Leupold , Burris and Swarovski glass

[mj30wilson]

How do the high end glass of these three compare. Swarovski is the most expensive but is it worth it? Is the signiture line from burris equvilant to leupold and swarovski? Does anyone have expierience with all three that can unbiased ranking? What lines are comperable from all three manufacturers?

What juice is worth the squeeze in other words?

 

[Guy Miner]

If you're looking at high end optics like Swarvoski - there are two other U.S. scope makers you should at least consider adding to your list:

U.S.Optics - if you're not a competitive shooter or billeted as a sniper you may not have even heard of these superb, world class scopes. Made right in Los Angeles, they're top quality and every bit as good as a Swarovski or S&B. Go to their web site, http://www.usoptics.com for more detail. Using one is a real education in what high quality glass can do - like being able to shoot accurately 20 minutes after everyone else on the range had to stop because it's too dark... I had the honor of testing a USO scope on my SWAT rifle for six months - it was superb. I just couldn't afford it and my agency wasn't about to spring for it.

Nightforce - very good scopes, highly regarded by both tactical shooters and precision competitors. Often seen on high quality custom rifles. I don't have a Nightforce scope, but several of my precision shooting buddies have them - including Steve P. who regularly outshoots me in 600 yard matches... I'd rate these as every bit the equal of the best Leupold scopes I've used, and possibly better in some ways.

Among the scopes you listed, I'd put Leupold and Swarovski at the top of the list. Only have one piece of optical gear from Swarovski myself, their laser rangefinder, but the optical clarity of the thing is superb. It's like a half a pair of upscale binoculars, or a mini spotting scope. Very, very nice. You owe it to yourself to look through Swarovski optics - impressive.

Leupold - the choice for my hunting rifles for 32 years now. Started out with a little 3-9x and now have a whole mess of 'em on all sorts of rifles, including some pretty decent setups. Leupold is very good indeed, and I can afford them - also a worthwhile consideration. Am very happy with the quality of my Leupold scopes, for everything from big game hunting, to varmint shooting, match shooting and tactical shooting. Go with the VX-III scopes from Leupold, or their good fixed power scopes for best optical quality. The lower end Leupolds are good, but for me, their glass is a bit limited in comparison. Leupold's MK IV series are the glass of choice for the majority of SWAT/LE agencies I've come across - which is quite a few.

Burris? Nothing against 'em - but I don't know any serious competitors who use them. Nor any SWAT/LE agencies that use them on their precision rifles. There are also some other decent scopes on the market.

You owe it to yourself to research this carefully and select according to your needs and wants. If you're talking high dollar stuff like the Swarovski though, compare it with the really good stuff like USOptics, Nightforce, top of the line Leupolds, and S&B.

Ya can't hit what ya can't see - and I still believe that optics are one of those areas where a fellow really does get what he pays for....

Semper Fi, Guy

 

[mj30wilson]

So what is the real difference, high definition images from one edge to the other of the lens. in which case that is delivered by leupold,burris and swarovski. The coatings which allow me to see earlier,or clearly in the rainy weather? swarovski is a lot more expensive than leupold or burris. Why? What is the big deal? What is so cutting edge that it will posses me to drop 2 to 3 grand on swarovski scopes, or binoculars?

 

[JD338]

mj30wilson,

Optics is a personal preference kind of decision. The high end optics use the best grade of glass and coatings. The glass comes from few sources.
The scope mfgs design their products around this glass. Higher quality/prices can be due to materials as well as the name that goes on the product.

Swarovski has an awesome Laser Range Finder, I have one and love it. Their binoculars are great but I recently bought a pair of Meopta Meostar 10x42 #467780 binoculars. The Meopta optically outperformed the Swarovski SLC 10x42 from the side by side comparison I made, having better resolution and true color. Their price was several hundred dollars less.
http://www.meopta.com/

As for rifle scopes, its tough to beat a Leupold VXIII. Some have also said that the Bushnell Elite 4200 is par to the VXIII but I don't know that for fact.
The best way is for you to make a side by side comparison outdoors.
This way you can honestly decide how much money you need to spend to get what you are looking for.

