly see the squares and make out the gridlines. With the Swaro the gridlines were distinct and clear. The Zeiss was definately superior to the Leupold in this test. And at twice the price of either the Swaro was better than the others. I'd like to repeat the test with a newer VX-III scope which I'm sure would be an improvement over my older Vari-X III maybe the differences wouldn't be so obvious. It seems to me the the Swaro is the best, the Zeiss is the best for the money and the Leupy "looks" the best on some rifles. But the Swaro costs the most, the Zeiss is the heaviest, and the Leupold is the worst optically...........................DJ ....Remember that this is all supposed to be for fun!.................. | |||
|
| one of us |
dj these are my thoughts exactly, the Leupold is better looking, the Zeiss is the best buy and the real high dollar scopes are only a small margin better and at least double the price. The etched reticle on the Zeiss is way better than the Leupold however. One small negative is when the Zeiss is mounted as low as possible on some old Mauser type rifles, they are sometimes very close to the eyepiece when working the bolt and can make operation a bit clumsy. A shot not taken is always a miss | |||
|
| one of us |
j, In particular the gloss finish on Leupolds just isn't available on a Conquest or a Swaro. I don't have many high gloss rifles but a gloss scope is the way to go on one...................DJ ....Remember that this is all supposed to be for fun!.................. | |||
|
one of us |
I like my Zeiss scopes! I am a big fan of Zeiss optics. I use their microscopes in the OR and the office and must just be a sucker for brand loyalty (and clear optics) I am saving up to order a couple of the lower power Conquests for my DGRs. Although, I do have a Leupold 3X9 compact on a Model 70 Classic compact for my wife that looks just dang purty. Purdy rifle fur mah purdy wife. Hunting: Exercising dominion over creation at 2800 fps. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia