leupold vs Zeiss

If you can, get a look through both in darkness - twilight. Zeiss with bigger lens is better in dark, otherwise the quality should be on par.

Medusa gives good advice. Try to look through both in poor light conditions. See which one you can see better through.

Last time I was shopping for a scope I compared Zeiss and Leupold optics in the same price range, and came home with a Zeiss.

I've used both... In the same class (maybe not same price range) and size specs the Zeiss wins out for quality of optics (IE apparent image quality). I now own two Zeiss Conquest scopes and am completely satisfied with them.

One of the scopes is the model you are looking at... the 4.5-14x44mm. Only differance is I got mine with the Z-point reticule.

.
I've always had Leupold's, have two Vari-X III's and love them. However, for my new deer rifle I purchased a Ziess 3X9 Conquest because at Cabelas they are $399 compared to the $545 for the Leupold.


I've got the say the Zeiss is a better scope for a few reasons and the reasons are nice.


1.) Crisper image because of better glass.

2.) Has built in elevation and windage knobs - no more quarters.

3.) Elevation and Windage knobs actually click when you turn them and you can feel the movement.

4.) Eye adjustment at the end of the scope is large and easy to use.




Really happy with this new scope. And you can't believe how having built in turrets that click is so much easier for sighting in.

I know if I get another scope it will be a Zeiss.

I own 4 Leupold VX 3's and 2 Conquests. I own the 4.5-14x44 and the optics are as good as a VX 3 not better IMO. And 2 days ago at the range I noticed again poor tracking compared to the VX 3's. I have a 3-9 Conquest that also will track poorly. Mine have both moved POA horizontally when adjusted vertically. The reticle is better on the Zeiss.

My determining factor would be size and weight. For most hunting rifles I prefer the lightweight, compact size and especially smaller eyepiece of the Leupolds. For mostly target shooting with occasional hunting it's a toss up.

I think European names make people see much better. In participating in unscientific "studies" with my bird watching group, I've observed that people have very small preferences when the labels are hidden and overwhelming preferences when the labels are exposed. I've even seen a Japanese binocular win a "blind" test, and then get relegated to fourth choice (behind three Euro binoculars it had beaten) when the test was repeated with labels exposed. So as long as you can see the label, the Zeiss will probably be better.

Can't say about those specific scopes, but comparing my 2.5-8X Leupold's with the 3-9X Zeiss, the Zeiss is the clear winner for glass. It is much easier to see bullet holes in the target and it is useable a few minutes later in the day as light fades.

But, it is 2" longer and a 1/4 lb heavier than the Leupold. On a hunting rifle that will be carried for miles that is something to consider. For hunting purposes, I doubt it would matter a bit.

To be honest, I don't think you could go far wrong with either, but personally, I'd take the Leupold over the Zeiss. I have a Zeiss Conquest 3x9 and I have a bunch of Leupold Mark 4s which are similar to the current VX-3 line in terms of glass at least. I've noticed that correct eye relief is much more important with the Zeiss scope. There's a lot of distortion at the edge of the field of view if my eye isn't in just the right position. Look at the bottom photo and you can see that the image is starting to "roll". Also, I think that many confuse color with clarity. Look at the images below and you'll notice that the Zeiss has a "cooler" color just like my Swarovski Laser Guide but cooler doesn't necessarily mean clearer or sharper. The different coatings on the lens will attenuate specific wavelengths which in turn will affect the overall color balance of the image. The other issue is that the ocular bell is larger on the Zeiss which means that you may need taller rings to prevent the bolt hitting the bell. The issue about the turrets (and sighting in) is a moot point on a hunting scope.

Leupold Mark 4


Zeiss Conquest

I had the same problem deciding and went with the Zeiss. I am starting to regret it for the reasons above. The eye relief is very critical and it is not sharp edge to edge like the Leupold. I notice a lot of glare on the edges, even indoors looking out. I went with it mostly because of the name and everyone swears by them. Thinking about seeing if I can return or sell it. Go with the VX-3.

Thank you for that, 1858. Very useful.

Now, even though I've gone about bashing the Euro scopes, I'll defend the Zeiss here: even though its image is obviously inferior to the Leupold, does anyone here think they could actually hit with one better than the other?

That's the point I'm always trying to make on these threads: Optical quality is not the most important thing in a rifle scope! I'd be disgusted by the edge-to-edge clarity displayed by that Zeiss, if I was seeing it through a binocular - because a binocular is a seeing tool. It makes sense to pay top dollar for the best glass possible in a bino. But a rifle scope is an aiming device. It needs to reliably direct your bullet to the target and hopefully not whack you in the forehead while doing it. Paying a bunch of money for the kind of glass that comes free of (completely irrelevant for an aiming device) optical aberrations just doesn't make sense to me.

I own 4 Leupold VX 3's and 2 Conquests. I own the 4.5-14x44 and the optics are as good as a VX 3 not better IMO. And 2 days ago at the range I noticed again poor tracking compared to the VX 3's. I have a 3-9 Conquest that also will track poorly. Mine have both moved POA horizontally when adjusted vertically. The reticle is better on the Zeiss.

