Using a Conquest 3-9x40 on my Finnlight 7mm-08 with the Leuplod low rings. Can still see clearly well past legal light and have taken a deer just before last light. I don't see the extra costs of the 50mm objective or larger magnification ranges to be worth the money, but that's just me. Since the 40mm gathers plenty of light, the only real advantage I can see with a larger objective is a wider field of view.
Zeiss Conquest vs Leupold VX-II?
- Thread starter linderhof
- Start date
A large objective lens has SFA to do with FOV.
You can manipulate FOV by changeing eye relief and/or magnification. I'd say you missed the eye-relief.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
The hvy duplex on the Leupold is a bit thicker, too thick for my liking. The Zeiss is about perfect, IMO.
eberlestock
Member
- Location
- Kamloops. BC
The conquest is a step up from the vari x 3. The 3x9 is a great buy price wise.
I had a Vxiii 2.5-8 on my Tikka 6.5x55. It was a nice scope, but now I have a 3.5-10x44 conquest. To my eye, the Zeiss is superior. It makes me feel like I have an unfair advantage when I'm hunting with it. The Z600 reticle is easy to use.
I'ver got a boatload of Leupolds and a couple of Zeiss scopes, and I agree with most here that the Conquests are probably a bit better optically. Having said that, just how long are you going to be staring through that scope? It isn't a binocular, designed and used for extended glassing. It's a rifle sight, and for that purpose either one gives you performance far exceeding what you need for any shot taken during legal shooting hours. To me, the big advantage here goes to Leupold because of warranty work. I've sent several Leupolds out for service over the years. In every case, the work was done at no charge to me, and the scopes were back in my hands in short order, no more than a couple of weeks at most. The one time that I sent a set of Zeiss binocs in for service, the work was excellent...but the binoculars were out of my hands for several months. Leupold for the win.
What makes it a step down?
Perhaps you had the Leupold focused more accurately. It's pretty plain and clear, the glass in the Conquest is better, not really subject to opinion.
- Location
- Prince Albert, Sk
What is wrong with a 50mm objective?
Personally I have compared a 44mm vs 50mm Conquest.Side by side, all hours of the day.There is a very noticeable difference to my eyes.
The view through the scope is totally based on the person, this is one area where you have to see for yourself if you like the difference and if the size(physical) is justifiable for your situation.
Everybody nit picks about size and weight, a couple ounces and a whopping 6mm or (10mm if a 40mm objective) difference in diameter.
Remember that quality of glass makes a difference as well.A Tasco on 12X on a 500 yards away target is going to look a lot different than through a Conquest set on 12X at the same distance.
My personal preference now is the 50mm on my equipment and will continue to be such, but again this is my personal preference.Next to try will be a 56mm.
Personally I have compared a 44mm vs 50mm Conquest.Side by side, all hours of the day.There is a very noticeable difference to my eyes.
The view through the scope is totally based on the person, this is one area where you have to see for yourself if you like the difference and if the size(physical) is justifiable for your situation.
Everybody nit picks about size and weight, a couple ounces and a whopping 6mm or (10mm if a 40mm objective) difference in diameter.
Remember that quality of glass makes a difference as well.A Tasco on 12X on a 500 yards away target is going to look a lot different than through a Conquest set on 12X at the same distance.
My personal preference now is the 50mm on my equipment and will continue to be such, but again this is my personal preference.Next to try will be a 56mm.
I have been sporting the 50 mm lense on a couple rigs as well.
Works for my eyes better on the longer shots.
My dominant eye is not up to snuff as it's partner.
I don't mind the bulk either.
Different feet wear different shoes............
Works for my eyes better on the longer shots.
My dominant eye is not up to snuff as it's partner.
I don't mind the bulk either.
Different feet wear different shoes............
What do you think of your VX-II with the LR recticle?
IMO a 50mm or bigger objective is only useful on scopes with higher magnification. Not needed on a 3-9, manufacturing gimmick to get more $$. Your pupil will only allow so much light through anyway, that being said as our eyes get worse with age than it may become necessary to use the bigger objectives to make up for vision loss.
