LEUPOLD or ZEISS ??

[JOE KICKASS]

Trying to decide on which to get a Leupold VX-II 3-9X50 or a Zeiss 3-9X50. I have heard some say the cross hairs on the Zeiss are very thin and hard to see in low light?

[stid2677]

I have both and would say that both are quality glass. I would have to give Zeiss the low light advantage. I just bought a another Zeiss 3.5x10x44 with the Rapid Z 600 reticle, very nice glass. Hard to go wrong with either.

Good Luck

Steve

[tucker301]

I've got:
Leupold VX-III 6.5-20 X 50
Leupold VX-III 3.5-10 X 50
Zeiss Conquest 3.-10 X 44
Bushnell 3200 3-9 X 40
I also once had a Zeiss in the 6.5-20 X 50 as well.

As others have stated, it's hard to go wrong with either brand.
I'd give a slight edge to Zeiss.
I really like the middle ground covered by the 44mm obj. on my BAR. Bigger and more light gathering than the 40, but not as clunky as the 50 mm.

As for the reticle, you choose whatever suits you. if you want a fine crosshair, then get one. But if you want a heavier one, then they're available as well.

[Olga]

Zeiss Conquest, especially in low light (that's the model that I have and I looked side by side at Leupold VXIII before buying this). But both Conquest and Leupold are not great compared to the high end Zeiss scopes like the 1.5-6 version they have.