I've been a Leuopold user forever. I own many of their scopes with zero problems on rifles from 22LR to 458 WM. Eyes have aged and things don't look as bright as they once did. Decided to try a Zeiss Conquest 3-9 on my 300WM. Shot it side by side with Leupold VX III 2.5-8. Here's my review:

Zeiss much brighter sight picture to me.
Zeiss constant eye relief better than Leupold variable.
Cross hairs thicker on Zeiss(both duplex reticle) personal preference?
Leupold lighter and more compact.
Price about the same.
Longer tube of Zeiss offers more range of movement in rings.

My Opinion, I Like Zeiss better than Leupold if you can stand the bigger scope. But, If Leupold made a brighter VX III with constant eye relief I'd buy one.

My old eyes totally agree with you findings! I have several of both makes and much prefer the Zeiss optics. Like the looks and weight of the Luppys better though. By the way, I've got a good hunting buddy that lives on Drummond; at the end of E. Bass Cove Rd.

I agree as well. I had both. Still have the Conquest. The Leupold may have the edge in weight and size, but my overall nod goes to the Conquest. I am also finding constant eye relief more and more important.

LWD

Zeiss use to use a fluorite coating on their lenses, which is a cheaper coating, but tended to crack. Would be interested to know if the conquests have the same coating.

John

On top of what has already been mentioned, the Zeiss has the edge when it comes to ease of diopter adjustment (which is a pain in the posterior on the Leupold), as well as in quality of elevation and vindage adjustment (where Leupold was always a bit ho-hum).

Other than that, Leupolds are still very reliable scopes and the company offers great service. I would not hesitate taking a Leupold afield, but I have bought way more Conquests than Leupolds of late.

- mike

Thanks for the replies. Glad to know my comparison is at least in the ballpark with others. Coltchris, Yes I know your friend. PM sent

I did the same comparrison,and found that i also liked the zeiss better.I was surprised at how much brighter the zeiss was.

Conquest is the best scope for the $, assuming you were intending on the $400 range. In the $200-$250 range, I believe the Sightron is a hell of a buy.

I just got in a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50.
Compared to the Leupold, Burris, and other
scopes I've had I would put this in a different
league. Worth the $650. My next scope will
be a Conquest.

dxr

bought my first zeiss last spring, a 4.5-14x50 conquest for my 7mmRM and have been nothing but pleased with it. i looked at a bunch of different scopes and the conquest blows ALL other scopes in its price range out of the water.

the leupolds are good scopes but nowhere near the zeiss. ill definitely be buying more of them for future rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:
Zeiss use to use a fluorite coating on their lenses, which is a cheaper coating, but tended to crack. Would be interested to know if the conquests have the same coating.

John

Zeiss uses two multi-coating formulas: T* and MC. The T* multi-coating can be up to 21 layers I have been told, but also note that some of the layers don't necessarily have an optical effect -- they can make it easier to use multiple layers. T* is used on the Victory series. MC was used on previous top of the line optics, and is now used on the Conquest line.

The original lens coatings in the 30s were calcium fluoride and magnesium fluoride. I understand that since the 70s the lens makers have developed other materials and techniques, and also some scratch-resistant and hydrophobic coatings for the external lens surfaces. I don't think you are going to find cracks on any Zeiss lenses.

jim

Just bought a Zeiss classic 1.1-4X 24T 30mm tube and i am amazed at its clarity and that #4 reticle should prove to be very valuable during twilight. Leupold makes good, reliable scopes for the money but the euro's have em beat with their glass and coatings. What one has to weigh is whether the extra money is worth it, i think it is....

I have a number of 3-9x42 MC Conquests and one 1.8-5.5x38 MC in addition to three Leupold scopes.

The only place I'd not use a Conquest would be on the heaviest recoiling rifles ... Lott and above. I'll let someone else explore the recoil handling abilities of scopes other than the Leupold 2.5x Compact on those kinda rifles

quote:

Originally posted by HunterJim:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:
Zeiss use to use a fluorite coating on their lenses, which is a cheaper coating, but tended to crack. Would be interested to know if the conquests have the same coating.

