Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I am having trouble deciding between 2 scopes, and thought maybe everybody could help me out a little bit.

Zeiss Conquest 4.5x14x50mm Mil Dot

Leupold VX-III 4.5x14x40mm LR BC Reticle

Please feel free to share thoughts, comments, and opinions.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Both Leupold and Zeiss should be tough, reliable scopes. The Leupold MAY receive faster repair service because it is US based, but this assumes Zeiss repair service is done overseas -- and I don't know if this is true.

What is the intended purpose of your scopes? For general purpose big game hunting, 4.5x14 is a bit powerful. The 50 mm objective on the Zeiss will raise your scope higher off your barrel and may require you to hold your cheek off the rifle stock in a strange fashion to align your eye with the scope. Also, the 50 mm objective may not fit into normal rifle cases. But you probably have a special purpose for the scope which overcomes the minor drawbacks I listed above. For general purpose big game hunting -- antelope, deer, sheep, goats, elk, moose -- it would be hard to beat the 3.5x10 magnification range. For elk and moose some might prefer a lower range of magnification. But I suspect you know all this and I'm not helping you any on this topic.

Both scopes are likely to be excellent, because these manufacturers value their reputation for quality and won't sell junk.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I have the 4.5-14X50. I won't take it moose hunting again. Too powerful. I changed over to a 3.5-10X40.

I like them both. But really like the Zeiss constant eye relief. My next scope with be a zeiss conquest.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I like the 4.5-14x44mm Zeiss myself. I like the fact it comes in a 1" tube as well. I really don't want 30mm scope mounts if I can help it and that is what your getting with the Leupold . Looking thru both they are nice scopes..controls on Zeiss are smoother and I am betting it gathers light better since the 30mm tube on the Leupold is just for extra windage/elevation changes, it uses 1" lenses throughout . They both have etched glass reticles , which will eliminate reticle fade in low light. One thing though is I hate complexity and both scopes have plenty of it with the aiming system either mil dot or BCR.. I prefer a simple reticle and no side focus knob so I would probably go with a 3.5-10x44 Zeiss:D Zeiss scopes at least the Conquests are serviced in Maryland and their customer support 1-800 number is awesome.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I too like standard heavy reticles on my big game setups, I once had a ballistic style reticle on my 270 and while i liked in practice or varmit hunting in the some times fast acquire of deer hunting it was a royal pain in the arse to me.

As for which scope after much comparisons and research I choose the Zeiss Conquest. The constant eye relief, 1-piece tube design, etched reticle, NA warranty (which in my research has been getting rave reviews), quality through and through were some reasons. After mounting the Zeiss was impressed at clarity, brightness and light gathering when I could really see how it faired in the real world. Something I consider a good indicator is the tracking of a scope upon adjustments the Zeiss is bang on (I will say my leupold have been great in this area as well). I guess you can say I was impressed, so much so I bought my second Conquest a couple months later.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Elkhntr04,
Definately get Leupold. While they are both excellent scopes, from the scopes I've seen, Leupold is a little cheaper. Plus, Leupold is made in America. Anymore, most American companies outscource to China, or the scopes are already made overseas. Just remember, if you buy the Leupold, you're helping your fellow American.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Redhead, the Conquest line is assembled and warrantied in the USA. While it uses German components, it is no different that of Leupold Stevens in where the manufacturing is done. BTW Leupold uses components other than US born. So buying either some is staying in the USA and some is going elsewhere!

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I own both and sincerely I will have to go for Zeiss. It is a good rugged "american made" scope that has a very good light transmission.

Leupold are good scopes but I been hearing some ackward complaints in the range about the VX-III being made with a 3 piece tube instead of a solid one piece (I don't know this for a fact, but look at other posts in this forum).

Has anyone have any fact based opinion about that?

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Thanks for all the opinions. IS 50mm really that much different than 44mm. It raises the scope less than a 1/8" up. Is that going to be a big deal? Thanks

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I have a 3.5-10X50 on one of my 308's and wish I didn't. I just don't need that much field of view. And it (IMO), can make a handsome rifle look rather dorky. Lastly it adds bulk to a place you don't want to add and make it much easier to bump. And adds wieght and significant cost. I like John Barshness's idea that scope without the big bell, can handle recoil better and be more rugged. It makes sense.

I have no problem throwing up a 33mm or even 40mm rifle scope and getting the animl in the sight quickly.

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.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

RedAllison, not sure where your getting your info from, but as a person who buys glass I don't know of one firm in Phillipines that are capable of coating or cutting that type of lenses. They buy them from several sources. Not just one.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I would choose something in the 4-12 magnification range. 4 power is plenty low for very close game. 12 is great for long game. You can also use these powers to punch paper.

I would also opt for the 40mm because I don't think there is that much difference in a 50mm. Mounting closer to the rifle is a major advantage.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Might work for you, but hinders alot of people. They usually have your mindset until they are bit. I had my scope at 4.5 power on a moose hunt once and just when I didn't expect it, a nice bull runs across our small path 15 yards in front of us. First startled me, then I tried to throw that scope up and couldn't get right on the boiler room. All I saw was fur. From that moment on, I decided, I had no business with a 4.5-14 on anything but on target rifles.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

For what I plan on hunting with this gun, I don't think I will get many 15 yard shots. But you never know.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I have leupold 2x7. 3x9 and 1.5x5 scopes right now on my hunting rifles. I just got back from a Wyoming antelope hunt where I took the longest shots at the smallest big game animals that I am likely to ever hunt. I had a 3x9 for that hunt and never felt that I needed more magnification at all. My longest shot was 413 yds (lasered) and I had no problem lining up and studying game. Having said this, this hunt did convince me that I need to replace my VARIX II 3x9x40. I find that i am less and less impressed with the optics of this scope. The Leupolds have served me well for many years with no failures at all but I think I will be upgrading that 3x9 to a Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40 next season. I really see no reason to go beyond 10x on a big game scope, in fact I see many negatives in not being able to zoom down for close and moving game. Funny how people always equate high power with quality. When I told the guy I was huntingwith that I neede to upgrade my glass he assumed I was going to jump up tp a 4.5x14 or something like that. Its what he has and he missed 3 antelope on that trip. I think most people use to much power.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Elk, neither did I, several times when the incidents occured. In fact, all the really nice trophy animals I have taken, almost all in a situation that was unplanned. Thats why hunting is full of surprises. You can get up, and face the wind, and be looking right over where you saw a animal and then see him 500 yards off where you were yesterday.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

Twice now I have found myself financially able to choose between Zeiss Conquest and the comparable Leupold. Both times a side-by-side comparison favored the Zeiss, and that is what I purchased. The Leupold optics are excellent but Zeiss' are just plain better in the same price range.

Both companies ofer a superior lifetime warranty, and I doubt anyone who ever bought a Vari X III or better Leupold was anythoing other than delighted with their purchase, but the lower end Leupolds (Rifleman, VX I & VX II) are really not that impressive for the money you have to pay for them.

Just my 2 cents worth.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I guess if I hadn't of looked through a 4.5x14 while hunting, I would probably go with a smaller magnification. My hunting partner had one on his gun. For desert mule deer hunting it made it nice to look at a buck 5 or 6 hundred yards off with 14 power. The nine on my gun just didn't do what I wanted it to. Thanks for all your help. Yesterday I went and put money down on the 4.5x14.44mm Zeiss.

RE: Zeiss vs Leupold
 

I own all Leupolds myself,but my next "Quality" scope will be a Zeiss...;)