Leupold Mk 4 Vs. Zeiss Conquest

[Jonty]

Hi all,

I must say you lot have a very active forum.

Anyway, I'm often here but I don't contribute much as there as so many good people here with good information so there is no point in parrotting what they are saying.

Due to the fall in strength of Sterling Vs. Euro, I find myself in the position to look at a Leupold Mk 4. They are as rare as hen's teeth here in Ireland, but can be gotten quite easily in the UK.

The model I'm looking at is the 6.5 - 20 X 50 Mk4 E/RT. The one with the reticle in the first focal plane. They are quite nice.

My biggest problem is that I quite like the Zeiss Conquest also (6.5 - 20 X 50)


Has anybody got either of these or both of these scope and can you please point me in the right direction.


Its to go on a Tikka T3 Tactical in .223 for target/vermin shooting. I've also got a Sako 75 Varmint in .308 topped off with a Schmidt and Bender 3-12X50 precision hunter scope. Its the dog's dangly bits!!

Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

 

[lipadj46]

Conquest will have hands down better glass. You will impress more people with a Mk4 and they are cooler to one of the them mall ninja's and will have better resale value. Unless we are speaking of the fixed 10x Mk4 now that is an impressive tactical scope not just a dressed up VX-III.

 

[jpwilly]

They are both great quality scopes. The Conquest may have a maginally better glass but last time I looked Just the other day at Cabelas I couldn't see a difference.

 

[Jonty]

Thanks guys! Yeah just to let you know, we have our own version of "mall ninjas" here in Ireland too!!

 

[lipadj46]

The Conquest may have a maginally better glass but last time I looked Just the other day at Cabelas I couldn't see a difference.

Most decent scopes will look equal in normal lighting conditions. It is in low light conditions (dusk, dawn) where the good glass starts to stand out. Taking cursory looks through them in a store will not tell you anything about the quality of the optics except that they both work well in a store.

 

[jpwilly]

lipadj46, okay you seem to be the resident know it all here. Tell me I'm wrong about the Conquest having a little bit better glass...it does but not by much. Hence my statement "marginally better" My eyes are still plenty good show us your collection of all the fine top end scopes you apparenty own and shoot since my looking at them in the store doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[lipadj46]

I'm just another internet blowhard with too much time on my hands for the past couple weeks so take my comments with a grain of salt (maybe I need to make that my signature)...

Anyways, I guess these days in modern optics there are marginal differences in optical performance during 98% of regular shooting conditions (good light, low moisture etc.). It is when you get into that 2% of the time (dawn, dusk, poor light) where the better optics are going to shine and make a huge difference. That is usually though when you want your scope to perform well. In scopes these days people pay a lot of money for less and less return past a certain point. I think most people who know about optics know that the Mk4 scopes are VX-IIIs (except for the 10X Mk4) and most people would agree that the conquest is optically better than a VX-III and I guess I take price into the equation when I say the Zeiss blows the Leupold away. The Mk4 are great but overpriced and a good chunk of your change is going to pay for the Leupold marketing machine and the lifetime warranty on a VX-I.

If you have not noticed I am a little hard on Leupold because I think are overrated for the price you pay. Other scope companies caught up to and surpassed Leupold a while a ago and offer superior products at lower prices. I guess you can weigh me against those who think if it don't say Leupold it's crap.

 

[lipadj46]

OK I updated my sig. so now all posts come with a warning so as not to take me too seriously and get their panties in a bunch