I have a new rifle that needs to be fitted with a scope.

Question:
Which of these would you choose?

Choices:
Zeiss conquest
Leoupold VX-III

 

Not enough information for a good answer. What type of rifle, what type of hunting?

FWIW, I just, as in last Friday, ordered a Conquest 3-9x40 (he had a great sale price), a Grand Slam, and a BL Elite (this for a friend) from Jon at The Optics Zone. However, I am coming to believe the "eye box" on the Conquest is too critical at higher mags for a fast follow up. I only killed one big sow late yesterday evening with a .300 Weatherby bolt action, I just couldn't find another pig fast enough for a second follow up shot. In a way, it was my fault, I'd just been fooling with the magnification, and left it on 9x instead of the 3x I normally keep it on. I'll have to test this some more with a Leupie for comparison but it might enter into your equation. I think the optics on the Zeiss are a hair better than the VXIII level Leupies, haven't tried any of their higher priced scopes to date.

quote:

However, I am coming to believe the "eye box" on the Conquest is too critical at higher mags for a fast follow up.

That's what I am told by a number of owners of this and some other "Euro" models. There is an optical price to pay for "constant" eye relief in a variable power scope. A high-resolution image doesn't do you any good if you can't find it in time for a shot.

Is the rifle chamberd for 270 Win or 280 Rem??

quote:

Reply

Leupold's weatherproofing and service trumps the theoretical optical advantages and European chache of the Zeiss.

Check them both side by side. Your eyes will make up your mind. I did this with binos. Looked at everything from 99 dollar spec to Lecias and Swaro for hugh money. I was ready to drop 1200-1500 bucks. Nikon Monarchs won hands down. Luepold is USA made and their customer service is second to none. Nothing wrong with Zeiss. I would opt for the one that my eyeballs liked the best, let the reasons above break any ties.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

However, I am coming to believe the "eye box" on the Conquest is too critical at higher mags for a fast follow up. I only killed one big sow late yesterday evening with a .300 Weatherby bolt action, I just couldn't find another pig fast enough for a second follow up shot. In a way, it was my fault, I'd just been fooling with the magnification, and left it on 9x instead of the 3x I normally keep it on. I'll have to test this some more with a Leupie for comparison but it might enter into your equation. I think the optics on the Zeiss are a hair better than the VXIII level Leupies, haven't tried any of their higher priced scopes to date.

I'm getting a little confused. When you say "eye box", the eyepiece diameter on the Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40 is listed as 41mm diameter and the eyepiece diameter on the 3.5x10x40 VXIII is listed as 1.55". After converting the 41mm it is 1.63" meaning the "eye box" on the Zeiss is larger. All you have to do is look at a picture and you can see it.

What makes a follow up target easy to obtain is field of view and the field of view on the 3.5x10x40 VXIII is 11' to 29.7', on the 3x9x40 VXII it is 14' to 32.3' and on the Zeiss 3x9x40 it is 11' to 33.9'.

So the Zeiss has a larger "eye box" and a larger field of view at 9 power. One of the many reasons I do not like the Leupolds is because it always seems to be harder to get a good sight picture, really have to get down on the stock and move around to get the best view.

I've looked through many of each kind and that is my opinion (backed up by technical facts of course )

Woods:

The term "eye box" is commonly used to mean the amount of "free" movement, both laterally and vertically, you have around the ocular lense to still maintain a sight picture. To use two examples, the old 3x Leupold and the current 6x42 are well known for having a large "eye box".

I just haven't had the time to compare the Conquest I mentioned against a Leupold, (between hunting both mornings and evenings, and some nights, and running a business, not to mention 3 kids and a computer I don't seem to have enough time to sight in all my guns, much less run comparisons) but I've shot tens of thousands of shots thru scopes and this is the first time I've had that much trouble. I repeat, I'm not sure it's the Conquest's fault, but it deserves more personal research. I can tell you this, the Conquest does have a fairly critical amount of eye relief at 9x. I don't have to compare it to a specific other scope to know that, I can tell by how little movement of my eye position it takes to lose the sight picture compared to my use of almost any of the other scopes (dozens) that I have. Don't get me wrong, I like the Conquest, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

quote:

I'm getting a little confused. When you say "eye box",

Every optical instrument has some latitude (greater or lesser) in where the eye is placed(both fore & aft and side-to-side) in order to see the sight picture. The optical engineer has the ability to "trade" greater eye relief for a wider field of view, or a narrower field of view for more side-to-side latitude, etc.

Scopes like the Conquest have a very short fore-aft and side-to-side eye range in order to have both a slightly wider field and a "constant", though somewhat critical, eye relief throughout the power range. On the other hand, Leupold engineers typically opt to trade some field of view for greater eye placement latitude (commonly referred to by shooters as "eye window" or "eye box").

If your stock fits you absolutely perfectly, and your scope is mounted at the most optimal height, and you shoot from only the upright position, a narrow "eye box" is not so much a problem. But when you shoot a stock with an imperfect fit (as are most factory stocks for most people), or you must shoot from a different or awkward position (prone, gun angled upward, slightly twisted, etc.) or when you need to make a quick follow-up shot after working the action and moving the gun slightly from "battery" position, the more generous "eye box" becomes very important.

The critically small size of the eye box is the
most important reason that I will reject using a particular scope, even if that scope is excellent in every other way.

Basing your selection of a scope primarily on how your eye "likes" the general appearance of the picture image of the showcase demo model looking at the flourescent light of the store is a neophyte's method of choosing. In order to select the best optical gunsight you must take into account the critically important qualities necessary in an optical gunsight such as water and shock resistance, weight and bulk, adjustments and ability to hold zero, and at the top of the list, "EYE BOX".

Stonecreek, finally someone has put into words just exactly what I witnessed the other day when I was comparing scopes for an upcoming boomer (340 Weatherby)... I wanted good eye relief as well as good optics so I reviewed eye relief stats on the top brands... To make a long story short the Leupold had the easiest eye placement and excellent eye relief.. The Zeiss scopes (included their high end ones as well) did have excellent optics but the eye relief was a bit shy and the "eye box" was very critical... I noticed this on the Swaro's as well... The only one I found that combined both the excellent optics of the high end Euro's and the eye relief and eye box of the Leupold was the Nightforce scopes (also on the expensive side)... For my needs Leupold wins this one... For my '06 I would consider the Zeiss because of the optical clarity....

Ken....

Well if "eye box" is the amount of movement possible with the head and still have a sight picture then I would have to say IMO that the Zeiss still wins hands down. That is specifically what I was talking about when I said

quote:

One of the many reasons I do not like the Leupolds is because it always seems to be harder to get a good sight picture, really have to get down on the stock and move around to get the best view.

I can throw my rifles up and have an immediate sight picture, not so with many of the other rifles I reload for.

Again, JMAB(admittedly biased)HO, based upon conclusions I came to on my own over time with many different rifles and scopes.

Woods:

My Zeiss's must be defective. Glad your's work so well for you.