Zeiss vs Leupold
- Thread starter yooper70
- Start date
I think both are great scopes so you can't really go wrong.
To my eyes,the Zeiss looks a little "better"
Scott
To my eyes,the Zeiss looks a little "better"
Scott
Zeiss has better clarity due to better glass.
On the subject of holding point of aim, I am not sure. My rifles with ZQs shoot very well and have not made me question their accuracy but I have heard plenty of reports from the benchrest community of leupolds having a slight shift sometimes. No one is using zeiss in the shortrange benchrest game due to weight so less is known about poi shift with them.
I have both and if zeiss made a 40-45x scope that would make weight that is what would be on my competition rifle until it proved itself unreliable because I much prefer looking through the zeiss glass.
When the light is starting to go you will be able to see longer with the zeiss.
On the subject of holding point of aim, I am not sure. My rifles with ZQs shoot very well and have not made me question their accuracy but I have heard plenty of reports from the benchrest community of leupolds having a slight shift sometimes. No one is using zeiss in the shortrange benchrest game due to weight so less is known about poi shift with them.
I have both and if zeiss made a 40-45x scope that would make weight that is what would be on my competition rifle until it proved itself unreliable because I much prefer looking through the zeiss glass.
When the light is starting to go you will be able to see longer with the zeiss.
I own a Leupold VX-III 6.5-20x50 and a Zeiss Conquest 6-20x50. I must say that the outer appearance of the Leupold is better. It seems the scope is built more solid and I like the design of the target turrets and overall look and feel.
I really like the Zeiss also but it is a 1 inch tube with 45 MOA. I believe the Leupold has 90 MOA in its 30mm tube. So my opinion of overall look and feel goes to the Leupold.
I have no compared both scope side by side to see the light capabilities but I soon will.
DoubleG
I really like the Zeiss also but it is a 1 inch tube with 45 MOA. I believe the Leupold has 90 MOA in its 30mm tube. So my opinion of overall look and feel goes to the Leupold.
I have no compared both scope side by side to see the light capabilities but I soon will.
DoubleG
Here are the Leupold Specifications from Leupold's Website:
Length,A) 14.4 in
Tube Length,B) 6.5 in
,C) 2.8 in
,D) 2.5 in
Eyepiece Length,E) 3.2 in
Objective Length,F) 4.8 in
Objective Diameter,G) 2.3 in
Eyepiece Diameter,H) 1.6 in
Tube Diameter,I) 30 mm
Actual Magnification 19.2,6.8)
FOV @ 100 yds,ft) 5.5,14.3)
FOV @ 100 m,m) 1.8,4.8)
Eye Relief,in) 3.6,4.4)
Eye Relief,mm) 93,113)
Obj. Clear Aperture 2.0 in / 50 mm
Weight 21.0 oz / 595 g
Elevation Adj. Range,MOA) 90
Windage Adj. Range,MOA) 90
Here are the specifications of the Zeiss:
Technical Data Magnification 6.5-20
Objective,mm) 50
Tube diameter,inches) 1
Field of view,feet at 100 yards) 17.7-5.7
Parallax,yards) 50-infinity
Reticle Image Plane,Magnifying) 2nd,no)
Exit pupil,mm) 7.7-2.5
Eye relief,inches) 3.5
Length,inches) 15.59
Weight,ounces) 21.83
MOA 1/4
Windage/Elevation Adjustment,inches) 45.36
Diopter Adj +2/-3
Length,A) 14.4 in
Tube Length,B) 6.5 in
,C) 2.8 in
,D) 2.5 in
Eyepiece Length,E) 3.2 in
Objective Length,F) 4.8 in
Objective Diameter,G) 2.3 in
Eyepiece Diameter,H) 1.6 in
Tube Diameter,I) 30 mm
Actual Magnification 19.2,6.8)
FOV @ 100 yds,ft) 5.5,14.3)
FOV @ 100 m,m) 1.8,4.8)
Eye Relief,in) 3.6,4.4)
Eye Relief,mm) 93,113)
Obj. Clear Aperture 2.0 in / 50 mm
Weight 21.0 oz / 595 g
Elevation Adj. Range,MOA) 90
Windage Adj. Range,MOA) 90
Here are the specifications of the Zeiss:
Technical Data Magnification 6.5-20
Objective,mm) 50
Tube diameter,inches) 1
Field of view,feet at 100 yards) 17.7-5.7
Parallax,yards) 50-infinity
Reticle Image Plane,Magnifying) 2nd,no)
Exit pupil,mm) 7.7-2.5
Eye relief,inches) 3.5
Length,inches) 15.59
Weight,ounces) 21.83
MOA 1/4
Windage/Elevation Adjustment,inches) 45.36
Diopter Adj +2/-3
Leupold makes great scopes but the glass does not compare to Zeiss.
