Eye of the beholder?

[Creigh]

not in my experience, the high end leupolds have excellent glass, maybe not quite as good but definatley comparable to zeiss and swaro etc

Agree with this.

I'm cognizant of the fact that I use scopes and binos in a nice dry temperate climate, never rain, never snow. Both my binos and scopes are Leopold but the true test of the brand would be by the folks up in Alaska or tropical weather.

 

[uplander01]

I've had them all and to me Schmidt & Bender makes the best rifle optic, followed closely by Swarovski, then Zeiss. S & B, it's all they do and they do it well. I've never had a S&B lose zero, in 25 years, and the clarity is a lot better than anything from the USA. Zeiss typically loses on eye relief. I don't think Zeiss erectors are on par with Swaro or S & B,.....S&B being the highest quality, again followed by Swaro. I have a buddy that swears by Leica,....but I haven't gone that route as I have too many scopes laying around the way it is, I use only Talley QR rings and bases so my scopes move from rifle to rifle like a camera lens. In the last 25 years I've had to send at least 5 Leupold's back to get worked on. Vortex are garbage and wouldn't buy one for a larger bore rifle - ever. I don't have any experience with Mavin, Arken, Riton or the plethora of others on the market.....but my guess is they are just American design cobbled together with German glass and Japanese components.

As far as metrics, to find someone to be honest in this industry about real quality in the USA, it's impossible. Gun writers and youtubers will review and put forth any angle on anything they get for free...hence I would only trust decades of experience and heed the advice, as mentioned before, "buy once, cry once." In optics you get what you pay for.

 

[reinwood]

I do use zeiss, leica, swaro, NF, Burris, Vortex

From my experience the Zeiss, Leica and Swaro are far superior in:
- low light (light transmission)
- fine details
- no curvature of field
- more field of view
- Border quality ( no noticeable difference from center)
- no flare (reflection, fuzziness typically when use with strong light in frame)

As per scientific/metric comparison, There are a lot of comparisons typically on camera lenses.
There again there is no contest Leica and Zeiss are ahead of the others including the high-end Japanese brands (Nikon, Canon, Fuji) Sony use zeiss glass and panasonic Leica glasses.

The difficulty to manufacture that increased quality explains the cost difference: the R&D to achieve additional improvements, the glass type, glass treatment, assembly, assembly process, tolerances, skills of workers, etc.

Is it worth the extra money, up to each of us to decide.

For me yes - for the type of local hunting i do - local regulation allows to shoot very early or late so wining a few minutes might bring a dead red stag.

For Africa, it is up to debate.

For instance, I use a NF 2.5-10x32 on my 458 Lott - glass quality is goo enough and it is small and robust... and cheaper that a German glass. Yes I would prefer to have a Swaro Z8i 0.75-6x20 for the field of view but the price difference meant a that I could shoot an additional plain games on last safari.

If I put a scope on my driven hunt rifle (Browning Bar 9,3x62) i will make sure to use it also when I go on safari but for now I rely on a Leica tempus red dot (also a lot better than a Burris fast fire)

 

[Red Leg]

I'll jump on the bash Vortex band wagon. If you can afford Vortex, you can afford Leupold. I have several Leupolds on rifles. I would guess half of the rifles in the gunroom are carrying Leica, and the remainder are divided between Swaro and S&B. My binoculars are all Leica. The Leupolds have all worked as advertised, but the the three Euro brands are brighter and offer a crisper image (how's that for a non-metric laden term). That brighter, clearer image can be important in North America or Europe hunting deer early or late, or separating the right bull from three of his pals in the deep shade of thorn brush country.

 

[Beck]

I tested low light visibility on Leupold, Meopta, and Zeiss. Stapled a news paper to a tree in the ravine behind my parent's house. The optic that could read the newspaper latest in the day won. Low end Meopta's out performed high end VX-6HD Leupold's and Zeiss Conquest Binos. I haven't tried it with my higher end Meopta's, but they are clearly nicer than the lower end stuff I have.

 

[odonata]

I have less-than-stellar eyesight & wear glasses. I have found that scopes that work really well for "normal" shooters and are sometimes highly-recommended don't always work well for me. I often find myself straining to get a good sight view on setups that seem to work well for other shooters. Maybe my body proportions are kind of wonky compared to everyone else.

So some of the features I really value are a forgiving eye box and generous eye relief. I have had good luck with the European scopes that I've tried & have been pleased with their fit & performance. I have ten European scopes (mostly S&B but also Swarovski, Zeiss, Minox & Meopta), one Nikon from Japan & four American (mostly fixed power) on my centerfire rifles. My binoculars are Swarovski.

I have three Leupolds and they have all been rock solid so zero complaints there.

 

[deewayne2003]

I'll jump on the bash Vortex band wagon. If you can afford Vortex, you can afford Leupold. I have several Leupolds on rifles. I would guess half of the rifles in the gunroom are carrying Leica, and the remainder are divided between Swaro and S&B. My binoculars are all Leica. The Leupolds have all worked as advertised, but the the three Euro brands are brighter and offer a crisper image (how's that for a non-metric laden term). That brighter, clearer image can be important in North America or Europe hunting deer early or late, or separating the right bull from three of his pals in the deep shade of thorn brush country.

Agreed, when it comes to binoculars I went with Leica for the clarity in low light; it makes all the different in the world when looking at deer in early morning and late evening.

With the exception of a muzzle loader with a Nikon BDC, the rest of my rifles wear Leupolds.

 

[Rimbaud]

I'm just back from a chamois hunt in Transylvania. The rifle I borrowed from the guide was topped with a Nikon Monarch. I felt like I was looking through gauze. It was hard to get a good site picture without effort. I have Swaros on my primary hunting rifles, and a Steiner, and the images are crystal clear. Depending on range, I can sometimes see details on game. I have two Leupold scopes, and they are just a notch below in terms of clarity and light capture. My Burris, on a 300 WSM, is serviceable but I wouldn't want to rely on the glass for a shot taken during the golden hour, though it works just fine in bright conditions. Buy the best you can.

 

[rookhawk]

For those who consider the European premium scopes superior to US premium scopes- could you please explain the categories in which they are superior and the metrics you use to justify your conclusions.

More straight tube options. Less clunky and better aesthetic lines to match a best rifle. Commonality of the #4 reticle rather than goofy subtensions and pseudo sniper nonsense. Superior coatings. The best of the Euro scopes (S&B, Swaro, Leica, Zeiss) all use Zeiss glass, the best in the world. The Euro scopes are designed for hunters so they balance durability versus weight. American optics cater to the long-range shooter and the obsession with milspec, thus adding excess weight to provide a level of durability not required outside of the theater of war.

I could keep going, but that's a pretty good start. I would also add that by the time you get to good features in top of the line American optics, the pricepoint is virtually the same as the better Euro optics anyway.

 

[skydiver386]

In my experience, price = quality, but the question becomes what can you afford, and what brand gives the best value for your money? If we could all afford Swarovski, we wouldn't be having this debate.

If you are just out of High School working a low paying job, a Bushnell might provide what you need, so at that level, they provide decent value.

If you are a bit older and make a bit more, Leupolds are a very good value for their price point.

If you have the disposable income to pay the asking price, then Swarovski and Leica are unquestionably among the best.

I'm at the point in my life that I can buy whatever I like, but when I carefully consider the price vs the quality, Leupold still seems like the best money I've spent on scopes. Leica is the best value in binoculars IMHO.

 

[pilar]

I’m not brand loyal for sure. But definitely prefer Bavarian glass in my optics
There are many brands that source glass from the same company and assemble in different countries for labor costs ( Japan used to make good glass but started sourcing from china? So I avoid them now)
“”

• Shared suppliers: It is common for major optics producers, such as Burris and Leupold, Swarovski Optik to acquire their glass from the same third-party suppliers.

But for spotting scopes nothing can touch a Swarovski
I use Steiner for binoculars for the same reason

 

[Dirtdart]

Over the years I have owned and mounted for others numerous scopes by every one of the manufactures mentioned in this thread. I have a bad habit of picking up scopes just to compare to other make/models.

Last time I was deer hunting in South Carolina you could legally shoot deer one hour after sunset.
I don't understand why anyone would spend the money on a lease, fuel, burn vacation days along with other expenses and not be able to take advantage of last legal light. When I find a scope that can beat a Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56 for that purpose I will let you know. Sadly, that model is discontinued.

Shooting prairie poodles on a sunny day you can get by with less than stellar glass quality as long as it holds zero. Most scopes can withstand the recoil of a 14 pound 6mm or the smaller calibers commonly used for that purpose.

In this day and age it is hard for me to believe that any company would produce a scope without a "European" type of focus as opposed to a lock ring.

I was happy to see Leupold introduce the VX-6 Patrol 1-6x24 solid scope for a hunting rifle. Capped turrets with no golden bling. Leupold discontinues that model but introduces a VX-6HD 1-6x24 Gen 2 with that take a "tool" to open the battery compartment. I have a Steiner Predator 4 that has a simple coin slot to remove the battery cover. I that a patented thing?

I form my opinions from side to side comparisons in different conditions to determine which optics my widow will be disposing of one of these days and most are European.

 

[Creigh]

In my experience, price = quality, but the question becomes what can you afford, and what brand gives the best value for your money? If we could all afford Swarovski, we wouldn't be having this debate.

If you are just out of High School working a low paying job, a Bushnell might provide what you need, so at that level, they provide decent value.

If you are a bit older and make a bit more, Leupolds are a very good value for their price point.

If you have the disposable income to pay the asking price, then Swarovski and Leica are unquestionably among the best.

I'm at the point in my life that I can buy whatever I like, but when I carefully consider the price vs the quality, Leupold still seems like the best money I've spent on scopes. Leica is the best value in binoculars IMHO.

For example, I have a 300prc that sat in the safe for longer than it should have as I couldn't settle on which high end scope to get. I decided to get a cheap Arken scope until I could decide and at least send something down range. 7x35 power.
Turns out to be a peach of a scope. I shoot out to 1km with ease, just point and shoot.
I still can't believe what I paid. An absolute steel.