My determining factor would be size and weight. For most hunting rifles I prefer the lightweight, compact size and especially smaller eyepiece of the Leupolds. For mostly target shooting with occasional hunting it's a toss up.

Click to expand...

What does this mean?




When your moving left to right you lose the image?

.

I tend to look at all the similar scopes and compare them based upon price ranges...then buy the leoupold.

I do have a zeiss spotting scope and binoculars as well as leica binoculars.

Price, clarity, eye relief, size, weight and looks, are all important considerations. A couple of other things to consider are durability and warranty. How well does the Conquest holds up under recoil over a long period of time? I don't know what cartridge your Sako is chambered in, but even a .22-250 can ruin a scope after several hundred shots. Leupold are known for being very durable. I don't know about Zeiss Conquest. Which scope offers the lowest-hassle warranty in your country, in case you need it?

There is to a degree a little bit of “Walter Mitty” in anticipated optics usage.

Current optics may be an example of to much of a good thing. The power ranges are astounding, clarity, and mechanical repeatability are excellent in today’s quality optics. Rifle scopes seem to be applied as multipurpose devices such as low end magnification setting for hunting and high end magnification applied as a spotting scope. Not everyone is tactical or practical. Everyone can and will justify in their brain housing group their selection.

In this part of the world either a Leupold or a Zeiss would be totally satisfactory considering the range that deer are taken at. Neither scope would be set at maximum magnification as there is no need to count individual hairs.

Robert Wilson said:

But a rifle scope is an aiming device. It needs to reliably direct your bullet to the target and hopefully not whack you in the forehead while doing it. Paying a bunch of money for the kind of glass that comes free of (completely irrelevant for an aiming device) optical aberrations just doesn't make sense to me.

Click to expand...

You make an interesting point but I'd add that any perceived defect in the field of view can be a distraction for some shooters. One of my Leupolds had to go back to the factory because of a large speck of dust on the reticle. The speck didn't affect the mechanical ability of the scope in terms of aiming, but it annoyed the heck out of me which in turn affected my shooting. The same is true for some when it comes to "optical aberrations". Just a thought ....

Friend of mine is a anal benchrest shooter. Nothing but Zeiss glass on his competition rifles and spotting scopes.

Friend of mine is a anal benchrest shooter. Nothing but Zeiss glass on his competition rifles and spotting scopes.

Click to expand...

So who has better glass, Swarovski, Zeiss or Leica?



I know a lot of the African Big Game hunters swear by Swarovski, I see them all the time on their rifles in the shows. Including the guides.

So who has better glass, Swarovski, Zeiss or Leica?

Click to expand...

I just purchased a Leica 1200 and the clarity is superb. However, Swarovski is very, very clear as well. I don't have experience with Zeiss. I can tell you that you can't go wrong with Swaro or Leica. I would have to say it depends on who you ask, as they all are top of the line glass.

I used to run all Leopold, until I hunted with a Zeiss. I'm in the process of replacing the Leopold's for Zeiss on my hunting rifles.

If facing the setting sun, the VX3 gets very bad glare, so much that a shot is not possible. The Zeiss has NO glare in the exact same situation. The Zeiss is noticeably better in low light conditions (dusk and dawn). I'd estimate at minimum it gives me an extra 5 minutes of hunting time vs. the VX3.

Go with the zeiss, it is the best value on the market.

Friend of mine is a anal benchrest shooter. Nothing but Zeiss glass on his competition rifles and spotting scopes.

Click to expand...

He's a rare bird, at least if he participates in organized benchrest competition. Leupold is by far the most common scope on the benchrest line. These guys are shooting groups in the sub 1/4" MOA category. Considering how much money they spend on equipment, I'm sure they wouldn't think twice about dropping thousands of dollars on Zeiss, S&B, etc. if it helped their scores - but Euro scopes usually don't even make the equipment lists. http://internationalbenchrest.com/results/score/index.php

<edit> A spotting scope, however, is a great place to spend money on optical quality. Zeiss makes one of the best.

kdstrick said:

I used to run all Leopold, until I hunted with a Zeiss. I'm in the process of replacing the Leopold's for Zeiss on my hunting rifles.

If facing the setting sun, the VX3 gets very bad glare, so much that a shot is not possible. The Zeiss has NO glare in the exact same situation. The Zeiss is noticeably better in low light conditions (dusk and dawn). I'd estimate at minimum it gives me an extra 5 minutes of hunting time vs. the VX3.

Go with the zeiss, it is the best value on the market.

Click to expand...

See that's why I'm starting to think that eyes might just see differently through the same scope. I see glare easily on my Zeiss, so much that it's annoying. I actually took the first one back to where I bought it thinking that it was defective. Looked at the new one in the store (actually outside) and it looked okay, so I brought it home. However I got it home and I still see glare on the edges. I guess it's which glass suits YOU.