Picked up a LH Ruger Hawkeye 30-06 w/laminate stock. I am looking for the "right" scope for it. My only decent quality scope is a Leupold VX-2 on my .270. The laminate stock is a bit heavier than standard wood or synthetic, and also my max range (for now) is about 200yds for hunting. I was thinking that the smaller, lighter VX-3 ($399) would be just about perfect. I have never had the cause to go over 6x on my VX-2. However, I see that the Zeiss is now also selling for $399, which seems to be one great quality scope from what I have read through opinions here on AR and on Cabelas and Midway's sites. Anyone have an opinion/experience to share ?

You need to compare their features by sighting through each of them actually mounted on a rifle. Without that, you can't know what kind of actual "feel" you'll get from each instrument.

I quite clearly favor the Leupold when compared in this way, but others feel just the opposite. You can't know which camp you fall into unless you make this direct comparison.

I have both and prefer the Zeiss as to my eye it is a better image in the scope. The reticle in the Zeiss is also easier to see if you are looking into the sun. With that said the Leupold is a better looking scope.

If you go with the Zeiss you can get it from Doug or Neal at Cameraland and save the cost of shipping.

BigB

If you are looking to drop some weight, I'd suggest the Leupold ultralight 3-9. I have one of those and a VX-III 2.5-8. I think the quality of both optics is good, but you would save a few ounces with the ultralight. I like the better windage and elevation adjustments of the VX-III, but other than that, I can't say one is much better than the other.

I sold the VIII and got the Zeiss. It is much better period.

I suggest you use the search function as this as been discussed in great detail. Bottom line, Zeiss superior in every way except size and weight. Most important to me is 4 inches of constant eye relief.

The Leupold VX-3 series are excellent scopes, and I doubt you'd be disappointed if you bought one. None of my Leupolds have ever let me down, and the VX-3 series has brought significant improvements in terms of scoope adjutment quality (an area where the older VX-III series lacked somewhat).

That said, I believe the Zeiss Conquest series is better in terms of: optical quality, diopter compensation and POI adjustment. It is normally also easier to find a great price on a Conquest.

- mike

Either scope will certainly do the trick. I have been using the Zeiss for a few years now for fairly rough terrain and weather conditions in mountains for deer and elk with great results. But as suggested there are individual preferences both ways.

I would gladly trade my Leupold for a Zeiss but not the other way around. The VX3 will be smaller and lighter if that is your main concern.

My hunting areas can be pretty wide open so I've used higher powers but 5-6x is what I tend to keep it on if sitting anticipating a long shot. The Zeiss is very clear at the top of the range if you do have time to adjust on a really long shot.

quote:

Most important to me is 4 inches of constant eye relief.

Studdog, you said it right there! I don't know how they do it but it works. I have a 3-9x40 Conquest on my Blaser 375 H&H! Zeiss Conquests are now the only scopes I buy.
Peter.

My eyes must be strange, I have a Conquest 2.5x8 and find the color transmission a bit flat. More importantly it seems to be really fussy about head position. It has plenty of eye relief but seems to have very little tolerance in that relief. My old Leupold VXIII 3.5x10 appears to have better color transmission and is much less fussy about eye position.
C.G.B.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

Most important to me is 4 inches of constant eye relief.

Studdog, you said it right there! I don't know how they do it but it works. I have a 3-9x40 Conquest on my Blaser 375 H&H! Zeiss Conquests are now the only scopes I buy.
Peter.

Amen,
And the fixed 4x Zeiss Conquest has 4" of eye relief too. IIRC, they are the only Conquests with that much eye relief. I have both the 3-9x40, and the fixed 4x. Both are superior optically to their counterpart Leupolds.

Camera Land (Doug) has 3x9 Zeiss demos which are perfect and with full factory warranty for $369.00 That's the way to go!

quote:

Originally posted by cgbach:
My eyes must be strange, I have a Conquest 2.5x8 and find the color transmission a bit flat. More importantly it seems to be really fussy about head position. It has plenty of eye relief but seems to have very little tolerance in that relief. My old Leupold VXIII 3.5x10 appears to have better color transmission and is much less fussy about eye position.
C.G.B.

"It has plenty of eye relief but seems to have very little tolerance in that relief."

Exactly. There is a price to pay for constant eye relief in a variable power scope.

There are a number of optical "laws of nature", as well as several unavoidable mechanical parameter limitations at play when building a rifle scope. A useful rifle scope (optical gun sight) muse employ a number of optical and mechanical compromises to achieve the best combination of optical and mechanical features. Leupold has long understood which compromises are essential and how to successfully incorporate them into an optical gun sight. Several other manufacturers make excellent telescopes, but their telescopes' utility as optical gun sights is often limited due to their lack of understanding of which compromises must be incorporated into the instrument.

Somehow Kahles beats these constraints that you talk about - here is a comparison with two 1-inch scopes:

The Kahles CL 3-9 x 42 mm scopes gives a FOV of 39 ft to 13.5 ft @100 yds with an eye relief of 90 mm
The Leupold VX II 3-9 x 40 mm scopes gives a FOV of 32.3 ft to 14 ft @100 yds with an eye relief of 119 mm (3x) to 94 mm (9x)

The Leupold varies by 25 mm (from 94 mm to 119 mm) and needs a full inch in head shift and that is a lot by all standards.

