Are the lenses and parts made in Germany and assembled in the U.S. Or, is everything made in the U.S. and assembled in the U.S. I am getting both answers down here. If the lenses are made in the U.S., what makes these any better than Leupold?

Corey,

Zeiss Conquest scopes have a 1 inch tube, whereas the VM-V series have a 30MM tube.

In France, the Conquest series have a reputation of fragility, as reticles tend to break frequently.
I would go for a leupold...
olivier

I was under the impression the Conquest scopes had the reticle etched on the lens.

It's hard to beat a Leupold for the money.

The way I look at it, Zeiss created the Conquest line to compete with Leupold, so why not just get a Leupold? I always opt for tried and true.

------------------
Good Hunting & Hunt Safe,
David

I own a Zeiss Conquest and plan on adding a few more in the future. I got this straight from the horse's mouth (Zeiss factory rep) so take it for what it's worth...Conquest scopes are assembled in the US from German made lenses and components. The lenses and scope bodies are all made to the same tolerances and have the same coatings and other specs as the Z series scopes which are assembled in Germany. The American Zeiss line is not allowed to market these coatings and finishes under their European trademark names for both legal and marketing reasons here in the states.
My Zeiss scope is a 3.5-10 and is much clearer than any of my Leupolds...(look around the edges of the lenses) plus the scope maintains a constant eye relief regardless of power setting. I own 6 Leupold scopes but I will probably be adding more Zeiss conquest scopes in the future. My Conquest gave me no problems during this year's deer season...but in all honesty it wasn't used too hard either...got all my deer fairly early in the season and maybe took the gun out in the field 15 days total...
That's my experience FWIW...

It would seem to be impossible to break a reticle that is etched on the glass.
This is a feature of the Conquest lin, the etched glass reticule.

I own a 3-9X40 Conquest and have been thoroughly impressed by it. There's no question the optical quality is better than the three Leupold Vari-X III's I own. If I had to buy another scope right now, it would be another Zeiss Conquest without a doubt.

I think the gentleman from France must be thinking of some other scope. In order for an etched in glass reticle to break, the lens itself would have to break. I doubt very seriously this happens frequently as he suggested.

Leupold scopes are all I own but I recently had occasion to examine a 3.5x10 Conquest and the image quality was most impressive.
I may try one, but, then again, I may not.
Leupold has taken good care of me over the years and I feel a sense of loyalty to the company, as a result.

Nickudu you & I are like minded. I bought my first two Leupold scopes back in 1970. A 4x and a 2x7. I have USED them a lot over the years & neither one of them has ever blinked!
Of the 13 Leupolds that I have I sent one back for a lens cleaning. The Conquest line does tweak my interest but that's about it.
I was told by the Zeiss reps at the last Shot Show that one reason the Conquest line
is less expensive than the Z series is the
omission of their proprietary lens coatings that are used on the Z's

------------------
NRA Life member

[This message has been edited by Bear Claw (edited 01-13-2002).]

Jeff S' post is verbatim with my experience.

I have many scopes some of the most exspensive made and i test them all the time. Let me first say that I have not bought any luepold scopes, because when you look through ziess, swarofski, kales,and my favorite schmidt & bender all of the luepolds look fuzzy to me. Now back to the ziess conquest I have a 4.5X 14 1 inch tube 44 bell. I compared to several luepolds even 30 mm tube with 50 bell, and quess what the conquest blows it to hell,To me leupold is in big trouble. Hey leupolds are solid but the lens never impressed me. They need better lenses. Excuse my spelling!

Sorry friends, but I just reported my retailers words (he sent back FIVE conquest scopes in 2001) and I also have a friend whose ZM-Z broke - ok, ok, this is no conquest line.
I must add I own a zeiss 1,5-6X42 and am fully impressed by its clarity and it never let me down either. I also own several vari XIII and truly, the image is of lower qualityu than with the zeiss.
Still, I prefer leupold 1,75-6X32 scope, for its longer eye relief, its lightness, compactness, and reliability. I've never been unable to shoot an animal because of lack of image quality...
olivier

Well, at least we, the consumers, stand to gain from the competition. That's the American Way.