John

Zeiss uses two multi-coating formulas: T* and MC. The T* multi-coating can be up to 21 layers I have been told, but also note that some of the layers don't necessarily have an optical effect -- they can make it easier to use multiple layers. T* is used on the Victory series. MC was used on previous top of the line optics, and is now used on the Conquest line.

The original lens coatings in the 30s were calcium fluoride and magnesium fluoride. I understand that since the 70s the lens makers have developed other materials and techniques, and also some scratch-resistant and hydrophobic coatings for the external lens surfaces. I don't think you are going to find cracks on any Zeiss lenses.

jim

Being curious, I did some checking, the conquest lack the t* coatings, they use a multi-coat optics and they treat the glass with fluorites to correct for chromatic abberation. I will say that if anyone can pull it off, it is Zeiss. They have made some terrific lenses for Hasselblad and contax, and their 30mm Euro scopes are pretty good, hopefully the glass on the conquests follow suit.

John

quote:

I've been a Leuopold user forever. I own many of their scopes with zero problems on rifles from 22LR to 458 WM. Eyes have aged and things don't look as bright as they once did. Decided to try a Zeiss Conquest......

Pretty much sums it up for me also, own several of each model scope mentioned. Prefer the finish - reticle (always black no reflection color changes) - constant eye relief - fast ocular focus - and best in scope class glass. Used them in all conditions and when it comes to mid range optics......I'm still waiting to see any scope maker improve upon the color correction - brightness - and resolution of the conquest, match its features, and still manage to compete in their price range.

woods

Completely agree with all points. plus, zeiss clicks are much more crisp.

quote:

Originally posted by studdog:
I've been a Leuopold user forever. I own many of their scopes with zero problems on rifles from 22LR to 458 WM. Eyes have aged and things don't look as bright as they once did. Decided to try a Zeiss Conquest 3-9 on my 300WM. Shot it side by side with Leupold VX III 2.5-8. Here's my review:

Zeiss much brighter sight picture to me.
Zeiss constant eye relief better than Leupold variable.
Cross hairs thicker on Zeiss(both duplex reticle) personal preference?
Leupold lighter and more compact.
Price about the same.
Longer tube of Zeiss offers more range of movement in rings.

My Opinion, I Like Zeiss better than Leupold if you can stand the bigger scope. But, If Leupold made a brighter VX III with constant eye relief I'd buy one.

I totally agree.

My Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44 is much better in all categories than my new Leupold VX3 4.5-14x40. They are both good scopes but the Zeiss wins hands down.

Reloader

I have Zeiss, Leupold and Swarovski. The latest Zeiss is the 4.5-14x50 Conquest. I took it outside the other night and in low light it was right there with the $1700 Swarovskis when it came to being able to see detail at any distance. Also the ability to focus quickly blew away the Leupold. Once you got it focused and on target the Leupold looked ok in low light but was NO comparison to either of the other two. The 4-12 swarovskis also put the Leupold to shame. The Leupold was the latest greatest 30 mm tube, 4-14x40 LR model. Good scope and I plan on keeping it but if I want a low light scope it'll be the Zeiss or Swarovskis.

For the money the Zeiss appears to be the best deal out there. Also the field of view on the Zeiss puts the Leupys to shame. Leupold looks like your trying to use a water pipe for a scope tube in comparison. Zeiss has done an excellent job for the money.

I own 3 of the Zeiss 3-9 Conquests. The replaced 3 Leupold VX-IIIs. Need I say more.

I also own a pair of the latest Zeiss Victory Binocs, which replaced Leica Ultravid. Need I say more.

quote:

Originally posted by Coltchris:
I have several of both makes and much prefer the Zeiss optics. Like the looks and weight of the Luppys better though.

Ditto. I love the conquest optics, but to me they just don't look right on a nice walnut/blued rifle. I have a couple on SS/Synthetic rifles, but Leupy's are still very good scopes and, to me, look much better on a nice rifle.