Anyone have a Luppy LPS?

[diggdug]

I was cosidering a Leupold LPS 2.5-10X45 for my 270. Does anyone here use one and are they worth the extra $? I wouldn't mind buying one if they are bright.

[Zachary]

I don't own one, and that's because I've used one a hunt and clearly do not believe that it's worth the extra money.  $1,000 for that scope is just a joke.  The new VX-IIIs are supposed to have much better optics than the last Vari-X model, and they cost about half the price.  If you are firm on buying a leupold, then, for the money, the VX-III is the way to go.

Then again, for even less money yet same if not better quality, you can get an Elite 4200.

Zachary

[JoeBru]

Zac, I'm glad you said VX 111's are supposed to have better optics than the V111's cause in my opinion, that is definitely not the case.  
With regards to the LPS, I've compared the 1.5-6 x 42 LPS against the Khales & Swaros in the same magnification, the best thing I can say about the LPS is that the eye relief was good.

[Grubbs]

The Swaro a-line 3-10x42 is head and shoulders above the LPS in my opinion   It also has a 1" tube instead of 30mm like the LPS.  LPS continues the tradition set by Leupold of overpriced products.

[TheOpticZone]

Like Zachary said, if you are wanting a Leupold, consider the VX-III Long Range over the LPS.  The optics are very close, but you will save around $300.

[308TIKKA]

if you are going to spend that much, spend a little more and buy a schmidt and bender, swarovksi, or zeiss

or spend the same and buy a swaro a-line

or spend a lot less and get a zeiss conquest

[Zachary]

Are the swaro A-line optics the exact same as the PH line?  In other words, is the only difference between the two lines the fact that one is 1" and the other is 30mm?

Zachary

[JoeBru]

308Tikka if I was spending a whole lot of money it would not be on a schmidt and bender. Got rid of my 1.5-6 x 42. Clarity, resolution & colour were first rate but my 2.8-8 x 36 V111 was brighter!

[308TIKKA]

have to admit that your the 1st person i have heard of that didnt think S&B's were bright.
How old was it? Did it say Germanu or West Germany on the occular bell?
I think they would have trouble staying in business charging that much$$ if they were not bright??

THE PH has larger internal glass and a 4 point coil spring that is more durable than the single leaf spring in the a-line. the glass and coatings are the exact same on both lines but the 30mm is a little stouter physically

[Grubbs]

I haven't personally looked through a S&B, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the VXIII wouldn't come close to the S&B in any form or fashiion.  I have looked through my own swaro a-line, my Pentax Lightseeker, Burris Signature, and Zeiss Conquest and know them to be brighter than the new VXIII, with the swaro being the best of the bunch.  The Pentax is 5 yrs old or so and it's still brighter and clearer in low light.  Some people will recommend Leupold just due to thefact that it has a gold ring on it.

[diggdug]

Well, good or bad I bought the 2.5-10X45 LPS partly because of the great price I got on it. ($667 NEW) I have compared it to the Zeiss's and B&L 4200's I have and it seems every bit as bright as they are. The one thibg about a Leupold is they are built very well, most Pro benchrest shooters use Leupold because of their repeatability. :-)

[JoeBru]

308Tikka, the S&B I had was 3 years old,  I think that it had West Germany on the ocular.  
Like I said it was terrific to look through under reasonable light conditions, I don't know of anything better.  
But for that sort of money I also expect top shelf  performance at dusk and dawn, most people don't compare scopes under  fading light, the Swaro and Khales that I've looked through were clearly brighter and would be my choice for the money.
I kid you not, it was no brighter than the V111, I was so pissed I got rid of it, bought a Conquest and had a few hundred bucks left over.