Leupold vs Zeiss vs Bushnell

J

Joe Sixpack

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Location
Sask
Which would you choose for a .300 Win Mag, for a gun that will see bush hunting as well as long open prairie shots. Around the 6 to $800 range.

-Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40
-Leupold VXIII 3-9x40
-Bushnell Elite 6500 2.5-16x42

Am I missing another good scope in that pricerange?

Looked at them all at the local gun store, and to be honest, the Bushnell looked really good compared to the other 2. But I really would like to hear from you guys who have used some of these at low light and as far as durability, etc.
 
There is no VXIII 3x9x40,but there is a VXIII 3.5x10x40.Both the Elite 6500 and the Conquest offer constant eye relief,while the Leupold does not.The Elite is the heaviest scope,and the Leupold the lightest.I find the Conquest and the Elite brighter in low light than the VXIII.Leupold has a great reputation for warranty and service,as does Zeiss with Bushnell last.My own choice would be the Conquest.
 
Cant really go wrong with any of the choices. The best thing to do is to go and look through them all and make your determination that way.
 
I'd go Zeiss as well...i don't think the Bushnell has better glass than the Leupold...mind you i'm going off a 4200 series..but i heard the glass is similar..either the ziess or leupold.
 
Thanks for the corrrection on the Leupold. A couple ounces differences per scope, I don't think I really care about that too much. My main thing is good light transmission and durability that can handle the magnum for a lot of years to come. I do like that the Bushnell goes all the way down to 2.5 and up to 16, pretty much covers every hunting situation. And just taking them outside the gun store and looking down the street, the optics on the Bushnell compared really well, I'd say as good or better than the Leo and on par with the Zeiss, but I don't know. The guy at the store suggested the Bushnell might gather a bit more light because of the slightly bigger objective lens and 30mm tube.

The gun I ordered will take a while to get here, so I have a while to kick around the options. So keep the opinions coming guys! I value the opinions of you all on here, alot of you have used or seen all of these. I've only ever hunted with 1 scope on my hunting rifle, a fixed 4 power S&B, other than my cheapo Bushnells on my varmint guns. Want to buy a good durable scope for this one, it's going to be my go-to gun for everything for a lotta years.
 
Last edited:
The guy at the store suggested the Bushnell might gather a bit more light because of the slightly bigger objective lens and 30mm tube.
Click to expand...

Just so you know,the larger 30mm lens will offer no advantage as far as light transmission is concerned.
 
Joe Sixpack said:
Interesting. So what is the benefit of a larger tube, if any?
Click to expand...

One of the benefits of the larger tube is that it allows the greater zoom range. You are pretty well limited to 3-3.5x on a one-inch tube but can go to 6x on a 30mm tube. That's why the big range on the Bushnell. Swarovski got that ball rolling two years ago and many have jumped on board.
 
The larger tube allows more internal adjustment,and a slightly stronger tube.The increased internal adjustment is most important to the long range shooters.
 
Last edited:
The second advantage that 30mm scopes have is that the larger internal optics offer superior optical quality. While this obviously varies with manufacturers, the larger surfaces provide superior image detail and in many cases, superior light transmission in low light. While a 30mm tube is no guarantee of better light transmission, the larger internal optics do allow for this on the higher end glass and the better manufacturers do deliver.
 
Usually it’s for more internal adjustment when shooting long distance. I had the Leupold Euro 3-9 x 50 mm c/w the 30 mm tube and found no advantage as for low light conditions compared to some other scopes I had...
 
Don't assume that all scope manufacturers even use larger internals in their 30mm tubes.Many use 1" internal lenses that offer no advantage at all.Light transmission is a result of the combination of exit pupil,lens quality, the number of lenses and the quality of the lens coatings.
 
Last edited:
stubblejumper said:
Don't assume that all scope manufacturers even use larger internals in their 30mm tubes.Many use 1" internal lenses that offer no advantage at all.Light transmission is a result of the combination of exit pupil,lens quality, the number of lenses and the quality of the lens coatings.
Click to expand...

And as I said, the higher end glass delivers but you are right with some of the lower end 30mm tubes there is no advantage.
 
The link below offers more information,some of which is from an actual qualified optics expert that goes by the user name Koshkin.I will trust his expertise,since I am by no means an optic expert.

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1696&KW=exit+pupil

This is from one of his posts at the link posted.
If we are talking about the difference between 30mm and 1 inch tube scopes and assume that optical quality is identical there is no difference whatsoever in light transmission. I may not have as much experience with different high end scopes as many other people here, but I do have a pretty decent idea of how an optical system works due to my background: I have a degree in applied physics specializing in optics from Caltech and I work with optoelectronic devices for Raytheon (lately, next generation night vision weaponsights and goggles).

I've seen a lot of passionate arguments on this here and on other forums. People keep on referring to this as an opinion, but it really isn't. It is a cold, hard scientific fact: with the same objective size, same optical quality and same number of lens surfaces, in absense of vignetting (non-issue for rifle scopes), 30mm and 1 inch maintube scopes will have identical light
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
stubblejumper said:
The link below offers more information,some of which is from an actual qualified optics expert that goes by the user name Koshkin.I will trust his expertise,since I am by no means an optic expert.

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1696&KW=exit+pupil

This is from one of his posts at the link posted.
Click to expand...

Yup, optical quality is the key word there.....the larger tube allows for the use of higher quality but no guarantee that all companies do it....in fact most don't. I've spent a fait bit of time with some real experts from Swaro and they shed a lot of light on this subject for me but yup....what your expert says pretty well mirrors what they said.
 
I would go with the Zeiss...imo they are the clearest in low light situation out of the three scopes. As most hunters would know that the best time to spot games is at dawn and dust. Of all the scopes on my rifles, the Conquest is my favorite.
 
Zeiss Conquest,
For all of the reaons mentioned allready.

Plus..... Reticle choice. The new Rapid Z reticles for the Zeiss Conquest are excellent. The biggest flaw with the Elite 6500 is the crappy reticle and lack of choices. Plus it looks like a dressed up Tasco. The optics looked good but I haven't tested it out in low light.

As other's have said the low light use with the Conquest is excellent.

Leupold are good too. But the current price point puts the Conquest at the almost the exact same amount. No contest at the same price point.

The big difference between the Leupold and the Conquest: Lash error with the side parrallex adjustment on the Leupold and I believe the reticle is still wire. The Conquest doesn't have the error with it's side focus, and the reticles are etched, not wire.

Also check the optics page on the 6mm bench rest site. They have a good write up.
 
I would have to say go with the 3.5-10x 40 Leupold. Its going to be plenty bright till legal shooting time ends, has a bit more magnifacation and the warranty is steller. I never thought a good warranty would be worth the price spent till I owned Bushnell and will never buy a scope unless its warranty is as good or better the Leupold. Leupold also has the lifetime transferble warranty which is a big time selling point if you decide to sell, Im not sure if Zeiss does, Bushnell sure as hell does not.

I sent a Leupold Vari-X 2 in for a check up, I thought the reticle was shifting and from the time I sent it, was looked at and sent back was 5 days to my door. These guys don't fck around with your time.

Ive also had a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40, never had a problem and was a super scope but I doubt it would have the warranty repair/return to customer rate as well as the friendly customer service like Korths.

Good luck!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom