leupold Vs zeiss (again)

I have owned and used Vx-I's, Vx-II's, and Vx-III's, Elite 4200's, Elite 3200's, Conquests, several different Burris models, and a few Conquests. I've never found the Leupolds to be particularly better than a comparable Bushnell or Burris. In fact, I find the optics of the Bushnell Elite series and Burris Eurodiamond to be preferable, at least to my eye. As far as any comparison to the Conquest, I prefer the Zeiss over the others.

But, I have recently looked at several higher-end scopes, including Kahles, Zeiss, and Swarovski. I have to say, there is an entirely new world out there for those willing to shell out the extra coin.
 
I briefly owned a Zeiss Conquest and liked it alot better the the Leupolds. If you do your research and talk with owners of both 99% will go to the Zeiss over Leupold.
Leupold has great marketing and has fooled alot of hunters to think they are the best, far cry from it.
 
PeterPan said:
Comparing Zeiss and Leupold is like comparing Cadillac to Mercedes.
What would you like to drive?
Myself,
I can't stand Leupold. They are not as good as people think.
In official tests they loose to Nikon, and Elite4200 and some Burris series in many aspects.
I wish, I have that test done in Germany, where Nikon came almost first.
Zeiss gives you quality and good optics, nice and bright and sharp view.
I like the cross/reticle job in Zeiss scopes and constant eye relief.
Also, when Zeiss states magnification 3-9 or 1.8-5.5, mean it, not like Leupold 2.5-8, which actually is 2.7-7.7
In my book Zeiss and Swarovski maybe bit expensive but they come with quality not known to Leupold.
Click to expand...

Ask the top names in rifle builders what the will put on rifles over .40, Echols=Leupold, Jarret=Leupold, Sisk=Leupold, Bansner=Leupold, etc, etc.
The next scope in line for durability is Burris. I like the Euro stuff, but a VX-II does everything a North American hunter needs.

stubblejumper said:
Exactly as I suspected.
And why do you suppose that is?Could it be that many more people have experience with having leupolds repaired?How many people on this forum have even sent a zeiss out for repair?
Click to expand...

Actually Leupold has one fella working in the repair shop for all of Canada and he only works two days a week. The majority of his 'repairs' are alterations requested by customers (target turrets, reticle changes, etc). Leupold is a great product, and so is Zeiss. Why is this an issue?
 
rem338win said:
Leupold is a great product, and so is Zeiss. Why is this an issue?
Click to expand...

because the Leupold camp often won;t accept the fact that there are scopes with better optics, and the Zeiss/Swaro/B&L camp won;t accept the fact that there are scopes that are lighter and more compact.

Myself, I am firmly in the camp that believes that a scope is a straight up aiming device, and will sacrifice some optical performance for light weight and lots of eye relief.

Before you state one or the other is 'best', you need to define 'best'. Heck, to some people, cheapest is 'best'.
 
rem338.
we do all respect,
a lot of those guys who build rifles are from times where no many hunters were buying euro optics, also Nikon was known for decent cameras but not for hunting, choice was so simple - Leupold, maybe Weaver or Redfield.
In my range all guys who got some $$$$ to spend and have nice custom rigs have Leupolds on them and we get into debates about European optics.
Those guys not only know nothing about Zeiss or Swarovski, which they claim will not withstand heavy recoil :), they know very little about their 1300 dollars Leupold scope.

Ya, Leupold are not bad, prices for them are :)))

rgv,
very valid point.
Define what is "best', however we talk only about Leupold vs. Zeiss, knot American against Germ-Austrian optics.
I think we should buy scope for a task and use more money then we actually want to spend.
When I was buying my first rifle in Canada, I had very little money and remember when it came to pick scope, I was hesitating between 200 or 300 dollars scope, but at the end went with 400 bucks B&L4000.
 
Last edited:
and the Zeiss/Swaro/B&L camp won;t accept the fact that there are scopes that are lighter and more compact.
Click to expand...

