Looks like my choice is narrowed to one of these two scopes. Looking for opinions on optics eye relief,clearity,warranty. As mentioned in previous post to be used on my 300 ultra for big game.Opinions on above info only....

My choice is the Ziess conquest the optics are far superior to leupolds. Both companies have great warrantees. I compared them both in several models and Ziess wins hands down. The eye relief is constant on the Ziess through full power range, this is a nice feature. Only the leupold LPS model has that feature also and you know how much more that scope is $$$$$$$$. If you want a 1 inch tube scope with high quality optics get the Ziess.

Why not try the Kahles Helia? They have a model with 1" tube, 2-7x36, 3-9x42 and 3-10x50.
The clarity of the optics are brilliant and the eye relief is good (90mm).
They are also very compact and light.
Ive got two of them, the 36 and the 50mm + one 1-4x24 in the european 30mm tube style.
I dont know where you live but here in Sweden the Kahles are approx 15-20% cheaper then the Zeiss and 15-20% more then the Leupolds.

I bought both the leupold vari-x III 3.5-10x40 and zeiss conquest 3.5-10x44 and set both of them up at home. I looked through the scopes side by side at various objects at differing distances with different magnifications. I looked through them in bright lighting as well as dusk and dark.

At dusk and dark the leupold was brighter. During the daylight hours, the zeiss brightened objects whereas the leupold seemed to bring the objects in at their "normal" brightness. I liked the zeiss reticle much better.

I kept the leupold.

I bought a Conquest a couple months ago, and have used it extensively at our range, and on two eastern Wa coyote trips now. The image is so damn good it feels like the incoming yote is in your face! Awesome. We have now compared it with the 1000 dollar Swarovski on the big 50, all the leupolds we can find, Nikon Monarchs(which happen to be BETTER than the Leupolds, by the way)Springfields, and the Zeiss just blows the others away. No more Leupolds for me. I can`t wait to get my next Zeiss.

I think the Zeiss is the best

The relative comparison of about equal scopes is a favorite amongst hunters,understandibly everyone wants the best for the money.What I never understand are the results of those inquieries and maybe somebody can shed light on this.--Various hunters report invariably very conflicting results,some see 1 brand to be clearer,other the opposing party.I can understand likes and dislikes of appearance and maybe reliability,I cannot understand very strong statements of clarity or optic resolution,color presentation etc that are conflicting.Do we just love what we have because it costs us a bundle?

sheephunter

I have them ALL, including the high dollar Europeans. FOR THE MONEY, Leupold has no equal. The big dollar Europeans do have an edge in clarity, but not worth the huge price difference. The Conquest is probably the equal of the Leupold glass-wise, but eye relief ( highly important on a 300) the Leupold has it hands down. Cost cutting HAS to happen somewhere in order to get the price to be competitive. D'Arcy Echols, arguably the top US riflemaker, recommends Leupolds above all others, particularly in the large calibers. As fara s the comment on the Monarch being a better scope, sorry, NO. jorge

I am not married to any scope company but leupold glass cant hold a candle to the top overseas glass. I was on a deer hunt in Maine, Had an LPS on one gun and a schmidt & bender on another. I could see the deer with leica bonocs, but could not see the deer clearly with the LPS. Then got out the other rifle with the schmidt & bender There was a big enough difference that I could see the deers antlers with that scope and not with the LPS. Further testing with light meters and other equipment showed the schmidt & bender was superior, but the first test is what counts "you can only shoot what you can see" I have had all these scopes at one time and looked at things through each one. And leupold did not make the top 5 in the optic department By site or testing. But the best type of test is your eyes. If an inferior scope lets you see better than a high price scope you are lucky. Many people eyes can't see a difference between one scope to another. So look through them and buy the one that you see the best with.

I have a few different scopes and with my eyes the more expensive ones are so close to the same I go for the best deal. I do have several Leupolds.

Just a point of interest, Kenny Jarrett recommends Leupolds to his customers. He wrote up an article about testing scopes for his rifles and even said the high $$$ Euro models may be slightly brighter but didn't think they were any clearer or more accurate. My neighbor brought the write up over and I believe it was literature recieved from Jarrett prior to ordering as it also gave a list of options for the rifles.

Actually the material I received from jarret stated that leupold was his second choice his first being swarovski.He said that leupold was the best for the price but that swarovski was still his favorite.

