Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
ZEISS CONQUEST OR VX3 ????????? |
Post Reply |
Author | |
ALACRANESTEPARIO
Optics GrassHopper Joined: July/30/2009 Location: SPAIN Status: Offline Points: 20 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: September/14/2009 at 09:44 |
Which is better for hunting at night ?
zeiis conquest is 200 $ more expensive , is it worth or not ? Of course we're talking about the same objetive ( 56 mm) and the same power (8x) |
|
Fuerza y Honor .
|
|
danjojoUSMC
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/20/2009 Location: NE Ohio Status: Offline Points: 329 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
No VX3 made with a 56mm objective unless you want a VX-3L with the Light Optimization profile that looks goofy. |
|
Roy Finn
MODERATOR Steiner Junkie Joined: April/05/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4856 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You are being kind when you say it looks goofy.
|
|
Acenturian
Optics Journeyman Joined: September/07/2004 Status: Offline Points: 543 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ok,,,I had to re-read the post so it is going to be used at night. I was at first thinking "why would you want to lug around a 56mm objective" but ok for night hunting.
Personally, I love the Conquest scopes I think they offer great performance for their price range. I have never compared a 56mm objective model but I will say in a standard 40mm objective the Zeiss has the Leupold beat in terms of light gathering.
Again personal preference but I don't like the cresent moon shaped lens of the Leupold but that is a personal thing. Leupold still makes a fine hunting scope, and I would have no problem putting one on a rifle. If I could only afford the Leupold, then no doubt I'd buy it and still have a nice scope. BUT, if I could afford to spend the extra money on the Zeiss then definitly the Zeiss.
|
|
If You're In A Fair Fight, You Didn't Plan It Properly
- Anonymous |
|
danjojoUSMC
Optics Journeyman Joined: August/20/2009 Location: NE Ohio Status: Offline Points: 329 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
For the same price of a 3.5-10x50 Leupold VX3 you can get a Meopta Meostar 3-10x50 that is supposed to have as good or better brightness, clarity, etc. as the Conquest scopes (since they make Conquest lenses) but people say not so good eye relief.
Would probably be great if you don't have a recoil monster of a rifle and you can get a Meopta with illuminated reticle, but not a Conquest.
It's nice all Meopta stuff is actually made by Meopta as well. It seems like most companies are not that way.
Can you get the Trijicon Accupoint 2.5-10x56 over there in Spain?
|
|
tjtjwdad
Optics Journeyman Joined: December/11/2007 Status: Offline Points: 365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I didn't know Zeiss made a 40mm objective in the Conquest line but when a Zeiss Conquest and a Leupold VX-3 (not a VX-III or VARI X-III) are put side by side they are pretty darn close in clarity, brightness and resolution.
A 56mm vs a 50 is probably brighter still. I don't care for that half-moon look either but it does allow for a large objective to get closer to the barrel as long as the stock configuration allows it.
Another + for Leupold is the will swap reticles for you. Zeiss however has vey good contrasting reticles which is a + in the dark. Zeiss also (IMO) has better eye relief thru the whole zoom range.
HTH,
|
|
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The VX-3 supposedly has a new coating for low light, but coatings are limited by the quality of glass they are on. Go for the Ziess, I have yet to own a Luepy that was a strong low light performer.
|
|
Randall45
Optics Apprentice Joined: June/25/2009 Status: Offline Points: 284 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The new VX3 is as good as the Conquest.Leupold has always been weak on low light but the new VX3 has better coatings on the lens.
|
|
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
|
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have to humbley disagree, better coating on fair quality glass may make them better, but it's still not great glass. You can put a new paint job on an old truck, but it's still an old truck..... |
|
tjtjwdad
Optics Journeyman Joined: December/11/2007 Status: Offline Points: 365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It was hard for me to tell them apart in low light, Zeiss colors seem to be a tad cooler where Leupolds is a tad warmer. In the reticle department for low light, definetly a Zeiss.
|
|
PaulD
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/01/2009 Location: Alaska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Any more input from members that own both? I own a Zeiss Conquest so this comparison to the new VX3 has some meaning for me. I'm wondering if Leupold has finally installed some glass in their VX3s equal to the Zeiss Conquest line of scopes.
|
|
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I don't own both, but friends do and I have compared both in the field. The VX3 does not have upgraded glass, just upgraded coating and erector. Like I have said before, good coating can improve good glass performance, but they don't magically make good glass great glass. Coating aside, Zeiss still has better quality glass.
|
|
Horsemany
Optics Journeyman Joined: February/28/2008 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 643 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I own both but don't actually see a big difference between the two. In some conditions the Conquest has noticeably better optics, darker laser etched reticle etc. THe VX3's are lighter, smaller, very durable and look good. VX3's are often cheaper than the Conquest alternative. I like mine equal.....no favorite child.
|
|
tjtjwdad
Optics Journeyman Joined: December/11/2007 Status: Offline Points: 365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Pretty much sums it up for me as well...
|
|
PaulD
Optics GrassHopper Joined: October/01/2009 Location: Alaska Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks for the posts. I'll probably put one toe in the water with a VX-3 4.5-14 LR.
|
|
Palehorse
Optics Apprentice Joined: October/16/2008 Status: Offline Points: 135 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have used both in twilight conditions, a 3-9x40mm Zeiss, and 2 VX-3s, a 2.5-8x36mm and a 3.5-10x40mm. Since they were not mine, I did not tweak them at all, but I am just glad the VX-3's belonged to someone else; it was no contest as to which one I would buy, the Conquest.
|
|
Dale Clifford
Optics Jedi Knight Joined: July/04/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5087 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
new leos have new glass same as the vl or extended twilight , leo has far better turret system than the zeiss and more choice of reticle. have and use both,--- leo is at least as good as a conquest (its all subjective) conquest has shorter and sometimes more difficult mounting distance from turret to rear, and on some models the ocular wobbles. conquest offers no ill. reticle option which are a great aid in lower light conditions.
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |