Went to the local store friday to get my new VX III 2.5x8x36 mounted and bore sighted on my BLR. They had a neat contrapion set up outside the store. It was a large tripod that had a bracket set up at eye level with 4 or 5 different scopes locked into it where you could do a direct comparison of them. The store is on a pretty big hill so you have an unobstructed 400yd view in a couple of directions. They had a Bushnell 3200 3x9x40 an old model Vari X III 3.5x10x50 a used swaroski 3x9 and a Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40 and a Zeiss 4.5x14. That 3x9x40 Conquest was so much brighter and clearer than any of the other scopes!!! I've always been a Leupold fan and will continue to be, But I've never looked through them in a direct compare. I took the Vari x III and the conquest inside to a dark part of the store and the Zeiss was even more brighter in there. The sharpness of the colors you could see with that Zeiss was just unbelievable. I hate to say it, but the next rifle scope I buy will be a Zeiss Conqest 3x9x40. The store had them for 375, what a steal. I guess most of those folks that always talked up the european optics were on the right track.

I'm pretty sure only Zeiss and Swarovski make their own lenses. Nikon might too. This leads to what they sell to other scope manufacturers that use their lenses. They won't sell a superior lens to their competitors. On the other hand, there are a lot of Chinese/Taiwanese/Korean/Vietnamese lenses that come packaged in fancy boxes that are of the worst quality that you might find in a once great scope manufacturers scope....

I've owned a lot of Leupolds, a Swarovski Habicht, and just mounted a Zeiss Conquest. To be completely honest, I don't think there's a nickels worth of difference in hunting applications between the three optically.

The Zeiss and Swarovski may be a little brighter, but the only time I think situations get to the level where you could actually use that extra level of brightness would be after legal shooting hours anyway. The Zeiss and Swarovski scopes seem to be a little heavier and more bulky than the Leupolds. That may not make any difference to a stand hunter, but it does matter if you are a still hunter or spot and stalk hunter.

Don't get me wrong, all three are great scopes. I'll likely leave the Zeiss Conquest I have mounted on my 300 H&H on it. One thing that Leupold has lacked in the past, that I believe the newer scopes have, is the finger turn adjustments. Zeiss has those and I really do appreciate them.

It's pretty much a toss up, but for the way I hunt, I think when all things are considered, I prefer Leupold's.

Gotta agree, might be some differences in the store, but when it comes up putting lead into fur, I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in the field.

Granted, the 2.5x8 Leupold is 'handicapped' a bit in that it could use a larger objective. I think it's 36mm and for 8x, you could easily improve light transmission up to maybe a 50mm or so (theoretical maximum exit pupil that your eye can use is 7mm but everyone is different, 7mm x 8 power = 56 mm objective). The 40mm on the Zeiss is helping things, to be sure. The 3.5x10 Leupold actually has a smaller exit pupil than the 3x9 Zeiss, since the magnification is a tick higher.

But... where the 2.5x8 really shines is being small and lightweight, no small advantage on the hunting rifle.

Anyway - I've shot dark colored pigs when it's been REAL dark, way past legal shooting light for deer, and no complaints.

Color transmission is a big thing in the advertising wars.... but don't kid yourself, your vision goes to almost black/white when the light gets real low. So that one's just not a big deal at the edge of twilight, my opinion. Also - distortion at the edge of the field of view - not a biggie in real world scope use. Spotting scope or binoculars, absolutely, those two things are important. But less so on a rifle scope.

If there is one thing that truely does make difference in low light, its recticle design. Your crosshairs will fade out, typically, before you lose sight of your critter. That's why European scopes often have fairly heavy crosshairs - they do work.

Hey if you can get a Zeiss for that price - why not on the next rifle. Variety is the spice.....

Gotta agree, might be some differences in the store, but when it comes up putting lead into fur, I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in the field.

Granted, the 2.5x8 Leupold is 'handicapped' a bit in that it could use a larger objective. I think it's 36mm and for 8x, you could easily improve light transmission up to maybe a 50mm or so (theoretical maximum exit pupil that your eye can use is 7mm but everyone is different, 7mm x 8 power = 56 mm objective). The 40mm on the Zeiss is helping things, to be sure. The 3.5x10 Leupold actually has a smaller exit pupil than the 3x9 Zeiss, since the magnification is a tick higher.
If there is one thing that truely does make difference in low light, its recticle design. Your crosshairs will fade out, typically, before you lose sight of your critter. That's why European scopes often have fairly heavy crosshairs - they do work.

Hey if you can get a Zeiss for that price - why not on the next rifle. Variety is the spice.....


Good points mike, but here's the thing. I compared all the scopes at there lowest power and then at their highest power. The Zeiss still looked so much better. Also worth noting the eye relief on the Zeiss stayed the same all the way through the magnification range. To each his own, but I was always a naysayer until I took the time to compare them side by side. My thinking is, if it looks that much better under Ideal conditions, its probably going to really shine under not so good conditions.


And as far as there not being a lot of difference in hunting applications, well. I think that is kinda like saying that as far as hunting applications go, a gun that shoots 2 inches at 100yds is just as good as a gun that shoots 1 inch at 100yds. For the same money, I'll take the 1 inch gun every time. Wouldn't you?

I have never owned a Zeiss anything, but have worked with there CCM Coordinate Measuring Machines.

The lenses they produce are checked for smoothness down to the fractions of a micron. This means a perfect slick clean surface for light to pass through. Any Zeiss scope for 375 sounds like a bargin, and I might trip trying to grab my first one if I ever found such a deal.

Don't want to get caught up in feature wars.... Like I said, if you like the Zeiss, why not! But I think that the one with the thickest recticle will be the one that works best at low light, when it all comes down to making the shot.

A side-by side comparison at twilight, now, that would be a good way to evaluate the scopes. If you get a chance to do that, let us know.

I have never owned a Zeiss anything, but have worked with there CCM Coordinate Measuring Machines.

The lenses they produce are checked for smoothness down to the fractions of a micron. This means a perfect slick clean surface for light to pass through. Any Zeiss scope for 375 sounds like a bargin, and I might trip trying to grab my first one if I ever found such a deal.

Thats what I was thinking. I am very happy with my new VX III 2.5x8x36. It fits my BLR perfectly and is well suited to my needs with the heavy duplex rectile and all. The 3x9x40 conquest is just a little large and heavey for what I need. However If I had the money now to buy that scope up for my next rifle I would have. I have the plans for a new bolt action either a Tikka T3 or Browning A Bolt in 30-06, that gun will wear a Zeiss conquest if I can afford it. That purchase is a little down the road though.

" But I think that the one with the thickest recticle will be the one that works best at low light, when it all comes down to making the shot."
I completely agree with that statement.
If you compare the standard Leupold Duplex in a VariX-111 and a Zeiss Conquest in low light, the Zeiss will win that contest.
Lemme put it this way: my Vari-X 111 against my Zeiss Conquest- it isn't close, the Zeiss wins.

ive got a ziess conquest on my 06 and i dont think id trade it for any other brand out therewhen i was shopping for a new scope for the 06 i went to all the different shops around and compared all the brands that were in the same price range and i ended up with the conquest, i wish i could of afforded one the other day but instead i picked up a nikon prostaff for my 6.5, its clear but not as clear as the conquest. ive carried it all day and never had any trouble with the weight but im not in the hills or mountains and that would make difference though but the next rifle i buy will probably have one on it