I think the real choice is this..does the small gain in clarity justify the price jump. For some it will, some it wont.I KNOW first hand leupold customer serv. is unbeatable, but have also heard Zeiss is great also. Leupold is american made if that matters to you.

I would go with the 3x9x40 conquest which sells for the same price as the 3.5x10x40 vxiii so the extra brightness and clarity would not cost extra.The conquest is also american made if that matters to you.

I know first hand that Leupold and Zeiss customer service are both unbeatable. They are on equal terms in that regards. If I were needing another scope today, it would be a Zeiss Conquest, no question!

If clarity doesn't make any difference, use open sights. Can't get any clearer than that. Any scope can magnify an image. Most scopes manufactured today are fog free, water proof and nitrogen filled even Burris. A quality scope has flawless lenses, superior lens coatings for light transmission and interior tube coatings. Shop before you buy.

Neither - waste of money. The high dollars Leupold or Zeiss want aren't justfied. Plain and simple.

Maybe not to you,but if I am able to kill one trophy buck or bull elk because the extra brightness allowed me to see it in the timber at first or last light,I will gladly pay the extra money.I have been in situations during legal time when I simply could not take a shot because the scope was not bright enough.I was using mid priced scopes at the time and this situation has never occured since I moved up to the better quality optics.

I have to agree with S.J. I also will pay extra for a good quality scope if it means between getting chance to shoot or not seeing anything at all, especially at critical time as dusk or dawn. With good quality optics it also make a difference when shooting in the direction of the sun at sunset or sunrise. You have a chance to see your game compared to not seeing anything at all. I know it happened to me.

I've owned and used several examples of both and there's no question the Conquest has slightly superior optics, especially in terms of it's ability to resolve detail.Personally, I'd go with the 3-9 or 3.5-10. You just don't need a higher power for deer hunting. The Z-Plex reticle is similar to the Leupold Duplex, but in my experience it's better because it's a little thicker, making it somewhat easier to see when it gets dark.Also, the Z-Plex is etched in glass instead of being made out of wire. As a result, it appears more crisp and defined.

As far as warranty is concerned, Zeiss's warranty is every bit as good as Leupold's. I returned a Conquest to Zeiss for repair a while back because Idropped my rifle onto pavement and the scope took the brunt of it. So the damage was all my fault, which I explained in my letter that accompanied the scope and I'm sure it was very obvious to them when they inspected it. I sent it on a Monday and the following Monday UPS delivered a brand new replacement at no cost to me. Now how isLeupold going to do any better than that?

I like both brands, don't get me wrong, but if it were my money I'd have to buy another Conquest.

Solitary, you nailed it. I went through all this same analysis over the last week since my World's Greatest Wife gave me a new T3 for our anniversary.

I loved the Z-Plex reticle for all the reasons you mentioned and the clarity was wonderful. I also liked the 44mm option for a little more FOV without the bulk of a 50mm bell. I went into this with the intention of getting a great big ol' honkin Black Diamond, but after allowing myself some time to make a good decision, I went with the Zeiss. I concur on the selection of the 3.5 to 10. I hunted the last two years with a borrowed Swarovski that had the higher power... I tried a long shot on an elk at high power, but without a bi-pod or sticks, I could not keep it still enough and it definitely hurt my confidence in my shot. So, I think the max of 10 makes more sense for open country elk hunting as well as the timber stuff.

Glad to hear you had a good warranty experience--that was one lingering doubt I had versus the Leupold stuff.

A big thanks to all who posted here for the good info. I will be looking at elk through my new Zeiss this fall if all goes right!

I considered bothand ended up choosing the 6.5x20 VXIII LR Leupold over the Zeiss and here's why: A 30mm tube is brighter than the Zeiss 1" tube; side parallax adjustments over the Zeiss objective adjustment; and $150 cheaper.