Optics quality question.

[Dogshooter]

I just bought a pair of high end binoculars and the difference between the new ones and the several pair of less expensive ones I have been using for the last 20 years has made me realize just how little I knew about optics. It has also presented me with a question I can't answer and was hoping someone here has firsthand experience that can help me answer it. If there is that much difference between high end binocs and mid-range binocs, is the same thing true when discussing riflescopes? I have Leupold, Burris, and a couple of Zeiss Conquest scopes on all my rifles and wondered if Swarovskis are THAT much better? What advantage does a $2000 to $4000 scope have over a $500 to $800 scope? Eye fatigue and clarity is noticably better in the high end binocs (Swarovski EL 42 with Swarovision) but you don't normally spend a lot of time "glassing" an area with your scope. So exactly what are you getting for the higher price?

[Dave in WV]

You'll have to compare the higher end optics to the mid price range optics of today for a true comparison. If I was going to buy high end optics I would want to compare them against each other to determine what looked best to my eyes and compare specs for expected overall performance. I can't say what you'll get from a high end scope compared to a say Leupold VX-3, Nikon Monarch, or Bushnell 4200 series since I don't own any high end ones and don't see them in my future for budget reasons.

[pastorp]

Dogshooter,
We each must decide where the cost versus performance meets our needs. There is a great diminishing return in riflescopes( and optics in general) in the area of quality versus cost. To me there is a noticeable difference in a old weaver and a leupold. However the newer scopes sure have improved. The difference is not as noticeable in new scopes.
I have a couple of zeiss riflescopes and I believe the main advantage is in night shooting. Many years ago I did a lot of hog hunting at night with a sako vixen in 222remington toped with a old weaver 6x steel tube riflescopes. Finding those fine crosshaires were a real challenge even with excellent eyesight. Now 40years later the heavy posts in my zeiss is much easier to use at night even with my failing eyesight.
The question is where does the better optics cost exceed the performance? i could not justify $2-4,000 for a riflescopes. For me a leupold works just fine. If I hunted like I used to and had the disposable income then maybe.

Regards,

[Swampman]

I actually prefer scopes that cost less than $200.00.

[Mulehell]

My Swarovski SLCs were worth every penny I paid for them. I use mainly Leupolds and a couple of Zeiss thrown in. I compared the Conquest side by side with Swarovski scopes and didn't find the Zeiss lacking. The Minox ZA-3 is another good scope in the mid price range.

[Lloyd Smale]

yes there better and anyone who says differnt is smoking crack. That said i still have a buget and have to ballance my wants with my needs.

[Swampman]

I can honestly say I can't see any difference.  Believe me I've tried.

[wareagleguy]

I have a friend that purchased a high end Swarovski and put it on a gun I traded him.  I have yet to see another scope come close.  It is nothing less than amazing but as many have already said the mid range scopes fill my needs at a price I can live with.  But if I ever win the lottery..........

[84Jim]

The discussion on these type of threads usually is confined to the optical quality of the glass.  Its no secret that more expensive scopes get more and better lense coatings and probably higher tolerances.  But another factor that I think comes with better (read that more expensive?) scopes are the quality of the internal workings.  By that I mean ability to hold the zero over time and repeatibility of the adjustments, and maybe some other stuff i can't think of now.  I've had a cheaper scope that would shoot 1-1/2" to the right every time I shot it, even though I sighted it in 20 times.  Many more that would be much different than the advertised adjustment interval per click.  It may not be a big deal to the weekend deer hunter, but the serious target and benchrest guys usually have the upper end scopes on their guns.  I figure that is at least part of the reason...

[kctibs]

A few years ago I think there was difference, but scopes are becoming more and more the same. I have  a couple of high end scopes and lots of mid range scopes. recently I bought a Nikon Coyote speical and really can't see a whole lot of difference. Anymore most of what you get when you spend 1000's is a name.  Don't get me wrong I love my Leupold's but who can really afford to put  scopes which cost more than most guns on every gun you have. I know I can't.  I have a 25 year old Bushnell that I bought new for like $59.00 and I still use it today. It just does not pick up light as well as any of the other scopes I have in low light conditions.

[JimFromTN]

I agree with 84jim.  You are not going to see much difference in optical quality between an $600 scope and a $2000 scope.  98% light transmission is all you will ever get out of a scope regardless of the price.  Its the inner workings that make the difference.  I have been deer hunting for 25 years and I have never touched the turrets of any of my scopes except to sight them in initially.  If I were into 1000 yds bench rest shooting, any kind of long range shooting, or even prairie dog hunting in some cases, I would constantly be adjusting the turrets for ranges and then setting them back to zero.  You are not going to find too many good quality scopes in the 4-16 power range or better, with 50mm obj or bigger, with mil/mil reticle/turrets, using first focal plane, with 98% light transmission in the mid range scopes.  The vortex viper pst line is probably the closest thing you will find.

