Zeiss all the way, got my first one this year and you get what you pay for and more with Zeiss.

"For the Money" I would get a Nikon monarch,they are to me as good as any and half the price.I still havent found the difference to any other.

Zeiss conquest will win this hands down since you have to spend considerably more to eke out a little better resolution as well as physical weight.
I would use a 3-9x 40 for any hunting i do. The New Nikon Monarchs are maybe 20 dollars less then a Conquest just as heavy and the resolution is inferior. You also have more reticle options with the Conquest all the Monarch offers is 2. Bushnell Elite 4200 is verycomparable glass but the eye relief is 2/3" less in most cases . Some places are selling the 3-9x40 4200 for 250 range and that is quite a pickup unless you are using a heavy recoil rifle.

I agree with you, Dan, the Nikon Monarch is hard to beat for the money. I can't tell the difference between it or the more expensive Leupold. The only scopes any better are the ones over $1500. Then you have to ask yourself, is it really worth that much.

I would say Zeiss Conquest also,Leupold was #1 untill I tryed the Zeiss...

Zeiss gets my vote for a slightly higher quality optic.

I find it hard to beat my Burris FFII 4-14X42

What kind of gun

Another vote for the Nikon Monarch. I have 4 of them. You can get a new 3x9x40 for around $225 -$240. (SWFA)

My buddy sold his Vari-X III and bought a Monarch after looking through mine.

Count me in the Bushnell 4200 crowd. However, given the Leupy-vs-Conquestchoice, I'd go Zeiss.

Nikon makes good products, but I have a problem with storeclerks trying to shove them down my throat. Several times (with several different products) salesfolk have tried to convince me to buy a *clearly* inferior -yet more expensive- Nikon over other brands. I have several buddies who've had this same thing happen.