JD338

 

[hardpan]

mj30wilson,
Well, you can do real comparisons in a lab, but most of us do not have access to the right kind of equipement. None of the companies publishes extinction rates, or curves on their coatings for UV or IR. In general, a good glass (high lead content) and a good coating, ground correctly,without distortion, costs a lot more that soda lime glass, regular coatings, and cheap grinding. I would add in the high end Ziess into this mix.

From a simple perspective, you are paying for
1) Light transmission in the visible range. IE, you need to coat the glass to reflect UV and IR. Since blue is harder to see than red, in general, the UV coating at the high end of the spectrum is pretty important.

2) distortion free lenses. THe actual formula used to calculate the curve of the grinding with the focal length of the lens is pretty important. Grinding, however, is fairly easy to get right. The coatings above are the real difficult trick.

3) High quality glass. There is something called stress induced bi-infridgence. (not sure about the spelling). Basically, cheaper glass does not reflect the same under stress from either mechanical sources or from heat as it should. Result is that the image is less clear.

All of this adds to the image quality and the amount of light needed for shooting. I typically get 15 minutes extra with my Ziess and Swarovski scopes and binos, compared to leupold and burris. leupold are ok, but in low light situations, the others beat it hands down. The real question is what is the extra few minutes at the beginning and end of the day worth to you? In strong light, they are all pretty close.
Hardpan.

 

[JD338]

hardpan,

Good explaination! 8)

JD338

 

[Jimmywax]

For the money Burris is the way to go. I have several from the Signature Select on down to the FFII(and a couple original Fullfields). I do not have a single complaint. I love my Signature's. Now having said that I also know you generally get what you pay for. There is no way in Hell I can say a Burris Signature can compete with a Swaro or Nightforce. Personally I haven't looked thru a Leupold VX-III so I can not say where they rank. I can not say as I have ever heard a bad word about a Leupold either.

 

[kiddekop]

So what is the real difference, high definition images from one edge to the other of the lens. in which case that is delivered by leupold,burris and swarovski. The coatings which allow me to see earlier,or clearly in the rainy weather? swarovski is a lot more expensive than leupold or burris. Why? What is the big deal? What is so cutting edge that it will posses me to drop 2 to 3 grand on swarovski scopes, or binoculars?

FYI US Optics is located in Brea,CA which is in Orange County not Los Angeles.

 

[Greg Nolan]

You didn't mention Zeiss but you should take a look. I have Burris,Zeiss, Swarovski and Leupold scopes on my hunting rifles. The Zeiss clarity is on a par with Sworovski and the top end Leupolds. They are lighter and now have a rapid-z BDC reticule available which was the only major drawback that originally pushed me to Swarovski's TDR reticule and Burris's balistic plex. I'm a hunter not a competition or professional shooter so my opinions are based on what works for me. The Zeiss scope is lighter with good field of view and excellent definition .. Swarovski scopes have good field of view are a little larger and heavier than all but the Burris and are REALLY clear and defined in color and definition. Leupold is excellent in definition, size, weight and color but has a more limited field of view. Burris is a good overall scope for the money but not in the elite class. When you look at the top end Burris scopes you get excellent optics but they get bigger and are probably the heaviest of the mix. Field of view, optical quality, weight, size and cost all considered I'm very happy with Zeiss. But I love my Swarovski binoculars. Try them all because every one looks for and sees things a little differently.
Best of luck in your search :grin:

 

[MattC]

First thing first: For the past number of years, the only shooting that I have done has been from behind a camera lens. I have just ordered a Leupold Mk4 Tactical LR/T 3-9x40 ill. unseen. This will be my first scope in 20 years.

