Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

I'm thinking about about a 4.5 x 14.5 VXIII or Conquest. I mostly hunt deer in So. CA....can be long shots. Is Zplex reticle the same as duplex? I need help choosing the reticles...Thanks

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

Yes

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

jag both scopes are quality pieces but I believe you'll find the Conquest to be a better scope. The entire Conquest line is laserclear and of course the quality and durability are "Zeiss".

As for the reticle, you mentioned longrange shooting. Have you considered the mil-dot reticle? They are THE most practical and consistent tools for shooting over 300yds. I have yet to sell a customer a mil setup and them not RAVE about it after a season. Many have the reticles changed in their other scopes as a result!

Good luck,
RA

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

Both are good. I picked the Zeiss over the VXIII, just seemed to be the better optically to my eye. So far they have been great, so no complaints.

Yes the zplex is a duplex reticle but much bolder than the regular duplex the VXIII uses. It is one thing I really noticed and prefer when comparing, seems to jump out to my eye. Works great for low light. I have grown very fond of it and hasn't caused me any concerns in regards to shooting distance.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

I was looking at the same zeiss scope and considering the leupold too. I found the zeiss optics to be a bit superior (even though this is the "economy" zeiss scope. In my muble opinion, the zeiss glass is clearer and brighter by about 5% or more. Leopold has a well earned rep for sturdy optics, but so does zeiss. The only thing that would steer me toward the Leupold is the fact that thier customer service is legendary. I have had experience with thier warranty work and it was quick and painless. Most of my hunting partners trust Leopold above all others for this reason. But Hunters can be a bit conservative, and I have yet to make a decision
okcmco

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

I agree with the other posters that the conquest is brighter offers slightly better optics.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

Zeiss for the clearity.
Leupold for the price.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

I do hunt the open prairies of Saskatchewan and Alberta so shots can be long,but I still do not find any need for more than 9x or 10x on a big game rifle.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

Zeiss...Nuf said....

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

jager1, Compare any Zeiss with the Leupold LPS before you make a decision. You'll know what I mean when you compare to two in clarity, light gathering ability and most important, warranty. The Vari X II's are comparable to the Zeiss, but the LPS is in a class of it's own. The LPS series is second to non and that includes the big buck European scopes like Swarovski, Zeiss or Leica. The only scope that I have found that comes close to the LPS is the Unertl 10x if you don't mind dropping $2,500. for a fixed 10x scope.
Good Hunting....

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

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.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

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.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

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!

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

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.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

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

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

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.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

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.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

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.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

Solitary, you nailed it. I went through all this same analysis over the last week since my World's Greatest Wife:D 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!

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

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.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

It's a common myth that scopes with 30mm tubes arebrighter than those with 1" tubes, but it just isn't the case. Bigger tubes are a little stiffer and offer a little more windage and elevation adjustment range and that's basicallyit.

As far as parallax adjustment is concerned, I don't recommendit on a big game hunting rifle.That's one of the reasons I recommended the two scopes I did, since neither one has that feature.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

Just in case my own statement above is not good enough for the non-believers, let me offer the following, which is copied directly from Leupold's website. Pay particular attention to the last sentence:

The Leupold Answer Guide


Advantages of a 30mm Maintube
Does a 30mm maintube give you more light? The principal advantages of the 30mm tube are added strength and increased adjustment range for windage and elevation. For example, the M8-12X (1" maintube) has a total elevation adjustment of 51 minutes. The Mark-4 M1-10X (30mm maintube) has 90 minutes. The percentage of light passing through a scope is a function of lens coating and optical design, and has nothing to do with tube diameter.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

I have to agree with you. Last thing I want to do is have to adjust the parallax when deer hunting.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

Sure parallax adjustment isn't needed on 9x or even 10x scopes. BUT on most scopes over that and at ranges over 200yd, YES you DO need parallax. The newer "side focus" models are a much better system I agree. And 9x out of 10 while using the scopes I have that have parallax adj. I will simply turn them on the "infinity" position (basically looks like a horizontal figure 8) so that they are esentially ready for most anything at any power at any range. I use quality, high powered binocs so in many cases I don't do much "studying" with my scope. Besides the obvious dangers of doing such, sometimes however I need a closer look with say my 24x Swarovski. You can dang well bet I will dial down the correct range on the objective and really "count ticks"!

As for the 1" vs 30mm answer. Leupold uses 1" glass in the 30mm tube so IMHO they are out of that arguement in the first place. Needing lots of windage might be ok in many competitive environments, but for the average big game hunter he wont touch the windage turret ANYTIME after the initial sight-in. I have yet to see the first scope under say $750 that needed or properly used a 30mm tube. IMHO when you step up into the quality of most high end European (or even the Monarch Gold series of Nikon) and are using high powered optics (again over appx 10x) I believe you DO gain from the 30mm tube. The 30mm tube scopes you see from Bushnell, Tasco, BSA etc... are PURELY marketing hype and strictly for sales gimmicks, they certainly don't have the quality lenses, design or coating to justify nor properly use a 30mm maintube.

;)
RA

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

The following is from Zeiss's website:


"Center Tube Diameter

The diameter of a scope's center tube (or main tube) impacts the overall strength and durability of the scope. And it obviously determines the size of bases and rings required for mounting. But beyond that, the center tube diameter must be adequate to allow a sufficient range of windage and elevation adjustment. Zeiss riflescopes have either a 30mm or a one-inch center tube, depending on the model."

Again, as long as the optical system is designed properly, and there's no reason to believe Leupold or Zeiss is deficient in this area, then as far as brightness is concernedit matters not whether the main tube is 30mm or 1". Period.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

And this is from Nikon:

"Question

Do the 30mm[/b] scope tubes have oversized optics, or are they just 1 inch tube optics placed in a 30mm[/b] tube?


Answer

The 30mm[/b] scopes are actual 30mm[/b] scopes with optics that are larger than the standard 1” scopes. This does not gather or transmit any more light than a 1” scope, but it does provide a larger sweet spot to enhance resolution."


So, resolution may be enhanced, but again, brightness is not affected.

RE: Leupold or Zeiss ?
 

Oboy. The age old argument, at least recently! Zeiss for the slight edge in optics. Leupold for stellar customer service which is not to be taken lightly
okcmco