Leupold vs Zeiss vs Bushnell

I've had all three (well the 4200) and the Zeiss conquest is the my fav hands down. I am currently running two of them including one on my 300 winny. That scope has been on about 6 different rifles and except for some ring marks it's perfect, adjustments are bang on, very good in lowlight and the base reticle is just much better for me that the standard duplex on the leupold. The constant eye relief is a big dela on a hard kicker, nothing starts a flinch more than a bloddy nose/forehead.

The only downside is a large eye piece which can get in the way on some kinds of mounts, for example Sako Optiloks and talley lightweights.
 
I'll add one more, the VXIII or VX3 however it is now designated in the 2.5-8, light, compact, excellent eye relief, as bright as any of them, excellent warranty, but you probably will never need it. This is my choice for all around hunting scope on a flat shooter, unless you are seriously looking to shoot at say over 5-600 yds. My second choice would be the Zeiss.
 
303carbine said:
If you have the cash then go for the best you can get.
Click to expand...

Cash really isn't an issue, they're all about the same price. The guys at the gun store keep telling me there isn't a better scope in that price range than the 6500($700-$800). I told them I want the best one in that range, they both said the 6500, no questions asked.
 
Joe Sixpack said:
Cash really isn't an issue, they're all about the same price. The guys at the gun store keep telling me there isn't a better scope in that price range than the 6500($700-$800). I told them I want the best one in that range, they both said the 6500, no questions asked.
Click to expand...

I think the responses have shown that a lot of us disagree with the statement the guys at the store told you.
Check them all out in person and take them outside. Preferably on a dull day or near dusk.
 
My serious hunting rifles wear Leupolds. I have a Leupold VariX III 2.5-8x36 on my .338WM for example. It handles recoil and horse scabbards well, has more than enough eye relief and the best warrenty in the business. I've had warrenty issues with Bushnell and they have failed miserably. The only Ziess I'd own is the Germany manufactured models that some of the older hunters I've known have (personal reasons) and not sure about their warrenty and turn-around time. Leupold delivers, you can bank on that.
 
I took them all outside, tried bright light, then closer to dawn. I went back to the shop on many occasions wanting to find a reason to put a Leopold on my rifle, and each time I went back I went for the 6500 first, I wanted to put a nice scope on my new rifle and I had a hard time getting over the fact that the Bushnell was not only performing better than the rest but it was performing significantly better. You are always going to run in to people who put the 6500 in the same league as Bushnell's lesser scopes, do yourself a favor and spend some time reading on the Internet, you will continually come across two people, ones who own and love the 6500 and those who think Leopold has great customer service. I think there was a time when Leopold made a great reliable scope, but it seems those days are coming to an end.
I liked the Zeiss, but found the crosshairs in the one they had to be a bit heavy for the varmint gun I was looking to compliment.
My 6500 has been well used now, spent hours in the rain, tossed in the back of my truck and is performing perfectly. If you do any hunting/shooting in the rain the "Rainguard" on these things will amaze you, I take mine out on cold wet mornings just to breath on the lenses, can't make them fog if I try to. That feature alone puts this scope's value well above the others in my opinion. Don't even get me started on the side focus.
Decide what is best for you and your eyes, I spent a lot of time in the position you are in, no regrets.
 
The reticle choices on the Zeiss Conquest weren't very good until recently. The rapid Z varmint reticle is very nice. I also like the 1000 yard Rapid Z for my .308 rifles. However the 1000 yard one is just on the verge of being too thick. It just makes it. Still excellent reticles. Which wasn't always the case.

PYD,
Good review.

I also tested the 6500. What I found was the glass was very good. Not better than the Zeiss or Leupold though. Also I was cautious of a slight amber hue which makes things seem brighter than they really are. It's sort of like wearing Serenghetti sunglasses. The contrast is increased, however the colour rendition is wrong. I found with the Zeiss Conquest the contrast was good due to the quality of the glass and the colour was fairly plain. It seemed like a truer representation of the true colour to me. The Leupold seemed a bit warmer in colour. I wasn't sure if this was again a slight contrast trick.

The rainguard is a good point. I don't really hunt so it's not something I would have thought off.
 