[guzzijohn]

With all the advances I still find it amazing that my 8X Unertl (don't know the age but it is no spring chicken) makes out detail better than my Nikon Prostaff. I am not knocking the Nikon by any means, just saying. Although the Unertl was a much more expensive scope in its day I would have thought that with modern coatings, etc. that the Nikon would out perform it.
GuzziJohn

[SHOOTALL]

yes there better and anyone who says differnt is smoking crack. That said i still have a buget and have to ballance my wants with my needs.

I agree with both statements . If I were going to Africa or Alaska then i could see spending the bucks ( lets face it the cost of a great scope would be chump change in a adventure like that) but chasing ground hogs and deer around Va. with a gun that lives in a PU truck makes little sense to invest in a scope that cost as much as a house payment .

[Mulehell]

To me the main thing in a scope is to hold zero and not fog, binoculars are for glassing and the scope is for shooting. I have hunted more days than not where the scope was never looked through but the binos were used all day.

[Lloyd Smale]

I agree with that. I can live with a 300 dollar scope. If i had a grand or more to spend on optics it definatley would be used to upgrade my binoculars before it was used for a new scope. Ive got a set of nikon atfs and a set of stieners that both have decent glass but after using my buddys swarovskis this year i found they sure do come up short. My best advice to guys is if there happy with there midranged glass use it but dont screw up like me and try something better. Its tough on a fixed income to come up with big bucks and even tougher to do it without the wife knowing it! shes allready on to me sitting in the chair fondling a new gun and telling her ive had it for years!

To me the main thing in a scope is to hold zero and not fog, binoculars are for glassing and the scope is for shooting. I have hunted more days than not where the scope was never looked through but the binos were used all day.

[Luckyducker]

The pawnbroker/gun dealer I use hunts elk with a Win model 70 264Mag and a couple years ago he was all excited about his new Swarovski scope he mounted on it.  A while back I inquired about how he liked the new Sworv compared to the Leupold he took off, and his reply was something like..." oooh, it's okay".  I think this comes under the law of diminishing returns.

[JimFromTN]

To me the main thing in a scope is to hold zero and not fog, binoculars are for glassing and the scope is for shooting. I have hunted more days than not where the scope was never looked through but the binos were used all day.

The only thing I would add is that you have to be able to see thru it the first and last second of legal shooting light.  Nothing worse than not being able to see thru your scope until 20 to 30 minutes into legal shooting light and you got deer all over you.  Of course, if you hunt hogs in states where night hunting is legal, that adds more to it.

[Zachary]

I can honestly say I can't see any difference.  Believe me I've tried.

I have looked at scopes and binos in the stores, and I personally can tell the difference between the cheap stuff and the good stuff.  That said, I totally understand the law of diminishing returns.  Nonetheless, where great optics really shine (and thus where you can really tell the difference) is in Binos when you look through them (if you do) for long periods of time.  The crappier glass leads to eye stress, which high quality glass reduces it.

As for scopes, we really only need to look through them when we are ready to pull the trigger.  Outside of that, we should use Binos for safety reasons.  Even so, when you are in the field, you should be able to tell the difference between cheaper glass and higher quality glass, especially during low light conditions.

Zachary

[Lloyd Smale]

ive chuckled a few times at differnt guys claiming there 100 dollar scopes were as good as a quality scope. There usually the type that shoot there guns one time to verify zero before heading in the woods every year because ammo cost to much and take there glasses off and are half blind behind a scope. Most of them spend enough of beer every deer season to pay for a good scope. Allways a running joke up here. the typical yupper deer gun is a remington auto in 270 or 06 with a tasco blister pack scope. The same guy will take up handloading one day and claim that his lee equiptment is every bit as good as rcbs or dillon stuff. God forbid the cheap bugger would admit that hes just cheap!

[Swampman]

Say what you will I actually prefer the Bushnell Banner 1.5-4.5X32 over any VX-II.  It cost $60.00.  My friend has a $1200.00 Zeiss......I'm really unimpressed.

$200.00 is my upper limit

I choose the Nikon Prostaff 2-7X32 because it's one of the few than can stay together on the .500S&W Handi.

[drdougrx]

I'm kinda with LLoyd as well.  Mid-prices scopes...$300 - $600 are alot of scope.  I'm kinda moving to Leupi VXIIIs when I can...I think they are well worth the money...that's just me.  However, LLoyd's also correct about bino's ...  I have a pair of swaros 8x30 that I bought used from LL BEAN's in the 90's and I have a pair of Zeiss Dynafun's in 10x35.  Both excellent glass.  I'm still going to find me a "reasonably priced" ,meaning used, 10x42 something or other though I did test the Zen-Rays and was very, very impressed.

[carbineman]

For most of my hunting here in Wi./Mn. I don't use binocs, as the cover is too thick and shots over 200 yds. seldom if ever arise. I own two pair of Nikon binocs and find them ok when I use them. The 10x50 binocs show detail on whitetails far better than my old eyes can interpret. I think that real good binocs would be a must when hunting in more open western US terrain.