Let me appologize. I was going by memory and maybe my memory is going! haha. or it to is biased!
Either way the top two picks are Swaro and Leupold and that is a good recommendation.

Those of you who come to Alaska to hunt, take a look at what scope brand most hunters use. That will give you the answer about which scope is best for our type of hunting, or at least which ones hold-up to the weather and hunting conditions of Alaska.

Carl Zeiss hands down. Leupolds VarXIII's are too damned fragile. The Zeiss is clearer. brighter, and tougher. The only complaint I have had with them is that I had to change my head position slightly on the stock to get a good sight picture. Don't quite understand why, but I did.

For the record I use only Zeiss and Leupold VarXII's. Or I did, I guess now it is only Zeiss.

Todd E

I have owned both of the scopes russianhunter is considering. I have since sold the Leupold, but still own the Zeiss. This is my second Zeiss Conquest and I am happy with both.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the Zeiss "blows away" the Leupold, but I do think it's better. The Conquest would be my choice.

I think when approaching a scope purchase one must ask "what kind of tool am I buying?"

Personally I feel the glass quality of a hunting rifle scope is secondary at best. A scope on a hunting rifle is a tool to allow placement of a shot by use of the sighting mechanism, the reticle. The answer to the question is that one is buying a gun sight.

Most glass these days is pretty good at clarity and light transmission but I tend to care more about how it's mounted in the scope tube, which brand is tougher, etc. If you're looking at buying a camera lens, or perhaps a spotting scope, then you should worry more about the glass quality. If you're dealing with film for publication quality photos then you need to worry about optical quality over the entire image area of the lens, lack of color shift, etc. If you're buying a scope that's not your primary concern...at least it shouldn't be.

Right now, with a rifle scope, especially for a hunting rifle (as opposed to BR, or varminting, etc.), you want something that will magnify the image enough for your own personal tastes (that varies), and MOST importantly stay zeroed from shot to shot, from trip to trip, withstand the abuse of travel (perhaps air travel), withstand heavy use in the field (slipping and falling just a foot or two might compromise poorly constructed reticles).

Leupold is the one to go with PERIOD!! They have the best reticle and overall construction, reasonably high quality glass, are price competitive, and have a reputation for excellent customer service.

The guys shooting the big bore guns swear by the 1.5-5 and have been for many years. Leupold was the inventor of much of modern reticle design. Most law enforcement units employ Leupold products.

Buy for the reticle and the ability to be repeatable shot after shot. It's that simple.

Now if you're still stuck on wanting the best glass, skip over what all the Zeiss lemmings say and go straight to Nightforce...of course you'll pay dearly. Extremely high quality optics with laser etched reticles. They weigh close to 2 pounds as the glass is mounted in a vault of a scope tube. If you look at white paper in the mid day sun through a Nightforce you WILL need to wear your sunglasses.

Good Luck.

Reed

P.S. Unless your eyesight is extremely poor (night vision problems, etc.) I say if you can't see it through most any modern scope then you might be skirting legal shooting hours.

You may not need this response by now if you have already made a purchase but here goes. This will sound silly when I tell you what rifle I have it affixed to, but I own a 4.5x14x50mm Vari-X III, and I truely feel it's a good piece. It is quite a bit cheaper than the highend European scopes but is also much better than anything offered in its price range. I have compared it to the Kahles and there is a very slight difference but not worth the whopping price increase. The rifle, you ask? Well I placed it on a CZ550 Safari Mag. in .416 Rigby. It fits perfectly in between the rings. The bell from the objective and the power ring's bevel just fits in the rings making a mechanical stop that absolutely prevents the scope from sliding fore or aft. I'd like to say that I planned it that way but the scope was on the shelf collecting dust at the time, so I decided to try to put it back in service. It couldn't have fit any better! BTW, the eye relief is also perfect even for this mild bruiser. Now, if Colorado doesn't all burn down from the forest fires by October, I have a 350 gr. Barnes X that I'd like to slam into some unexpecting bull elk!

I just picked up a used Vari X-III 4.5 -14 off Auction Arms and I am extremely pleased. In my opinion the optics are excellent and that non-critical eye relief is simply wonderful.

As everyone knows Leupold's warranty is good regardless of whether you are the 1st owner or the 10th owner. Leupold makes an excellent product and they stand behind it forever. I don't see how you could possibly go wrong picking the Leupold. I don't have any experience with the Zeiss Conquest.

