Which rifle scope - Leupold, Zeiss, or Nikon
#21
But then you're getting into price ranges passing $500 and approaching $1k, and brand preference is usually the deciding factor.
#22
"Nikon > Leupold > Zeiss"
I would read this: Nikon "is greater than" Leupold "is greater than" Zeiss (if I remember my grade schoool math and greater-than/less-than symbols), but I don't think that's what you meant?
I would read this: Nikon "is greater than" Leupold "is greater than" Zeiss (if I remember my grade schoool math and greater-than/less-than symbols), but I don't think that's what you meant?
#23
#25
Fork Horn
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From:
The Minox ZA series is really the one to beat for the price. It uses German Schott glass as does Zeiss. Nikon and Leupold use Japanese glass which doesn't transmit as much light. Nikon is assembled in the Phillipines. Leupold, Conquest and ZA are assembleld in America. Minox is actually assembled in the same plant as the conquest.
The Minox ZA is clearer and has more vivid colors than the Zeiss Conquest. They are the same glass but the Zeiss has an emphasis on light transmission and the Minox optical quality so the coatings are the difference. The VX-3 is behind both on light transmition, clarity and colors.
At dusk the Leupold goes dark about 15 minutes before the Conquest but the reticle is unuseable about 12 minutes before that, just an informal sit on the porch. The Minox gives up a couple of minutes ahead of the conquest but the reticle is still good until the picture goes out. It displays color a lot longer than the other two. They were running $200 at camera land, not sure if he has them currently or not. If they were the same price as a Conquest I would buy the ZA myself for the brilliant colors. It's a lot easier to see contrast through it so it's easier to pick game out of a similar colored back drop. They also have the no fault warranty just as the others. If you catch them in stock get two for the price of the Conquest or VX-3. If not they are still pretty close to half.
The Minox ZA is clearer and has more vivid colors than the Zeiss Conquest. They are the same glass but the Zeiss has an emphasis on light transmission and the Minox optical quality so the coatings are the difference. The VX-3 is behind both on light transmition, clarity and colors.
At dusk the Leupold goes dark about 15 minutes before the Conquest but the reticle is unuseable about 12 minutes before that, just an informal sit on the porch. The Minox gives up a couple of minutes ahead of the conquest but the reticle is still good until the picture goes out. It displays color a lot longer than the other two. They were running $200 at camera land, not sure if he has them currently or not. If they were the same price as a Conquest I would buy the ZA myself for the brilliant colors. It's a lot easier to see contrast through it so it's easier to pick game out of a similar colored back drop. They also have the no fault warranty just as the others. If you catch them in stock get two for the price of the Conquest or VX-3. If not they are still pretty close to half.
#26
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
From: Mi.
The Minox ZA series is really the one to beat for the price. It uses German Schott glass as does Zeiss. Nikon and Leupold use Japanese glass which doesn't transmit as much light. Nikon is assembled in the Phillipines. Leupold, Conquest and ZA are assembleld in America. Minox is actually assembled in the same plant as the conquest.
The Minox ZA is clearer and has more vivid colors than the Zeiss Conquest. They are the same glass but the Zeiss has an emphasis on light transmission and the Minox optical quality so the coatings are the difference. The VX-3 is behind both on light transmition, clarity and colors.
At dusk the Leupold goes dark about 15 minutes before the Conquest but the reticle is unuseable about 12 minutes before that, just an informal sit on the porch. The Minox gives up a couple of minutes ahead of the conquest but the reticle is still good until the picture goes out. It displays color a lot longer than the other two. They were running $200 at camera land, not sure if he has them currently or not. If they were the same price as a Conquest I would buy the ZA myself for the brilliant colors. It's a lot easier to see contrast through it so it's easier to pick game out of a similar colored back drop. They also have the no fault warranty just as the others. If you catch them in stock get two for the price of the Conquest or VX-3. If not they are still pretty close to half.
The Minox ZA is clearer and has more vivid colors than the Zeiss Conquest. They are the same glass but the Zeiss has an emphasis on light transmission and the Minox optical quality so the coatings are the difference. The VX-3 is behind both on light transmition, clarity and colors.