Just to add to Hardpans comments about visible light transmission…

The coatings are also designed to reduce internal reflections. Something that I have encountered in a good percentage of the less expensive optics (and even some more expensive optics) that I have looked at is “flare”. This can often be seen as a cascade of diminishing bright spots (or a single hot spot) angled towards a bright light source. This is caused by having a strong light source (eg the sun) in front of the lens, but not necessarily in the field of view. Some light transmitted through the first element is reflected by the second element onto the back of the first element which is then reflected back and transmitted through the second element to be reflected back onto the back of the second element by the third element and so on. It is the reflections off the backs of the elements that become visible. The number of reflections would be equal to the number of lens elements minus two, but as previously mentioned, it can appear as a single hot spot. At best it is an annoyance, at worst it could render the optics unusable.

The best lenses will have every element multicoated. A hood (lens shade) will go a long way towards improving matters further as even the best coatings cannot completely eliminate reflections although it is well controlled in the best lenses. A hood also reduces the amount of extraneous light entering the lens from outside of the angle of view which only bounces around inside the lens and serves to reduce contrast. UV also reduces contrast.

I still have some very nice 42mm Schneider photographic UV and polarising filters new in their boxes which I have been eyeing off....

Cheers

Matt

 

[hardpan]

Hey Matt,
are you in the glass business? nice explanation, and agree with all that you said.

Does anyone out there have access to good lab equipement? The consultants that I used to deal with have retired.
thanks
Hardpan

 

[MattC]

:grin: :grin:

Not in the glass business... Just a keen photographer (and occasional pro) who has spent more money than I would care to admit to on finding the right lenses.

Cheers

 

[telkev]

I have burris, nikon, bushell elite 4200, and a leupold vxiii. Mostly I just hunt so I can't give expert opinion. My burris black diamond is by far the clearest, sharpest, but also the heaviest. My next best is the bushell elite, if it had a 30mm tube it would be right there with the burris, plus lighter. My nikon and leupold vxiii come in last for clarity and sharpness. My next rifle will probably carry the bushnell elite, I personally cant afford the upper class scopes.

 

[HunterJim]

You don't need the best scope on your rifle, you do need one that will allow you to make shots early and late (almost all scopes work well in the middle of the day). Most places I hunt limit you to 30 minutes before sunrise and 30 minutes after sundown. I had to go to Africa to hunt legally at night, and not all jurisdictions allow it even there.

Our European friends understand night hunting, and they use things like very expensive 8X56 scopes from stands under moonlight. My friends in New Zealand think you can do everything with artificial light (known as the electric dog there) and a 3-9X40 scope set on 6X.

You are not going to go wrong with a Leupold in the VXIII line. I have also tried Pentax, Kahles, Swarovski, S&B, Zeiss, Trijicon, Burris, Nikon and a couple of others I am not remembering just now. Optics are very competitive, and seem to be getting more so. Eastern Europe and China are getting into the action now too.

I started learning with camera lenses too, and it used to be it was Zeiss and everybody else. I think the Zeiss lenses with their T* coating cannot be beat, although others are equalling them. I have used both Contax and Pentax cameras for years, and still like them. In one scope test the Pentax Lightseeker out performed the Leupold VXIII, but the Zeiss Victory killed both of them. But for hunting the $400 answer was good enough and the $1400 answer was not needed.

Leupold has excellent service, and their scopes are light -- that translates to less susceptably to damage from recoil. Check the weight as well as the price when comparing scopes.

Binos are a different animal.

jim

 

[MattC]

HunterJim,

Kangaroo shooting in Australia is conducted at night and I am fairly sure that it is the only time that it is legal to take them. Not exactly African game but an adventure and experience none the less. Top End tour operators also have buffalo on offer.

For photography, I shoot Nikon with Nikon and Zeiss glass, plus Hasselblad MF with CZ glass. I also have a fair amount of Canon L glass gathering dust. I think that the assertions "Zeiss and everybody else" and "T* coating cannot be beat, although others are equalling them" are both wrong... but this is not the place.