I recently placed an order for .300 Win Mag Legend from D'Arcy Echols and went with his recommendation for a 3.5-10x40 Leupold VarX-III for it. I have to admit I was surprised at his choice given that I have never had a Leupold; only Zeiss, Swarovski and Schmidt & Bender. But as a craftsman myself, if I didn't take all of his advice, why should I have gone to him in the first place?

I will tell you this I was one of the first nightforce dealers on the East coast. I knew then that there scopes were better than leupold's. But all these top bench rest and long range shooters told me they were junk. I said look through the nightforce, UMMMMMM that's clear but leupold is still better. Some people just do not want to admit that a different company has a better product. It is now many years later and those same guys that said nightforce scopes were no good have come to me to buy a nightforce. I am married to no scope company if a better one comes out I try it. Leupold cannot hold a flame against any Schmindt & Bender glass wise or construction and durability. If you think they can make an appointment with your eye doctor. They cannot stand up against a nightforce and never could. Hell in all my testing Nikon beat them (Glass wise). The only leupolds that I thought were worth anything was the LPS and Mark4 And they are over priced. If Leupold would use better glass I would be very happy with them, being a USA company. They stand behind there product better than most companies. But I go with what I can see the best with, and so should you.

I find the comments about the so called superior construction and optics of the euro scopes to be interesting.
Using testing equipment borrowed from S&B and Zeiss, the german organization DEVA did not find this optical superority to be so. In fact, they found the VariXIII line of Leupold's to be superior to all except Zeiss. And Zeiss only beat them by 0-3% depending on the model. (Pages 41 & 42, optics for the Hunter by John Barsness)
Superior construction ? S&B's scopes don't come with seals under their adjustment dials, like the new Zeiss Conquests, and the Leupolds, which have been built that way for years. That means S&B scopes will leak much more readily.
Rugged constuction ? Zeiss insists on recoil testing their scopes to the tune of 1000 times lenthwise, and 1000 times up and down. So you buy a scope with some of it's life beat out of it. Or so thinks John Barsness. "I've heard more about Zeiss scopes grouping weirdly than any other top brand, and I suspect the reason lies in the company's method of recoil testing." ( Page 50, Optics for the Hunter).
I find another interesting comment in Barsness's book. "Also, manufacturers are constantly fiddling with their product, and many scope makers don't produce their own lenses. Instead they order them from a subcontractor or, sometimes, several contractors. A scope made in 1996 may be slightly brighter or dimmer than one made in 1997, and a scope made in 1987, or 1977 will probably not be as bright as one made today, even if the model and overall mechanics remain the same." E

I have and have owned literally dozens of Leupold scopes.I myself have been considering a Zeiss Conquest.My brother recently purchased 2 Conquest 3.5-10 scopes. Neat looking scopes except for the obnoxious oversized power ring requiring higher mounts on his Remington 700's.He mounted one on his 300 win. The other on his .270. The one on the .270 would not track anywhere near close in elevation or windage adjustments that were being made.Sent it back to Zeiss.They sent a new scope.The next scope did exactly the same thing.Sent it back to Zeiss. They sent another new scope. My brother traded this one N.I.B. for a Leupold Vari-X111. The problem was not the gun . That was ruled out, and accuracy tests performed with another type of scope between these scopes.Are these flukes?? Maybe. I already know what my next scope will be. Minute differences in clarity, brightness and resolution are not the only concerns when purchasing scopes.

One of the main reasons I got away from leupolds is because riding down an old rail road track on a 4 wheel ATV 5 leupolds would be off the target at a hundred yards. The nightforce and S&B were did on every time. To me that is a real life test and if a scope can't do it its gone. I have not run this test with the lower conquest line but will be soon. By the way one swarovski failed the test to. I read john Barsness book and it is interesting but not an optic bible in my eyes I saw many odd statements that did not concur with my testing but a good book to have. I do take in the tests made with equipment but real world tests are the most important test for me. I call as I see thru them. When S&B started using Etched on the glass reticules (Nightforce did this first) That was my only complaint I had with them, etched on the glass reticules pass the ATV test. Leupold should use this set up. One other thing leupold side focus on there scopes are not as good as the conquest line, the conquest can focus at closer ranges and seems more precision to me. I love these scope discussions they bring out a lot of opinions and conclusions that make me look at scopes more intense. what comes out of these discussions is more knowledge. I by all means are not an expert, just an interested consumer!

