Well, I will add few more tidbits to all this discussion. I recommended the 1-4 Trijicon and 1.25-4 Leupold firedot circle more for the reticles and magnification range based on going on a big bore than their light carrying capability. When it comes to glass, I have no experience with Leupold HD optics but the VXR for example was not quite enough to see a whitetail at dusk, yet my Meopta binoculars made it out quite clearly in the brush. This may not have been an issue for anyone with good, young and sharp eyes. As my sight is failing me more every year, I'm finding myself replacing scopes that worked flawlessly for years with higher end, brighter and sharper optics. They end up being Euro optics. I have settled on S&B scopes for both durability and clarity but mainly clarity. I have a Nightforce that is built like a tank, seems durable and is consistent/repeatable and so far reliable. But the glass is not as good as the Euro glass. The S&B seems to be just as tough though. They are not the same class of scope (Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56, S&B 1.5-6x42) so no direct comparison should be made perhaps, yet I think comparing the optics and general mechanics is fair.
As to glass, I have compared in binoculars, not in scopes (but assume a bit of similarity here), Leupold, Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica and Meopta. In this instance I was looking at 10x42 binos in the same class. For my eyes, I found Leupold lacking at low light, Zeiss, Swarowski and Meopta being equal and Leica being the best at distinguishing detail at near dark. During good light it was really hard or impossible to tell any difference. I ended up with Meopta Meostar B1 binos as only Leica was very slightly better and lighter but almost 3 times the price. Zeiss and Swarowski were the same quality and weight, one of them actually heavier than Meopta, but at double the price. I also compared to Steiner 7x50 which seems like a brilliant binos but is just bulky and heavy. I only did this Meopta comparison because I know Czech optics and already happened to own a Meopta scope that is just brilliant. Since then I have acquired another, cheaper and lighter 10x42 binos from Meopta (Optika HD) and just out of curiosity compared those to Leupold of same class but double the price. Leupold mechanics seemed like cheap toy plastic pieces. Glad I got the Meopta. Leica would have been better but was again way more expensive and mainly also heavier.
In general, if I want light, reliable, reasonably priced scope, I reach for 1" tube Leupold. I like how you can change reticles to what you like and I now prefer simpler heavier reticles for hunting. I go with German #1, or Sabot Ballistics, or Ballistic Firedot or LR duplex or similar. I shoot rainbow ballistic calibers so I like the drop points of some sort. I also like Tricijon scopes for durability (so far) and for their reticles due to being lit and not needing batteries. I found the green triangles the best for me and on the 1-4 the triangle is bigger than on the other models. The glass on Trijicon seems comparable to Nightforce, i.e. very good but I would not say "the best".
If I want brighter, reliable scope I go with 30 mm Euro and those I narrowed down to S&B or Meopta (I have never tried Leica scope yet but am sure I would not be disappointed). Higher end Zeiss and Swarovski are fine too I'm sure, but if I gotta shell out a lot, might as well get S&B. If I want to save, I will get Meopta or used S&B. In all of these I would not bother with the 1" tube cheaper models assembled in USA or elsewhere. Get the 30 mm version built entirely in the country of origin.
As to old Euro glass, I too find many older S&B and Zeiss scopes on par with today optics. But they have to be 80's and newer to be nearly as good. I feel the new coatings have gotten better and make for sharper, clearer images at low light but the glass quality and overall detail resolution is no worse on the old scopes. On top of that, I find that while the coatings are meant to correct color aberrations, they tend to still be susceptible to purple fringing (especially on bright sun over snow surface, my Nightforce being worst but this is present on the Leupold scopes as well and the cheaper Meopta bino, though my friend could see it I could not ). I suspect this is due to new optics being "tuned" for "image sharpness" more than any other aspect. This is where I think older scopes may seem just as good if not better. Only the older (1970's or better yet 1950's and older) scopes that were not nitrogen filled, not waterproof, multi piece tubes are maybe clearly worse overall. But during good light, they still give some modern scopes run for their money. I would mainly buy older Euro glass over newer mid-price-range optics. Then I'd feel I got better glass and/or instrument for same money.
This is all based on my own limited experience and testing, no scientific instruments involved just my and my few friends eyes comparing. It is also not meant to disparage a different brand than listed or insult the model you have or claim the ones I like are or are not for you. I simply relayed my experience for my changing eyes. If I had the eyes of my youth, I'd have fewer scopes (open sights are still sexy to me) and I'd probably still have the cheap Buschnell scopes.