zeiss vs nikon vs leupold in 3x9x40
- Thread starter mainecoon
- Start date
- Status
At under 200 yards you don't need the BDC, although I do like the feature. Just not Nikons version of it. Zeiss sell scopes ranging from $350-$1000 plus. So does Leupold.
The Monarch's are Nikons best scope. They have good clear glass for the money. Maybe better than Leupold and just below Zeiss in the same price range. But they have some features that are deal killers for me. I have one rifle with a Monarch, it is very good in some ways, but it comes in 3rd place for me. I don't like the Nikon reticle at all. Their scopes while clear, have a dark ring around the edges that obstructs a lot of the view compared to the others. They also have much shorter eye relief and are heavier.
The older Zeiss Conquest in a 3-9X40 was a VERY good scope. When I bought mine they were $550. Later reduced to $400 and when closed out could be found $250-$300 for a few months. At $400 and under they were probably the best scope for the money. The new Terra scope which has taken it's place is still an unknown. It is supposed to be a direct replacement, but from my limited experience and reports I've read I'd take a Leupold over the Terra. Old Conquest vs Leupold would be very close, with a slight edge to Zeiss in my opinion.
Leupold has upgraded their scopes within the last 2-3 years and my vote for the best scope for the dollar right now is the VX-2 selling at $299. It is a better scope than a VX-3 from 3 years ago, and pretty darn close to the $400 Zeiss Conquest's. Probably a bit better than the Zeiss Terra, but I'm not 100% sure about that yet. The Terra is just too new to say for sure.
The Monarch's are Nikons best scope. They have good clear glass for the money. Maybe better than Leupold and just below Zeiss in the same price range. But they have some features that are deal killers for me. I have one rifle with a Monarch, it is very good in some ways, but it comes in 3rd place for me. I don't like the Nikon reticle at all. Their scopes while clear, have a dark ring around the edges that obstructs a lot of the view compared to the others. They also have much shorter eye relief and are heavier.
The older Zeiss Conquest in a 3-9X40 was a VERY good scope. When I bought mine they were $550. Later reduced to $400 and when closed out could be found $250-$300 for a few months. At $400 and under they were probably the best scope for the money. The new Terra scope which has taken it's place is still an unknown. It is supposed to be a direct replacement, but from my limited experience and reports I've read I'd take a Leupold over the Terra. Old Conquest vs Leupold would be very close, with a slight edge to Zeiss in my opinion.
Leupold has upgraded their scopes within the last 2-3 years and my vote for the best scope for the dollar right now is the VX-2 selling at $299. It is a better scope than a VX-3 from 3 years ago, and pretty darn close to the $400 Zeiss Conquest's. Probably a bit better than the Zeiss Terra, but I'm not 100% sure about that yet. The Terra is just too new to say for sure.
Lloyd Smale
Member
conquest//vx2/monarch are all very close in performance. differnt eyes might pick a differnt one out of the three in a certian light condition but bottom line is your moneys well spend on any one of those three scopes.
I have a Conquest, a Monarch, and had a VX-II (not the newest VX-2). The Conquest honestly blows the Monarch away in every aspect. Glass wise it blew the VX-II out of the water as well. The only place the VX-II had a slight advantage was that it offered more generous eye relief. Overall though, the Leupold didn't really come close either. That said, the new Zeiss Terra's aren't getting as good of reviews as the Conquest so I tend to think I'd try to find a deal on a nice used Conquest. I think you'd be much better off than with either of the other two.
Now that all said, I can't personally comment on the Terra as I've only gotten to look at one at the store and I've never owned one. I've really only read reviews about.
Now that all said, I can't personally comment on the Terra as I've only gotten to look at one at the store and I've never owned one. I've really only read reviews about.
gamestalker
member
My personal opinion goes to Leupold when it specifically regards rifle scopes. I have an older Zeiss, and a newer Nikon, and many different ages and grades of Leupold. The Leupold's are every bit as clean and bright as the other two. And I haven't had very good CS with either Zeiss or Nikon.
And if most of your shots are going to be under 300 yds, there is no need for a BDC feature. OTOH, I live where it is not at all unusual to be faced with 500 yd. to 1000 yd. shots, so BDC is a must. But for that, I prefer to use my RF with TBR, so I use the corresponding moa compensations to the scope turret.
GS
And if most of your shots are going to be under 300 yds, there is no need for a BDC feature. OTOH, I live where it is not at all unusual to be faced with 500 yd. to 1000 yd. shots, so BDC is a must. But for that, I prefer to use my RF with TBR, so I use the corresponding moa compensations to the scope turret.
GS
RainDodger
Member
jmr40 is on the money... I have many Leupolds and also the older Zeiss Conquest 3-9. In that price range, if you can find the older Zeiss, it is a better scope than the comparatively priced Leupold I think. I think Optics Planet still has the Conquest available. At least they did a month or so ago when I saw one on their web page.
scottishkat
Member
That Zeiss conquest 3-9x40 is a sweet scope I wish I bought a dozen when they were selling for 389.00. You wont be disappointed with it. I own the Nikon monarch with BDC its good better than the 3-9x40 leupold rifleman I own.
The zeiss would be my choice again I own 2 and have purchased 1 for my dad he loves it as well.
Shoot staright
The zeiss would be my choice again I own 2 and have purchased 1 for my dad he loves it as well.
Shoot staright
Yep...point blank range in a .243 runs out to about 300 yards...mas o menos. Leupold all the way. I was able to set several scopes up at a friend's gun shop and look out into a parking lot at dusk without moving the battery of scopes. All the scopes...about six...were very close to the same brightness. When I looked through the Leupold...same power setting as the others...I thought someone had turned the lights on in the parking lot. I checked again with the same result. I bought the Leupold.
Last edited:
Lloyd Smale
Member
your first geneartion vxII is now the vx 1 the newest vx 2 has better glass and will run right with a monarch or zeiss conquest. Bang for the buck hands down the newest vx 1 that is the same as the vxII and now has the click ajustments is a clear winner at around 200 bucks. Half the price of a conquest or nikon and some pretty decent glass and features.
You're comparing Nikon's top scope to Leupold's lowest level scope. It should be better. That difference will shrink dramatically if compared to a VX-2, and completely disappear with a VX-3 and up in the Leupold lineup. When Leupold revamped the VX-III recently to the VX-3, the Zeiss Conquest was their target.
I've considered Nikon scopes for 3 of my last four scope purchases, and each time they came up short. I've got a Conquest on layaway right now for a rifle I haven't even bought yet. And my next rifle after that one will come with one.
scottishkat
Member
I own 3 or 4 Leupolds now the only 3-9x40 I own is a rifleman. The others are all VXIII. I have a VXIII that is about 30 years old that I like better than the same scope I bought 5 years ago I don't think the new coated optics from Leupold are that great at all.
I also have a couple of Swarovski Z3 and a Trijicon. Since I purchased my first Zeiss Conquest several years ago I have not bought any other scope.
You'll like the Zeiss conquest.
I also have a couple of Swarovski Z3 and a Trijicon. Since I purchased my first Zeiss Conquest several years ago I have not bought any other scope.
You'll like the Zeiss conquest.
Coltdriver
Member
So you should go look through a Leupold VX-3 and compare it to a Zeiss.
Leupold optimizes yellow light, the Zeiss optimizes blue light. Each has its merits, you may like one over the other.
I have always liked Leupolds, especially the VX-2's and 3's. But I did get a Zeiss Terra recently. It is on par with a Leupold VX-1 in the glass department, maybe a little better, however the adjustments for windage and elevation are incredibly precise. The Terra also optimizes blue light but it is not as good as their higher end scopes.
Of the three you cite I'd go Leupold VX-2 or 3 without hesitation.
Leupold optimizes yellow light, the Zeiss optimizes blue light. Each has its merits, you may like one over the other.
I have always liked Leupolds, especially the VX-2's and 3's. But I did get a Zeiss Terra recently. It is on par with a Leupold VX-1 in the glass department, maybe a little better, however the adjustments for windage and elevation are incredibly precise. The Terra also optimizes blue light but it is not as good as their higher end scopes.
Of the three you cite I'd go Leupold VX-2 or 3 without hesitation.
I just put a Leupold VX-1 on top of a RAR in .243 Saturday. I'm very happy with my purchase. The last two scopes I've bought I've gone looking for a Nikon both times, and when looking at features, brightness, and price I've left with something else both times. This time the VX1 and last time Redfield Revolution both in the $200 range and good scopes for the money.
Jeff
Jeff
- Status