Actually the 3x10x42 swarovski av is lighter and shorter than the leupold vxIII 3.5x10x40.The swarovski 3x9x36 av is lighter and shorter than the leupold vxII 3x9x40.
 
stubblejumper said:
Actually the 3x10x42 swarovski av is lighter and shorter than the leupold vxIII 3.5x10x40.The swarovski 3x9x36 av is lighter and shorter than the leupold vxII 3x9x40.
Click to expand...

They are by a small margin. I really like the 3-9x36 AV, but why would I spend 3 times as much for 2-3% margins in improvement? I used to encourage Swarovski and Kahles (Zeiss is overpriced in comparison to them,, before the Conquest came out), as they are nice scopes, but for myself, the tests have shown that Leupolds and Burris are 'tougher' than the Euros (sacrifices where made to make clarity and brightness the bigger issue, and that is okay, the majority of their clients can hunt at night). I think that the big brightness and clarity bargian now day is the Nkon Monarch series. Apparently when they were tested in Austria (now I read this in an independant magazine) the 6x42 (1") score equal with the Swarovski 6x42 (30mm) in broghtness (95%) and clarity. I really like that scope and have it in my mind to pick one up some time this fall.
 
Test on scopes are made all over Europe, I have seen some made by German optics magazines, some by Norwegian magazines ans some by Austrian.
The only independent test was ever done to my knowledge in Germany years back and Leupold finished in every category at end of the list.

My advice is take a Leupold scope and Zeiss or Swar and look through that scope or binos and draw your own conclusion.

Yes Nikon is on the raise, however have problems with overall quality of the scope.
 
I have a couple of Nikon Monarch's as well a 4x12x40 on my 223 and a 6x42 on my Kimber 308. I prefer the 6x42 to the 4x12, they are very bright and clear, but somewhat sensitive to eye relief and eye position.
 
the tests have shown that Leupolds and Burris are 'tougher' than the Euros
Click to expand...

My swarovski scopes have been through very harsh conditions including several horseback hunts,boat hunts,and extreme weather,and none have ever failed me in any way.On the other hand,I have seen a Burris fail to hold zero.
 
rem338win said:
Actually Leupold has one fella working in the repair shop for all of Canada and he only works two days a week. The majority of his 'repairs' are alterations requested by customers (target turrets, reticle changes, etc). Leupold is a great product, and so is Zeiss. Why is this an issue?
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty good point..I damaged a Leupold, sent it to Korht, and it returned less than 10 days later, fixed and wiht a target turret installed as I requested.

From the amount of Leupolds in Canada, if they were breaking all the time, I should have to wait a few months!:p
 
Over 35 years of using Leupold's in the family and never a service required. I can think of over nine different scopes the oldest 35 years old and still being hunted a 4x. 6 variables the rest fixed. All standard duplex. A couple compacts that are 25 years old. All hunting guns no safe queens or target rifles.
Truck,boat,quad,bike,horse,and back....never a problem and I am proud to say no anal retentive tendency's in this family....most look like they have been used.
I won't hunt with anything but a Leupold and with 35 year of personal observation and experience using them. I'd be nuts to try something else wouldn't I??????
 
Last edited:
Are there better scopes than Leupold? Yes. Are they worth the extra coin? You be the judge of that.
Click to expand...

Exactly.And to me that extra little bit of clarity and brightness at first and last light just may be the deciding factor in whether I take a shot or pass.I have passed on two shots in my life while using a leupold varix III,that I may have taken with one of my Swarovski scopes.To someone else passing up a shot or two might be worth saving a bit of money.
 
The big reason I buy Conquests is the value. I love the reticles and eye relief etc, but I buy them either slightly used or out ofthe US and they are cheaper than a VX11 3x9x40.
 
It is worth noting that the type of hunting you're doing also dictates what kind of glass quality you need. I can't make a comment from experience, but I'm told that when sheep hunting, you need the quality glass to tell if you're looking at a rock or a sheep.
 
Dustin said:
but I'm told that when sheep hunting, you need the quality glass to tell if you're looking at a rock or a sheep.
Click to expand...

thats where good binoculars and spotting scopes come into play - a total new topic altogether :) riflescopes are for shooting stuff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom