Leupold Mark 4HD vs Zeiss conquest V4

[Quackaddict]

After a long time away from the sport, I’ve now come back to shooting and have been reinvigorated to do some projects I’ve been meaning to for quite a while.

I have an Anschutz 1517 MPR in 17HMR that I use for zapping all manner of small pests, it current wears a Bushnell 4200 6-24. Id like to replace the scope with something a bit more forgiving eyebox wise, I’d also like something with a bit more field of view.

I have a Mark 5 3.6 -18 on a 6.5 Prc hunting gun that I enjoy, so when I heard the Mark 4HD shared the same glass quality I assumed I would buy on of those. I started looking and found some pretty solid deals on the Zeiss conquest v4s in 6-24.

From what I can see it’s sort of a horse a piece, but I have read a bunch on each and haven’t found a clear winner. People like the glass quality on Zeiss but complain about high power optical quality and a tough eye box at higher magnifications. The leupold appears to have good reviews but it’s new so not loads and loads of reviews to parse through.

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

 

[FuhQ]

I really like the Zeiss V4's... I run the 6-24x50's on quite a few of my hunting rifles. My last Leupold scope got stolen in 2008, and I never replaced it, and haven't looked back since. Zeiss optics are superior in literally every way.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Zeiss like all companies have a spectrum of glass. Some are worse than Leupold flagships and some are better. The price doesn't lie.

IMO the MK4HD is the best sub $1500 optic out there. In fact, the MK5HD is not worth the price increase over it. The only real drawback is a smaller FOV.

The Chinese and Japanese Zeiss do not compare to the high end German stuff. The same way a Chinese vortex doesn't compete to a gen 3 razor.

 

[longshot2000]

I like Zeiss alot. Not so much the Conquest. The Leupold Mark 4HD is a good investment in quality glass. It is basically a Mark 5HD, without all the battle hardened toughness.

 

[FuhQ]

I like Zeiss alot. Not so much the Conquest. The Leupold Mark 4HD is a good investment in quality glass. It is basically a Mark 5HD, without all the battle hardened toughness.

These new V series Conquests are not the same as the shitty 2010’s Conquests, that came about after the awesome MC series, but before these new LOW-built V’s. It’s a whole different animal. That in-between series was trash.

Most people looked through those shitty Conquests and formed a life-long bias. It’s a shame, but every company makes stupid production choices on occasion… The Vortex Diamondback comes to mind, Ford making the EcoPOOst, Ford and the PSD 6.0, the newer Dodge Chargers, Savage, Weatherby, and Leopold…As a whole.

 

[BCP]

I have an Anschutz 1517 MPR in 17HMR that I use for zapping all manner of small pests, it current wears a Bushnell 4200 6-24. Id like to replace the scope with something a bit more forgiving eyebox wise, I’d also like something with a bit more field of view.

The leupold 4-18 has a larger main tube and objective so it would have a larger exit pupil at max power, yes the glass quality is very good too

That Zeiss V4 made in Japan has similar glass quality it would be hard to tell them apart optically

 

[Quackaddict]

The leupold 4-18 has a larger main tube and objective so it would have a larger exit pupil at max power, yes the glass quality is very good too

That Zeiss V4 made in Japan has similar glass quality it would be hard to tell them apart optically

It would be hard to tell the v4 from the Mark 4 is what I assume you’re saying?

For clarity I would be looking at a 6-24 for either brand.

I see midway has Gen 2 PSTs for 660 this morning… not super money conscious on this rifle but that seems like a good deal on comparable glass.

 

[BCP]

It would be hard to tell the v4 from the Mark 4 is what I assume you’re saying?

For clarity I would be looking at a 6-24 for either brand.

I see midway has Gen 2 PSTs for 660 this morning… not super money conscious on this rifle but that seems like a good deal on comparable glass.

The 3-15 pst2 is better imho

 

[Quackaddict]

The 3-15 pst2 is better imho

Would you say the same about the 5-25?

 

[BCP]

yeah I have a 5-25 moa and it’s OK but the 3-15 is easier to get behind and has a little better image quality imho

 

[5RWill]

I haven't been behind a MK4HD admittedly but have owned MK5s and had a Zeiss V6 3-18. I always felt like the V6 was a little underwhelming. Weight and form factor were great but the resolution in low light was just not quite as good as my MK5, or dare I even say the pair of our NXS 3.5-15 we picked up. Parallax was also pretty finicky given the 6x erector in the ultra-short package. I just never felt like the V6 commanded the price Zeiss was asking for. I love Zeiss have used them for years, but just at the end of the day after owning that optic for years just wasn't overly impressed with it for nearly a $2000 optic. I would go MK4 over the V4 and not remotely question it, feature set alone would steer me towards leupold. That was the other incredible irritation with Zeiss was MOA, plane jane hunting reticles, and tiny non locking turrets. Would love if hey offered their Euro versions in the US. I'm aware arguing in favor of leupold for their reticle selection is extremely ironic.

 

[FuhQ]

It would be hard to tell the v4 from the Mark 4 is what I assume you’re saying?

For clarity I would be looking at a 6-24 for either brand.

I see midway has Gen 2 PSTs for 660 this morning… not super money conscious on this rifle but that seems like a good deal on comparable glass.

The new Vortex Viper HD has better glass than the PST II's that I've looked through. I have one of the Viper HD 5-25x50 FFP models. Really nice scope for the money.