Andrew Leigh
Member
Zeiss make their own optical train while Leupold do not. Leupold makes all the other stuff and then inserts the optics that they buy out, while Zeiss does the whole lot themselves.
Zeiss Conquest VS Leupold VX 3 VS Nikon Monarch
- Thread starter razorback2003
- Start date
- Status
Coltdriver
Member
The Zeiss Terra is in no way close to a VX3, they are closer to a VX1. The Conquest was a notch up from the Terra.
I have a Zeiss Terra. It is a great low cost scope but I would not buy one again because the glass is lousy in low light. The one redeeming quality it has is that I have found the elevation and windage controls to be very accurate. I took mine and walked a shot around the bullseye and it came right back to zero after doing that.
I looked thru the Terra at night and it absolutely sucks.
Your eye is being fooled by the blue light versus the yellow light passing of the Leupold.
I have a Zeiss Terra. It is a great low cost scope but I would not buy one again because the glass is lousy in low light. The one redeeming quality it has is that I have found the elevation and windage controls to be very accurate. I took mine and walked a shot around the bullseye and it came right back to zero after doing that.
I looked thru the Terra at night and it absolutely sucks.
Your eye is being fooled by the blue light versus the yellow light passing of the Leupold.
a-sheepdog
Member
I like the Zeiss Conquest, I think that the glass is better. I have them on all my rifles including 338 win mag and 375 H&H.
I have two conquests. I have compared them to a VX3 LR, IOR, Horus Vision, Bushnell 4200, as it got dark, I could just make out a small maple tree 100 yds away with the other scopes. With the Conquest, I could make out the branches.
I have recommended these to several friends and all were very happy.
DM~
Member
For MY eyes, the Conquest was and is the better scope in low light conditions, and yes I did try the others... SO, I bought another Conquest and do I like it a lot...
DM
DM
- Status
