RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

WA7MM, I had heard the same rubblings last winter and emailed Leupold about the tube construction on the VX III the reply was it was a 1 piece tube design same as previous Vari X III end of convo. Now this is in direct contrast to what others received from Leupold here on BBS and now it seems public knowledge that it in fact it is a 3 piece tube. Writer and heavy Leupold supporter John Barness (sp?) claims this to be true and infact backs the notion provided that 1 piece is a myth and not a requirement for durabilty. This coming from the same guy who reccomended the Vari X III for stiff recoiler's largely based on 1 piece tube know to be both durable and reliable! I am not an expert of scopes but anytime you have 3 sections vs 1 it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this arguement holds little water. After hearing the right honourable JB's claim I sent Leupold another email and they admitted it was 3 piece. They also included darn near word for word why it was a non - issue. I have no quams with my previous Leupold stuff and consider myself a supporter of their products but this 3piece is as good or better as 1 piece is nothing more than a snow job to reducing cost and make them more competitive. In the USA prices may not have shifted much but here in canada a VX III can be bought for 100 and up less than last years Vari X III.. something just doesn't add up! While the VX III has some nice features added like fast eye focus, in all honesty I see no difference in optical gains from it and the Vari X III it displaced. In fact I would be hard pressed to buy a VXIII over the VX II given it is optically the same as the Vari x III and construction wise is also a 3 piece tube if I was to only want a Gold Ring on my new scope! As for me as stated I will stick to recommending the Conquest for those looking for a good quality scope in the affordable package..no hidden dragons and it is better in all forms at this point any way.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Elk, the difference between the 44mm vs 50 is small, except in stature. Optically the FOV is really your only gain but as stated in most cases it is pretty moot when hunting for most individuals. I must swallow my pride and confess I like 50mm objectives on magnum rifles for looks in most cases but if it causes you to lift of the cheek plate than it will do you no good. I have a 44mm mounted on my 7 rem mag, it fits in med ring and just right for my shooting position. The 40mm is also mounted on med. rings b/c of bolt clear with the eye piece but it fits me better than lows. I have a number of 50mm scopes and previously felt they gave more advantage than a 40mm cousin which maybe true but in the Zeiss case both 44mm and 40 mm are plenty bright enough for any biggame hunting I will be doing.

Choice is yours though, if possible try a 50 vs 44 mm vs 40mm, pay attention to head position for shooting and you make the call.

Best of luck!

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I'd opt for the Zeiss. I currently own two Conquests and over the years have owned numerous Leupolds, including the new VX II and VX III. I've just been more pleased with the Conquests than any scope I've ever owned. The optics are just plain better and they seem to be very durable too.

As far as service is concerned, well, I can tell you Zeiss takes a back seat to no one. Due to my own blunder, I damaged my 4.5-14x44 Conquest when I let my rifle drop to the paved parking lot at the local shooting range. I sent the scope back to Zeiss with a letter explaining that the damage was all my fault. In just over a week's time, a brand new Conquest was delivered to my house. That's just great service in my opinion.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Thanks for all the replies. I think I will go with the 44mm objective Zeiss. I don't think the 50mm will gain me all that much. Although this is going on a Browning A-Bolt .300 RUM so the 50mm might look a little cooler. But i think I have made up my mind on the 44mm.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Elkhnt. Good choice IMO. A sale person also told me last week that Leupold is now importing its glass. I don't know if its true but thats what I was told. They had nothing to gain by telling me that as I was not even looking at scopes. I think a 40mm is big enough and 3x9 is plenty of power unless the use is varmit hunting. IMO.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Yep James they are correct. For a couple of years now Leupy has been getting their lenses from the Phillipenes.

And the 30mm tube versions STILL have only 1" lenses inside them! [:-]
RA

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

RA thanks for the conformation. I have three Leuplods and they are good scopes but I have others that are just as good for half the money or less. I like thier fixed power scopes best.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

The original comparison was a 40mm scope and a 50mm scope.The 40mm scope can be mounted in medium rings while the 50mm requires high rings with most rifles.The difference can make a difference obtaining proper cheek position on the stock.As stated before,4.5x14 is far more power than required for big game hunting and can be a hindrance at very close range.I have shot big game myself out to well over 400 yards with a 3x9 scope and had no problems doing so. I would look at the 3x9x40 ziess conquest as it offers enough power ,has 4" of eye relief at all powers and costs the same as the leupold 3.5x10x40.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

duplicate

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Elkhunter04:

I would go with the Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x44. By leaving your scope on 4.5 power you will be able to find game at short range. If you have a long shot, just move up the power to your liking. I have a Pentax Lightseeker II 4-16x44, and I have no problem sighting even running game. Good luck.