Leupold vs Zeiss
 

I would like some honest opinions from those who have experience with the Leupold VX-III versus the Zeiss Conquest. Looking specifically at the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 and the Leupold VX-III 3.5-10x40. I am familiar with the Leupold VX-II and the older Vari-Xii's. I have looked through both scopes in stores but I realise almost all scopes look good in the store. The scope will be replacing a Nikon Monarch ona Remington 700 chambered in 270 Winchester.

RE: Leupold vs Zeiss
 

I have VX-III's on 90% of my guns,big Leupold fan for many years! A few years ago a friend of mine picked up a 3-9-40mm Conquest and I had a 3-9-40mm VX-III while deer hunting. It was getting late in the day when we saw deer in a small patch of pines,we both put the scopes on the deer and he said "all doe"! I coulden't tell with my scope so I looked through his. I was so suprised,I never thought in a million years there would be that much difference. Long story short,I bought 2 new scopes since then a 3-9-50mm and a 4.5-14-44mm and both are Zeiss Conquest...

RE: Leupold vs Zeiss
 

Both are good scopes to be sure. IMO, the glass is just better in the Conquest. Also the Conquest has good, constant eye relief. For those reasons I favor the Zeiss but, in most cases, the Leuppy is just fine too. Whatever lifts your skirt!

RE: Leupold vs Zeiss
 

why are you replacing the Monarch if i may ask? i've never used a Monarch but have heard nothing but good things.

RE: Leupold vs Zeiss
 

both nice....both have ballistic reticles....z600 or B&C which both would work on a .270....

RE: Leupold vs Zeiss
 

Zeiss has better glass, etched reticle and better eye relief at all magnifications. It has a harder anodized finish and just as good if not better customer service. There is no way I spend more money to buy a Leupold VX-III 3.5-10x40 over a 3-9x40 conquest. Just no way

RE: Leupold vs Zeiss
 

The Monarch will be reassigned, possibly for my sons first deer rifle. I had always heard good things about the Monarchs as well so I decided to try one. My 3-9x40 is brighter and clearerto my eyes than my Leupold VX-II 3-9x40. The Monarchs eye relief is much better than the Busnell Elite's but not quite as much as Leupold.

RE: Leupold vs Zeiss
 

That's what I'm thinking. The Conquest always seems to get great reviews and is cheaper to boot.

RE: Leupold vs Zeiss
 

I have Leupolds on most of my guns, and I one West German made Zeiss on one rifle. The American made Zeiss & the Leupolds are about even, but if I comparethem to my West German Zeiss, this Zeiss blows them away

RE: Leupold vs Zeiss
 

I have 2 Vari-X III's .... a 3 year old 3.5-10x 50 mm and a 1 year old 2-7x32 mm "Compact". I have had a Monarch 3-9x50mm (new 2005) and have a 3-9x40mm (new 2007). I also have a Conquest (new fall 2007) 3-9x50mm with a heavy plex. I have not had the Conquest long enough to judge the durability. It is on a 50 cal ML and has been rattled approximately 200 times + been out in hot, cold , rain, fog, sleet, snow, and dusty conditions. Worked fine.

It is my judgment from the single season of use of the Conquest that it has better glass. I would judge it way out front of either of the Monarchs I have, and better as far as edge to edge clarity and low light performance than the Vari-X III's. If I had to do it all over again, I'd purchase the Conquest again.