Rifle Scopes Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

[PJ3]

I am in the market for a new scope. How does the Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20 compare to the same power Leupold? I am interested in comparisons in glass and consistancy in adjustments and any other pros or cons anyone has. Also, can anyone with a Zeiss give me an opinion on the z series reticles.

Thanks.

 

[matt33]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

In my experience, Zeiss glass is better than Leupold. However, I had a MK4 6.5-20x which was a good scope for $1,100. The adjustments were true and the glass was pretty good. The Conquest line has pretty limited elevation range due to the 1" tube.

For a hunting rifle, the Zeiss Conquest is my scope of choice, but for a target/precision rifle, I'd get a premium 30mm (or greater) scope. I personally consider the MK4 to be the start of "premium" with NF and others being a step up from there. The new Vortex Viper PST's are supposed to be great for under $1k, but I have no experience with these.

 

[lennyo3034]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

I've only looked at the two in a store, but the Zeiss definitely had better glass. However the guy at the shop said the Zeiss utilized plastic internals and weren't that great. That is hearsay information as I've never owned either.

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

That guy needs to get a different job. It is Leupold that is drastically cheapening their scopes not Zeiss.

I would take a Zeiss, any grade, over any Leupold on the market today.

If you were to go back ten years when Leupold was still upholding the quality of it's name then I would say they are very reliable. They still do not have the glass quality of any Zeiss.

 

[Dionis]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

I had Zeiss 6.5 -20 and now have Leupold MK4 8.5-25 glass is very good in both scopes . Glass in Zeiss was a little bit brighter ... In the store i have look thru NXS, Zeiss Conquest, Mark 4
The reason i sold Zeiss - limited elevation adj. 45 moa and scope is designed for hunting i would never use it in comps.... , now i'm planning to sell Mark 4 -eye relief is changing when you trying to zoom in /out , small eye box, tunneling vision on lower power ( never had that problem with zeiss). I think Nightforce scope is the winner of the bunch, but expensive : (

 

[PJ3]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

How do these two scopes compare to the IOR's? Trying to stay in that price range ($800-$1100). I'm interested in the Nightforce but is just a little out of my spending comfort zone.

 

[OpticsPlanet]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

Hey PJ,

Going with the common point that the Conquest is a nice scope, Zeiss doesnt put out a bad scope. With that being said, for a higher magnification scope you are limited but the 1'' tube and lower Max adjustment. If you're zeroed in and shooting at pretty much the same distance all teh time, not too much of an issue. If you're shooting the gammit of 100 yards to 1000+, this will not be the way to go. I am a big fan of the mark 4 from Leupold. I used both the Conquest and Mark 4 and I favor the Mark 4. The 30mm tube should be a big factor in the decision. Now that the PST's have hit the market, I have been hearing pretty good feedback, but haven't shot one myself. This is personal preference though and everyone will have their own opinion so pick the top 2 or 3 features you definitely need in your new scope.

Trevor B
OpticsPlanet

 

[matchking]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I would take a Zeiss, any grade, over any Leupold on the market today.</div></div>
I would not, simply because I like to shoot over a few hundred yards, and the majority of the Conquest line has limited adjustment and reticle choices. If close range targets are your game, the Zeiss will probably serve you fine. Personally, the only Conquest I would buy is the 3-12x56 for a hunting rifle.

Now, if giving the choice of the two scopes the OP listed, I would definately take a Mark 4. Of course, with matching reticles/adjustments now available, I would take a Mark 4 over a NF too. Crazy isn't it?

 

[BCP]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PJ3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do these two scopes compare to the IOR's? Trying to stay in that price range ($800-$1100). I'm interested in the Nightforce but is just a little out of my spending comfort zone. </div></div>

Vortex PST or Sightron S3. PST are "Nightforce Lite" and Sightron S3 offers everything the SFP leupolds do with better glass. If you're interested in a PST 4-16 FFP Brownells is showing one in stock.

edit: if you go zeiss conquest get a 4-14, it'll do everything the 6-20 does while costing you a little less and having more adjustment.

