I am not certain I understand the implications of constant eye relief and the etched cross hairs attributed to the Zeiss...I presently have mostly Leupolds but bought a Nikon Monarch 3-9 on sale and just love it...think I see through it better than my VariXIIIs...Concerned about recoil endurance of all three scopes..
for use on 375s, 338s, 300WMs, 7mmRM, etc...

I use Zeiss 3-9x40MCs and 1.8-5.5x Conquest scopes on rifles through .375. No problems.

On .416s I've used the 1.8-5.5 Zeiss Conquest and the 1.5-5x Leupold with no problems.

On the recommendation of folks here, I used the 2.5x Leupold Compact on bigger stuff.

I have owned all three. I find the Conquest and Monarch to be a dead heat optically with the 4200 just marginally behind. The VarixIII trails all of them slightly.

Constant eye relief is very nice. You mount the scope where it should be and low or high power doesn't matter. The Monarch has a little change in eye relief though not too large a change. One thing I don't like about Leupolds is their prized long eye relief is only at the low end, they have about the same as others at high power. And this means the change from low to high power is more than others. To the point if you have the scope in the right place at one power or the other it will be in the wrong place at the opposite end.

The Zeiss reticle will appear blacker and easier to pick up in low light or glaring light into the afternoon sun for instance.

4200's seem pretty tough on big kickers, I only know of Monarchs on 300 mags though they are fine at least that far. BTW, the newer version Monarchs mostly have constant eye relief too.

I own the Leupold and the Zeiss and have shot a monarch but not hunted with one. I'd pick the conquest as the best optics and very reliable and easy to use - particularly in low light late or early hunting situations. I don't think that between the 3 you could make a bad choice though.

Zeiss Conquest!

I don't know about the Conquest series Zeiss as I don't own any of those .

I do how ever own a couple of Zeiss , leupold VX3 and Monarch Series Nikon's .

Powers range 2X6 2.5X10 4X12 6.5X20

I would have to stack Nikon's new scopes against anyones with maybe just a slight edge going too my Zeiss . It's definitely not worth the Extra $$ shelled out for the Zeiss .IMO any way !.


It's kind of like an extra 20 FPS but YOU never feel it or see the results from it !.

Shoot Straight Know Your Target . ...

When shooting towards the sun, the etched reticle is worth the extra money, IMO. Until you have used one, you won't understand. The Monarch, however is a great scope optically, but I have also had one go bad on a .375. My Monarch Gold is on a 9.3x62 with no problems. I haven't had any issues with a Conquest, and I've been using them on my roughest hunts lately. There are a hell of a lot of good scopes available now. I also have a Sightron on a .375 that I paid $190 for and it is one hell of a good buy and so far has been indestructible. The optics are as good or better than my 1.75-6x Leupold.

I had not even thought of shooting directly into the sun...
I was thinking of durability in addition to optical quality
of each of those scopes...sounds like the Conquest is the way to go...I will have to examine my current Monarch in light of the sun angle...all I know is that I am somewhat underwhelmed by the Leupolds I currently have...sometimes I have trouble with the contrast of the crosshairs...but not so with the Monarch...constant eye relief sounds good also...always thought Leupolds system was too limiting great at low power but what a penalty as you increase power....

The etched reticles will look normal in the sunlight, the others will turn brown, then disappear almost entirely. Mix this with brush and you can figure the rest out. It doesn't happen every day, but if it happens on the best trophy of your life, you'd be pissed.