ISO 14490-1:2005 specifies the test methods for the determination of the following basic characteristics of telescopic systems and observational telescopic instruments:

angular magnification;
entrance pupil diameter;
exit pupil diameter and eye relief;
angular field of view in the object space;
angular field of view in the image space;
angular field of view in the object space for spectacle wearers;
collimation of the bundle of rays emergent from the eyepiece;
image rotation;
closest distance of observation.

Conquest scopes don't have a "fixed" ER, like the(statistic median DIN ISO) numbers in brochures may imply.

1. I had measured a Conquest 3,5-10x50 from 2002 and a Leupold Vari-X III 3,5-10x50 (year "L") in an Optics Lab, with the following results according to abovementioned DIN ISO measurement rules:

Conquest:
108,1 mm @ 3,5x and
85,32 mm @ 10x (which effectively came out at 10,5x)

Leupold:
113,8 mm @ 3,5x (which effectively came out at 3,3x only) and
91,7 mm @ 10x (which effectively came out at 9,76x only)

If you take in consideration the differences of real magnification and according exit pupil diameters, there is no "winner", concerning ER.
The Conquest is much brighter (92,3/89,4 % Day/Night Transmission)with the Leupold 6/7% behind (85,2/83,2%).

2. In a recent test one each "younger" Conquest (2006) 3,5-10x44 and a Leupold 3,5-10x50 (year "N") were tested as follows:

Conquest:
107,5 mm @ 3,5x (which in fact is 3,35x)
85,1 mm @ 10x (which in fact is 9,92x)

Leupold
113,8 mm @ 3,5x (3,33x)
81,4 mm @ 10x (9,71x)

6 mm "advantage" towards the Leupold at low mag does not count much becauseER of both scopes are quite ok even for quick shots on running game.
Much more important: At high mag, where, with prone or similar stance, your eye is much closer to the ocular bell, the Conquests ER is 4 mm MORE compared to the Leupold.

Transmission was 93,4/90,9% (Conquest) and 91,6/89,1 % (Leupold), so there is an improvement on both, but much more to the Leupold.

If I was asked "What scope should I buy?" I'd say "Mount them to the rifle, examine and handle both in the field, try them with a resolution chart ("AF 1952" is fine), put them away for some time, try again and buy the one you like most."

Compared to inferior scopes don't say "this is yx% more expensive, but it is not yx% better".

You better ask "How much worth is the difference to me".

roe

Roe Deer,

Neat test and interesting results. I'm not sure what a year "L" is on the Leupold but given I assume it's a 2002-ish like the Zeiss. Do you think there have been any subsitantive changes in the last five years that would make a difference in the results?

Members don't get thanked often enough for doing these kinds of things for us. Thanks.

good job, rd.
now, 103 mm equals what in inches?
out here at the fish camp, i do not have a metric/inch ruler ...

103mm = 4.055118 inches.

A good rule of thumb is 25mm = 1 inch. Close enough for government work

Great test and glad to have some real data as opposed to opinion. Waiting on E's reply.

Steve

fish,
Access to a computer and you can't convert millimeters into inches?

4.0551"

Regards, Matt.

2nd Leupold scope tested is a "N" glass (and so 2 years younger).

If you compare Leupold "L" and "N" glass you see a remarkable improvement in brightness.

Roe

Roe Deer,

Was the "L" a prefix or suffix?

mathman

Edit: I just realized Leupold may not have made a 50mm version during the prefix years. Forgive me if my question is moot.

ad 1. Thanks

ad 2. I don't argue with E. He has much knowledge and would have been a reliable expert if he weren't the same old stubborn phard like me.

roe

Both letters N and L were suffix. Excuse me not mentioning it.
Somewhere in my sloppy disc called Old Brains sticks a rundown of Leupold production letters but I didnt dig deeper.

roe

Interesting stugg Roe, thanks for the info. I trust your info because you actually test stuff yourself. "Others" read about it and tell us we don't know anything.

Hello ROE DEER,

I have a question for you about Zeiss Victory Scopes. I have one Zeiss Victory V 1,5x - 6x 42 with N� 4 reticle since 2001( I also have a Zeiss Victory FL 10x42 binocular, the most impressive piece of optics I have had !!). Do you know if Zeiss use now the same FL glass in the objectives of the last Victory Scopes ?
I think also that the design of these scopes has no peers: Great field of view; long enough eye releif; light weight; short overall lenght and, first of all, great resolution and brightness!
Thank you for your response in advance !

PH

I've got a little problem with your test results.
The last time you posted some "test results" you tried to tell us that the new FXII Leupold 4X had only three inches of eye relief. No way. You also tried to tell us the 4X Zeiss Conquest could resolve 4X better than the FXII Leupold. Again, no way.
Now we hear that the Conquest have the same eye box as the Leupolds, are brighter, and have even more eye relief. Funny. Nobody else has noticed that. Zeiss lists them as fixed eye relief scopes. Many have tested them following Barsness's simple instructions in "Optics for the Hunter". Their eye relief comes out close or a bit shorter than listed. And most acknowledge that they do have much smaller eye boxes at their lower magnifications which is typical of fixed eye relief scopes.
Sorry, I don't buy still another of your many "test results". They simply don't appear similar to the tests of many others. Or even to match the specs put out by the company themselves. E

Thanks for posting this info Werner. This seems to be consistent with what most people actually see. Didn't seem possible that there was only a couple of percentage points difference.

"They simply don't appear similar to the tests of many others."
list the others, with dates of publication.
of course, a list would contain more than one or two vague references ...

Info on Leupold scope mfg dates:

Since 1974 Leupold has incorporated a letter date code in the serial
number of each scope. The prefix, beginning with the letter E, was
advanced each year. In 1993 the letter changed to a suffix, and was
moved to the end of the serial number. Any scope without a letter in the
serial number was produced before 1974. The following is a list of the
date codes for each year of production.

