I actually have never shot with a Leupold. I've had great performance from my Bushnell straight 4x for years. Unfortunately, my eyes won't let me shoot that way anymore in low light or long range so I'm going to upgrade soon and have spent some time on this. What I do know something about is the Nikon vs. Zeiss discussion.

I've spent a lot of time with Nikon and Zeiss optics and they've been good for different things. The Nikon image is often brighter and with higher contrast. You would think that would make it easier to see wildlife, but it doesn't. The higher contrast tends to make the camouflage work better not worse. The animals pop out of the trees and brush when you look through the Zeiss lens. I've done side by side comparisons. If you are shooting low light long range open territory, Nikon will be good and possibly better than the Zeiss. If you shoot in or around brush and woodlands, Zeiss is the way to go.

Both are excellent.

Modern optics are so good, it's hard to go wrong as long as you don't go cheap.

Burris is also a good scope for the money!! Leupold is good if it is not the off brand from china;nikon is good 2!! All matters of HOW MUCH you want to spend

Leupold hands down. #1 they are made in the USA. #2 I have had one on a .7mm RUM and only had to sight it in once after 5 years of hard use.And #3 FULL lifetime waranty. BTW I have a leupold scope that my grandfather gave me that he bought USED in 1992, and it has been rebuilt once and it still look and works as good as my brand new vx III.

I have both brands of scope and I think that the nikon is better at pulling light. So that is my choice, I dont think that you would be dissapointed if you bought a Nikon.