This is my one and only experiencewithZeiss's warranty service: I had a 4.5-14x44 Conquest on my Sako 7mm Mag.While at the range one dayI accidentally dropped the rifle onto the paved parking lot and it landed mostly on the scopewhich scratched and dented it. I also noticed some sort of loose debrisinside the scope after that.I wasn't really bad, though, and I continued to hunt with it. After hunting season, however, I sent it in to Zeiss'srepair center (which is here in the USA) and explained in a letterexactly what had happened and asked if they could fix it.I sent the scope via UPS groundon a Monday and was hoping to hear from them the following week about what they might have to do to fix it and what it would cost. Instead, the following Monday when I got home from work there was a brand new replacementscope (notarepaired scope)on my front porch. So, I got a brand new (and improved I might add) scope and my only expense was what it cost me to send them the damaged scope in the first place, about $5.

The performance of the scopes themselves is reason enough for me to continue to buy Zeiss, but the service I received in this case has really made a loyal customer out of me.

I was a former Leupold fan until I purchased a new 3.5-10x44 Zeiss Conquest. I packed it on my Bighorn hunt this year and I have nothing but praise for this scope!! Hands down a brighter and crisper scope than the Leupold's I shoot a .338 win mag and the scope has stood up to many bench sessions as well as actual in field use and abuse!!

HERE WE GO AGAIN! LOL

LOL - that's why I clicked back on this thread

I would argue that you get a much better scope with Leupold if you were to compare what you get dollar for dollar.

Theleupold vxiii 3.5x10x40 and the conquest 3x9x40 cost the same.So are you saying that the vxiii is a much better scope?Have you actually compared the two scopes mentioned under field conditions?I have,And I find the conquest to offer superior optics for the same price.

I have some zeiss and leupold.

I have spoting scope made by leupold. I have the old 12x40. It has held up very very good.The zeiss spoting scope was a lot more money.From looking though it the 2 I could not see a big money difrance.

I have binos made by zeiss. I hade to just buy new binos just 5 mouths ago.I looked for a long time at many dif binos.Leupold sucked they went cheep or the ones I looked though where any way.I bot conquest 8x30. They where very clear and small enough for me to shoot my bow and never tuch them.

and scopes from zeiss and leupold.I have 3 leupolds and 2 zeiss.I have to say ALL of the scops are very good.I have not a bad word about any of them.But if I needed a new one I would go zeiss.

After all the good things Im hearing about the Zeiss Conquest , I bought one(3X9X40 Z-PLEXret)on EBAY for $ 306.00 plus shipping (a steal from whatI am hearing).
Cant wait to put it on my?WIN MODEL 70 375 H&H or SAKO SS 7MM STW

Decisions, decisions

I have come to discover that when you intend on purchasing a scope the more you spend the higher quality you generally end up with. Leupold makes a fine scope but my father and brother in law both swear by Zeiss, I have never owned a Zeiss due to attending college which equals lack of funds but if I did have the money I would mostly likely own a Zeiss.

Just speaking in terms of clarity, sharpness, light gathering (not overall quality or warranty):

Is it true that a person's eye might not be able to take advantage of a better scope? Also is it true that one's unique hunting situation (distances and amount of light available during the hours the person hunts) would affect whether he could take advantage of the quality differences.

Or will better optics simply be better, no matter what the eyes.

For instance, I have a Leupold VII (2-7 X33) and compared it side by side at before sunrise with amuch cheaper Weaver V3 (1-3 X20) that I have. I chose a time of day that was as dark asI would ever hunt and compared at 2X and 3X. I really couldn't tell the difference at my normal 100 - 200 yard distances. I also compared my Leupold VII with a friends Leupold VIII and couldn't tell the difference. I looked through a friends Zeiss and while I could certainly tell it was a wonderfulscope, I didn't do a side by side so can't comment.

On the other hand Ialso compared a Leupold VII with a very cheap (<$100) scope (I think Bushnell) at a store and could definitely tell the difference looking down the aisle in bright store light - an obvious difference in crispness and clarity. I would imagine the difference would be more significant in lower light.

I do NOThave great eyes though. Good enough to pass the driver's test w/o glasses, but I'm not an eagle eye and am more than 50 years old.

I am not disputing that more expensive scopes are probably better quality all around -from lenses to construction to warranty -but I'm wondering if we all can take advantage of it - given our eyes and the time of day and distances we hunt.

As a comparitive example, I also love high quality acoustic guitars. Frankly, other people hear things that I don't. I have a threshold above which all guitars sound just great. For instance on a scale of 1 - 10, everything past 8 sounds REALLY great to me, while others are able to distinguish beyond in many degrees of "super excellent"between 8 and 10.