Prefix:
E - 1974 J - 1978 N - 1982 T - 1986 X - 1990
F - 1975 K - 1979 P - 1983 U - 1987 Y - 1991
G - 1976 L - 1980 R - 1984 V - 1988 Z - 1992
H - 1977 M - 1981 S - 1985 W - 1989

Suffix:
A - 1993 B - 1994 C - 1995 D - 1996 E - 1997 F - 1998 G - 1999

H - 2000 J - 2001 K - 2002 L - 2003 M - 2004 N -2005 P - 2006

E
Please go purchase a Zeiss conquest and get back to us.

E
you're a nice guy and all but your broken record approach is old AND INACCURATE.

Anyone thinking the conquest eyebox is in the same league with the Leupie has not looked at them... The Conquest is far more critical.

The conquest is claimed by the manufacturer to have "constant eye relief" yet it has every bit the range of the Leupold?

I am always concerned when those with agendas run scientific tests. It really is no concern to me what anyone wants to believe but finding discrepencies in the "right" direction from company claims are always extremely suspect.

I have seen and measured the difference and know without a seconds hesitation this is incorrect information. Take that as you wish.
art

"Eyebox" size was not included in the above test. The above simply measured eye relief.

And very incorrectly, I might add... Eyebox relates to the relative ease one finds in using the eyebox because of its actual usable size beyond the parameters of hard numbers. I mention it only because it is the conquests' biggest shortcoming.

ANYTIME I see a claim in excess of manufacturer specs I get real suspicious. If the eye relief was as long as Roe Deer measured Zeiss would absolutely be claiming ALL of it. The FACT Zeiss says the eye relief is CONSTANT and Roe Deer came up with a range of measurements in excess of the Leupold which does not claim constant eye relief also screams "error."

The fact he has blindly argued against Leupold scopes for so long only makes the obvious discrepencies more obvious. Anyone wishing to believe the numbers is welcome to, but I know better at each and every point.
art

It's only incorrect if it was claimed to be a test of "Eyebox." Please re-read the title of the thread and the post itself. The word "eyebox" appears nowhere. Yes, I guess you can say it was a most incorrect eyebox test...because it wasn't an eyebox test at all. What's your point?

Uhm, for the recent models his numbers show the Leupold changing 32.4mm from low to high power and the Zeiss 22.4mm. It does show the Zeiss to be much closer to "constant." That's a small enough change from low to high power the same head position likely would work at all powers...constant. If there's something screaming "error" there, I guess I missed it.

E - has never held or smelled a conquest much less looked thru one. therein lies the problem

now if we could only get zeiss to stop bashing each scope 10,000 times before they sell them.....

E's comments about Zeiss is like a virgin's comments about sex.

It's just too bad that these discussions always end up in a pissing match with a poster who has no real world experience with these products. I used to think highly of this guy and still enjoy some of his other posts but when it comes to optics and specifically Zeiss and Swarovski he cannot be find a kind thing to say about them always Quoting Barsness. I give up on this guy

E, have you got that Conquest in your hands yet? We are all awaiting your test results........

Thanks Art. That is exactly my point. The guy posts stuff that even the makers don't say.
If you guys want to spend your money on something which trusted folks like Barsness and Art have found not offer anything significant, be my guest. I've got better things to do with my time and money.
This is the second time Roe Deer has tried to post test results which were just Zeiss vs. Leupold. And it's the second time they look very suspicious. A 4X Leupold has only a 3 inch eye relief ? Really ?
Now we also told that the Zeiss Conquest is much brighter than Leupold's scopes. Funny. They didn't test any where near that far apart way back in "93". But they do now ? That's not what Barsness has reported. He says the Zeiss scopes are brighter, but only by the slimest margins. Differences you can only see in their true persective only if you level the playing field when doing the comparisions.
Then there is this tried old bussiness of buying a new Conquest and comparing it to a used Leupold. You guys never get it. That ain't doing level playing field comparisions. You need to compare new scopes.
Then you need to set them on the same actual magnification which isn't the same as their indicated magnifications. You need to do this during twilight conditions. That's where it counts. Be my guest. E

JonA
"It's only incorrect if it was claimed to be a test of "Eyebox." Please re-read the title of the thread and the post itself. The word "eyebox" appears nowhere. Yes, I guess you can say it was a most incorrect eyebox test...because it wasn't an eyebox test at all. What's your point?"

Surely you can understand the FACT Zeiss has a different claim for the eye RELIEF on a Conquest than Roe Deer? Surely you can understand "constant" means the same through the whole range? I have actually made the measurments myself. The numbers presented do not match my findings and, more importantly, do not match the findings of Zeiss. These are eye relief numbers I am talking about.

Roe Deer posted:
"
Conquest:
108,1 mm @ 3,5x and
85,32 mm @ 10x (which effectively came out at 10,5x)

Leupold:
113,8 mm @ 3,5x (which effectively came out at 3,3x only) and
91,7 mm @ 10x (which effectively came out at 9,76x only)

If you take in consideration the differences of real magnification and according exit pupil diameters, there is no "winner", concerning ER.
The Conquest is much brighter (92,3/89,4 % Day/Night Transmission)with the Leupold 6/7% behind (85,2/83,2%).

2. In a recent test one each "younger" Conquest (2006) 3,5-10x44 and a Leupold 3,5-10x50 (year "N") were tested as follows:

Conquest:
107,5 mm @ 3,5x (which in fact is 3,35x)
85,1 mm @ 10x (which in fact is 9,92x)

Leupold
113,8 mm @ 3,5x (3,33x)
81,4 mm @ 10x (9,71x)"

These numbers represent two Zeiss scopes and two Leupold scopes. I used the first pair when I stated the eye relief range was greater in the Zeiss than the Leupold. You used the second pair. The great disparity between the numbers screams "ERROR". His conclusions after the first set of numbers fails to explain how or why the his numbers failed to catch Zeiss' constant eye relief claim.

