A Simple Question

[killdeernow]

Is there something about a Swarovski scope that makes it worth paying a grand more than something as good as a Leupold? I've never owned a Swarovski so I don't mean to sound sarcastic but common...does it scout for you? I have a 338 Win Mag that I'm taking on a Moose hunt and I'm looking to buy a good dependable scope and my buddy suggested the Swarovski. I had to breathe in a paper bag once I saw the prices...but I’ll do it if you guys/gals can pitch a solid case for it. Thanks,

 

[remingtonman_25_06]

The glass is supposed to be a lot crisper clearer then Leupold, but your right, does that justify the price of them?? I dont know either. I'm a die hard Leupold fan and if I wasn't, I personally like Zeiss. They appear very bright and clear to me. They are on the same level as Swarovski price wise though. The european scopes are supposed to be a lot brighter at dusk and dawn times. I still dont think theres anything wrong with a good Leupold VX3 though. For the money and what you get, I dont think theres to much better.

 

[JD338]

I too am a Leupold fan. The VXIII series allows me to hunt cedar swamps here in MI to the end of legal shooting light.
Swarovski has awesome glass but I can't justify spending the extra money when the Leupold VXIII and Mark 4 series give me the performance I need along with world class customer support.
Go with a Leupold VXIII and the money you save will cover the taxidermy
bill. :wink:

JD338

 

[R Flowers]

Well, I guess I am really an odd ball here. I think Swarovski binoculars are the very absolute best, period !!!! There is nothing I have looked at that compares.

BUT, in scopes, I am just not that impressed. The American line of scopes that are one inch in diameter do not impress me at all. I would MUCH rather have a good Leupold.
The 30mm scopes in the Professional Hunter line are great scopes but are priced way out there and they are too big for my tastes. I do not want a scope that is about as big as the rifle!

I bought four new VXIII scopes in the last two years and could not be happier.

 

[Guest]

I've spent a lot of time lately doing informal comparisons of scopes, and I can tell you that the best scope for the money right now is the Zeiss Conquest. They have as clear or clearer glass than anything else I have looked through, including the PH and VM/V series of Euro glass from Swaro and Zeiss, as well as Leupold, Nikon, Bushnell, and Burris. At higher power, the Conquest performs the best of the 1" scopes, giving a better exit pupil and less critical in terms of eye relief and eye position. For less than $600 from some online shops, the Zeiss is on a level with Leupold (which I own) and easily the best value in scopes, in my opinion. And that's for the 4.5-14x44. If you are shooting the 338WM, you could be well served by the 3-9x40, which is only $399 at most shops right now. Overall, you will be pleased, and the warranty is as good as Leupold, which is the gold standard in warranty right now.

 

[Lenny]

I own several leupolds (12), Kahles (1) , Swaro, (1) and two Zeiss's. It's hard to beat the leupold Vari X 111 scopes for the price. But if you are doing a lot of hunting in dust/dawn situations it's worth spending the extra money on a Zeiss VM/V, 30mm Kahles, Swaro, or Leupolds LPS. All those high end scopes are awesome. It seem's that someone is holding a flashlight in your scope. Don't ask me which of the highend euro scopes to buy. If you buy one of those, you will always be grabbing the rifle with the Zeiss VM/V, 30mm Kahles, Swaro, or LPS when you head into the field. Treat yourself and buy one, you won't be dissappointed!

Lenny

 

[Bigwheels]

I agree with dubyam.After compareing the Ziess,& the Leupold,I bought the Ziess Conquest 4.5-14.The low light performance was better in the Ziess.& they were the same price.I've also had my 338 WM break lesser scopes,& now have several hundred rounds through this combo,& it is still hanging in there.I also like the Leupold,& have thier 6-20X50 LR on my Match rifle.You'll do well with either make. :grin:

 

[Powerstroke]

R Flowers +1

You hit the nail on the head ! For Bino's you can't beat the swaro's ! But, you look through those for " minutes " that end up to be hours of the day with no eye strain.
A scope generally for seconds....

Put the big dollars in the Binos, Then Leupold all the way for the Scopes.
( Not that Leupolds are petty change ) I'd like to have a couple more myself.

 

[7mmfan]

+2 for the Zeiss Conquests.....Leupold is starting to make junk now!

 

[longwinters]

I have become a real fan of the Zeiss Conquests and Kahles scopes. I don't see anything about them that I don't like. But obviously Leupold has a very strong following and for good reason.

Just whatever you do, don't skimp on the scope. Constant eye relief is a very big plus to me as well as clarity. And to get into constant eye relief it will cost you more than the 200.00 range of scopes that are out there.

Long

 

[The Shootist]

Don't you long for the days when a scope was an accessory for a rifle instead of the other way around? I can't perceive the difference between my Zeiss, Swarovski, or Leupolds. Stick with USA and spend the extra cash on a new rifle and a new scope.

 

[Desert Fox]

Get a Leupold and be done with it.

