Print Page | Close Window

zeiss conquest or Leupold VX-L

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4011
Printed Date: March/28/2024 at 16:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: zeiss conquest or Leupold VX-L
Posted By: dirt01
Subject: zeiss conquest or Leupold VX-L
Date Posted: June/25/2006 at 23:08

 

Opinions on the good and bad between the Leupold VX-L 4.5-14x56 and the Zeis 3-12x56.  I can buy the Zeis cheaper, but the Leupold will mount lower and has side focus.  Just trying to get some input. 




Replies:
Posted By: fourinone
Date Posted: June/26/2006 at 06:25

Well, I'm not sure what you want to do with the rifle..?? Hunt? What type of hunting? Target?

But I do like having an adjustment for parallax and 56mm objective is pretty big and may not give you the cheak weld you want. So of the two you noted...I'd look real hard at the Leupold VX-L.

I started reading some of the info on the Zeiss Conquest scopes and could not find anywhere they mention their lens being fully multi coated?? I did see it mentioned of them being multi coated. Is this right??? I assumed that Zeiss Conquest were fully multi coated being so many people like the optic quality. Maybe this is just a bad write up in their information about their scopes?



-------------
Can you see me now...


Posted By: ceylonc
Date Posted: June/26/2006 at 09:03

I checked out the exact two scopes listed above last week.  I looked through them inside the store & then took them outside with a sales rep.  TO MY EYES the Zeiss had just a little bit more clarity than the VX-L.  Other than that they were pretty equal.  Don't know about light gathering ability at dawn & dusk as I was looking through them in the middle of the day.  The glass was good on both of them but the price differential made the Zeiss seem like a MUCH better deal.  If it were me making the decision I would choose the Zeiss over the VX-L every time.

Best of luck to you.  You probably can't go wrong with the two you're considering unless the crescent shape of the front objective is a big selling point to you.  Personally, I think that feature is nothing but marketing B.S. and I'd rather fix a high cheek weld (due to a high scope mount) with a stock cheek pad for $35-$40 than pay in excess of $1,000 for a cutout on the front objective.



Posted By: mwyates
Date Posted: June/26/2006 at 11:08
It's more than just cheek weld height for me.  A 56mm scope in extra high rings ruins the balance of a fine rifle.  The VX L on my Kimber 84 balances just as well as the 2.5-8X36 does.


Posted By: Stud Duck
Date Posted: June/27/2006 at 09:25
I like the etched reticle of the Zeiss, but between the two scopes you mentioned, I'd go with the Leupold just because it will mount lower. It's like yates said a" 56mm scope in extra high rings will ruin the balance of a fine rifle".....it'll ruin the balance of any rifle.


Posted By: solarpimp
Date Posted: June/27/2006 at 09:33
I, personally, wouldn't feel that the 56mm would be neccesary, and also feel that the Zeiss is optically superior on a level playing field.  That being said I would look more towards a 40-50mm objective as you should be able to use meduim rings as long as the barrel of your weapon has some type of taper to it.  If you have to go with the large 56mm objective, I can see where the Leupold would be the better chioce, but these are the only circumstances that I would consider the Leupold the better chioce.


Posted By: mwyates
Date Posted: June/27/2006 at 09:47
The only time I handled a rifle with a 56mm scope it felt like it wanted to flip upside down all the time.  I don't see the need for a 56mm objective either.  I haven't gone through a season with the 3.5-10X50 VX L yet, but I haven't been in a situation yet where I thought I needed more light.  It's more marketing.  One manufacterer has a 56mm scope, so the others have to have one, too.


Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: June/27/2006 at 12:35

I have a concern with the Zeiss Conquest, I looked and handled one for a while at my buddys shop

and it does have exellent glass but the adjustments and construction felt a little cheapy to me.

I did not get that robust feel from the conquest. The leupold has exellent features but I feel it is

overpriced. leupold scopes are very robust and in my opinion made well with exellent reapeatability

, they do suffer a bit in glass quality. At this price range I would search for a premium optic like

Nightforce,Swarovski,Khales and pass on VX-L and Conquest.

 



Posted By: ranburr
Date Posted: June/27/2006 at 18:40

The conquest is as tough as anything out there short of a true tactical scope.

 

ranburr



Posted By: Trinidad
Date Posted: June/28/2006 at 15:01

ranburr

 

What scope would you compare the conquest to as far as construction goes.




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net