Pyd said:
I took them all outside, tried bright light, then closer to dawn. I went back to the shop on many occasions wanting to find a reason to put a Leopold on my rifle, and each time I went back I went for the 6500 first, I wanted to put a nice scope on my new rifle and I had a hard time getting over the fact that the Bushnell was not only performing better than the rest but it was performing significantly better. You are always going to run in to people who put the 6500 in the same league as Bushnell's lesser scopes, do yourself a favor and spend some time reading on the Internet, you will continually come across two people, ones who own and love the 6500 and those who think Leopold has great customer service. I think there was a time when Leopold made a great reliable scope, but it seems those days are coming to an end.
I liked the Zeiss, but found the crosshairs in the one they had to be a bit heavy for the varmint gun I was looking to compliment.
My 6500 has been well used now, spent hours in the rain, tossed in the back of my truck and is performing perfectly. If you do any hunting/shooting in the rain the "Rainguard" on these things will amaze you, I take mine out on cold wet mornings just to breath on the lenses, can't make them fog if I try to. That feature alone puts this scope's value well above the others in my opinion. Don't even get me started on the side focus.
Decide what is best for you and your eyes, I spent a lot of time in the position you are in, no regrets.
Click to expand...


Well said. Like I said, I looked through all of them and am trying to convince myself that I was maybe wrong in that the 6500 looked the best. I haven't owned or even looked through many scopes, but to my eyes, the Bushnell looked the best, and with the super low power for the bush and higher power for the long shots, I kinda agreed with what the guys at the store said, that there isn't a better scope within a couple hundred bucks.

As stupid as it sounds to some of you guys, it really doesn't matter to me if it takes 6 months to get a scope back from repair...I'll use this gun for moose, mulie and whitetail in October and November and it won't likely get used again until a month before the next October. If I had a problem, Leupold or zeiss probably wouldn't get it back to me in time for the rest of the season anyway, so 3 weeks or 6 months, it doesn't matter.

I really do value the opinion of you guys though, 99.9% of you have owned more scopes than I have. Thanks for all the replies. I pick up the gun Friday and have told them I'm going with the 6500 unless they happen to show me something better when I pick it up.
 
Only Rifles I put Bushnells on are my Rimfires, cause I have so many if one screws up, I just swap one off another rimfire for the time being, while I wait, and wait, and wait for Bushnell to repair/replace it. I took a look through the 6500, and it failed to impress me. Zeiss is very good stuff, and you would not go wrong with the Conquest, but I am still a Leupold fan, and the VX-III 3.5-10 is a good one. I primarily hunt with the 6x42 Fixed power though, since out to 600 yards on game, no more is really needed, even with these old eyes. Regards, Eagleye.
 
Eagleye said:
Only Rifles I put Bushnells on are my Rimfires, cause I have so many if one screws up, I just swap one off another rimfire for the time being, while I wait, and wait, and wait for Bushnell to repair/replace it. I took a look through the 6500, and it failed to impress me. Zeiss is very good stuff, and you would not go wrong with the Conquest, but I am still a Leupold fan, and the VX-III 3.5-10 is a good one. I primarily hunt with the 6x42 Fixed power though, since out to 600 yards on game, no more is really needed, even with these old eyes. Regards, Eagleye.
Click to expand...

You're kinda making my point. We all have cheap Bushnells on our rimfires, so we get a "cheapo" opinion of Bushnell. I'm doubt you're using a $700 6500 on your .22. I've got cheapo Bushnells on my .17 and my son's .22, and the 6500 is not even in the same realm, quality wise.

I have no brand loyalty...so many people get caught in the "I only drive Fords" or I only use Leupolds. Meanwhile, they keep buying Fords(or whatever brand), no matter how often they break down. How does everyone know about the warranty work at Leupold if they are so good?
 
Joe Sixpack said:
You're kinda making my point. We all have cheap Bushnells on our rimfires, so we get a "cheapo" opinion of Bushnell. I'm doubt you're using a $700 6500 on your .22. I've got cheapo Bushnells on my .17 and my son's .22, and the 6500 is not even in the same realm, quality wise.

I have no brand loyalty...so many people get caught in the "I only drive Fords" or I only use Leupold's. Meanwhile, they keep buying Fords(or whatever brand), no matter how often they break down. How does everyone know about the warranty work at Leupold if they are so good?
Click to expand...


I often wondered about that with the Leopold too, they have a huge following and I am sure it is for good reason. However, when I was in the shop comparing scopes the first Leopold that came out of the box had a seized zoom ring, the clerk said "they have great customer service".
I think that if Bushnell introduced that scope under a different name it would have a larger following, I have very old Bushnell's that work fine and have for many years, but I think at one point they let things slide a bit with low quality optics and that cost them some consumer respect, and that is what happens, much like Leopold is doing right now.
I have yet to hear about how Bushnell will turn around repairs on a product they designed to compete with the heavy hitters, they are a big company and I am confident they are well aware that not only the product has to compete but also the way the customers are handled after the sale. Time will tell.
It is amazing how everyones eyes manage to see things differently, I wonder if it is more of a psychological difference than anything. To me the Leopold had a brownish tinge to it, it wasn't a bad hue just not as natural as I had hoped. The next guy who picks it up will think that scope was made for his eyes and his alone.. It really pays to spend some time peering through as many as you can, at the same time. They are your eyes and at the end of the day you will be the guy looking through it.

