New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Zeiss Conquest or Leupold Ultralight?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Zeiss Conquest or Leupold Ultralight?

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2010 at 17:52
ILikeRugers View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/26/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 4
I'm looking to put a "nice" scope on my Kimber 84M Montana in 7mm-08. I am replacing a very heavy rifle with this lightweight, so I started to compare scope weights as well. I liked the 8 or 9 oz that the Leupold Ultralight says it weighs, however, you guys seem to really rave about the Conquest, and somewhat knock certain Leupold models.
 
Based off on advice from this forum, I purchased a Bushnell Elite 4200 3-9x40 a few years ago and put it on my HEAVY rifle, and really like that scope, but wouldnt mind seeing a little better on my new rig either... I would'nt mind a better scope on the Kimber.
 
I will be hunting deer/pigs, no longer than 300 yards away. 60 to 100 yards will be 99% of my shooting.
 
I'm kinda weird picky about looks, so I'm thinking I will really prefer a silver finish on this new scope. If I could get a little silver Bushnell Elite 4200, I would probably stick with that.
 
Any thoughts? Conquest 3-9x40 vs. Leupold Ultralight 3-9x33.
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2010 at 18:34
biggreen747 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2009
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 470
It's not that Leupold are bad scopes, they most certainly are not. They are well built and the company stands behind them. The problem has been the quality and clarity of the glass the use vs the price they charge. Up until now it hasn't been all that great. Apparently they have made huge gains with the new VX3 line but I would still stay away from the ultralight. A good option from Leupold might be  http://swfa.com:80/Leupold-25-8x36-VX-3-Riflescope-P12645.aspx

The Zeiss is a great scope and you can get a great deal on the Matte finish one right now. 
You will pay a premium for the silver finish on the Conquest. There are places selling the Matt Conquest
for $399.00 right now and SWFA has a 110% price guarentee. The Silver one is 549.00.



Edited by biggreen747 - January/28/2010 at 18:43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2010 at 18:50
ILikeRugers View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/26/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 4
I like the looks of the VXIII. Thanks.
So the glass is on par with my Elite 4200? I guess that is the only scope I can use to judge others by...
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2010 at 20:15
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
as much as i dont care for leupolds, for some reason they just look right on top of a kimber rifle, especially wooden stocked ones. i would look for a new vx3 in 2.5x8 if it were mine.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2010 at 20:54
biggreen747 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2009
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 470
Just make sure you get the VX3 NOT the VXIII - The new model has much better glass (similar to your 4200) and coatings than the old VXIII. And Pyro is right, they look good on a Kimber.

Edited by biggreen747 - January/28/2010 at 21:02
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2010 at 22:17
ILikeRugers View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/26/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Yes, I meant VX3. Thanks again.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2010 at 23:29
FuddyDudd View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/02/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 56
I am a Zeiss fan so I  recommend the Conquest. I don't know how to post a link to it but I would choose a Vortex Viper before Leupold. Unless there is a custom shop need or want. They have some nice gallery photos of Kimber and Cooper Arms and Dakota's that have been dolled up with them VX-3's(engraved and what not). Almost ordered me one a couple weeks ago then a member turned me on to that Conquest for 399.00. For that price they don't compare. JMO
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/28/2010 at 23:47
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365
Cosmetically, there isn't a lot of difference between a VARI-X III, VARI-XIII or a VX-3.  Optically, there is a big difference.  For the $$$ a Leupod VX-3 isn't bad.  Its just as good as a comparable Zeiss Conquest for a few dollars less.
 
Regarding the Zeiss, I've said it before and I'll say it again, they have some of the "blackest" reticles going which is a real plus, whether its broad daylight or a moon lit night. 
 
FWIW, I own 2 Zeiss Conquest scopes, a VX-3, Nikon Monarch and a Sawrovski AV. 
 