Hi hunters,
there is no choise for me, Zeiss have superior quality glass and livetime warranty. Leupold is also a good scope but Zeiss and Swarovski the best hunting scopes you can find today.
ciao
Faina

Your leupolds wouldn't hold zero when you drove down a railroad track in your ATV ?
That's funny. I've driven down RR tracks in a couple of stiff riding Jeeps. Compared to driving a rock wash bottom in one our western deserts, in a heavily sprung 1 ton PU, that is an easy ride.
After driving lots of rock lined washes, and speeding over lots of big sand washes, for the last 25 years, I've not had that happen to any of mine. Nor have they shifted when I gone down hard in a desert sheep range like once or twice a hunt.
I've seen other brands break their reticles, and seen some Redfield style mounts pull loose, but no zero shifts by either Leos or older B&L scopes. Oh, I did have a Ruger front scope ring loosen enough once to shift zero 3 inches @ 100 yds. All I had to do was tighten the ring, and zero returned. E

Howdie,

I am not a fan of huge scopes that I have to lug around ... and up ... tall hills. With that in mind:

I have a 2.5 x 8 VariX-III on a pre-64 M70 in 338 Winimag, and a 3x9 Zeiss Conquest on a Weatherby MK V in 375 H&H. Both are mounted with Leupold QR rings and bases.

Both have been into the big woods.

Both have killed deer.

Both are optically excellent.

The Zeiss seems to be a bit more friendly in terms of human use, and maybe just a tad sharper. Its reticle is heavier and easier to find quickly.

The Leupold provides a rudimentary range finding capability.

Both are good values in scopes. Both should effectively be owned by the maker for the purpose of repair for a very long time.

I trust both.

Decide what you want to use the scope for ... and choose given the fit to the requirement (and for their weight ).

I don't think you can make a bad choice here.

I have had an interesting thing happen in the past year in my business. Folks I have built stocks for on occasion run into difficulty with scopes. It is rare but it happens. As you can imagine the people who have custom guns built don't mess with cheap scopes.

In the past year I have run into 4 scope problems. Up until 2 weeks ago it was only 3. The first two were USA made Zeiss scopes. On one the scope could not be adjusted to get the target within the windage range. Other scopes worked fine on this rifle. The other had similar problems. Both were fixed by Zeiss. The third scope was a Zeiss VMV 5 to 15. When you changed power settings the cross hairs wandered. And I am not talking a little. I mean like 2 to 3" from where they were before. It was sent in and because of it needing parts from Germany, they sent a new scope. The new scope scope became the fourth and on the rifle will shoot 1/2" groups at 100 yards on 5 power, but when you go to 15 power it goes to 2". All of these scopes are Zeiss. So maybe a good warranty is needed from Zeiss.

As far as Frank's assertations, I think he is a scope troll. I have done side by side comparisons between high end scopes in hunting camps and I will admit that I can see some small clarity differences between the high priced spread and leupolds, Nikons, Burris, Pentax etc. Not enough in my mind to pay the difference but that is just a matter of degree. To say that an animal could be clearly seen with a S&B and not with the LPS is just pure BS (sorry for all the abreviations but we can still smell the stink).

I do not think that anyone who spends much time with optics will make a claim that the Leupold, or the Burris or pentax etc are better than the high end Swarovskis, or Zeiss, or even their equal for that matter. But most don't see the difference as being worth the price or any advantage in the real world. They may be of some use shooting at night when the 56mm objectives can have an advantage but not dawn to dusk or the 1/2 hour before or after. That becomes personal preferences and decisions based on the differences that the buyer sees and can accept.

Despite having hunted for almost half a century I'm a relative rookie when it comes to experience with a large variety of scopes.

As a youngster all I could afford were Weavers and with my good, young eyes they were great. This lasted thru my early 20's when the front lens fell out of a new Weaver on the first shot from my new 338 WinMag...took it back to the store and bought my first Leupold and I used a variety of Leupold scopes on my rifles for the next 30 years...all with 100% satisfaction...both optically and mechanically and beleive me those scopes went some pretty nasty places in some nasty weather....all without a bobble.

However on my first trip to Zimbabwe a Leupold I had for about a year let me down. Half way thru the hunt it would only hold focus thru the middle of the variable range....above or below about 3.5X it was like looking thru gauze...fortunately this was OK to finish the trip (I now always carry an extra scope) but I was lucky. On my return I sent it to Leupold with a narrative of what happened. I got it back more quickly than I thought I would with a note that said they couldn't find anything wrong with it and could not duplicate the loss of focus. Mounted the scope and it worked fine for about 4 or 5 sessions at the range when it slipped back to it's old malady....back to Leupold....back to me with the same note and again it worked briefly. I sold it to a friend, who knew the history, at a very good price (for him) he loves it (the golden ring syndrome) and tells me it goes back and forth between focusing and not.