Carl Zeiss makes glass for telescopes, cinema cameras, binoculars, planetariums, microscopes, spectrometers, medical equipment and more. When NASA demands quality they turn to Carl Zeiss.
The two scopes you mentioned,Vx-III and Conquest) aren't really the same. One has a 1" tube and the other is 30mm. The 30mm is going to bring in more light period.
The clarity will be with the Zeiss and leupold will have more light.
The comparable Zeiss scope in 30mm is a Diavari 6x24x56. but the costs is $2k.
Zeiss does make a conquest in 30mm but it's 3x12x56, this may not have enough magnification for you.
Leupold makes fine scopes but comparing the glass to Zeiss is like comparing a Pinto to a Mustang.
Good luck on your purchase.
Rich
Carl Zeiss makes glass for telescopes, cinema cameras, binoculars, planetariums, microscopes, spectrometers, medical equipment and more. When NASA demands quality they turn to Carl Zeiss.
The two scopes you mentioned,Vx-III and Conquest) aren't really the same. One has a 1" tube and the other is 30mm. The 30mm is going to bring in more light period.
The clarity will be with the Zeiss and leupold will have more light.
The comparable Zeiss scope in 30mm is a Diavari 6x24x56. but the costs is $2k.
Zeiss does make a conquest in 30mm but it's 3x12x56, this may not have enough magnification for you.
Leupold makes fine scopes but comparing the glass to Zeiss is like comparing a Pinto to a Mustang.
Good luck on your purchase.
Rich
Gman
Gold $$ Contributor
RichAllen said:
I have heard that the tube diameter has nothing to do with gathering light, One advantage of the 30mm. tube is you gain MOA adjustment. I believe the objective lens diameter is what allows more light to enter the scope body. I understand that night hunting is very popular in Germany, and Austria, and that is the reason that Zeiss, Swarovski, Kahles, and Meopta manufacture hunting scopes with such large obective lens'.
Gman, Bill, I think you're partly right: Tube diameter has nothing to do with light transmission. Objective diameter has a little to do with it, but, I believe the biggest factor is simply the quality of the glass and the coatings involved.
If Fred,Bohl) sees this, he'll set us all straight.
If Fred,Bohl) sees this, he'll set us all straight.
So I'll chime in with my two cents. I'm not an expert, but I'm a relatively smart guy who loves optics.
After you put coatings on the glass, a single lens will transmit almost all the light it "sees." However, even a 99% transmission after 6 pieces of glass turns into 95% transmission. And 10 pieces of glass is only 90% transmission. Increasing the objective size will help out. And since Area=pi*radius^2, increasing the diameter of the objective lens by 25%,40->50mm) increases the amount of light by about 50%. However you have to balance this amount of possible light with the size of your pupil. However at high power, you always need a large objective lens to gather enough light.
Personally, I believe that increasing the tube diameter will increase the light transmitted through the scope. I may draw up a sketch at some point if people are really interested. I feel quite confident that limiting the tube diameter will decrease the field of view, and my hunch is it will also limit the transmission of light. However, I don't think its a major effect.
All that said, personally I think the most important thing is the optical clarity. I would happily shoot a scope with a smaller objective and smaller tube that had a concentric axis and good quality glass that was ground well. Personally, the resolution of the scope is what I care about the most. The power and theoretical light transmission are meaningless unless you can resolve the target.
After you put coatings on the glass, a single lens will transmit almost all the light it "sees." However, even a 99% transmission after 6 pieces of glass turns into 95% transmission. And 10 pieces of glass is only 90% transmission. Increasing the objective size will help out. And since Area=pi*radius^2, increasing the diameter of the objective lens by 25%,40->50mm) increases the amount of light by about 50%. However you have to balance this amount of possible light with the size of your pupil. However at high power, you always need a large objective lens to gather enough light.