At dusk the Leupold goes dark about 15 minutes before the Conquest but the reticle is unuseable about 12 minutes before that, just an informal sit on the porch. The Minox gives up a couple of minutes ahead of the conquest but the reticle is still good until the picture goes out. It displays color a lot longer than the other two. They were running $200 at camera land, not sure if he has them currently or not. If they were the same price as a Conquest I would buy the ZA myself for the brilliant colors. It's a lot easier to see contrast through it so it's easier to pick game out of a similar colored back drop. They also have the no fault warranty just as the others. If you catch them in stock get two for the price of the Conquest or VX-3. If not they are still pretty close to half.
Thanks Bugflipper for a very good, detailed & helpful review!
The info on the Minox lens make up in particular. I'd give up a couple moments shooting time for better color contrast.
While not in the market at the moment for a scope for a rifle, I am considering buying one for a crossbow & this info was very helpful to me.
I do not mind paying for top shelf gear & was leaning towards the Conquest, but will now make a point to check into those Minox scopes before I buy. If they offer a milrad or mildot reticule we may well do business.
#27
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
From: Mi.
In answer to the poster regarding the other 3 brands:
1) Zeiss, no question it's a better scope than the Leo & I own several Leo's and only one Zeiss, but it beats all the Leo's I have. The Conquest gives a clear edge in brightness.
2) Leo is better than Nikon IMO by a larger margin than the Zeiss has over the Leo.
3. Nikon, not bad glass, but not up to the first two. I also am not a fan of the Nikoplex with the little circles.
1) Zeiss, no question it's a better scope than the Leo & I own several Leo's and only one Zeiss, but it beats all the Leo's I have. The Conquest gives a clear edge in brightness.
2) Leo is better than Nikon IMO by a larger margin than the Zeiss has over the Leo.
3. Nikon, not bad glass, but not up to the first two. I also am not a fan of the Nikoplex with the little circles.
#28
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
From: Mi.
Burris & Vortex would also be well worth your time to look at.
I'd rank the Burris as better than the Nikon, but only the Diamond & Signature lines come up to Leo's.
Vortex Viper is a good match to the Leo III & perhaps a touch better.
There are a lot of good scope makers today.
I'd rank the Burris as better than the Nikon, but only the Diamond & Signature lines come up to Leo's.
Vortex Viper is a good match to the Leo III & perhaps a touch better.
There are a lot of good scope makers today.
#29
In answer to the poster regarding the other 3 brands:
1) Zeiss, no question it's a better scope than the Leo & I own several Leo's and only one Zeiss, but it beats all the Leo's I have. The Conquest gives a clear edge in brightness.
2) Leo is better than Nikon IMO by a larger margin than the Zeiss has over the Leo.
3. Nikon, not bad glass, but not up to the first two. I also am not a fan of the Nikoplex with the little circles.
1) Zeiss, no question it's a better scope than the Leo & I own several Leo's and only one Zeiss, but it beats all the Leo's I have. The Conquest gives a clear edge in brightness.
2) Leo is better than Nikon IMO by a larger margin than the Zeiss has over the Leo.
3. Nikon, not bad glass, but not up to the first two. I also am not a fan of the Nikoplex with the little circles.
I think the circles you're talking about are on the Nikon BDC reticles.
#30
Fork Horn
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
coolbrze,
I own many scopes and have a lot of experience with hunting and target scopes. These days I see Leupold as the market leader in terms of product and service.
I have a few Zeiss scopes and while I find the optics and the crosshairs sharper than some others the Conquests are bulky and have large diameter oculars.
The Minox is new to the market. I got one in 3-15X and returned it as it had no A.O and their name is so large on the objective as to spoil it's look.
I got a Swaro to show off on my favorite custom.
I just got a Leu. 4.5-14 to put on a 7mm Mag. for range work and later hunting.
I own many scopes and have a lot of experience with hunting and target scopes. These days I see Leupold as the market leader in terms of product and service.
I have a few Zeiss scopes and while I find the optics and the crosshairs sharper than some others the Conquests are bulky and have large diameter oculars.
The Minox is new to the market. I got one in 3-15X and returned it as it had no A.O and their name is so large on the objective as to spoil it's look.
I got a Swaro to show off on my favorite custom.
I just got a Leu. 4.5-14 to put on a 7mm Mag. for range work and later hunting.
Last edited by Savage_99; 10-15-2013 at 04:02 PM.