Looking at the above comparison, there is no doubt that the Kahles beats the Leupold most of the way, except for the 6 inches at the 9x setting, but offers a far better FOV all the way up to about 8x. One would thinkMost of my hunting takes place in less than 200 yds and as such I set my magnification at 4X for bush terrain and 6x for semi bush/savannah terrain before I start the hunt. I will only turn up when long-shots present themselves at that point in time.

Also shouldering a rifle with a scope that features a constant eye-relief has the benefit that you do not have to move your head back and forth to find your position with a perfect circle - so there is some consistency with a constant eye-relief scope.

But what Kahles do understand much better than Leupold, is that they offer brighter lenses and they are renowned for their edge to edge clarity. Also Leupold still does not offer in this day and age the popular 4a reticle.

In fact Kahles generally beats all scope manufacturers with FOV - it is even advertised like this.

Warrior

I have both the scopes you mention. I bought more Zeiss scopes as I like them much better.

The Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 MC scope gives a FOV of 33.9 ft to 11.0 ft @100 yds with an eye relief of 100 mm (4").
Buyers seldom consider FOV in a shop when they are buying, clarity and brightness will mostly overrule.
That is why the Conquest scopes are taking market share away from Leupold - it is about the glass.
FOV has more value at closer ranges when the magnification setting is lower to track a moving herd or an indivdual animal that moves momentarily behind bush or brush and reappear. At longer distances the herd is more relaxed and one has plenty more time to set oneself up for the shot.

Warrior

I had a bad experience with the Zeiss Conquest and went back to Leupold for all of my scopes. On your application, I would suggest the VX III in 2.5x8 for weight and a great scope. That is what I use on my .280.

Warrior: FOV is a direct trade-off with eye relief. The wider the FOV, the shorter the eye relief.

Also, the wider the FOV, the shallower the eye relief. Leupold trades a small amount of FOV for not only greater eye relief, but for a greater depth of eye relief. The figures you quote for Leupold are for the center of the eye relief window -- the actual window overlaps between the high magnification and the low magnification so that the same eye position will work for either. With the Kahles, the wider FOV necessitates both shorter and shallower eye relief, meaning that there is only one place (within about a half-inch) that you can place your eye and see the sight picture.

Each manufacturer makes its own decisions on which optical/mechanical compromises to make in its scopes. Forty-five years of experience with riflescopes has taught me that Leupold gets it right more often than anyone else. Sincere and knowledgable people can differ, of course.

quote:

Warrior: FOV is a direct trade-off with eye relief. The wider the FOV, the shorter the eye relief.

Sure it is - that is the mechanics of it.

I own both of the scopes that I referred to - the Kahles 3-9 x 42 mm & the Leupold VX II 3-9 x 40 mm. The Kahles is superior in every way in my opinion, and I have used both of them in varying conditions - early morning and just before sunset, short distance and long distance, overcasts, bright sunshine, rainy conditions with snow flakes coming down, on the range shooting for groups.

With the Kahles you can see your bullet holes clearly at a 100 yds. The Kahles is on my 9,3x62 and the Leupold on my 7x57. On my other 7x57 I have a Conquest and that is also better that the Leupold. The day I bought my VXII, I comapred it with the VXIII, and I could not justify paying R1,500 more for the VXIII.

I can see no drawback with the Kahles or where the Leupold could be superior due to what you call "overlap". The 90 mm eye relief is more than adequate on a 9,3 in terms of recoil and I wear glasses - never been hit by the scope. The Leupold is doing its job - no complaints really as I opted for the wideplex (not the std plex that is too narrow for my liking), but on the range the leupold cannot compare. Hunting is different, as there we shoot quick and it depends on hunting skill more so than on bright images.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
The day I bought my VXII, I comapred it with the VXIII, and I could not justify paying R1,500 more for the VXIII.
Warrior

Now there we are in perfect agreement! You see, rational people can always find common ground.

quote:

Zeiss Conquests are now the only scopes I buy.
Peter.

This comes off the Optics Talk Forum ...

"If you need low light ability go with the Zeiss etched glass 4a. The Leupold B&C is not the best in low light because the markings are so fine it makes them hard to see. ... 3_tens"

The 4a is my favourite reticle too.
All manufacturers of scopes should actually adopt it imo.

The Kahles scope is still my favourite.

Warrior

Apart from the mechanics of eye relief vs FOV, Kahles manged to do it this way to enhance the FOV of their latest line of scopes ..... and I quote:

"The CL scopes (CL for "compact" and "light") replace Kahles' American Hunter line, and feature improvements such as an 18-percent larger ocular lens for a wider field of view, and upgraded AMV multicoatings.

This makes the occular bell 43 mm in diameter (1.7")

Whilst better on the eye, it may force one to go from low rings to medium rings.

Warrior

quote:

Whilst better on the eye, it may force one to go from low rings to medium rings.

Correct. Another of those optical/mechanical tradeoffs. Personally, I would not trade the lighter, more compact, lower mounting ocular of other scopes for the wider FOV that the Kahles provides. But that is my preference, where others will surely differ.