Zeiss scopes

[danny1975]

Narrow my options to a zeiss 3.5x10x44 600 yard bdc and a leupold vx3l 3,5x10x50 Boone and Crockett reticle . Both look pretty clear and the scopes going on a savage 116 300 win mag . I hate choices lol. Any help to make my mind up .

 

[drrxnupe]

A few months ago I was at Basspro deliberating a similar topic as you. First, I looked thru a Leupold VX3 from the scope case towards the front entrance. Was very impressed with light transmission and clarity. I then asked to looked thru a Zeiss Conquest. With the Zeiss, I was able to see so much more fine detail that I couldn't see with the Leupold.

IMO...hands down the Zeiss blew the VX3 out of the water. Will be getting a 4.5-14x44 before deer season.

 

[TheLBLman]

Both are comparable quality glass, but in this case I'd vote for the Zeiss simply because I prefer a 44mm objective over a 50mm when the magnification isn't exceeding 10x. Almost no advantage to the 50mm, and there is a disadvantage to carrying around the equivalent of a grapefruit atop your rifle.

 

[danny1975]

I seen that with the zeiss. Also I like how the crosshairs set up on the zeiss. And really I think the 44mm objective is just right . Not to big and not to small.. I seen the the 4.5x 14x44 And I wonder if I need that much power but I'm going to take 4 or 500 yards shot too.

 

[280longshot]

I think you can't go wrong with either scope. I do perfer the 40 or 44mm objective, but 40 is all you need in my opinion. I can speak from experience that the leupold 3.5-10x40 with the Boone&Crockett reticle is right on out to 500 yrds with the .280 140gr.BT.
Now on the other hand the Zeiss in my experience has better glass. Good luck on your decision.

 

[Model70Man]

Both are good scopes. It just depends on what you want and the features that you like. I prefer a scope with a fast focus ocular, constant eye relief throughout the power range, etched reticles, clean and precise windage and elevation adjustments, clean and clear sight picture all the way out to the edge of the viewing area, and optical performance in low light (specifically contrast between the dark colors). I don't really care too much about weight as long as I get the best optical performance in the price range. The Zeiss Conquest meets all of those criteria for me. The Leupold would work for me, but there are a couple of areas it falls short (specifically the eye relief is not constant throughout the power range, all reticles aren't etched, and contrast of dark colors at low light) compared to other scopes I have used and looked through. The only Leupold scope that would meet my personal criteria would be the VX6. IMO, The VX6 is on par with the Conquest. I just refuse to pay $400 more for a scope to get the same features I prefer and optical performance.

Another scope you may want to look at is the Minox ZA5. That is one heck of a scope.

 

[danny1975]

The minox I haven't seen anywhere that sells them . I don't want to spend that kind of money without looking through one first lol.

 

[280longshot]

One thing I forgot to add was the constant eye relief!!! If I was shooting a 300 win mag I would go with a scope with a constant eye relief throughout the power range.

 

[danny1975]

That's what I'm looking at too. . I want good eye relief. Plus I want it too hold up against mag loads . But both of them can do that . The 300 mag not bad on recoil after I install a pachmayr pad on it .

 

[redblood]

zeiss scopes are quite abit cheaper than the vx 3- 399 vs 489.00
. i almost ordered one whne i order my last lupe. just cant take the looks of the zeiss and they are quite a bit heavier to boot.

 

[WGK]

I own one zeiss. If I had the money I would trade all my leupolds for zeiss.

 

[Model70Man]

I own one zeiss. If I had the money I would trade all my leupolds for zeiss.

That's exactly what I did.

 

[Kimberman]

I own a bunch of different scopes
Leupold
Zeiss
Minox
Nikon
Pentax
Burris
Sightron Big Sky

I like the Zeiss, Minox, and Sightrons the most.

 

[danny1975]

I like the clearity of the zeiss that's for sure. It's the one I defiantly getting

 

[MUP]

What price is the Zeiss selling for? I'm gonna be looking myself soon.

 

[danny1975]

I'm looking at a zeiss 3.5x10x44 with a 600 bdc for 719. But I seen cameralandny had the demo ones for 689.

 

[redblood]

everywhere pretty much has the 3-9x40 conquests for 399 with free shipping

 

[TheLBLman]

Everywhere, HOWEVER, the 3.5-10 x 44mm will cost you a lot more than the 3-9 x 40mm. I've yet to see them even close in price.

 

[redblood]

seems like a premium for 1x more magnification. i am a vx 3 so i will admit i iknow very little about them

 

[TheLBLman]

seems like a premium for 1x more magnification. i am a vx 3 so i will admit i know very little about them

I'd say that premium is going more for the extra glass of the 44mm objective. I wish Leupold would make their VX 3 with a 44mm objective in the 3.5 - 10 configuration. The 44mm objective is just the ideal size for hunting in low light at 10x magnification, while 40mm allows comparable illumination at 9x.