Personally, I believe that increasing the tube diameter will increase the light transmitted through the scope. I may draw up a sketch at some point if people are really interested. I feel quite confident that limiting the tube diameter will decrease the field of view, and my hunch is it will also limit the transmission of light. However, I don't think its a major effect.
All that said, personally I think the most important thing is the optical clarity. I would happily shoot a scope with a smaller objective and smaller tube that had a concentric axis and good quality glass that was ground well. Personally, the resolution of the scope is what I care about the most. The power and theoretical light transmission are meaningless unless you can resolve the target.
Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
Robert,rstreich)
I’m not qualified to “set us all straight†particularly on the on the original question since the subjective evaluations necessary to answer it are,no pun intended) in the eye of the beholder. I am however dumb enough to venture opinions on the question of scope barrel diameter.
For most very good or better scope designs the limiting aperture that controls the amount of light collected is the clear diameter of the objective lens. The diameters of the internal or even eyepiece lenses are normally larger than needed for light transmission.
The primary reason designers have gone to larger scope tube diameters is to provide room for side parallax focus mechanisms and/or to provide a larger range of internal adjustment,principally elevation) for long range shooters.
As an example let us use the Burris Black Diamond and Signature Select 8-32 x 50 models: side parallax focus, 30 mm tube with 32 in at 100 yards maximum adjustment range; objective parallax focus, 1 inch tube with 22 in at 100 yards maximum adjustment range respectively. Both of these use the same lenses. By an informal test using a diffuse white light source and a light meter, the Black Diamond actually measured 9% less light transmission than the Signature select. IMHO this is due to the added lens elements needed for the side focus,more lenses more losses).
I have not been able to do similar comparison tests on other brands but would expect similar results within a brand. Brand to brand would probably show variations due to use of different glass and coatings as you suggest.
I’m not qualified to “set us all straight†particularly on the on the original question since the subjective evaluations necessary to answer it are,no pun intended) in the eye of the beholder. I am however dumb enough to venture opinions on the question of scope barrel diameter.
For most very good or better scope designs the limiting aperture that controls the amount of light collected is the clear diameter of the objective lens. The diameters of the internal or even eyepiece lenses are normally larger than needed for light transmission.
The primary reason designers have gone to larger scope tube diameters is to provide room for side parallax focus mechanisms and/or to provide a larger range of internal adjustment,principally elevation) for long range shooters.
As an example let us use the Burris Black Diamond and Signature Select 8-32 x 50 models: side parallax focus, 30 mm tube with 32 in at 100 yards maximum adjustment range; objective parallax focus, 1 inch tube with 22 in at 100 yards maximum adjustment range respectively. Both of these use the same lenses. By an informal test using a diffuse white light source and a light meter, the Black Diamond actually measured 9% less light transmission than the Signature select. IMHO this is due to the added lens elements needed for the side focus,more lenses more losses).
I have not been able to do similar comparison tests on other brands but would expect similar results within a brand. Brand to brand would probably show variations due to use of different glass and coatings as you suggest.
Fred Bohl
Gold $$ Contributor
Guys
I probably should have included an illustration of scope internals with my last post. I've chosen to include the cutaway of the fixed March scopes based on the glowing reports of many both on this and the Benchrest Central Shooters Forum of the image brightness and clarity.
Note how small the lenses are in this 30 mm body size particularly in the erector tube. The specs show 50 MOA windage and 72 MOA elevation adjustment ranges.
I probably should have included an illustration of scope internals with my last post. I've chosen to include the cutaway of the fixed March scopes based on the glowing reports of many both on this and the Benchrest Central Shooters Forum of the image brightness and clarity.
Note how small the lenses are in this 30 mm body size particularly in the erector tube. The specs show 50 MOA windage and 72 MOA elevation adjustment ranges.
Attachments
This is a partial read from a post @ SWFA.
Total light is the sum of surfaces. Some companies take an average. Some take as a percentage contribution which give a lower figure. Some companies measure the amount using spectrographs.,Schmidt and Bender, Zeiss, probably Leo). This property is much more important in microscopes than binoculars or rifle scopes and makes for good sales talk. Your are correct about total light transmission being a factor of the glass and quality, however nothing is said by any one that only certain wavelengths are measured by virtually any manufacturer because they change with wavelength,what makes prisms work). If one manu. says they have x amount on their lower line of scopes and x+1 in the next line, it probably has some comparison value. To compare accross the board is almost meaningless.