You then stated:
"Uhm, for the recent models his numbers show the Leupold changing 32.4mm from low to high power and the Zeiss 22.4mm. It does show the Zeiss to be much closer to "constant." That's a small enough change from low to high power the same head position likely would work at all powers...constant. If there's something screaming "error" there, I guess I missed it."

Both Leupold scopes were from the same model, nothing changed during the two years difference in production dates. That came later.

If you fail to understand the meaning of constant, I apologize. For some reason though when I make the measurements I come FAR closer to constant and shorter. But I am just using a couple squares, a scale and a notecard.

Regardless of whether or not the change in eye relief works for any particular individual, the numbers and claims are absolutely suspect.

All that said, I have nothing against Zeiss. In many circunstances a Zeiss scope would be a fine choice. It makes compromises just like every manufacturer and each individual needs to decide which ones are important to him.

I personally have zero use for any 50mm scope. A friend sent me a NIB VX-III 3.5-10x50 Leupie last year as a gift... He is not gunny and simply asked the guy behind the counter which scope he thought was the very best. I explained the situation to my buddy and sold the scope at his urging and with his blessing.

Because I like light rifles and they recoil farther eye relief is critical to me. That is why I measure it...
art

E
I do not say Zeiss does not offer anything significant... What I say is the particular set of compromises Zeiss chooses do not meet my criteria for a hunting scope.
art

E, what does testing from "93" have to do with anything. Mr. Barsness stated that test results are valid for a year. I don't think that Roe Deer should have stated that the Conquest was much brighter when there is only a 7% difference.

So, are you going to call Wayne a liar too? Or is it possible your measuring proceedures need to be revisited since they never detected this in the past? I've never seen any variable scope whose eye relief remained perfectly constant, even those advertised as such and so I've always treated that advertising description as such. Some probably exist, I just haven't tested any so I don't take that claim quite as literally as some might. I would think anybody who has measured the eye relief on many scopes would have come to the same conclusion long ago.

E, did you get your first Conquest in '93 ??????

Next week Motor Trend is doing a shootout between a Pinto and a Vega.

RDFinn
Only as a point in defense of the scientific method I believe strongly in the tenet of flawed science in one element of a test flavoring all elements of the same test.

And it should not need pointing out those numbers are far different from all other testers... I see agenda...
art

JonA
I will thank you to refrain from putting words in my mouth. I am not attacking you, simply addressing comments as factually as possible, sans any acrimony. I never said anything to describe how constant constant has to be to "claim constant."

Since I never put my numbers down how can you know how constant my numbers are? Roe Deer came up with numbers showing Zeiss made a scope with less constsnt eye relief than the Leupold compared to it. Zeiss claims constant eye relief and Leupold does not. Is there anyway I can make that clearer?

Okay, so now you claim to have measured scope eye relief; Have you found a single Conquest with less constant-eye-relief than Leupold's standard published data?

When I see numbers bandied about that do not match my findings and in fact miss by a lot, I am forced to coment.
art

Well - at least they are comparing SCOPES instead of speaking endlessly about a product they have zero hands on experience with. I would venture to guess that you aren't getting it that each time you speak out about a product you've never touched the Peanut Gallery gets a good laugh. In my safe, there are many Leupolds and two Conquests all of which I am quite pleased with and each of which I've spent many days afield carrying. Personally, I have never understood why you are so bent on disputing anything positive said about a product that you've never even looked though - it's quite puzzling. FWIW, if you owned a Conquest and though use decided you hated it, I think most people here would take your opinion a lot more seriously since it was based on experience instead of speculation.

E in Roe Deers last test where both scopes had about 90% light transmision the Conquest was from 2006 and the Leupold from 2005.

In his first test with 6-7% difference the Conquest was from 2002 and the Leupold from 2003.That is NOT comparing a new Conquest to a used Leupold.

Norwegian
So you accept Roe Deer's numbers for eye relief unflinchingly?
art

Art, if you own both, why don't you just measure and post your findings. What is the agenda you are referring to?

RDFinn
Need to go borrow some to measure them... As I clearly posted above I have no use for 50mm scopes... I have, however measured both and looked through both under hunting conditions repeatedly...
art

I have said nothing about the eye relief. Perhaps there could be something wrong with that Leupold scope?

I'm sure you have. Do you, based on your own observations, believe the difference in brightness (noticeable).

RDFinn
Sorry, I forgot to answer your second question before submitting the last post... Roe Deer has repeatedly made statements about Leupold scopes that I have found to be incorrect. He has characterized Leupold as virtually unusable due to lack of resolution and brightness. I have no real way to measure those in a strictly controlled way.

When he characterizes eye relief as being the same however, I can measure those and have. I cannot imagine how his agenda is unclear.
art

Norwegian
"I have said nothing about the eye relief. Perhaps there could be something wrong with that Leupold scope?"

Ahhhhh.... So the numbers are so far out of line the scope appears defective to the casual observer?

Actually though, it is the Zeiss that deviates farthest from its spec sheet... That would be in the arena of eye relief. I cannot argue brightness because I cannot measure it precisely and easily.
art

All these contemporary 'scopes have short eye relief compared to the ancient Lyman Alaskan, early model Weaver K2.5 and K4, and Noskes. Those scopes, especially the Noskes, could be mounted ahead of the bolt handles of sporterized Springfields and Mausers - eye relief was around 6". Then gunsmiths learned how to weld or forge bolt handles to clear scopes and the long eye distances were no longer necessary. But those old rifles still look better - the eyepiece does not hang back over the grip. You can crawl the stock all you want to from sitting or prone and not worry about getting bunged on the forehead.

vigillinus
While I like lots of eye relief I am not sure I want to return to the days of non-coated (or single-coated) lenses for it! Progress can be a wonderful thing!
art

I have never been one of the scientific types. I have always and still do use actual hands on use to determine what I like. I have a 3-9 and a 3.5-10 Conquest, and a VX III, and many others. I know how to focus, adjust, use my eyes, and look through all of them. I find the Conquest to be brighter, sharper, and plenty of eye relief when comparing to my VX III. There's nothing wrong with the Leupy, I just like others, including my elite 4200 and Nikon Monarch better. I've never had to send any back for repairs. I think the 3-9x40 Conquest is the best bang for the buck out there, period. I don't need science to affirm or conflict with my findings.

Todd
"I have never been one of the scientific types. I have always and still do use actual hands on use to determine what I like."

"Seven Heaven, you need to read Roe Deer's report on the Conquest vs Leupy VX before you spout off about eye relief."

"Interesting stugg Roe, thanks for the info. I trust your info because you actually test stuff yourself. "Others" read about it and tell us we don't know anything."

"379 Pete.......my 3-9 Conquest has a full 4" also. E is smoking crack again........."

Three quotes from your recent posts...

So if you are not a scientific guy, why measure? And why accept numbers from Roe Deer, whom you say you trust, when they disagree with what you measured yourself? Why is it okay for you to trust another but not for E?

No malice intended, but the ability to comment on a product in specific terms allows us to discuss them. When one reports an obvious aberration in optics it deserves careful review and anything is fair game within reason.
art

Todd,

I measured the eye relief of a 3-9 Conquest and made notes on it and did the same with a couple of Leupold scopes. They were all about the same. I mentioned this to E. as he was in a discussion about it on another thread.

The test was done at the same magnifications.

Since then I threw the note paper out.

I use and have used several Nikons, Leupolds, Conquests, Bushnell's , Burris's and even some Simmons. 2x7 Leupy still outshines the others in the eye relief and eye box department. Like it better than the vaunted 6x FXIII. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, my choice is the 2x7 Leupy, 2.5x8 is about as good, but I can get 2 2x7's for the same bucks.

Call it whatever you like if it makes you feel better, but the fact is you called into question Roe Deer's integrity. I found this disappointing.

You didn't question his methods, the instruments used, the procedures he followed. You didn't ask for more details of the test, you didn't question why his results could possibly be different than yours.

You said, "The fact he has blindly argued against Leupold scopes for so long only makes the obvious discrepencies more obvious."

I must have missed the day they taught that as a step in the Scientific Method. If I was on the other end of that, I'd sure know what you called me. As I said, this was disappointing as I had only come to expect such things here from E.


Yes, I'm obviously paying more attention to the more recent test. The test between one of the first Conquests to roll off the line against a Leupold which is no longer made might be interesting to those shopping for used scopes but not many else. Who was it who said optics tests are good for a year or so?

The second test included an up to date Conquest. The first Leupold was a Vari-X III, the second was made in 2004 so it wasn't likely the same since they were no longer made. So which test is more relevant?

The second test reports similar findings to Wayne van Zwoll's in the above article. Is it a conspiracy?

JonA
Roe Deer used specific descriptions based on standards, there is no need to check with him, just the standards. It is incumbent on the researcher to uncover the reasons for gross disparities in his work. Coming up with numbers that far from the claims made by the manufacturer is reason enough to repeat the tests to uncover the reasons.

"As I said, this was disappointing as I had only come to expect such things here from E."

Sometimes the mirror is the hardest truth to face. I tire quickly of the constant E harangue. There is stuff he posts I disagree with. I have repeatedly challenged his posts and will ocntinue to do so when warranted, but I will not attack E. There are few others that can say the same. I clearly stayed well away from ad hominem, despite your claim to the contrary. Note the Todd More quotes above, for example.

Please show me a quote from E involving an ad hominem attack.

"The first Leupold was a Vari-X III, the second was made in 2004 so it wasn't likely the same since they were no longer made. So which test is more relevant?"

Sorry, but based on dates of manufacture both Leupolds would be Vari-X III models. Part of the reason the numbers are so obviously wrong is because they are so obviously different. Neither test is reliable IMO.

You also said:
"The second test reports similar findings to Wayne van Zwoll's in the above article. Is it a conspiracy?"

Do you consider the range of eye relief reported by Roe Deer similar to Wayne's? Wayne clearly wrote "SLIGHT." Sorry, but claiming constant eye relief and exceeding Leupold's eye relief range is not slight, is not similar and clearly there is no conspiracy. You are putting words in Wayne's text now.
art

Off the top of my head, here's the one that stands out as the first that rubbed me the wrong way.

E didn't like cfran's test results. Therefore, cfran must have been lying. Next question?

Says who? I bought a VX-III in 2004. Your evidence for knowing it wasn't is?

And yet it was enough he felt the need to mention it, felt the need to state Zeiss' claim is "not quite correct." I sure wouldn't do that over 1 or 2 mm.

Sorry for chiming in only now, but yesterday, as one of the first outdoor writers worldwide, I was busy shooting and "exploring" Krieghoff's brand new bolt action rifle.

My dailly duty made me pretty thickskinned but being called unreliable, suspicuous, with an "agenda", (what to me means I'm a biased liar) makes me angry and much more. At least I try to stay "civilized".

Who I am to be called names and badmouthed here.

I was just reporting numbers, not MY numbers, but optical lab numbers. This is like shooting the messenger, bravo!

The numbers given were measured according to DIN ISO standards, the results will also be published in my magazine.

BTW I remember similar numbers - Conquests having more brightness and about the same eye relief compared to others - measured in other labs and published in other European magazines.

The second Leupold scopes was made in 2005, N mark means made in 2005. You and JonA wrote 2004, that's wrong.So I guess the second Leupold is a VX-III and the first a Vari-X III
Perhaps that could be the reason why they have different eye relief? I don't now, but those two Leupold scopes are not 100%similar.

All of you aren't noticing something. The tests used older scopes, not new ones. That's another reason why the tests are invalid. Any cleaning process on a scope's lenses degrades the quality of the coatings and their ability to transmit light. That, I suspect, is why the light transmition figures are also suspect.
Barness told me once that he knows four dead serious hunters who buy a new scope every 4-5 years just because of this degradation. It is the reason why he uses nothing but brand new scopes, fresh out of the srink wrap, for his testing. E

Well then it could be interesting to test new scopes vs older scopes 1,2,3years old etc to see how much light transmission decrease. Of course no one can guarantee that the scopes have been used 100% exactly the same way.
Or we can test a scope when it's new, and after 1 year,after 2 years and so on. Then and only then, we can have an idea of how much the light transmisson can decrease in a used scope.
I have no doubt it will decrase, but since no one have made this test we can only guess.
Testing new scopes vs new scopes will only give us the results of ....well,.... new scopes.And no one I know of use a 100% new scope except for his first hunting trip.

Norwegian, stop waisting your breath here. Seems like the folks here will defend their Leupold choice to the bitter end. Frankly, I don't understand why ROE DEER takes the time to share the info he does. You have to remember, that Leupold scopes are sold through this site. There is lots of good info here elsewhere.

What you really want RD is to have nothing but a bunch of yes men agreeing with each other and no disagreement in the form of better information. It doesn't bother you a bit that some post distorted, inaccurate information as long as it agrees with your distorted, inaccurate information.
I appauld N for suggesting such reasearch. I think it would help us all better understand the subject matter and help us make better, informed choices to meet our needs. E

You are certainly qualified to speak of distorted and inaccurate information. Your posts here are nothing more than a collection of Barsness retread info. I have not challenged the eye relief issue cause I have not measured it. You, on the other hand, dispute the findings with nothing to back it up as usual. I have never seen a person say so much about a topic that knows so little. Show me one post of mine that has "distorted, inaccurate information". You have some set of balls to make a statement like that.

JonA
Sorry, but giving you an option between two positions is not ad hominem. He is stating either something "else" biased the test or he is lying. Note he did not suggest the bias was intentional, malicious nor suspected by the reporter; Simply that it was there.

My records show I have a 3.5-10x40 Vari-X III with an N. If there are examples of each out there it seems the reporter should have stated the exact model. No?

When Zeiss claims "constant" (and they did and do so claim) and actual measurement exceeds Leupolds (and they do not so claim)there is something very wrong. Either Zeiss needs to be taken to task for their bogus claim or the serious discrepency requires research and justification, not a dismissive "If you take in consideration the differences of real magnification and according exit pupil diameters, there is no "winner", concerning ER."

Or, far more opinion than fact "6 mm "advantage" towards the Leupold at low mag does not count much becauseER of both scopes are quite ok even for quick shots on running game.
Much more important: At high mag, where, with prone or similar stance, your eye is much closer to the ocular bell, the Conquests ER is 4 mm MORE compared to the Leupold."

As I have stated repeatedly, I have nothing against Zeiss.

I do not consider either range of eye relief in the Zeiss tests "slight" and have one serious question to ask. If it is fair to question how leupold can get away with naming their scopes with rounded off powers, though the spec sheet gives the actual... Why is it other scope manufacturers can make up their eye relief numbers, for a prime example, Burris and these numbers for Zeiss?

Let's take a look at what the numbers are, not as a function of comparison to another, but as a function of manufacturers' specifications.

Assuming the first Leupold is a Vari-X III, second Leupold is a VX-III and the Zeiss are both Conquests per the spec sheet in the 2004 Gun Digest (my specifications source for the Vari-X III and the Conquests), let us compare the test results as reported to the claims.

The Conquest specifications are 4" at all powers or 101.6mm. These tests show deviations from that of 6.5mm, 16.3mm, 5.9mm and 16.5mm for a total of 45.2mm deviation from the spec sheet of 406.4mm (101.6mm times the four eye relief measurements). That is an average deviation of 11.3mm per measurement) Is variation in excess of 11% slight?

Taking the four Leupold measurements converted to metric (116.8 compared to 113.8 and 91.4 compared to 91.7) yields a total disecrepency of 3.3mm. On the other scope (113.8mm compared to 111.8mm and 81.4mm compared to 88.9mm) yields a total discrepency of 9.5mm for a combined total of 12.7mm, or just slightly more in total than the average measurement on the Zeiss. Is 1/8" per measurement "slight"? (403.4mm vs. 406.2mm)

Now, what do I take from the numbers? On the Leupolds, the eye relief numbers look to be very close to what the manufacturer says they are. But the Zeiss numbers are so far out of line with what I expect of the company making the binocular I have doted over for more than two decades, that I am suspicious of the results. Do the results make Zeiss look bad? No, they make them roughly equal with Leupold.

Can a company capable of making such great optics measure what they build? Why are the discrepencies between claim and actual so great? When I measure eye relief I am not looking for precision to the nearest mm, or even three, but I know I can do better than the average of 11mm in the Zeiss tests.

One more time... I am suspicious of the tests for reasons stated above and have nothing against Zeiss.
art

Don't fret all this talk. If you can see and aim better from one scope over the other then follow the path of least resistance.

For me the Conquest riflescopes are much better than the Leupold scopes and I own both unlike some here.

And I, the opposite result, I like the Leupolds.....

Roe Deer
I apologize if you take offense to the numbers and my comments here. I asked a number of questions in the post I just made to JonA, feel free to answer any you feel I erred in asking.

The reason I state you have a bias is simple, it shows!

Added into the data generated by the lab are your comments:
"If you take in consideration the differences of real magnification and according exit pupil diameters, there is no "winner", concerning ER."

"6 mm "advantage" towards the Leupold at low mag does not count much becauseER of both scopes are quite ok even for quick shots on running game.
Much more important: At high mag, where, with prone or similar stance, your eye is much closer to the ocular bell, the Conquests ER is 4 mm MORE compared to the Leupold."

Into hard data you interject your bias. Having had to deal with a friend that dropped his eyelid over his eye because of insufficient eye relief I beg to differ with your opinion.

Having measured the Conquest (just had to do it yesterday afternoon on a brand new Conquest) I find my numbers are far short of what the lab found but the range did not change much from the second set. But a new VX-III came in right where the lab and the spec sheet said they would. (plus or minus, eyeballing the scale sans glasses)

If my numers match Leupold specs and your lab numbers match leupold specs and my numbers are much closer than the lab on the Zeiss and closer to the spec sheet (but on the other side of the lab's numbers) I get suspicious.

Can you explain these discrepencies? I cannot accept them just because anyone dismisses them as nothing.
No insult intended.
art

RDFinn
"You have to remember, that Leupold scopes are sold through this site."

And you should note Zeiss are sold here on this site by Cameraland and Doug is a great guy to deal with! This is not about not buying Zeiss! This is about test results that do not match the Zeiss spec sheet.
art

I was responding to Norwegian post regarding the light transmission figures that were posted in ROE DEER's original post. Doug sells just about every major brand. What's your point?

Why don't ya'll just ask Stick and get the definitive opionion on this matter?

RDFinn
"Norwegian, stop waisting your breath here. Seems like the folks here will defend their Leupold choice to the bitter end. Frankly, I don't understand why ROE DEER takes the time to share the info he does. You have to remember, that Leupold scopes are sold through this site. There is lots of good info here elsewhere."

Yet you characterize the post as "I was responding to Norwegian post regarding the light transmission figures that were posted in ROE DEER's original post." ???

You confused me. I thought your comment was suggesting I was defending Leupold scopes to the bitter end. And you were obviously suggesting Roe Deer's numbers are above comment or reproach... As I am providing comments relative to those numbers I assumed you were sniping at me through an aside. I am simply asking a few questions about numbers I cannot come close to reproducing, though I have tried... Yesterday.

And since the manufacturer says I should get a certain set of numbers and I get a set of numbers much closer to their numbers I remain cautious.

My point remains Leupold is not the question and Zeiss really is not the question, but rather, why are the numbers so different from the 4" constant eye relief claimed?
art

It's pretty clear you don't know what you're defending. From the same thread:

I could quote a dozen more.

I'm guessing that's explained by this:

That shows about 5mm difference from each test to 4" median, assuming the 4" wasn't rounded for the advertising copy. How many significant digits does the 4" term in your specs contain? Is it listed 4.000"?

JonA
Just had a very funny thing happen... Decided to look for a Conquest specification sheet rather than relying on my 2004 Gun Digest. Seems the authorized Zeiss America dealers have a different specification for eye relief... Seesm they call it 3.5" constant on all but a small handful of the line. Now we have a significant digit that moots your question, no?

Now we find a single measurement that is literally 21.5% different from the specifications.

Let me explain something you seem to misunderstand; eye relief at any given power IS a single number. Period. End of story! When authorized Zeiss dealers claim the Conquests have a constant 3.5" of eye relief and do not get corrected by the home office, one would assume they are using the numbers authorized by Zeiss... I would assume anyway.

But assuming the fairy tale were true and it was a median measurement, Zeiss could have added a legitimate 7.6mm to their specifications, according to this test lab. Smells very fishy to me. Especially since other manufacturers are willing to spend the ink to rate their eye relief measurement at each end of the power ring.

Funny thing I mentioned at the start? Whack that .5" off the numbers and retain the smaller range of the second scope and the numbers I got yesterday match real well on a brand new Conquest...

Again, I am not saying anything against Zeiss, ESPECIALLY in light of the 3.5" specification. With that I see the only question is the use of the word "constant" when specifying eye relief.

Now, is Zeiss capable of measuring what they build? How is it possible for a lab test to be this far off?
art

It tells us they'll at least break it into 1/2" increments instead of rounding off to the full inch, but nothing more than that. 5 mm is still pretty small potatoes in a world of 3.5" and 4". Really, they don't have a single model that falls in between the two, not even by a single mm? Sure, feel free to take those out to ten digits....

Stretching a bit I see. So now these scopes suck because they have too much eye relief? And you said Roe Deer had bias "that showed...."

So, we can now agree that Roe Deer isn't a liar for posting lab results that show the eye relief is not constant--because that's what you confirmed for yourself yesterday! Yay, we are making progress....

I guess I feel you should have been saying something against Zeiss in the first place for failing to advertise their eye relief in a manor acceptable to you. I'd be fine with that. I wasn't fine with your calling Roe Deer to the mat over reporting lab results, some of which you confirmed yourself yesterday as being correct.

That 1/2"? First, please confirm you measured the same model. Second, confirm you did it by the same ISO 14490-1 methods the lab used. Since you speak of things such as median values as "fantasies," I'm guessing you haven't taken your own advice and:

In short, I'm guessing your methodology differing from the lab's as a more probable explanation than some Leupy-hating lab making stuff up just to make you mad.

JonA
Sorry, but your math and comprehension skills are not up to the task of unfolding what I wrote. Clearly, that could be my fault and I take full responsibility.

A significant digit on a 3.5" standard is .1", not 1/2"... Huge difference. That also means the numbers should be within .05" of the standard.

Please show me how 21.5% is a stretch. The spec is 88.9mm and the reading misses it by 19.2mm (measured by the lab to the nearest .1mm) and if you do the math you will find over 21.5%. I don't have to make it up as it is a matter of record from Roe Deer's post.

They do not suck because they have more or less eye relief. They do not suck. What remains questionable is the data the lab reported. It matches neither the spec sheet nor the numbers I found.

You took my statement completely out of context by removing the part where I said my numbers match AFTER you adjust them by .5".
"Whack that .5" off the numbers and retain the smaller range of the second scope and the numbers I got yesterday match real well on a brand new Conquest... " Sorry I did not use standard terminology there. My measurements did NOT confirm the lab results, at all. The shorter 3.5" spec made the numbers even farther off than previously reported.

Notice I have not posted my numbers? Notice I stated more than once the system I use is pretty loose? Leupold numbers come in well within 1/8" of what the spec sheet says and that works for me.

Now, nothing makes me mad about this. I find humorous your attempt to debate specifications without a clue what the specifications are, willingness to accept any number put out by an unidentified lab and desire to accept anything from one source even though it conflicts with all others.

I am done here unless you say something really funny and different from your past errors.
art

Some of you guys definitely have too much time on your hands! That said, the Leupold vs Conquest argument can never be won especially if the players have never even owned both. I do have several of each. I don't know what the actual measured eye relief is, I do know that a Leupold 1.75-6x on a .416 Rigby and a 3.5-10x Conquest mounted on a .375 H&H (and not a very heavy one) both have enough, as they won't brush my eyebrows from a bench or prone. I do know the Zeiss eye relief is less critical, but is certainly not constant through the magnification range, neither is it on any other scopes I own. Therefore, I set it up where at low power, I see the full view for a quick shot, may have to lean my neck forward a bit on a long shot at full power. No big deal. E always brings up 'eyebox'. I can say I have owned virtually every scope made over the years, as well as ran a retail store for five years and shoot a lot of running game and have never had a problem picking up game because of eyebox. Other folks experiences may be different. The Leupold is not as good in low light, period. The etched reticle on the Conquest is superior, period. I have a bit more confidence in the Leupold holding up to a really hard kicker like the .416 than a Zeiss, just because I have used them for years on big bores. The fact is we could hunt with either one forever and if the other was unavailable, we wouldn't kill any less game, therefore these arguments are pretty meaningless, as are most discussions of calibers for various game, as they will all work with good shot placement. I have sent Leupolds, Nikons, and Burris scopes back for repairs in the past, all were repaired quickly or replaced in less than 10 days. I haven't sent back a Zeiss, so can't comment on warranty service. The end result is that as long as there is enough eye relief, it matters not whether it is 3.8 in or 6 inches to me. Both of these have enough, neither are constant through the power range. I think some of the Euro scopes with the reticle in the first plane, may truly have constant eye relief, but have never used one personally. Unlike some I neglect to comment on things I have no experience with.

Agreed that the reticle on the conquest is better as is it's performance in low light - I own both and feel like I have experience to draw upon.

As for the eyebox, I don't notice a difference, I cannot say the Conquest or Leupold is any better. E will claim otherwise but he as ZERO experience behind a Conquest.

What is all the animosity for. I have always owned Leupys, but have looked through Conquests, to be honest I can't make out the difference in brightness, but I can't really say that I can make out the difference in brightness between my 7 year old Vari-x III, and my 1 year old VX-III. Does the Conquest have a slightly better reticle, yes. Is the Leupy lighter, yes. Does the Leupy give you more adjustment inside the rings, yes. But most of all I know my Leupy is one tough son of a gun, the jury in my mind (notice I said my mind) is still out on the Conquest.

Another thing, the scope is a sight, not a viewer. If you run into a situation where you can plainly make out game with your binos, but can't even find it in the scope- you need a brighter scope badly. I have never, ever........ had a problem finding game during sunrise or sunset with my old Vari-x III, but people tell that my VX-III is brighter so I will have to take their word for it, but I can't say that I have bagged more game because of the extra brightness.

I am not blindly loyal to any manufacturer, if Zeiss makes a significantly brighter, tougher, more repeatable scope for less money, and it fits my rifle correctly I am all over it baby.

I guessed you failed to comprehend how unlikely it is Zeiss' entire line either has exactly 4.0" or 3.5". The lack 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, etc suggests rounding to the nearest 1/2", not accuracy to two significant digits. You're reading more into the listed specs than is there in an effort to show the Lab's results incorrect. It's quite amusing.

The stretch is your use of 88.9mm. You got that number from Zeiss? Your spec sheet specifically says that's what it will have at 3.5X? No, it doesn't. You stretched.

Yes they did. I was referring to your measurements confirming to yourself the eye relief does not remain perfectly constant on these scopes. The big reason you called the lab results into question in the first place was because they didn't measure a perfectly constant eye relief throughout the range of magnification as you expected. You said they must be in error but have now discovered for yourself that it was your expectation of "constant" that was in error instead.

I find it humorous you'll call lab results wrong based upon your "pretty loose" methodology which doesn't even give you numbers accurate enough to publish. That you called them to task in the first place due to your misinterpretation of the specs, not their measuring error since you've now confirmed the same thing (eye relief changes on Conquests too). You haven't confirmed you even measured the same model scope, much less measured it in the same manor as the lab. In short, if you want to prove them wrong, you need to bring a lot more to the table. While a good step or two better than E's "Because I say so" argument, it still falls quite short.

Please help me out (and your case) by pointing me to the "all others" these results conflict with. There are other published independent test results on this matter? Please, point me to them. Show them to me. If there are and they do conflict, then I'll stand right with you in questioning these results.

If "all others" means just you and E, like I said, I remain unconvinced.

JonA
Last post on this, I promise. You win! Your utter lack of logic leaves me speechless!
art

Thanks, but I'm guessing most will see pretty clearly it had more to do with your utter lack of evidence to back up the claim you made. Cheers.

Lack of logic, in regards to testing and standards? I think not. JonA is an Engineer by profession and is quite cappable of understanding. How scientific are your Standards of testing?

And he does not know what a significant digit is? Yeah, right...

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

Not sure if I missed it. Was there a description of the testing methodology and test equipment used?

I could not find the test either. Could someone link to it please?

I have sent Leupold scopes back for repairs seven times now. The same reason each time, the adjustments stopped adjusting. The Zeiss Conquests are in my IMHO a league above anything put out by Leupold.

Now that Leupold had bought Redfield, maybe now they can build windage and elevation adjustments that actually work. Their adjustments are the worst made in that caliber of scope.

Yes, from the very first sentence of the thread actually:

That's the proceedure followed for the Lab results RD reported. Here's a snippet:

Art wouldn't report his results or even confirm that he was measuring the correct scope, much less give details on his methodology. I'm guessing it likely involved channeling brainwaves directly from E to determine the correct answer because that is the only way to get a correct answer in his eyes!

I to enjoy RD's posts & testing. One comment, as an outsider in this debate. I'm an engineer & I have worked for GE, Westinghouse, & Cutler-Hammer all giants in electrical manufacturing. I have been involved in testing of various products, many high voltage(13,200V. to 230,000V.)by both these manufacturers & independent labs. GE may test a circuit breaker & with valid lab results(their own) claim to have the best ratings. Westinghouse may test their CB & have lab results(their own) that proves theirs has the best ratings. When both CB's are submitted to an independent lab their ratings differ from both the manufacturers testing. Now it gets really interesting. A utility may request that they conduct tests to confirm adherence to their specs. The utility utilizes yet another lab who conducts tests & these results vary from all previous testing. All were testing in accordance with industry standards. My objective is that how individual tests are conducted vary by the eng./techs involved, testing equipment, & methods(how actual tests are conducted). RD's tests are quite valid based on this analogy. I use both Zeiss & Leupold(& others) & don't give a rats a$$ what tests indicate.

AMEN!

Optically superior, brighter, etched reticle, blah, blah, blah.....We'd all do better to hunt more and debate less.
Have both, run both. If you held a gun to my head to choose one, it'd be the Leupold because it doesn't look like a 2x4 sitting on top a rifle. BUT, because we all know to keep our muzzles pointed in a safe direction, I'll never be forced into making that decision. <grin>

tbear
But every utility and lab has to meet some kind of standard. How close are the labs' numbers when they test CBs? What are they testing? (rhetorical question)

Zeiss gives measurements on eye relief on their scopes to one thousandth of a milimeter.

A quote from a post I made earlier in this thread: "Now we find a single measurement that is literally 21.5% different from the specifications.

Let me explain something you seem to misunderstand; eye relief at any given power IS a single number. Period. End of story! When authorized Zeiss dealers claim the Conquests have a constant 3.5" of eye relief and do not get corrected by the home office, one would assume they are using the numbers authorized by Zeiss... I would assume anyway.

But assuming the fairy tale were true and it was a median measurement, Zeiss could have added a legitimate 7.6mm to their specifications, according to this test lab. Smells very fishy to me. Especially since other manufacturers are willing to spend the ink to rate their eye relief measurement at each end of the power ring."

Now, would you accept results from a lab showing a CB tripping over 20% sooner than manufacturer's specs? How does Zeiss measure or at least list their eye relief so precisely yet a lab cannot come to the nearest 1/2"?

This is not about Zeiss vs Leupold. This is not about which scope is better or which fits any application better. It IS about a lab providing data fully 21.5% different from manufacturer's specifications... and in a direction to make the particular set of compromises used in one scope match the other. This IS about the reliability of the lab's findings. Period.
art

The eye relief on my Conquest 3.5x10x40 is not constant. I'll measure it later today (with the flashlite and index card method <G>) if anyone cares. But, suffice it to say that it's far from constant, subjectively.

I think the blue-white tilt to the color balance helps MY eyes resolve detail a tad better in low light with the Conquest. But then, I've only done apples to oranges comparisons 'cause all I have are 2.5x8 Loopys, other than a 6x18 I guess... but in my informal apples to oranges comparisons, sitting on my deck at dusk with a beer as the light fades and looking through the scopes, that's what I've seen and that's why I think I've seen it.

I could go to my Happy Hunting Grounds with a 2.5x8 Loopy on my rifle. The extremely forgiving eye box is not to be under-estimated as a real PLUS, in my book anyway. As is the really long eye relief when set to low powers. Even IF the Zeiss optics are better in some way (not saying they are), VX-III - level Leupold optics are great and are entirely sufficient and then some to take me well past legal shooting light.

I bought the Conquest because a) I wanted to see what the fuss was about, and b) in a direct comparison with the other scope I was considering, a 4.5x14 Leupold, the Zeiss resolved detail better in the dark shadows of the big warehouse I was in- even though the 3.5x10 Conquest has less magnification. Now having owned the Conquest for a while, I think they have optical flaws of their own, and I'm not about to start selling off my trusty Loopy's and converting over any time soon! But I was putting this scope on a long-range (for me) .338 Win Mag and I like the RZ600 reticle, and the smaller eye box didn't matter for that application to me... and the Conquest has worked very well so far.

I do think that the particular Conquest I own would be a poor choice for a rifle that one might need to take snap-shots with. Due to the shorter eye relief and inferior eye box.

Anyway... just some Wednesday morning ramblings from someone who got WAY to little sleep due to sleeping next to a very restless wifey last night <g>.

-jeff

You asked how close were the various labs that tested my theoretical circuit breaker analogy. Despite ANSI Standards & published data on how testing was to be conducted various labs would vary from several percentage points to 10-12%. The point I was trying to make is that the method that you used to determine ER may be significantly different that a European lab. An American lab could conduct the same test & results vary up to 10-12%. There are many variances in testing & it is possible to skew the results to obtain a desired result or there is simply differences between testing methodology. After 45 years in the industry I tend to look at any test data with a jaundiced eye. Test results are simply not finite as some tend to believe. Interesting, reasonably accurate, but definitely not finite & indisputable. Therefore, I accept the test results posted by RD in this context.

Thousandth of a milimeter? That's pretty funny. Almost without exception their scopes are listed with numbers rounded off to the nearest 1/2 inch or 10 mm. I guess if pretending they're more precise than that makes you feel you have justification to call RD a--sorry, "smell a fish" that's in line with the integrity I've come to expect from you.

So now you've come a complete circle and are back to calling BS on the lab numbers based only upon Zeiss advertising specs? So you're back to believing the eye relief is perfectly constant and this lab or anybody else who observes that it is not is a liar?

You're a riot.