HTH,
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2010 at 07:33
magshooter1 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: August/27/2008
Location: El Dorado, AR
Status: Offline
Points: 730
You might check out the Nikon Monarch 2x8x32 if you'retrying to keep things lightweight.  Like others said the VX3 2.5x8x36 would be a very good choice.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2010 at 08:03
Folically Challenged View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: October/20/2008
Location: Hamiltucky, OH
Status: Offline
Points: 102
Originally posted by ILikeRugers ILikeRugers wrote:

I like the looks of the VXIII. Thanks.
So the glass is on par with my Elite 4200? I guess that is the only scope I can use to judge others by...

My eyes did notice a difference between the Conquest glass & the 4200, so I bought the former.  I haven't yet looked through a VX3, so I can't personally comment, though many folks have intimated that the VX3 is much closer (nearly equal) to the Conquest.

If it's about looks/weight, I'd have to go with the VX3, and I'd also opt for the 2.5-8 model over the 3.5-10.  I'd also suggest you look through a Vortex Viper 2-7, as they're compact, too, & awfully nice to look through.

Your problem, it seems, is having far too many good choices!

FC
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2010 at 08:07
biggreen747 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: October/16/2009
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 470
Actually he only has a few choices because he want's a silver body. Zeiss charges a premium for the silver finish, especially compared to what you can get a matte 3-9x40 Conquest for.

Edited by biggreen747 - January/29/2010 at 08:11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2010 at 08:53
JGRaider View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: February/06/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1431
AT $399 the 3-9x40 Conquest is a no brainer for me.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2010 at 09:04
John Barsness View Drop Down
Optics Optimist
Optics Optimist


Joined: January/27/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 785
As much as I like Conquests, I just can't see one on a Kimber 84--partly because I own a couple of 84's. It's not just the weight but the size of the 3-9x40, with its big eyepiece. It works fine on a standard-size rifle, but seems clunky to me on a lightweight rifle like the 84. For the same $399 you can get a 2.5-8x36 VX-3, a quarter-pound light and noticeably slimmer. But that's just me.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2010 at 17:18
bagderRed View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/17/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 159

I went through a similiar situation.  I went with a 2.5-8 VX3 to go on a Rem mtn rifle with walnut stock.  If it was all about the outside looks I would of stayed with the Leupy, the scope is really sharp looking on any smaller rifle.  But... I went hunting with the scope for a doe only season and the regular deer season this year.  The view is improved and very nice on the leupy but I had a big dislike of the crosshairs turning colors every which way I looked in regards to the sun/light.  If it would of made a regular pattern on the crosshairs maybe it wouldn't of bugged me so much.  I don't know, either way I decided to go with a Zeiss 2.5-8x32 after hunting season.  The Zeiss reticle will turn color in a few situations but not nearly as easy as the Leupy IMO and I prefer a z-plex over the Leupold duplex and like others have said the z-plex is one of the "blackest" reticles out there. The larger ocular isn't as funny looking as I thought it might be on a smallish rifle.  Now you can get a Zeiss 2.5-8x32 some places yet but you would be at the $399 mark right with the 3-9x40 or 2.5-8x36 VX3.  Tough call. I went with the look thru the scope in the end.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/29/2010 at 18:30
2 Samuel 22 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 59
I spent a long time comparing the Zeiss Conquest to the VX-3, VX-III and Nikon Monarch.  Optically, to me, the Conquest is simply brighter and crisper.  The reticle did wash out on the Leupolds under certain conditions, like bright light.  The Conquest reticles didn't exhibit this behavior.  The Zeiss is hard to beat for the value and quality, the lower price is just frosting.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: January/30/2010 at 00:14
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365
Originally posted by 2 Samuel 22 2 Samuel 22 wrote:

I spent a long time comparing the Zeiss Conquest to the VX-3, VX-III and Nikon Monarch.  Optically, to me, the Conquest is simply brighter and crisper.  The reticle did wash out on the Leupolds under certain conditions, like bright light.  The Conquest reticles didn't exhibit this behavior.  The Zeiss is hard to beat for the value and quality, the lower price is just frosting.
 
