Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Conquest Eye Relief

Looks like Art wins the argument to me. Conquest eye relief is not the distance as specified by the factory; the eye relief is not constant as advertised, it varies over the power range. The Leupold haters disparage the Leupolds for this, while praising the Conquest for being constant, and this proves that it is NOT constant.

Whether this means a Zeiss Conquest or Leupold VXIII are equal or one is inferior to the other is of no relevance to this particular argument. THAT is subjective. The facts were what was relevant to this argument, and facts have proven to show the Leupolds to be exactly on spec, while the Conquest is not. Argument over.

I don't own either scope in question, I am what is called an outside observer with no bias either direction. Both of these scopes are overpriced in my view. I would buy the VXI or VXII Leupold and forget about a [bleep] point or two of light transmission. I had an older Varix III, a pre multicoat 4 model. It was bright, sharp, clear, flat imaged, etc, and I could see just fine through it to shoot well after dark. Anything past that adds to price without adding to utility. Scope makers are putting features on their products due to silly arguing and nitpicking, when the products were already good enough.

Well said. E

I thought you were done with this thread? I guess since you can't continue arguing substance as it is a losing endeavor for you (see all unanswered points above) you must resort to lecturing me on manners...right before throwing ad hominem attack my way. Nice.

Phillip, Art won the argument if you believe Roe Deer is a liar, the lab results are bogus and Conquests have perfectly constant eye relief. These were his initial contentions. And he originally thought the test was about eyeboxes. I suggest you re-read the thread.

Please excuse me while I go attempt to adjust my 1/2 MOA click scope in 0.1 MOA increments...because Art says I can...same...significant....digits....

Get a VXI, you can adjust it in as fine an increments as you can manage. I'm neither damning nor praising the Conquest, NOR the Leupold. I think both are superb scopes. Spending more than either of these cost gains not very much for the increase in money. Both companies need to reel in some advertising and promotional costs, as the prices are getting out of hand.

Scopes bring up some very subjective opinions. Europeans are going to tout their products as superior, and conversely in America Americans are going to usually prefer their product.

So, which would I buy, given equal money? The Leupold. I like the styling better. All of the Zeiss scopes have chunky, blocky styling that I cannot like. The Leupolds are sleeker and sexier looking, they add a touch of style to a rifle, where the Zeiss's look thick and heavy on top of there, even the newest compact 32mm scopes. Sleek, lightweight, compact, all mean a lot to me. The next person up might like the Zeiss's better.

Of course, I'm not given equal money. I would buy the VXI, and not lose much sleep over it. Put it in some lapped steel rings, adjust those friction adjustments to my desired POI, put it on the gun rack and forget about it. I still think Art wins the argument though.

Notice neither am I. The only "belief" I'm pushing here is that if you're going to go out of your way to call a guy's credibility into question and accuse him of posting false information due to bias, you had better have your facts straight before you do.

Art didn't.

Jon, you keep insisting that we argue some sort of hard test data against Roe Deer's odviously faulty test data. That's not the point. His test data trys to infer to us that the Conquests have no lack of eye box issues that many have noticed and similar eye relief to the tested Leupolds.
He has also, on other occasions, introduced a similar test of a Zeiss 4X scope vs. a Leupold 4X. Again with odviously faulty data and test procedures. That's the point, suspicious or odviously faulty test data/results. You don't need hard data to be suspicious. A little basic knowledge will do. E

Or in your case, you can lack both hard data and basic knowledge and be suspicious.

Let's see...

ROEDEER tests the scope, posts his results, and he's wrong.

Lead antagonist? Someone who hasn't tested the Conquest at all, by his own admission. Go figure...

Not you, E. Everybody knows you need absolutely no data or basis in fact from which to call somebody else a liar. The rest of us do. Except, art, I guess who most unfortunately seems to have joined you.

Sitka Deer. I'm still not scientific, and I do not measure. Never have, never will. I test 'em like I stated above. I do trust info from certain people, just not E because all he does is regurgitate what JB says. I will continue to comment on whatever subject I wish, and don't give a rat's ass what you think about it, no malice intended.

I have never seen someone with such a lack of experience have so Much knowledge... You need to own more optics and test them yourself E before you act like a Expert.. I have owned probably 200 scopes how many have you had and how many Zeiss scopes have you owned? You do not have the experience to go on and on about testing which you know nothing of.. There are a ton of guys on here with far more experience than you but you seem to know the most????

1. In URP scope manufacturers don't give high/low mag ER numbers but a rounded "mediate" ER number instead.

2. In URP optics manufacturing, a wide ER variation is rated as "not so good" and more inherent to cheap to middle class products.

2. In high end optics manufacturing, ER variation from low to high mag is only some Millimeters, in most expensive optics sometimes even less.

3. Related DIN ISO 2007 (planned) regulations will divide between (cheaper) "Scopes General Purpose" and (expensive) "Scopes High Performance". The latter, if variable scopes, will have much less ER spread (this is planned to be called "constant" ER).

4. Minimum numbers for classification for "constant" ER are not yet set.

4. Concerning the Zeiss USA Marketeer's wording "constant ER" I
just talked to a responsible person at Zeiss Wetzlar Germany: He said using the word "constant" for the ER of the Conquest is not correct in the pure sense of the upcoming DIN ISO regs. (He did not say he will but I think, as a reaction to this, somebody is going to step at someones toes).

5. and last but not least:

I think I'm too good for this optics forum.

So take care, I'm out and off for a while.

roe

Roe,

Ive found your posts very good FWIW.

Ditto.

ditto, ditto.

+ 3 ditto

Don't leave us hangin' too long....

5. and last but not least:

I think I'm too good for this optics forum.

So take care, I'm out and off for a while.

roe
[/quote]
What's up with that?

He gets crap every time he tries to post a test result that doesnt jive with someone elses perception.

thought it would be good to bring this back up....
the conquest and leupold "VX" not vari-x are pretty close according to RD's lab tests