howdy folks, a newbie here,sure do like all the info here.since i cant compare them side by side i thought i might ask if anyone has experience with both the zeiss conquest in 6.5x20x50 vs. leupold 6.5x20x50 lrt.any input appreciated.thanks, jimm
I looked at both side by side, my 300 WM wears the 6.5x20 Conquest as does my 6.5-284, and as soon as I can save the coin the 243 I'm building is going to wear the 4.5x14 Conquest.
To my eyes the difference was clear, Zeiss hands down. Thats just one guys opinion,I'm sure you'll get more.
Ignorance can be treated with education, sadly there is no cure for stupidity.
I would strongly encourage you to take a look at the IBS or NBRSA 1000 yard and 200 yard equipment lists. You can see them in the match reports in the benchrest newsletters. I am looking at a 1000 yard one right now from a year ago, and there are 20 shooters. 11 of them are running Leupold Vari-XIII 6.5-20x50 LRT's, 2 are running boosted Leupolds, 5 are running Nightforce 5.5-22x56 NXS's, 1 is using a Unertl, and the last guy is using a Weaver t-16.
On one of the 200 yard matches I am looking at has 25 shooters and 20 of them are using various Leupold benchrest models in different magnifications, and the other 5 are using Weavers.
These are just two examples of hundreds that show the guys who are shooting for money use Leupolds by vast majority! Of course, I would recommend the one that looks best for you, but I think the records stand for themselves and Leupolds optics, eye relief, turrets, and repeatability are good enough for competition. Don't look past them. A lot of people I talk to think that anything made in Europe is the best just because it's made in Europe. But then the competitors just use what works and don't get caught up in the Euro-supremacy thing. I won't disagree that Zeiss makes a good scope, but so does Leupold and they're often less money!
That being said, I better put on my cup cause I feel I'm going to have some Euro's try and kick me in the nuts, but I don't care. I like companies that are born in the good old US of A!!
I like "Made in USA" too, and I check labels [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
But, my next scope is going to be an IOR. Also, I have looked through a Zeiss Conquest, the glass is really nice, and it really feels like a quality scope. That same day I checked out a Nikon and a Leupold, I really think the Zeiss glass looked better. These were all 3-9's.
Also, don't most Leupold scopes use a wire reticle? Not that it's a bad thing, but the thought of a glass etched reticle, I really like that.
No, Leupold doesn't engrave their glass, and they have a good explantion for that. It's too long to go into right now, but I would encourage you to call and ask them. They are very friendly people over there.
Just one question for you. When you compared these different scopes, was it indoors with flourescent lighting??
The reason I ask is because the coatings on some scopes pick up indoor false light really well and others do not. Through my work, I am priveledged to be able to attend optic seminars every so often and what I learn is fascinating. One seminar in particular was VERY in depth and most of what was said went right over my head like quantum physics, but I did learn about phase shifts, abberations, light bouncing, and chromatic interference. And what I discoverd was that all this scientific mumbo jumbo basically will be interpreted differently by the user's own eye! But, certain light will "fool" the eye under some circumstances, and indoor light was one of the biggest culprits. I was tought that if a customer is really seriously looking at a scope, have them come back just a little before dark and take them out of the store and have a peek. 9 times out of 10, the scope that looked the best to them in the store doesn't appear to be the best at dusk! The one time it doesn't change is the time when that person's eye just really works with that glass/coating combo, and that is definetly the scope for them!