leupold vs Zeiss

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Wilson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I disagree. Especially during rut, that shooter buck will only give you a few seconds of opportunity for a good shot. If you are busy trying to find that sweet spot of view in your scope instead of taking your shot, that buck is long gone. However, you may see differently through your scope. Myself, I actually see best through, and trust Nikon Monarch and Buckmasters, but that is just me. Your mileage may vary. Between $200 and $1k I really just think it's preference. Over a $1k, you start to see the REAL difference and benefits.
 
Well, if a scope has a small enough "sweet spot" that it affects anything important, it's junk. I haven't come across a scope like that in a very long time. What I do see are things like that illustrated in 1858's post: the last little bit of the edges show distortion. This is completely irrelevant, as few people look through the edge of the scope, let alone try to line up the reticle and target in it.

And I'm afraid you've got it exactly wrong, IMO, with your line about "Over a $1k, you start to see the REAL difference and benefits". There is a large difference between a $30 scope and a $300 scope, a smaller difference between the $300 scope and a $1000 scope, and so little difference between a $1000 scope and a $2000 scope as to be irrelevant for the overwhelming majority of shooters.
 
Robert Wilson said:
What I do see are things like that illustrated in 1858's post: the last little bit of the edges show distortion. This is completely irrelevant, as few people look through the edge of the scope, let alone try to line up the reticle and target in it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's irrelevant for anyone that spends a considerable amount of time looking through a rifle scope. I'd agree that a hunter's requirements are different than say a benchrest, F-Class or military shooter who may spend hours looking through a scope. I shoot 88 round matches and spend hours at the range working up loads. I know that eye fatigue is a real issue and so I prefer a sharp image across the whole field of view. Here are links to larger versions of the images in my earlier post. The Zeiss has a significant ring of distortion at the edge of the field of view. That would mess up my eyes in short order ... but then again, it's a hunting scope and not a match scope.

Leupold Mark 4 field of view

Zeiss Conquest field of view

:)
 
Robert Wilson said:
Well, if a scope has a small enough "sweet spot" that it affects anything important, it's junk. I haven't come across a scope like that in a very long time. What I do see are things like that illustrated in 1858's post: the last little bit of the edges show distortion. This is completely irrelevant, as few people look through the edge of the scope, let alone try to line up the reticle and target in it.

And I'm afraid you've got it exactly wrong, IMO, with your line about "Over a $1k, you start to see the REAL difference and benefits". There is a large difference between a $30 scope and a $300 scope, a smaller difference between the $300 scope and a $1000 scope, and so little difference between a $1000 scope and a $2000 scope as to be irrelevant for the overwhelming majority of shooters.
Click to expand...
If you're happy with distortion around the edges, be my guest. It's just not what I am used to or prefer. The combination of critical eye relief and distortion around the edges is just a little disappointing to me, that's all. So what are you looking for in a scope? Most scopes will consistantly point you to the target, it's the other little things that sets one scope from another.

The point missed that I was trying to make about over $1k scopes is that at that point they are all so well made that you won't have the same issues going from scope to scope. From $200 to $1k they all have their issues that you may run into when trying different ones. Anyway, just my opinion and I welcome yours, nothing personal...... just a discussion.
 
Last edited:
Fella's;

I've got both Zeiss & Leupold. One of my Leupold's is a 3-9X Mark II mil-dot. It's very good glass. I also have a Zeiss 3.5-10X MC with the #43 reticle, ie, mil-dot. It too is excellent glass. However, I noticed the other day that Leupold has rather dramatically dropped the price of the Mark II. I paid very close to the same amount of money for both the Leupold & Zeiss when I purchased them within probably a year of each other.

The single reason I like the Zeiss better though is that the Loopy has 1/2" adjustment turrets, whereas the Zeiss has the 1/4" adjustment system. So even though Loopy dropped the price, I bought another Zeiss 3.5-10X MC mil-dot.

900F
 
i dont agree with most here. Ive got a 3x9 zeiss and i do think its a good scope but in my opinion the vx3s are slightly better. Alot less distortion around the edges and alothough the ziess seems a bit brighter in daylight the luepold seems a bit better in low light. Both are good glass though.
 
Between Leopold and Zeiss, I think it comes down to personal preferences. After researching Busnell, Nikon & Leopold, I was dead-set on a Leopold for my new Rem 700 SPS Varmint. Then I discovered Zeiss. Based on customer service, quality control, warranty and customer reviews, the Bushnell and Nikon were out.

I found that Leopold spends a lot of money on advertising and promotion, which is why some people may notice a lot more Leopolds at the range, however. That also translates into a more expensive item at the register. The extra dollars are not adding quality to the scope, just paying for the advertising that convinced someone to buy it.

Ultimately, my decision came down to reticles. I believe, hands down, that Zeiss has the best reticles in the rifle scope market. As far as overall quality is concerned relative to cost, I found the Zeiss to be a better deal for the money.
 
If you're happy with distortion around the edges, be my guest. It's just not what I am used to or prefer. The combination of critical eye relief and distortion around the edges is just a little disappointing to me, that's all. So what are you looking for in a scope? Most scopes will consistantly point you to the target, it's the other little things that sets one scope from another.

