My son-in-law bought a Conquest 3-9x40 mm last week forhis ML. I have the 3-9x50 mm I bought in 2007.I also have 2 Leupold Vari-X III's, which are both in about the same $$$ range as the Conquests. One is a 1.5-6x32mm Compact.Theother a 3.5-10 x 50 mm.

We performed a truly unscientific side by side test view the woods behind my house of the deckSunday afernoon starting at about 05:00 p.m.From this "test"I am satisfied that these two Conquest's were easilyalot crisper edge to edge and did a better job of contrast in normal light than either of the Leupold's. As far as which one "gave up" last as darkness fell? We set each scope on 6X as the day ended. Frankly I could not see much difference betweenthe 4until right at the last light, with one important exception. The image in the two Conquests remained more detailed about5 minutes longer.Not much time I know, but there really was a marked difference. Not enough in my opinion to make one a better "shooter" over the other. Using a gum tree stump as our "deer", it was dead well after legal shooting time with any of these scopes.

The two Conquests and the 50 mm Leupopld each had a heavy plex. The compact Leupold did not. All 4 were pretty much "black" atabout the same time. The"standard width" plex in the 32 mm Leupold compact was as drawback as darkess fell.

So what is the definition of "good" from this one experiment? I cannot say for sure. I can say that the Leupold's did fine and the Conquests did better.