As far as scopes, I am outfitting most of my H&R single shots with Leupold 20 mm's. Bought two VariXIII's (1.5-5's)used for under $200 each and have purchased two new VXI's (1-4's) Also have a new Redfield Revolution which I'm still evaluating.

I would really like to own more expensive scopes with better glass, but seeing as I have a kool-aid income, my champagne appetite will have to stay in my dreams..........

[Lloyd Smale]

well i too was a fan of those inexpensive banners 1.5x4.5s just this summer i bought a third one. I always thought they had great optics for the price. I was at the range one day and found my groups wondering with one. I got to looking at it and the objective lense had came loose in the scope body. I boxed it up and sent it to bushnell and took the new one i had in the box and put it on the same gun. I shot it maybe 20 times and had the elevation ajustment lock up on that one. Bushnell replaced both of them and im sure it more of a fluke then anything but ive definately lost confidense in them and there all on 22s now. I doubt id ever have one on a centerfire gun again that i would need to rely on in the hunting field. One thing i will say though is they seemed to me to have much better optics then a prostaff for even less money but as much as i dislike prostaffs ive yet to have one fail.

Say what you will I actually prefer the Bushnell Banner 1.5-4.5X32 over any VX-II.  It cost $60.00.  My friend has a $1200.00 Zeiss......I'm really unimpressed.

$200.00 is my upper limit

I choose the Nikon Prostaff 2-7X32 because it's one of the few than can stay together on the .500S&W Handi.

[williamlayton]

I have no experience with scopes, unless you count and old Redfield 50 years ago.
Here is what I do.
I rarely experiment with cheap/inexpensive/low cost--anything--anymore.
I figger that by the time and money spent discovering what I should have bought first--I can have a few beers, less confusion, more fun and my butt don't hurt from me kicking myownself if I just man up and get what I need first----++++++ I don't have any of that stuff laying around gathering dust and reminding me.
After the first rush of price is gone---you have a lot of enjoyment left.
JMTCW.
Blessings

[charles p]

My advice is to never own a pair of binoculars that are inferior to your rifle scope.  Always hunt with the binocs.  It helps to also be able to find the game in your scope, thus you can't skimp that either.

There is not a valid argument for bargain priced optics.  If you think there is, you are just fooling yourself.  Buy the best you can find initially, and be done with it.  You will never regret it.  I'd like to hear for anyone who has ever found that cheap optics are the best for a longterm hunting investment.  I don't think their are many people out there who will say that cheaper is as good, or better.  This is the one area of sporting goods spending that I am not inclined to bargain shop.

[williamlayton]

It has nothing to do with this conversation---butttt----Americans paid my wages and I owe something back.
Leupold is a good company, with good reputation, they make lower end scopes. I hope I never have to find out how good their customer service is. I will, by choice, buy good scopes.
Now if I could just afford a Barrett .416, money for the bullets and a place long enough for the experience---I would get one of Leupolds long range scopes.
Sufficent to say----I am really, really, really enjoying the .22's.
Blessings

[Dogshooter]

Yeah, the "made in america" inclination won out again. I was looking seriously at a Swarovski but decided at the last minute to go with a Leupold VX-L. I had one when they first came out and rue the day a buddy talked me out of it. Anyway, thanks for all the advice and hope you all are having (or have had) a good hunting season this year.

[MGMorden]

Yeah, the "made in america" inclination won out again. I was looking seriously at a Swarovski but decided at the last minute to go with a Leupold VX-L. I had one when they first came out and rue the day a buddy talked me out of it. Anyway, thanks for all the advice and hope you all are having (or have had) a good hunting season this year.

It was on another forum (THR possibly - can't remember), but there was some discussion that Leupold may have moved some of their production out of the country recently - particularly on the lower end scopes (VX-I - I think also the Redfield scopes which are under a different name but still sold by Leupold).  Strangely enough one of the posters who called to verify with Leupold couldn't get an answer out of them.  They refused to state exactly where their scopes were made. 

That that for what you will.  It's second hand of course (I haven't spoken to them myself), so assign to that as much value as you wish.  With the globalization of the economy, there's precious few companies in any industry that can truly claim their products are 100% "Made in the USA" anymore.  They're either outsourcing the parts and just assembling them here, or outsourcing some product lines while making some in house, etc.  You see similar with fishing gear.  I typically like Abu Garcia reels, and they were traditionally made in Sweden.  Some of it still is, but more and more of their stuff I keep seeing made in China instead.

[Dogshooter]

I bought a Leupold scope on e-bay and then found out they were shipping it from China. I contacted Leupold and spoke to a rep there. He told me ALL of their scopes are Made in the USA and that they have been seeing some counterfeit scopes coming from China. They are taking measures to go after the counterfeiters but since they are in another counrty.....When I questioned where the scope I purchased was manufactured, the seller cancelled the sale and sent my money back. In short, don't buy a Leupold scope from someone that is outside the US or Canada. It will PROBABLY be counterfeit.

[Swampman]

Leupold scopes are assembled in America.  I just can't pay 3 times the money for equal or lower quality.  Nikon and Bushnell for me.