I've done the same thing and I didn't see a whole lot of differences between the Conquest and VX-3 in either day or night applications.  It seemed to me the Zeiss really hi-lighted the blue/green spectrum where as Leupold hilighted the brown/yellows.  I was comparing 4.5-14x50 to 8.5-25x50 both set at 10x.  I'd give the optical clarity edge to the Zeiss albeit, only by a slim margin.
 
I agree whole heartly about the reticles, the Zeiss's are very good.  One thing I didn't see mentioned that really favors Zeiss, IMO, is they have very constant eye relief thru the entire zoom range.  Leupold is OK, but definetly falls behind the Zeiss.
 
Out of courisoity, how does the VX-III compare to the Nikon Monarch?  I have a Monarch in 6-24x50 and its pretty clear up to around 18-20x and then it darkens/gets hazy.  Not a big problem unless its a bright day with plenty of Mirage (btn 20 & 24x).  IMO, the VX-3 is hands down brighter both opticality and clarity than the Nikon Monarch, day and night.
 
Jim  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 10:05
2 Samuel 22 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: January/08/2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 59
Jim, to me the Nikon Monarch seems clearer at lower magnification than the VX-III.  Turn up the magnification and they get a little closer, but the Monarch is still a little brighter and crisper at the edges.  The VX-3 is brighter than both but still not as clear as the Zeiss.  This was an informal side-by-side camparison at Gander, both 40 & 50mm obj. with clean lenses.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 11:08
TexasPhotog View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/22/2009
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 133
Originally posted by John Barsness John Barsness wrote:

As much as I like Conquests, I just can't see one on a Kimber 84--partly because I own a couple of 84's. It's not just the weight but the size of the 3-9x40, with its big eyepiece. It works fine on a standard-size rifle, but seems clunky to me on a lightweight rifle like the 84. For the same $399 you can get a 2.5-8x36 VX-3, a quarter-pound light and noticeably slimmer. But that's just me.


I agree.  I saw that similar set up at the range the other day - a fellow was shooting a Kimber Montana in .257 Roberts with a Leupold VX3 2.5-8x36 on it.  The scope complimented the rifle very nicely.  It was a very handy rig.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 12:49
YakAk View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: November/22/2009
Location: Alaska
Status: Offline
Points: 85
I never had much luck with Leupold and have always been left disappointed. This is my personal experience and maybe others have had better luck. I have one Conquest and for the money it has been a good scope.

Steve
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/02/2010 at 21:51
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365
Originally posted by 2 Samuel 22 2 Samuel 22 wrote:

Jim, to me the Nikon Monarch seems clearer at lower magnification than the VX-III.  Turn up the magnification and they get a little closer, but the Monarch is still a little brighter and crisper at the edges.  The VX-3 is brighter than both but still not as clear as the Zeiss.  This was an informal side-by-side camparison at Gander, both 40 & 50mm obj. with clean lenses.
 
Thanks, I appreciate the comparision.  I have a Vari-XIII and a VX-3 and there's a whole lot of difference between them.  I have two Zeiss's and I couldn't be happier with them, especially their contrasting reticles, second to none IMO.
 
Jim
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Zeiss Conquest or Leupold Ultralight?"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Zeiss Conquest Vs. Leupold VX III encorepete Rifle Scopes 4 8/3/2005 8:53:01 PM
zeiss conquest or Leupold VX-L dirt01 Rifle Scopes 9 6/28/2006 3:01:05 PM
Leupold Ultralight or Standard VXII Ruahine Rifle Scopes 1 4/11/2006 9:06:58 AM
Leupold 2x7x28mm Ultralight - Thoughts? gjw Rifle Scopes 6
Leupold Ultralights - Questions gjw Rifle Scopes 7
SOLD- NIB Leupold Ultralight VX-II 3-9x33- pics 55spartan Optics For Sale 3
leupold 2-7x28 ultralight 527varmint Rifle Scopes 3
Leupold Ultralight 3-9x33??? 340Wby Rifle Scopes 5
Leupold Ultralight Vs. Weaver Classic V chrome Rifle Scopes 1
Leupold 3x9 Ultralight Vs. VX-3 2.5x8 gjw Rifle Scopes 5


This page was generated in 0.467 seconds.