[This message has been edited by Nickudu (edited 01-14-2002).]

Hi,

I own 3 Zeiss products:a 10x25 binocular,a 3,5-12x56ZM and a 3,5-12x56V.
Iam totally satisfied with my binocular,but the scopes are-compared to the price- bullshit!
The ZM is only slightly better than my 3,5-10x50 VariX III and the V have some particles on the inner lenses.

If I would buy new optics I would choose Leica for binos and Schmidt&Bender for scopes.
Iam very sad to tell you Zeiss has lost its highest quality but IMO theres no doubt.

Markus

I too have used Leupold almost exclusively for 25 years - - target, benchrest, hunting. I had a brief fling with Burris - a quality scope and image - but they were either too heavy, too big or not enough ring spacing, so I too feel some loyality to Leupold. Although in fairness two of their scopes have failed, and neither was subjected to hard use.

I just bought a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. For the Leupold user, it is sufficiently similar in weight and operation and size not to cause any problems.

While 3 oz heavier than the Leupold Vari-X III 3.5-10x40, the ring spacing is MUCH better. The focusing is MUCH easier and more precise, especially if you wear glasses and sometimes shoot without them. The power ring is easier to use and the projecton on it, when placed in the vertical position, is very close to the ideal exit pupil for that scope for shooting in poor light, which is nice and simple in poor light.

Reticle clarity is MUCH better at all power levels. Brightness of the optic is equal to the Leupold, clarity is noticeably sharper with the Zeiss.

I mounted this on a 7mm Weatherby. Eye relief appears little different to me from 25 years of Leupold use, at least how I shoulder a rifle.

Finally, the Conquest is about $75 cheaper than the Vari-X III, and comes with scope caps, which the Leupold does not. A friend uses Zeiss exclusively in his hunting and target shooting, including some very hard hunting in Natal, RSA, and it has never failed him.

I've always had the feeling that Leupold, with it's 1940s technology, was ripping off the consumer. I've used them as they were the most cost-effective scope going, given their quality. Now with the lower-cost Zeiss, I'm not so sure.

Leupold has now been forced to lower the price on the old Vari-X II by $100, and rename it the VX-1. Their "new" VX-2 is for all intents and purposes the Vari-X III, without the slightly better adjustment ring, and at the same cost as the old Vari-X II. Compared to the VX-2, the Vari-X III seems to be the biggest rip-off: you pay and extra $200 for an adjustment ring with a knob on it and a fractional higher power end. And still, no scope caps, no fast focusing, shorter ring spacing, heavier scope, semi-fuzzy reticle.

All of which leads you to wonder how much money Leupold has been making off of us all these years, if they could cut prices $100 on their most popular line without blinking an eye, all due to competition.

The LPS line is huge turkey. No American with any hunting experience is gonna lug those expensive boat anchors around, for marginal gains in optical performance. And the Euros aren't satisfied with the LPS for their "night hunting".

I'm gonna try the Conquest and see how it does. Will be hunting in Africa in may and shooting extensively until then.

www.rifleshooter.com

[ 12-24-2002, 07:54: Message edited by: KuduKing ]

KuduKing, I could ramble on about the Conquest scopes, but what you said pretty much sums it up for me too. DITTO

Broken reticles on the Conquest!? Reputation for fragility!? Swarovski optics yellowing with age and fogging?! I swear I think all Leupold employees lurk on these fora and spread lies about all other scope brands. Next thing, some Zeiss guy will start the rumor that Leupold variables shift POI through various power settings-uh-oh, that's not a rumor, that's been the experience of shooters as posted in the long range hunting forum.

I own four Divari C models from Zeiss, these are german components assembled by 'cheap' US labor. Very happy with them and have no complaints. For me, they seem to offer a better value and a superior product for the price.

I do still prefer the Leupold VX II for an entry level scope, and the full price Steiners, Zeiss and Kahles for the upper end, but if you want something in the middle, I think the Zeiss is an exceptional product.

www.rifleshooter.com