To get total light transmission you multiply the transmission coefficient of one surface by itself as many times as there are surfaces in the scope . For example, 99.65% for one surface means 0.9965 of incoming light is passed through one surface. For two surfaces it is 0.9965x0.9965=0.993,or 99.3%) I do not know how many surfaces a LPS scope has, but for 10 surfaces total light transmission is 0.9655 or 96.55%. Interestingly, if each surface only transmits 99.65% to get a total light transmission of 98% you can't have more than 6 optical surfaces, i.e. no more than three lenses. I do not know exactly how many lenses a scope typically has, but it is certainly more than three. Fixed scopes have fewer lenses than variable ones. That's why all other things being equal a fixed magnification scope will be brighter. Light transmission does depend heavily on the wavelength. For a narrow wavelength range it is quite feasible to get a multicoating with transmission of 99.99% or slightly better,I've worked with these in telecom industry and there are several companies that can readily supply superefficient narrow band coatings). Leupold's claim of 98% total light transmission has to be for a particular wavelength,color) of light.
Burris website has a cutaway picture of a scope that shows 5 lenses. For 10 optical surfaces at 99.5% each, total light transmission is 95.1% which matches their statement. We still do not know which wavelength range they are measuring.
Total light transmission is just a function of the light transmission of individual surfaces. The catch is that a scope can be very bright, but have poor resolution. Resolution depends heavily on coatings as well as on quality and polish of the lenses. The surface finish of the lens is typically measured in a test called "scratch and dig" which basically looks at scratches and nonuniformities of the surface. Another useful test is an interferometric measurement called "wavefront transmission" it looks at how long it took each wavelength to go through a lens,light travels at different speed through different materials). Nonuniformities in lens material, surface finish and coating quality can all result in poor wavefront transmission performance which correlates directly to poor resolution.
A good example here is with Burris Signature scopes vs. Fullfield II scopes. They have the same coatings, hence total light transmission is going to be roughly the same for the same magnification range. However, lenses in Signature line scopes are ground and polished to stricter tolerances resulting in better resolution than Fullfield II scopes.
I think I saw some tests somewhere that said that Burris Fullfield II fixed 6x scope is easily among the brightest in the world easily holding its own against expensive Euro scopes. However, that does not mean that it's the best scope since total light transmission does not garantee top resolution.
I think I'll stop here. This post has been a bit too long anyway.
Total light is the sum of surfaces. Some companies take an average. Some take as a percentage contribution which give a lower figure. Some companies measure the amount using spectrographs.,Schmidt and Bender, Zeiss, probably Leo). This property is much more important in microscopes than binoculars or rifle scopes and makes for good sales talk. Your are correct about total light transmission being a factor of the glass and quality, however nothing is said by any one that only certain wavelengths are measured by virtually any manufacturer because they change with wavelength,what makes prisms work). If one manu. says they have x amount on their lower line of scopes and x+1 in the next line, it probably has some comparison value. To compare accross the board is almost meaningless.
To get total light transmission you multiply the transmission coefficient of one surface by itself as many times as there are surfaces in the scope . For example, 99.65% for one surface means 0.9965 of incoming light is passed through one surface. For two surfaces it is 0.9965x0.9965=0.993,or 99.3%) I do not know how many surfaces a LPS scope has, but for 10 surfaces total light transmission is 0.9655 or 96.55%. Interestingly, if each surface only transmits 99.65% to get a total light transmission of 98% you can't have more than 6 optical surfaces, i.e. no more than three lenses. I do not know exactly how many lenses a scope typically has, but it is certainly more than three. Fixed scopes have fewer lenses than variable ones. That's why all other things being equal a fixed magnification scope will be brighter. Light transmission does depend heavily on the wavelength. For a narrow wavelength range it is quite feasible to get a multicoating with transmission of 99.99% or slightly better,I've worked with these in telecom industry and there are several companies that can readily supply superefficient narrow band coatings). Leupold's claim of 98% total light transmission has to be for a particular wavelength,color) of light.
Burris website has a cutaway picture of a scope that shows 5 lenses. For 10 optical surfaces at 99.5% each, total light transmission is 95.1% which matches their statement. We still do not know which wavelength range they are measuring.