There is probably some very good value at the lower price points. There certainly is in camera lenses. Is a $1400 scope 3.5 times better than a good $400 scope? The answer is probably not. Realistically the difference might only be as high as 10%. The extra few percent may or may not be worth paying for.

Cheers

Matt

 

[6ppcar]

The Schmidt & Bender is hard to beat in any light. I would pick it over all the others. I have taken Elk and Deer that i could not have seen with anything else.

 

[HunterJim]

HunterJim,

Kangaroo shooting in Australia is conducted at night and I am fairly sure that it is the only time that it is legal to take them. Not exactly African game but an adventure and experience none the less. Top End tour operators also have buffalo on offer.

For photography, I shoot Nikon with Nikon and Zeiss glass, plus Hasselblad MF with CZ glass. I also have a fair amount of Canon L glass gathering dust. I think that the assertions "Zeiss and everybody else" and "T* coating cannot be beat, although others are equalling them" are both wrong... but this is not the place.

There is probably some very good value at the lower price points. There certainly is in camera lenses. Is a $1400 scope 3.5 times better than a good $400 scope? The answer is probably not. Realistically the difference might only be as high as 10%. The extra few percent may or may not be worth paying for.

Cheers

Matt

Matt,

I would like to hear your experiences with the Zeiss lenses and the T* coatings, especially what you think is superior. I suppose I should have added some weasel words such as "those I use".

Where performance really counts is during the edges of the day in the higher latitudes -- where a long twilight is when the crepuscular critters are out and moving.

jim

 

[MattC]

Jim,

On Nikon SLR I use ZF Distagon T* 25/2.8 and 35/2, ZF Planar T* 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, plus a ZF Makro-Planar T* 100/2. I also have the equivalent Nikon D Lenses (24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and 105/2DC). As far as a comparison of coatings goes, they are on par. The difference lies in other areas like focal plane distortion (mainly wide lenses), rendering of out of focus elements (particularly highlights) and the transition between acceptable focus and out of focus. A direct comparison of the two wides (24/25 and 35s) is a little unfair to the Nikon's - they are positively budget in comparison to the Zeiss's. The Nikon 28/1.4 is a true gem that belongs in the company of the Zeiss's. The 50s are much closer with the edge to the CZ for its rendering of OOF elements. The 85s are so close that it is hard to draw any conclusion.
Contrast is excellent in all of the above lenses. One thing that I do not see anywhere these days is a lenses T-Stop specification. T-Stop for those not familiar is (in a nutshell) a measure of the lenses ability to transmit light. Comparing the equivalent Nikon and Zeiss lenses, exposures are identical. I have an old zoom lens which is more than a stop slower than the 50/1.4 at the same aperture.
Aberrations are most prevalent in the (low tech and little used) Nikon 35/2 but are easily controlled. Resistance to flare and ghosting is acceptable in all of these lenses (none are totally immune), but that might be my habit of avoiding situations that might cause these artefacts.
As mentioned, the coatings are on par and there is nothing that can be directly attributed to them.

Throwing a lens like the Nikon 200/2VR into the mix is unfair to everything. This is an absolutely superb low light lens that is at its best wide open at F2.

The Zeiss's were purchased as expensive toys for my FM3 which lives on a diet of B&W film. This gear is solely for my benefit. The Nikon's are the work horses of my 35mm lenses.

The Hasselblad lenses have been left alone because I have nothing to compare them to. I think that it should be sufficient to say that they perform as expected.