 

[D_TROS]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

I have severeral leupolds and one zeiss 4-14. the zeiss is amazing. Shitty part is the elevation travel. i just put on a 30moa base (last week) and now have over 40 moa vertical travel as well as a custom zero stop (lucked out with my setup, it works almost perfect with my zero being at the bottom). I cant think of a range I would want to shoot where 40 moa is not enough to get there. and it tracks like a dream.

Zeiss is the way to go IMHO. that is if you ont want to go higher end than that. A used NXS is truly unbeatable though and there have been several good deals on here that is not much more than a new MK4.

Regards,
DT

 

[Opticsspecialist]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

i would go zeiss, the glass is better and i've found them to be rugged scopes. a customer of ours took a 3-9 to africa on a 375 h&h and bagged a cape buffalo with one. as long as you get the correct reticle with the rapid system, they work very well. as for leupold if your looking at a 30mm leupold other than the mk 4, your looking at a 1 inch erector tube. you get the adjustment of a 30mm tube scope, but not the performance or the magnification range.

a little more info on what you would like to do with your scope would help

 

[JSTARSZ]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

One thing you need to know about the Conquest is that they have very limited MOA adjustments in elevation - if I remember correctly it was around 45 MOA and you lose half of that when you zero at 100. The Leupold has more MOA adjustments that will get you further out in distance. Clarity in glass is not all that far apart as to cause me to not look seriously at the Leupold. I have had both scopes and I still have the Leupolds MK4 series so that is what won out for me.

 

[Icallem]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

FWIW;
I had a VXIII and still have a Zeiss, both in 6.5-20. I sold the VXIII as I could not count on it to return to zero every time. The Zeiss adjusts as I want it. I have had no dealings with the Mark 4, but I would consider it in another class due to tube size and MOA adjustment that is available. I have the Zeiss on my 7mag hunting rifle and I don’t think I am under scoped due to the limit of MOA adjustment. Depends on what you are going to do. As for the glass, I would have been hard pressed to have told the difference.

 

[wyobill]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

I recently purchased a leupold 8.5-25 and was supprised to find to my eye it has better resolution than my s3 6-24.I have not yet been able to check mechanical performance but my other mk4 4.5-14 and 6.5-20 track perfectly and always return to zero.My earlier scopes are not opticaly as good as this last one and they all have a little lash in the parallex knob.

 

[jimi]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

two things about the limits of the conquests internal adjustment.

if it is realy a concern, get a sloped base, they cost the same as flat bases. and if you want to shoot further than that can get you, well frankly, get a better scope than either of these.

also, if it is realllly a problem, look at the 4.5-14x50, they have more internal adjustment, 60 moa if i remember correctly? (may be wrong there)ill have to look at my literature with mine.

i have the 4.5-14 and it is one of the best scopes i have used and leaves leupold and their 20 year old tech in the dust.

im not saying leupolds are bad scopes in any way, i would still put one on a hunting rifle any day of the week, but compared to zeiss for the price, i think the only reason youd go leupold is nostalgia. but they do have YEARS of solid performance behind their name.

comparing my conquest side by side with leupolds, pentax, meopta, etc etc, i think they hodl their own and stand out.

jim

 

[marku]

Re: Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold

Ive got a Conquest 4.5-14x50 with target turrents. Zeiss way of figureing elevation is at center. So when it says it has 68" of adjustment that means it has 34" up and 34" down at 100 yards. On a Leupold when it says it has 38moa that mean when the scope is set at center it will adjust 38moa up. The glass on the Zeiss is much better, I still see that black tunnel around Leupold scopes. The adjustments are firm, but as of yet ive not used it yet. Im getting a 20moa base for it and calling it good. Id rather buy a 20moa base and get good glass. The scope is just as clear as my IOR but IOR uses Zeiss glass so optically its about the same.