Leupold vs Zeiss

Attention

Attention

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
88   0   0
Location
Greater Lakeburn NB
I want some advice on buying a new scope for my 7mm rem mag.I hunt in open fields as well as in thick wooded areas and in low light situations, so from 50 to 300+ yards.I was interested in a Leupold VX-III 3.5-10-40mm but I heard that the Zeiss conquest 3-9-40mm is a much better scope.What would you buy between the two and why.

Thanks
Attention.
 
Last edited:
Zeiss makes *very good* glass. As far as photographic equipment goes, zeiss is a leader in the field, and pioneered many of the technologies that we all know and love (such as multicoating).

How well this translates to a good rifle scope, I dont know - lens quality is only one aspect of what makes a good scope.
 
We carry both in the shop and to me the Zeiss are clearer, as to their use in the field...I can't comment as I don't like scopes on hunting rifles.
 
AFAIC, the Zeiss has a friendlier elevation adjustment, if you want to "dial in" and "out" on targets at different distances. Clarity of both is excellent (pretty close to one another). Also, the Zeiss is easier to mount "futher back" on my Ruger Number 1's than is the Leupold. It just has more "tube" before hitting the angled part of the objective bell.

52146.jpg


54912.jpg
 
A-zone said:
AFAIC, the Zeiss has a friendlier elevation adjustment, if you want to "dial in" and "out" on targets at different distances. Clarity of both is excellent (pretty close to one another). Also, the Zeiss is easier to mount "futher back" on my Ruger Number 1's than is the Leupold. It just has more "tube" before hitting the angled part of the objective bell.

52146.jpg


54912.jpg
Click to expand...


The same thing works in reverse though. The Leupold can be mounted 1/2" farther ahead because of that humungous eye-piece on the Ziess. The same eyepiece usually makes a higher set of rings necessary too. I just took some measurements of my Zeiss 3-9 and Leupold 3.5-10. The cylindrical portion of the Zeiss is about 1/4 inch longer, but not nearly as much difference as the pictures would indicate. The Leupold in the picture is a 50mm objective, which is quite different.
There are a few differences between the two that have nothing to do with which is "better". More suitable for purpose maybe. I need the full forward adjustment just as surely as you need the extra 1/4" rearward. Which is most of the reason I have only one Zeiss on a little .308 and a whole pile of Leupolds, some on real kickers. It stops me from being an involuntary blood donor.
Mike
 
I was not too impressed with the optical clarity of the Ziess scope I had.
I had two scopes that came with a rifle. One was a new 3-9 Ziess and the other was an old Austrian-made fixed 6x Kahles ZF-69. The Kahles was an had a steel tube and old style adjustments that you let you see the crosshair move around in the reticle.

The Ziess appeared to be an exellent scope, but then I dialed the Ziess down to 6x and then compared it side by side with the Kahles looking out over the lake. The image produced by the Ziess appeared to be more pale and hazy in comparison. This surprised me because even if German and Austrian lenses may be comparable, I would assume that the newer technology lense coatings developed over the years would have given an advantage to the new Ziess.

I do not know if this was caused by the fact that the Ziess is a more complicated mechanism and the image is going through more pieces of glass, or if the quality is just not there. I have heard that they are not all made in Germany anymore, but am unsure if this is true.
 
Just according to the physics of lens design, any given scope will be sharpest at a specific zoom level. It's impossible to make a lens thats perfectly clear at all zoom levels and elevation/windage limits. Even $3000 photographic lenses produce the best pictures at one zoom and aperature level. Manufacturers can try to compensate for this somewhat by adding additional elements, which increase cost, complexity and weight AND reduce brightness and sharpness a bit, BUT offer a more consistent quality across all zoom ranges.

In both photographic and hunting fields, a 'prime' or fixed zoom lens will ALWAYS offer the best possible picture, and will USUALLY cost a lot less.

Professional photographers almost *always* prefer to use prime lenses whenever possible, and usually have several in the most commonly-used powers.

So bottom line - it's not an apples-to-apples comparison between a prime and a zoom lens. If you ever fnd a zoom lens that has a better picture than a prime, then that means the zoom is of *VASTLY* higher quality optics
 
Last edited:
Quiet said:
I was not too impressed with the optical clarity of the Ziess scope I had.
I had two scopes that came with a rifle. One was a new 3-9 Ziess and the other was an old Austrian-made fixed 6x Kahles ZF-69. The Kahles was an had a steel tube and old style adjustments that you let you see the crosshair move around in the reticle.

The Ziess appeared to be an exellent scope, but then I dialed the Ziess down to 6x and then compared it side by side with the Kahles looking out over the lake. The image produced by the Ziess appeared to be more pale and hazy in comparison. This surprised me because even if German and Austrian lenses may be comparable, I would assume that the newer technology lense coatings developed over the years would have given an advantage to the new Ziess.

I do not know if this was caused by the fact that the Ziess is a more complicated mechanism and the image is going through more pieces of glass, or if the quality is just not there. I have heard that they are not all made in Germany anymore, but am unsure if this is true.
Click to expand...

they all buy their lenses from the same shop they just coat them different ....
There are a few that polish their own.... (but they still buy from the same source) and even fewer that make/cut/polish/coat their own.

Some of the best I've seen were Leica. - asides from those who buy from Schott. When you get into that sort of money.... you're just talking about personal prefference, the way we perceive the image.

One little experiment : in case you don't cross-dominance... compare the two eyes separate. You'd be surprised if one eye likes one scope and the other...welll the other scope.

If you reffer to Zeiss Conquest....
 
I'm not sure about Ziess, but Leupold offers very good customer support and repair here in Canada. That ranks very high of my list of things to consider.





.
 
The problem I have with Zeiss is that they don't make any lower power varible scopes.
 
The problem I have with Zeiss is that they don't make any lower power varible scopes
Click to expand...

the Varipoint 1.1-4x24 T* VM/V and the 1.5-6,x 42 would qualify as lower power scopes. They (Zeiss) have been making low end variables for a long time....maybe not bringing them in to North America cause the market seems to think it needs a 6-24x "sniper" scope (despite the fact that for many years 4x and 6x were pretty much standard on rifles used for that purpose) ... its the same reason why North Americans want 10x binoculars.....even though a good 6x is a pleasure to use.
 
AP said:
the Varipoint 1.1-4x24 T* VM/V and the 1.5-6,x 42 would qualify as lower power scopes. They (Zeiss) have been making low end variables for a long time....maybe not bringing them in to North America cause the market seems to think it needs a 6-24x "sniper" scope (despite the fact that for many years 4x and 6x were pretty much standard on rifles used for that purpose) ... its the same reason why North Americans want 10x binoculars.....even though a good 6x is a pleasure to use.
Click to expand...
Yes the 1,1-4x24 and the 1.5-6x42 would be great if I could get them here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom