Need new glass... Zeiss? Leupold?

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by Janno05, Mar 12, 2013.

  1. Janno05

    Janno05 Member

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Hello All, I am looking at purchasing my first serious scope and need some advice. I am currently looking at a Zeiss Conquest HD5 3-15 or a Leupold MK4 4.5-14 that will go on top of a Rem 700 30-06. Until I find a new range I am currently limited to 400 yards, but I would like to get up to 800 and use this rifle/scope combo to learn the fundamentals of LR shooting. I am open to other options but both of these companies offer fantastic military discounts, and I'd like to keep it less than a grand if possible.

    Thank you all for your help and for such an amazing forum. I have learned a ton reading through all of these posts.
     
  2. Sully2

    Sully2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,480
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    I used to think the sun rose and set in Leupold....but that was before I bought a Zeiss.

    For an 'Ought six.....In my opinion id put a Conquest 4 1/2 -14 on it.
     

  3. Freebore

    Freebore Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    611
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2002
    Yup, Zeiss
     
  4. joseph

    joseph Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,238
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Take a look at a Vortex PST. I have one on my Browning BAR 30-06 with a custom turret.

    joseph
     

    Attached Files:

  5. lloydsmale

    lloydsmale Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    991
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    given those two choises id take the leupold. But there both fine scopes.
     
  6. MudRunner2005

    MudRunner2005 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,030
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Zeiss Conquest. And for your gun for the range you gave, I'd say a 4.5-14 will do just fine.

    If you were shooting a larger caliber or at longer ranges I'd recommend a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50.
     
  7. lloydsmale

    lloydsmale Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    991
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Maybe the zeiss would be a winner if compared to a vx1 or vx2 but not a mark 4 or a vx3. Ive got two 3x9 zeiss conquests and like I said there a good scope but nothing really special.
     
  8. Sully2

    Sully2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,480
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011

    I agree 100%. And for my own heavy barreled "long shooters" I did just that. 243; 260 got the 6.5-20 Zeiss
     
  9. MudRunner2005

    MudRunner2005 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,030
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    I've had VX-III's and my Conquests whoop those mercilessly. The clarity with a Zeiss is remarkable for the price-point. And honestly, you get ALOT more scope for your money with the Conquests. I've looked through S&B's that I wouldn't urinate on if they were on fire, b/c the glass was so cloudy and nasty. And I've looked through some that were so clear you would think you were right in front of it. I'm not gonna take a $3500 gamble.

    Every NF i've looked through was crisp and clear. I give them a 10/10 in clarity, and a 9/10 in value (only b/c the price is kinda steep for your average shooters).

    1/2 the Swaros I've looked through didn't deserve the pricetag they had on them.

    I worked in an outdoors store, and used to sell Swarovski optik products.

    I've sold S&B, Swaro, Zeiss, Kahles, Leupold, Tasco, Redfield, Simmons, you name it, etc...Every major brand there is. And of the top-shelf scopes, I'd put a tie for the #1 slot, with Kahles & Zeiss....Hands down.

    I even own a Nitrex 3-9-50 scope....Cheap, inexpensive, but VERY clear for the money, and can handle the high-recoil just fine. I'd put that $350 scope up against any standard VX-III anyday.
     
  10. lloydsmale

    lloydsmale Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    991
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    I chuckle when guys buy conquests thinking they bought a real ziess scope. These are not even in the same universe as there top line scopes. Using logic how do you think they go from a 2k scope to a 300 dollar scope? The differnce in the price of the tube is minimal. Its the lenses that are the most expensive part of the scope and thats where corners are cut with conquests. How is it you figure that ziess can make all the components in germany where labor is higher then here, pay to ship it all here to be assembled and sell them cheaper the we can make them or even the japs. Like i said ive got two conquests and like others thought i really had something till i compared them side by side to other 3-400 dollars scopes and i sure know what my eyes told me. there a 300 dollar scope period. Just because they have zeiss printed on them doesnt make them anything more other then to brand snobs. Kind of like putting cadilac stickers on a chevette to me. thanks but ill stick to leupold. there american made, have decent glass, are about as reliable as they come, are used by more professional hunters then all other brands combined and thats who i listen to, Men who actually use them in the field for a living nots salesmen and did i say there american made. Also go to about any competitive rilfe competiion and youll still see more leupolds on the line then any other scope. Sorry but when you lump conquests right in with all zeiss products when making a recomendation and saying there right up there with Kahles your smoking crack. Its a salesmans dream. Slap a premium name on a buget product and set the hook. Before anyone jumps in and thinks im bashing there first born child remember i have two of these and there decent scopes for the money in my opinion but sure not what some will proclaim. Kind of like the people who bought cadilac cimmerons. Tell them they bought a cavalier and theyd go ballistic but putting caddy badges on a cheap chev doesnt make a cadilac.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2013
  11. MudRunner2005

    MudRunner2005 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,030
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    I have a Kahles Helia KX sitting on top of my Browning A-Bolt 7Mag in my safe right now. I have Zeiss Conquests sitting on 2 of my other rifles. I never said a Conquest was on par with Kahles. I said ZEISS was on par with Kahles. I said for a budget minded person, the Conquest was better than the VX-III. Conquests are not $300 scopes. And if they are, then Leupolds under the VX-IV are also. I owned a VX-III 3.5-10x50 and had it on 2 different guns. Was it a good scope? Certainly. I'll never take that away from it. Was it a $600 scope? Ehhhh, maybe... The only reason I don't own it anymore is b/c it got stolen, along with the rifle it was attached to... Was I going to replace that scope for $500-600....No. I didn't have the cash at the time. Only reason I had the Leupy in the first place is b/c it was a combo package with my first A-Bolt II 7Mag that I bought as a combo (very slightly used) for $800. Pulled the Leupy, put it on my .17 HMR, and put an original Bausch & Lomb Elite 3000 Firefly 3-9x50. That Browing and Bauch got stolen at the same time the .17 and Leupy got jacked. Along with a custom built Rem 7 .308 ($4,500) and a brand new Beretta Xtrema2. Yeah, they hit me for a good chunk...

    Just b/c you're a Leupold fanboy doesn't mean you have to be a, as you call it, "brand snob" and put down everyone else's products. Hmmm, tables turned on that comment, huh? :rolleyes:

    I have looked through more than my fair share of scopes, and there are very few scopes out there that I will call out-right crap. As for what a cheap scope is, a cheap scope is there for budget individuals. Is a $100 scope gonna compete with a NF? Hell no. It wasn't designed to. It was designed for low-budget applications.

    Conquest series scopes are Zeiss' "budget" line. They are not a Diavari, and never will be. This is a well-known fact. However, for the money, you will be hard-pressed to find a Scope as crisp, clear, with as high-quality lens coating as the Conquest line.

    Am I a Zeiss fan? Yep. But I'm also a fan of Kahles, Nightforce, Konus, Simmons, Nitrex, and Swarovski. Not all of those are high-end brands. Konus is very cheap, but for a $400 scope, the M-30 is hard to beat for budget long-range shooting. Simmons and Nitrex are cheap. Is Simmons good glass? No, but for a $150 scope the Whitetail Classic is pretty tall in its category. Nitrex is also hard to beat in the $300 scope category.

    The reason I'm pointing out all these scopes specifically, is just to make my point. That just b/c it's not a Leupold, doesn't mean it's crap. EVERY scope has it's place. It might just not always be on YOUR guns.
     
  12. flytyn

    flytyn Member

    Messages:
    18
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    I would go with the new Conquest HD5. The new HD5 is better, to my eyes, than the older Conquest line. I own several Conquests and Leupolds, and for the money I really like the new HD5 in 5-25x50.

    The older Conquests are good and you can pick one up at a very good price. It looks like they are being slowly phased out.

    Have fun in your hunt for a new scope.

    Dale
     
  13. lloydsmale

    lloydsmale Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    991
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    far from a brand snob. Maybe a bit anti high end optics though. Never saw the need to take a second morgage out to buy a scope. Look in my safe and youll find probably an equal mix of leupold vx2s and vx3s and nikon monarchs with a busnell 3200 and 4200 and even a couple burris scopes and yes even two 3x9 conquests and a trijicon accupoint. Im about as objective as they come when i comes to mid range optics. Why would i not be. Im not being paid a cent by leupold and i own both brands. Bottom line though if i was going to go on a once in a lifetime hunt and I knew it would be a rough hunt and low light shooting could be involved the rifle i took would wear a leupold scope. Like i said youll see more leupolds on professional hunters and guides guns and on more dangerous game rifles then all other brands combined and its probably for a good reason. I surely agree with you though in that there certainly not the only brand of scopes in that price range that are decent scopes. today for 400 bucks you can buy a scope that is as good as ANY scope that was produced 20 years ago. Ill also add that leupold gets a bad rap because of this. Alot of guys that compare there favorite brand to leupolds lump in the new scopes with the old vari x line. the vari x 2 leupolds had marginal optics at best and in there day there were surely better optics for the money and there friction ajustments were a joke. Check out the newest versions of the vx2 and vx3. there worlds better then leupolds older stuff and compare favorably to ANY brand. I just bought a new 3x9 and a 4x12 for a couple new rifles and am very impressed with them. Also to be fair i havent looked through one of the new HDS conquests and maybe id change my tune a bit if i did.
     
  14. MudRunner2005

    MudRunner2005 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,030
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Only reason I have a Kahles is b/c I acquired it in a trade with a buddy of mine, who wasn't using it at the time, and wanted my Carolina Skiff laying out in the yard. So, he got his skiff and trailer, and I got my Kahles and an IAB 1874 Sharps reproduction .45-70. Only reason it was a fair trade is b/c he didn't have hardly any money in either item, so it equaled out with the Skiff. It was a good trade, we both got useful items out of it. LOL

    I have also heard the old vs new VX lens coating arguement from a buddy of mine. In all honesty, I have not looked through the new ones. My VX-III was an older model (if I still had it, would be atleast 10 years old by now). So, in Leupold's defense, I have not looked through the newer ones. I did love that scope. It was, at the time, my 2nd favorite scope i'd owned up to that point. First being the rare Bausch & Lomb....Still hurts that that scope is gone.

    I will have to check out the new versions of the VX's when I go to my local store. Especially since you're now the 2nd person to tell me about the newer lenses and coatings. It would only make sense that Leupold, as with all other companies, have improved their mid-line scopes better than the high-end scopes of yester-year.