One thing I do know, if Leopold made a scope with the features that are available on the 6500 their would be guys selling their first born to get their hands on it.
 
PYD, which features are you talking about?

I spent a lot of time looking at all of the scopes in question here, and even a few not listed. I ended up with a lot of rifles and no scopes. So I had to buy 5 of them. I wanted to like the Bushnell because it would have saved some money. I read all the reviews and wanted to like it more than the others. I went with the Zeiss Conquest.

The 6500, very good glass, looked well built. The flaws, crappy crosshair selection, still looks like a dressed up Tasco, almost the same price as the other guys. If it was cheaper I would have definately considered it.

Joe Sixpack:
As for the not using a 6500 on a rimfire. Take a closer look at Eagle Eyes rimfire collection ;). You'll find some top end scopes on those rimfires.
 
Last edited:
Epoxy7 said:
PYD, which features are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Sorry for butchering the rest of your post, I just wanted to answer what you asked me.

I think is is safe to suggest that you and I have different needs from our scopes and I think that may be part of our difference of opinions.
My scope sits on a .204, 90% of the time I am behind it I am laying in an uncomfortable position in foul weather, eyeballing a coyote who really wants to be eyeballing me.
So the features I gained that have proved to be priceless are as follows:
1. Consistent eye relief through the whole range of zoom, usually changing the zoom requires a head movement, and laying on the ground requires a whole body movement. The Leopold doesn't do that. That keeps me from having to go from an uncomfortable position to a really uncomfortable position. Nice feature on a bench too.
2. That amazing Rainguard Bushnell does, wish my car windshield had it. I Really got a good taste of this feature when someone asked me how the fat, stainless barrel would perform in the heart of a Canadian winter, so I stuck the whole gun in the freezer for the night (I do that a lot with my bows testing strings..) with my .17 HMR with a cheap scope for the same test, the next day I took them both out back to see if there would be a POI shift with a frozen barrel, couldn't even see through the cheaper, the 6500 wasn't even close to impaired. Little bells went off for me, I was sold on it after that.
3. side focus, again back to the uncomfortable position thing, it just made life easier, and gained me a hair more movement.
4. 2.5 to 16 times zoom, as a predator hunter I never know where the smelly dog is going to be coming from, the ones that pass at 15 yards when I was looking for them at 200 are impossible to pick out in a 5x or 6x zoom, not too easy to get it from 10x to 2.5 when an animal gets close, but the option is there, and that has to count for something.:)

So.. I can now lay in the tall grass, regardless of the weather, one hand over my scope and make any nesasary adjustments without significant movement, that is all big stuff to me. Your milage may vary.:)

I happen to think the 6500 is an attractive scope, the adjustments are crisp and accurate, easily resettable 0, and cleaner lines than the rest of the Bushnell line. Again, I think the only mistake Bushnell made on this scope was putting their name on it.
 
Last edited:
Pyd said:
I think is is safe to suggest that you and I have different needs from our scopes and I think that may be part of our difference of opinions.
My scope sits on a .204, 90% of the time I am behind it I am laying in an uncomfortable position in foul weather, eyeballing a coyote who really wants to be eyeballing me.
So the features I gained that have proved to be priceless are as follows:
1. Consistent eye relief through the whole range of zoom, usually changing the zoom requires a head movement, and laying on the ground requires a whole body movement. The Leopold doesn't do that. That keeps me from having to go from an uncomfortable position to a really uncomfortable position. Nice feature on a bench too.
2. That amazing Rainguard Bushnell does, wish my car windshield had it. I Really got a good taste of this feature when someone asked me how the fat, stainless barrel would perform in the heart of a Canadian winter, so I stuck the whole gun in the freezer for the night (I do that a lot with my bows testing strings..) with my .17 HMR with a cheap scope for the same test, the next day I took them both out back to see if there would be a POI shift with a frozen barrel, couldn't even see through the cheaper, the 6500 wasn't even close to impaired. Little bells went off for me, I was sold on it after that.
3. side focus, again back to the uncomfortable position thing, it just made life easier, and gained me a hair more movement.
4. 2.5 to 16 times zoom, as a predator hunter I never know where the smelly dog is going to be coming from, the ones that pass at 15 yards when I was looking for them at 200 are impossible to pick out in a 5x or 6x zoom, not too easy to get it from 10x to 2.5 when an animal gets close, but the option is there, and that has to count for something.:)

So.. I can now lay in the tall grass, regardless of the weather, one hand over my scope and make any nesasary adjustments without significant movement, that is all big stuff to me. Your milage may vary.:)

I happen to think the 6500 is an attractive scope, the adjustments are crisp and accurate, easily resettable 0, and cleaner lines than the rest of the Bushnell line. Again, I think the only mistake Bushnell made on this scope was putting their name on it.
Click to expand...

