The Elite 3200 is not in the same category as the other two you mentioned. I have an Elite 3000 4x12x40mm and it' s probably the worst mid-priced scope I' ve ever had. The picture becomes cloudy at higher powers and the POI is not the same through the power range. It' s been to Bushnell 3x and they have failed to fix it (or even acknowledge a problem). For this reason, I didn' t buy a Bushnell for several years. I have to point out that my experience with them seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Last year, I decided to give them another chance and bought an Elite 4200. I like the Elite 4200 1.75x6x36mm I bought and also like the Elite 4200 2x10x40mm. Optically, they are superior (clearer and brighter ) when compared to similar Vari X III scopes. Not to mention, the Elite 4200 has a Titanium tube and the neat Rainguard lens coatings. As Woodseye mentioned, they don' t have as long of eye relief as either the Zeiss or the Leupold which could be a concern on anything larger than a .300 WM.

My personal belief is the Conquest is the best of the bunch. Better lens coatings, better optics, better FOV, brighter, fast focus, and seemingly good customer service.

Leupold is starting to be more of an odd man out. They have legendary customer service and are thought to be very durable, but the optics are sub par when compared to other scopes in their price range. The Vari X III line is starting to show it' s age; it' s basically the same design that has been around since 1990. In the meantime, Weaver has introduced the Grand Slam, Nikon has introduced the Monarch, Bushnell introduced the Elite 4200, and Zeiss introduced the Conquest. That doesn' t make me a Leupold basher - I' m just pointing out that many scopes costing 30% less than the Vari X III have better optics and several scopes the price of the Vari X III have considerably better optics. In addition, other companies have started to listen to the big selling point of Leupold' s customer service and make adjustments to their customer service strategy.