My disagreement comes from the history of the two companies. While Zeiss had a major role to play (Zeiss gave them almost everything) in the development of Nippon Kogaku during the pre-war period, it was the Japanese company that surpassed the knowledge and experience of Zeiss and came out ahead in the post war years, due in no small part to the Japanese continued development of optical range finding and targeting systems for the military (eg the battleship Yamato, bomb sights...) during the war. While the rest of the world put their effort into radar systems, Nippon Kogaku learned (and developed) much about optics, glass formulations and manufacturing techniques. It also supplied the optical glass and a lot of knowledge to the other three Japanese manufacturers of the time (which, btw, survived the war and went on to become the other three companies that we are familiar with today).
In the post-war era Nippon Kogaku bounced back strongly (by finding a consumer market while retaining its roots as an optics manufacturer) to later become Nikon while many of its would be rivals languished for a period. It was Nikon who developed the vapour deposition techniques and later the process of hardening those lens coatings and has continued to be at the forefront of this technology. T* came later.
It was also Nikon who developed the VR technology which another company capitalised on through licensing.
Even NASA has long recognised the knowledge and experience of Nikon.

Zeiss had a similar history, but lacked the war time growth and had a harder time of it during its recovery.

This period should not be underestimated. This was the period (say 1930 - 1960 something) where the greatest depth of knowledge was acquired and the companies that form the foundation of optics industry established themselves.

I do not mean to belittle Zeiss in any way; quite the opposite, however I do believe that it needs to be recognised that Zeiss has company at the top. Zeiss started ahead, fell behind, found its feet and then recovered its position as a premier optics manufacturer.
I only regard two companies as genuinely deserving of that title, although I am a little dismayed at the direction that Nikon has taken in recent times (more consumer orientated junk). The third major player is IMHO a photocopier company with a huge marketing machine and is undeserving of the accolades, loyalty and money it receives from its customers. Their lenses (and bodies) do not live up to my expectations.

Nikon fan-boy? I think not, as much as it sounds like it. I look for the best in the area of photography and I have made some expensive mistakes. Nikon and Zeiss for now.

As far as rifle scopes go I think that the bar can be lowered a little in some areas. After all, the image being viewed through that rifle scope is not going to be recorded forever. A rifle scope does not have to deal with optical subtleties that a good camera lens needs to overcome and the human brain has an amazing ability to see through some flaws.

Phew! Too long!

Cheers

PS. I made an error in my description of flare in a previous post (uncorrected). One of those brain fart moments.

 

[HunterJim]

Matt,

Thanks for taking the time to post the details. I have to admit I was thinking about binoculars and telescopes (and not cameras) when I made my original post.

On the camera side I have been using an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SLR for a long time. I originally bought it in Japan, and I got the Super Takumar 50 mm f1.2 normal lens with it, and added a Super Takumar 28 mm f3.5 and 135 mm f3.5. My other SLR is a Contax RX, and I have a Zeiss Planar 50 mm f1.4 and a Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 8--200 mm f4 telephoto. These are all made in Japan.

I have used some of the small Nikon digital cameras and a Sony, but now I am using a Pentax K10D. (I like Pentax if you can't tell).

Once upon a time I did a comparison of 1.5-6X rifle scopes, and assembled Leupold, Nikon, Kahles, Zeiss and S&B scopes to test drive. The Nikon was a 30 mm Monarch Gold. I didn't think it was quite up to the Zeiss and S&B, but it was good. I had a VariX III and VXIII Leupold 1.50-5X20 as this was when the VXIII scopes had just hit the market.

The top-end Nikon binoculars are really good too.

jim

 

[MattC]

Jim,

I have a few friends who are Pentax users and have had the opportunity to rattle of a few rolls of film. Nice gear.

That is what I suspected/expected of the Nikon rifle scopes and that is what I thought. Nice but nothing exceptional. If they are anything like their photography arm then they are conservative and slow to move in a market, sometimes to the frustration of their customers. Zeiss and others are probably in a better position to read and react to the market.

I did have a good hard look at the Zeiss and Nikon scopes. I probably had it in the back of my head that I did not want to spend **that** much on a scope for what is a work rifle so I went for the Leupold MkIV.
That attitude is likely to change with my new Sako 25/06. This rifle was bought for my personal use so I am more inclined to play.

It has been an interesting process. Dealers and club members have (thankfully) been exceptionally patient with me.


Cheers