Whats better than a Leupold Vari XIII

[killadoe]

I know there are lots of different scopes out there, but I have only really dealt with Nikon and leupold. Which are better for around the same price as a leupold. 5-600 dollar range

Also does a 30mm tube any better than a 1" tube... thanks

Ziess conquest and nikon monarchs is about the only thing that will compete. But I do own a few elite 4200's and can say the optics are just as good. I just don't like thier warranty.

[DM]

ORIGINAL: killadoe

I know there are lots of different scopes out there, but I have only really dealt with Nikon and leupold. Which are better for around the same price as a leupold. 5-600 dollar range

Also does a 30mm tube any better than a 1" tube... thanks

Better in what way???

I looked at a lot of scopes and i chose the Zeiss,



It's better in low light conditions than any other scope i looked through, includeing the Leupolds i own, and that's why i bought it.

I never did get to look at a Elite 6500, and that may be another choise to check out, i did look through a 4200 though...

As for reliability, i have nothing but good things to say about Leupold...

DM

[cooper_m22]

First and to me one of the best the Ziess Conquest next Bushnell 4200 or 6500 and then theNikon Monarch or Burris Euro.

But to me the all around best is the Ziess Conquest.

[Pawildman]

I've always been pretty much of a die-hard Leupold guy, with a smattering of some others, including some nice old Redfields. A good friend of mine has a Nikon Monarch that impressed me, and I just bought a 4200 Elite. Havent shot it yet, but the optics are very good, it seems. Just for Heaven's sake stay away from that bottom-line crap that is out there today.

[JeffS]

It's better in low light conditions than any other scope i looked through, includeing the Leupolds i own, and that's why i bought it.

I never did get to look at a Elite 6500, and that may be another choise to check out, i did look through a 4200 though...

As for reliability, i have nothing but good things to say about Leupold...

I agree I did the same thing and I liked the Zeiss as well. We have a few Leupold's as well and there is nothing wrong with them just like the Zeiss in low light better.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find its easy to loose your sight picture with the nikon monarchs? I know they do this to minimize parralax, but just annoys me some. My monarchs do have some top notch optics however.

[DeerandbearhoG]

My zeiss conquest is the clearest scope Ive ever owned, but I also own 2 leupold varix3s. I put them all side by side last summer, and viewed some deer in the thicket, from off my deck. The leupys were defiantly brighter and I could see the deer longer, but it didnt matter since sunset(legal shooting light) was long gone.

Both have very crisp resolution, but the zeiss is the only scope(including leupold) I ever owned however, that gives a perfectly, unwavey, sight picture while scanning side to side and up and down.

The leupolds are lighter and brighter, and seem to be built a little tougher w/ all metallic parts, while the zeiss is heavier and clunkier w/ some plastic parts, but slightly supierior glass. I'd say its a toss up. I love em all though.

Never owned a nikon but I rarley have heard anything bad about them.

[VAhuntr]

ORIGINAL: bigcountry

Is it just me, or does anyone else find its easy to loose your sight picture with the nikon monarchs? I know they do this to minimize parralax, but just annoys me some. My monarchs do have some top notch optics however.

That is mycomplaint with my Monarch as well. Otherwise they are fine scopes. Just curious but why or how does thisminimize parralax?

[stubblejumper]

I find the Zeiss Conquest brighter in low light and clearer than the VXIII.