Most of my shooting is done at the range. I do however plan on eventually doing some varmint shooting and coyote hunting. From hunters, and even professional guides I've often heard them recommend only three scopes. The Swarovski, Leupold and Zeiss Conquest. Those three have been frequently mentioned. I haven't seen many Bushnell scopes on the hard core guys guns.

As for the features. Only the Bushnell Elite line was late to the plate with the side focus. The others have had it for a while.

The Zeiss conquest has the same eye releif. The Leupold no but it's pretty minor.

One other thing that I don't like about the Bushnell is the fact that although it's about an inch shorter than most of the 1 inch tubed scopes, the eye relief is about 4 inches. For regular recoiling rifles this is almost too much. For mounting with some rifles it's a pain in the A@@. 3-3.5 is my preferred eye releif. The most extreme example that I can think of is with the AR. You lose the advantage of the shorter scope and mounting is still difficult.

For your windshield, you too can "rain guard" it. Apply turtle wax to your winshield, let dry then buff it with a soft rag until it's clear again. Water will now bead off your windshield. :D

On one of the other sites, a guy froze his Night Force (another excellent scope but far more expensive) and his falcon menace. Both worked perfectly after being defrosted and held their settings. Considering the Menace is a $400 scope it doesn't make the Bushnell look like such a good deal.

I have to agree with you though about the Bushnell name. There are three common views on the Bushnell name. 1) It's cheap crap, 2) It's Baush and lomb, 3) The Elite line is a very good scope at a bargain price. All three are incorrect these days.

Ultimately if the Bushnell Elite scopes were $200 less I'd consider them in a far better light. As they sit now, they are a good scope but not at a particularly great price point. Compared to the Zeiss Conquest at a very similiar price point, it was an easy decision. The Bushnell Elites were always considered a good scope at a good bargain price. I don't believe that's true anymore. I think the Falcon Menace line is the very good scope at the bargain price right now.
 
Epoxy7 said:
Most of my shooting is done at the range. I do however plan on eventually doing some varmint shooting and coyote hunting. From hunters, and even professional guides I've often heard them recommend only three scopes. The Swarovski, Leupold and Zeiss Conquest. Those three have been frequently mentioned. I haven't seen many Bushnell scopes on the hard core guys guns.
Click to expand...

The 6500 is pretty new, it doesn't surprise me you haven't seen it with the hard core guys, but Swarovski doesn't belong in the same sentence with Leopold and Zeiss:)
If you do plan on varmint hunting, and I suggest you do it is a riot! Go back and visit the varmint forums, you may be surprised with how many guys are peeling the Leopold's off their rifles to use the 6500. The Leopold clan is a hard one to penetrate and most are not going to change, even if Leopold made the lenses from wood the Leopold guys would be excited to get splinters in their eyes, it is a bizarre phenomenon. Bet my last dollar that Leopold's next scope is more like the 6500, I went as far as to call the manufactures when I was searching out a scope, Leopold's view on the 6500 was a very positive one, they actually had good things to say about it. That impressed me more than anything else over that course of time, that is a very respectable thing for a company to do. I may have swung in the direction of Leopold if anyone had the varmint scope with the notched front lens for me to look through, but it wasn't anywhere to be found, and as you may have guess I am a try before I buy guy.
I realize Bushnell is a bit behind with some of these features, others have had them, but not all in one scope, and I only needed one scope.

I hunt early in the morning before work, late in the evening after I get home, almost daily. Here is the kicker, I also hunt for a living, have for 10 years. When I get in from my morning hunt I clean my gun put on my uniform, case up my rifle and go do it again. I am also a property protection agent for the MNR, I deal with the nuisance animals that no one else wants to, or can, in places you wouldn't normally be found hunting. My only point is that now you know a professional hunter who uses the 6500 exclusively.
I won't post my business information but if you want to verify some random guys (me:)) claims I will be happy to confirm in an email. Knowing that I can count on my scope regardless of the circumstances is more than a sport to me, I have a family to feed too.:)
 
17.3 ounces is what made me shy away. Thats a pretty heavy scope for my use on a hunting rifle. I have the 4200 model and its a great scope I just wish they would streamline them a bit...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom