I am shopping for a scope for a 22-250. I had a Nikon Monarch on it and am greatly disappointed in it. The more I read the more I am confused on which to buy. To be honest I have never owned a Zeiss or looked through one. I was dead set on a Leupold until I got to reading forums and reviews. I was looking at the Leupold VX3 6.5-20x50 LR with 30mm tube but really had decided on the Leupold VX-3L 6.5-20x56 30mm tube with the cut lens to mount it lower. Wanted something that would be really good in low light. But had a guy at a online store to turn my attention to a Zeiss Conquest 6.5-20x50 which is a little cheaper than the Leupold I want. I am looking at the varmint reticle in all the scopes, but the Zeiss Z-Varmint is a little different. I really love the Leupold varmint reticle, it is fine enough to shoot some good groups from the bench and still had bullet comp. I don’t have any big scope dealers close by for me to do a side by side comp. My budget in around 1100 to 1200 and I can actually get the Zeiss for 925 after a 100 rebate from Zeiss. I am reaching out for some honest facts, not bias brand loyal remarks. I know they are both really good scopes with great backrounds. But would like people to comment that owns or looked though both scopes in the field that can give me honest opinion. I want to know which is clearer, best in low light or even after dark with a light, and is Zeiss warranty as good as Leupold. And oh yea I know shooting after light is not right, but when coyotes has killed as many of your animals and pets as they have mine, I take em whenever they present theirselves....sorry.