I suspect relatively underpricing the 3-9x models may be part of their marketing plan to hook people on the Zeiss brand. May be smarter to make (or even lose) little on a particular scope as opposed to spending money on advertising.

 

[redblood]

seems like a premium for 1x more magnification. i am a vx 3 so i will admit i know very little about them

I'd say that premium is going more for the extra glass of the 44mm objective. I wish Leupold would make their VX 3 with a 44mm objective in the 3.5 - 10 configuration. The 44mm objective is just the ideal size for hunting in low light at 10x magnification, while 40mm allows comparable illumination at 9x.

i have to say that i prefer 36-40. accuracy suffers when the line of sight deviates from the line of bore. i use extra low rings on my 2.5-8x36 vx3's and lows on my 3.5-10x40mm. i also like the lightweight of the smaller objectives

 

[TheLBLman]

i have to say that i prefer 36-40. accuracy suffers when the line of sight deviates from the line of bore. i use extra low rings on my 2.5-8x36 vx3's and lows on my 3.5-10x40mm. i also like the lightweight of the smaller objectives

And for that same reason, I prefer a 44mm objective over a 50mm objective on a 3.5 - 10x scope.

 

[Andy S.]

.....accuracy suffers when the line of sight deviates from the line of bore.

I have read where you claimed this repeatedly over the years. Can you substantiate this claim, or is just a personal preference? Reason I ask is I oftentimes read about long range shooters and their setups and ask myself "if what redblood claims is true, why in the world would these world class shooters not get lower setting rings/scopes?" Take for example the picture in the article below of our own TiminTN and notice that his scope is NOT setting flush to his barrel, or really not even that close by some people's standards. Just something I have always wondered to be fact or fiction.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/tim-claunch/

 

[Model70Man]

.....accuracy suffers when the line of sight deviates from the line of bore.

I have read where you claimed this repeatedly over the years. Can you substantiate this claim, or is just a personal preference? Reason I ask is I oftentimes read about long range shooters and their setups and ask myself "if what redblood claims is true, why in the world would these world class shooters not get lower setting rings/scopes?" Take for example the picture in the article below of our own TiminTN and notice that his scope is NOT setting flush to his barrel, or really not even that close by some people's standards. Just something I have always wondered to be fact or fiction.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/tim-claunch/

He is correct. That is why you see many target rifles with stocks that have adjustable combs.

Read this link. http://www.snipercentral.com/karsten.htm

 

[redblood]

.....accuracy suffers when the line of sight deviates from the line of bore.

I have read where you claimed this repeatedly over the years. Can you substantiate this claim, or is just a personal preference? Reason I ask is I oftentimes read about long range shooters and their setups and ask myself "if what redblood claims is true, why in the world would these world class shooters not get lower setting rings/scopes?" Take for example the picture in the article below of our own TiminTN and notice that his scope is NOT setting flush to his barrel, or really not even that close by some people's standards. Just something I have always wondered to be fact or fiction.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/tim-claunch/

He is correct. That is why you see many target rifles with stocks that have adjustable combs.

Read this link. http://www.snipercentral.com/karsten.htm

yep. just a fact. i am sure there is a mathematical equation for it, but dang if i know what it is

 

[Andy S.]

Thanks guys for the clarification.

 

[Deer Assassin]

Both are comparable quality glass, but in this case I'd vote for the Zeiss simply because I prefer a 44mm objective over a 50mm when the magnification isn't exceeding 10x. Almost no advantage to the 50mm, and there is a disadvantage to carrying around the equivalent of a grapefruit atop your rifle.

i agree 50 is to much and not needed

44 is right

 

[Deer Assassin]

for hunting in tn

 

[TheLBLman]

IMO, one of the biggest marketing blunders Leupold has made is in not offering their VX-3 line with a 44mm objective. It has steered many loyal Leupold customers (like myself) to other brands.

Like many, I prefer to buy American-made products, and am willing to pay more for them. But can't buy them if they don't make them. Even Burris has stopped making their Signature Series which offered a 3-12 x 44mm configuration. Am told the high taxes and costs of regulatory compliance makes it very hard for American companies to compete with the foreign optics makers (or at least to be in the same ball park on price).

 

[mr.big]

I have a 4.5-14 VXIII LR/T 30mm tube and 40mm lens with side focus and M1 knobs on a CZ 527 Varmint 223 that will track past 1,000 yards and back and be dead on zero at 100 yards,,

I LOVE the Conquest on a hunting rifle,,but on a steel banger I like the Leupold adjustments much better,,