 

[hardpan]

Hi there,
I think that the glass should match the situation. I guide on a ranch that only allow boars, no sows or gilts. I get an extra 10-15 minutes in the AM and evening when using swarovski vs leupold. If that 10 minutes is important, then perhaps the extra $1000 is worth it. As a guide, I need those minutes, so I hunt with Swarovski and Zeiss (not the conquest.)
Thx,
Hardpan

 

[The Shootist]

You probably have younger better eyes than I do. The leupold has always been plenty good for way past legal shooting times for me. Has Consumer reports or anyone else for that matter ever done an actual measurement under controlled circumstances of the light transmission qualities of these top end glass's. It seems like a simple enough test to run. I'd be curious to see the results from an independent source outside the typical gun magazine group.

 

[Guest]

There have been a couple of tests run that I am aware of, but neither of them included the Swaro glass, or any of the other euro glass, to my knowledge. I can say that I can shoot well past legal shooting light with my Bushnell 3200's, and I have a Leupold Vari-X II that also is good, even though it is 20+ years old. I think some of the price in these optics is entirely a 'what the market will bear' issue. I notice that Leupold now has a line of scopes that are in the $1500-2000 range, where ony four years ago, their most expensive hunting scope was $600 or so, give or take a bit. More power to them if people will buy it at that price, but I can tell you there isn't (in my mind) that big an improvement over the $600 stuff to warrant spending that amount of money. I know some people will tell me otherwise, but I have looked through a lot of glass, and the law of diminishing returns is definitely in play here. Your mileage may vary, but in my view, pun intended, there is no clear winner, except the optics companies, who are producing a product that has a much higher margin, and selling it to whomever will buy it.

 

[hardpan]

Dubyam.,
You are right about the glass companies profiting. Basically, the 3 areas that they can really improve on is the glass, coatings, and the alignment...

For the glass, any high lead glass will out perform the low lead or green glass across a specturm of heat and gold. Heat stresses glass and can cause distortion. But, not that expensive ($30k per ton for the most expensive glass)

coatings are fairly inexpensive, but the research for the recipes is pretty hard to do. basically, we need to eliminate some of the UV spectrum, and maybe even some of the visible blue for a crisp image. Still, the costs of coatings do not vary much as they are based more on the vac-deposit machine time than the recipe. bottom line, coatings are likely only $5-15 per scope.

So, the only reason that the more expensive optics are there are that the manufacturing is better and the coatings are better. Glass is sold by the ton, and not too expensive. So, why cannot the lower cost scopes be as good as the expensive ones?
Hardpan.

 

[Guest]

I tend to think there is a point at which the law of diminishing returns kicks in. For my eyes, and yours may vary, that point is with the scopes in the $200-400 range, with one exception. I find the Zeiss Conquest series to be noticeably brighter and clearer than anything else in the same price range or under. I don't have the money to convert everything over, or I would. Outside the Conquest, I can't see a difference between the Leupolds (anything in the VX line up through III), the Nikons, the Burris, and my Bushnells. And believe me, I have looked - in back rooms that were dimly lit, down long alleyways, out in bright sunlight, across superstores reading the print on tents and canoes for clarity, or anything.

Again, other's eyes may be able to discern things better, but for me, the cost doesn't justify the percieved benefit.

 

[Savage99]

I go back to the 1950's rifles scope wise and we always bought Lymans as they were much sharper than the economy Weaver. Later my I wanted new scopes so I got 10 Leupolds. They are good scopes by a good company.

When the Conquest series came out by Zeiss I tried one and its far superior to any Leupold when looking towards bright light where the Leu's haze up and the crosshairs turn pink. The Lymans that have Perma Center have the same problem as the Leupolds.

The reticule on the Zeiss stays sharp all of the time in bright and dim light. The Zeiss also has a little better resolution in flat light.

On the take back side the Conquests are larger and heavier than the Leupolds. Now I have 5 Zeiss. I would not buy another Leupold the way the market is today. I am not dumping the Leu's as they are newer than the Lymans.

When I reach for a rifle for serious hunting and not just a safe queen I make sure it has a Zeiss on it.

Left to right. 3-9 Conquest, 4X Diatal, 4.5-14 Vari-X 111. The Vari-X has been replaced by a 4.5-14 Conquest.

 

[Desert Fox]

Just for the warranty, I'll pick the Leupold any day. It's nice to know that the company is behind their product 1000%... irregardless. I'm happy with my Leupold and so are the rest of my other brand scopes. Variety is the spice of life, and that reflects in the brand of scopes I owned.

 

[Guest]

Well, I have recently had reason to contact Bushnell about their warranty, and they were straight forward about it, and basically said they would fix it or replace it with a good one, at no charge. This is for an Elite 3200 I bought a while back that has a tiny bubble at the edge of one of the lenses. I am going to shoot it first, and then probably send it back.

And, for the record, I hate the word irregardless! You'll have to pardon my OCD :shock: about this, but it doesn't mean what you want it to in that sentence. Irregardless actually means 'without a lack of regard' which is the opposite of what you mean, I think. Again, please excuse my OCD about this, but this one word is a peeve of mine. :lol:

Now, everybody can go talk about how lame I am to be ranting about it at 1am, and I am going to bed!