The point missed that I was trying to make about over $1k scopes is that at that point they are all so well made that you won't have the same issues going from scope to scope. From $200 to $1k they all have their issues that you may run into when trying different ones. Anyway, just my opinion and I welcome yours, nothing personal...... just a discussion.
Click to expand...

As I wrote earlier, the only important task of a hunting rifle scope is to reliably point the rifle to the target. It doesn't actually take a huge amount of money to accomplish that, and most hunters, I suspect, would do just as well with a $200 scope as with a $2000 one.

Specialized uses require specialized scopes, of course, and the price tag goes up, but folks spending thousands with the idea that they will be able to hit their 250 yard whitetail better because their scope says Zeiss instead of Weaver are kidding themselves.

That's the only real point I'm trying to make here, and like you, I'm just having a friendly chat.
 
The other advantage of leupold is the ability to have your reticles changed very easily, and the no questions warranty. I haven't had to use the warranty service, but it's comforting. I do have a couple of scopes changed to a target dot because one of my sons prefers that reticle.

Personally, I'd by an 'average' Leupold (or brand of your liking) - knowing that I was equipping a scope better than anything available to the world 10-15 years ago. And, spend as much as I could on binos and a spotting scope...optics that will last a lifetime and be used far more than a rifle scope by me and my family members.
 
Commenting on the "European Name" post: Not true, at least for me. I had read that Leupold was king, and when I went to my local sporting goods store to check out scopes for the first time, asked to see that one first. Hadn't heard much of anything about Zeiss at the time, but looked through one of those, too, "just to see." (comparable scopes, btw). To this day, I'm sold on Zeiss. Leupold is just OK.
 
1858,

The one thing your pictures did was remind me how much more yellow frequency is transmitted through the Leupold's relative to Zeiss Conquest (at least the Vari-X III, VX3 and Mark 4's). Not sure if that is good or bad, but is certainly a noticable difference to my eyes.

My favorite Leupold is the 1.5-5x20mm with a #4 reticle. Fast, non-critical eye relief for close quarters, and just enough magnification for most any type of medium/large game hunting.
 
Mr_Pale_Horse said:
1858,

The one thing your pictures did was remind me how much more yellow frequency is transmitted through the Leupold's relative to Zeiss Conquest (at least the Vari-X III, VX3 and Mark 4's). Not sure if that is good or bad, but is certainly a noticable difference to my eyes.
Click to expand...

That is kind of odd, because I looked through a Ziess Conquest at Gander Mountain and it made everything look yellow. I figured it was the coating. It is kind of hard to tell the difference between a Ziess and a Nikon Prostaff when you are looking through them in a harshly artificially lit store though.

I looked through some cheap $10 7x50 binoculars at CVS the other day and they made everything look blue...and I couldn't read inch high letters from across the store with them.
 
Mr_Pale_Horse said:
1858, The one thing your pictures did was remind me how much more yellow frequency is transmitted through the Leupold's relative to Zeiss Conquest (at least the Vari-X III, VX3 and Mark 4's). Not sure if that is good or bad, but is certainly a noticable difference to my eyes.
Click to expand...

Very true and as I stated earlier, the difference in color is often interpreted as a difference in clarity. Here's a look through an old Vari-X IIc 6-18x40mm that I bought 10 years ago (and sold recently). Again, the overall color is much warmer than the Zeiss.

Yellow and red light have a longer wavelengths compared to blue light and this is why sunrises and sunsets are red. The longer wavelengths are better able to penetrate the atmosphere with the sun low in the sky. This may explain why a "cooler" scope could improve clarity near dusk. If the coatings on the lenses are attenuating yellow/red light, other colors will be amplified (comparitively). Just a thought.

leupold_vari-x_ii_small.jpg


Larger image.

:)
 
There are so many choices out there it drove me crazy. I suspect you will be happy with either. I choose Leupold becuase it's made in the USA and has an excellent warrenty. Their scopes in general are 4 or 5 out of 5 stars in terms of rating. You can't go wrong. I have a few different ones now and have been pleased with all of them. If I need a new scope, it will be a Leupold. If not Leupold, then it would be a Redfield (owned by Leupold).
 
Oh definitely Zeiss, especially the Diavari line. The Conquest that is made by Meopta is really good too, probably just a half step ahead of the VXIII, but give me a Zeiss any day. German glass is the cats..........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Leupold and Zeiss Rifle Scopes
Replies
7
Views
959
ClarkEMyers
C
R
  • Locked
Zeiss Conquest VS Leupold VX 3 VS Nikon Monarch
2
Replies
29
Views
13K
DM~
DM~
D
  • Locked
Quality of: Bushnell 4200, Leupold VX-II, VX-III and Zeiss Conquest
Replies
5
Views
567
Taurus44
T
4
  • Locked
Zeiss Conquest vs Swarvoski
2 3
Replies
62
Views
4K
Maverick223
Maverick223
5
  • Locked
New Scope for my .223
Replies
7
Views
493
AR27
A
Back
Top