At that point I bought a Swarovski 1.5-6x42mm ProHunter and have been hooked every since then. The 1.5-6x42mm is on my 9.53 Lazzeroni Hellcat and I have a Swarovski AV 3-10-42mm (1") on my 7.82 Lazzeroni Patriot. I will be putting a
2-7x36mm Kahles (1") on my 450 Marlin when it comes back from being restocked at Bansners. I have been trying to decide what to put on my new varmint rifle when it's finished and I think it will be the new Conquest 6-18 when they are available....like the optics of the other Conquests I've seen and their side-focus feature will be very handle......speaking of focus, I love the quick-focus on the European scopes as the Leupold tiny threads always drove me nuts.

My 60-year old eyes can see and appreciate the differences between scopes.

One last thing...I read and enjoyed the Barness book but it's almost 5 years old and that's a long time to be quoting something in a field like optics where equipment is changing (and hopefully improving) all the time.

Like they say..."you're mileage may vary" but the choice has been simple for me.

Let me add an edited P.S.

I sometimes wonder if custom rifle makers like Leupolds (in preference to others) because they look so neat, with the golden ring, sitting on their rifles. Don't get me wrong I know they wouldn't promote them if they didn't work but it makes me wonder. If you notice the Lazzeroni ads he likes both Schmidt & Bender and Burris.

[ 12-28-2002, 04:35: Message edited by: DB Bill ]

The etched reticle design is stronger/better ? Not really. A blow in the reticle cell area of the scope will cause the etched designs to separate into four pieces. The wire designs that Leupold, and others, use, will flex and stay together. Leupold, BTW, uses platinum wire for their reticles.
The other point is that all the current production rifle scopes that use the etched reticle system put them on uncoated glass. That reduces the transmitted light through the scope resulting a loss of scope brightness. E

Eremicus-If as you say ziess uses uncoated glass why are the ziess scopes as bright or brighter than most others including leupold that do use coatings?

Leopold hands down. I like their warranty, although it's very seldom needed.

It would be extremely hard to convince me that an open minde person wouldn't think the Conquest was better optically.
Just a few months ago one of my friends told me he needed a scope for a 7mag. I said I might sell him one of my 3.5-10 Leupolds. I have three of these. Price was 390. He said good.
Later on that evening at dusk we decided to look through my scopes. I knew then I wouldn't be making a sale.
He looked through my Conquest and said,"Boy, I hate to pay 390 for the Leupold now".
If they fall apart the jokes on me but at this point I'd by the Zeiss.

Stubblejumper. Are you talking about the percentage of light transmited, or the total light transmitted ?
The DEVA tests measured percentage of light that passes through a scope. But, if you go to a scope with a larger, even slightly larger, objective lense, you have more total light. It is the total light striking your eye that makes the brightness of the image. The difference between a 40 mm objective on a Leupold and the 44 mm objective on a new Conquest doesn't see like much. But it amounts to 21% more light. So any small difference in optical quality is over shadowed by a larger objective. If you need a brighter image, go to a larger objective model.
A couple of other things. In time, with even the best care, tiny scratches develop on the outer lenses of any rifle scope, and degrade it's performance. If you want a fair comparison, compare new, unused scopes of the same size.
I find that a 40 mm objective has plenty low light performance to see a target even after legal shooting hours. What I loose is not the image, or at least so much of it I can't shoot, but the reticle. Even on clear days, I loose the Mil-Dot reticle well before legal shooting hours end. Put a heavy duplex on the same scope, and one can hunt on all but the darkest, stormy night in a heavy forrest. E

I talk about light transmitted as that is what I see in the field.As for a bigger objective making a brighter scope that is not the case if the smaller lensed scope has better lens coatings.My 3x9x36 ziess scopes were brighter than my leupold 3x9x40 scope in spite of the smaller objective lens due to superior lens coatings.My 3x10x42 swarovski scopes are as bright as a friends 3.5x10x50 leupold while they have a much smaller objective lens again due to better coatings.I am making these observations by actually having used all of the above scopes in the field while hunting not from theories or a manufacturers advertisment.