Total light transmission is just a function of the light transmission of individual surfaces. The catch is that a scope can be very bright, but have poor resolution. Resolution depends heavily on coatings as well as on quality and polish of the lenses. The surface finish of the lens is typically measured in a test called "scratch and dig" which basically looks at scratches and nonuniformities of the surface. Another useful test is an interferometric measurement called "wavefront transmission" it looks at how long it took each wavelength to go through a lens,light travels at different speed through different materials). Nonuniformities in lens material, surface finish and coating quality can all result in poor wavefront transmission performance which correlates directly to poor resolution.
A good example here is with Burris Signature scopes vs. Fullfield II scopes. They have the same coatings, hence total light transmission is going to be roughly the same for the same magnification range. However, lenses in Signature line scopes are ground and polished to stricter tolerances resulting in better resolution than Fullfield II scopes.
I think I saw some tests somewhere that said that Burris Fullfield II fixed 6x scope is easily among the brightest in the world easily holding its own against expensive Euro scopes. However, that does not mean that it's the best scope since total light transmission does not garantee top resolution.
I think I'll stop here. This post has been a bit too long anyway.
This helps as well.
30mm scopes were first made in Europe years and years ago for two reasons.
1. Everything was done by hand and a large tube was needed to be able to build the scope.
2. They are on the metric system.
When we started building scopes in the U.S. technology had advanced some and being on the Standard system we built our scopes with 1" tubes.
The German scopes were and are superior because they use better glass, better coatings and better craftsmanship. Most people assume that bigger is better and that must be the reason why German 30mm scopes are brighter. It did not take long for U.S. and Asian scope makers to catch on to this and start offering 30mm scopes. It worked for a while but more and more people are learning the truth with the advent of the Internet. When Leupold first offered a 30mm tube in a hunting scope, they named it the Euro. 30. A competitor dissected one and said, B.S. that scope has 1" guts with a 30mm tube. Leupold's spin doctors quickly changed the name of the new 30mm line of scopes to LR or Long Range and released press releases stating that this new line of scopes has 1" internals with a 30mm tube to allow for more elevation adjustments.
Bottom line is 30mm scopes are 30mm because of the Metric system, they can be brighter than a 1" scope with all other things being equal,# of internal lenses and diameter of objective especially) if the maker takes advantage of the larger internal lenses in a manner that manages the light better,cutting down on distortion and stray light loss). 30mm scopes are also stronger and usually heavier. Biggest advantage is more internal adjustment travel for long range shooting.
30mm scopes were first made in Europe years and years ago for two reasons.
1. Everything was done by hand and a large tube was needed to be able to build the scope.
2. They are on the metric system.
When we started building scopes in the U.S. technology had advanced some and being on the Standard system we built our scopes with 1" tubes.
The German scopes were and are superior because they use better glass, better coatings and better craftsmanship. Most people assume that bigger is better and that must be the reason why German 30mm scopes are brighter. It did not take long for U.S. and Asian scope makers to catch on to this and start offering 30mm scopes. It worked for a while but more and more people are learning the truth with the advent of the Internet. When Leupold first offered a 30mm tube in a hunting scope, they named it the Euro. 30. A competitor dissected one and said, B.S. that scope has 1" guts with a 30mm tube. Leupold's spin doctors quickly changed the name of the new 30mm line of scopes to LR or Long Range and released press releases stating that this new line of scopes has 1" internals with a 30mm tube to allow for more elevation adjustments.
Bottom line is 30mm scopes are 30mm because of the Metric system, they can be brighter than a 1" scope with all other things being equal,# of internal lenses and diameter of objective especially) if the maker takes advantage of the larger internal lenses in a manner that manages the light better,cutting down on distortion and stray light loss). 30mm scopes are also stronger and usually heavier. Biggest advantage is more internal adjustment travel for long range shooting.
There were some great replies but here is a short one as explained to me. The Leupolds have a better reputation as a rugged scope for real tactical applications. The Zeiss has great optics but not necessarly built as regged as the Leupold for tactical applications. I have both and my Zeiss is very clear but it is only 14x when both are set on the same power the Zeiss might have a very slight edge. The Zeiss target turrents turn backward from a Leupold which might make a difference if you are use to one brand of scope.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.