What do you think Bushnell and Night Force

A previous poster wrote that "The bushnell is like looking through the bottom of a Coke bottle compared to the Nightforce" well, I guess I just don't have the eyes to appreciate the difference to such an extent. I have four Elite 4200's and have had the opportunity a number of times to look through several NF and Leupold and on a few of those times I have though that the NF / Leupold was a bit clearer or sharper but on others I haven't been able to detect a difference. What I could clearly detect though would be the price difference ! Of course, if money was no object then maybe I would drop the $1800 on a NF compared to the $800 on an Elite 4200 but as a recreational shooter who can't tell the difference anyway and who doesn't have an unlimited budget I can't justify the price jump.
 
Tomochan said:
A previous poster wrote that "The bushnell is like looking through the bottom of a Coke bottle compared to the Nightforce" well, I guess I just don't have the eyes to appreciate the difference to such an extent. I have four Elite 4200's and have had the opportunity a number of times to look through several NF and Leupold and on a few of those times I have though that the NF / Leupold was a bit clearer or sharper but on others I haven't been able to detect a difference.
Click to expand...


Back in a previous life, I worked in commercial photography. As a bit of a lark, I took a series of photographs using my Leica M4P rangefinder camera (worth about ~$4000 and being renowned for having the best lenses in the world) and I also repeated the same series of photographs using a disposable camera. (~$10)

I put these in a frame with the details of the cameras with which they were taken, and it always generated interesting comments, usually at how good the disposable was in comparison. To me, the disposable camera took $hitty photos.

The lesson here is that to the overwhelming majority, there really isn't $2000 worth of difference in the image you see through any Bushnell and any Nightforce scope. Our eyes compensate for most of the differences.

To someone meticulously scrutinous of optical quality, the differences are there, but to most, it is not. I use Bushnells on my hunting rifles... nothing finer, but for long range shooting, the bushnell scopes do not have the features I want or need. For many others, the Bushnells are an excellent choice.
 
Obtunded said:
Back in a previous life, I worked in commercial photography. As a bit of a lark, I took a series of photographs using my Leica M4P rangefinder camera (worth about ~$4000 and being renowned for having the best lenses in the world) and I also repeated the same series of photographs using a disposable camera. (~$10)

I put these in a frame with the details of the cameras with which they were taken, and it always generated interesting comments, usually at how good the disposable was in comparison. To me, the disposable camera took $hitty photos.

The lesson here is that to the overwhelming majority, there really isn't $2000 worth of difference in the image you see through any Bushnell and any Nightforce scope. Our eyes compensate for most of the differences.

To someone meticulously scrutinous of optical quality, the differences are there, but to most, it is not. I use Bushnells on my hunting rifles... nothing finer, but for long range shooting, the bushnell scopes do not have the features I want or need. For many others, the Bushnells are an excellent choice.
Click to expand...

I agree... I work as a photographer now, and I can tell you that good, sharp, light transmitting glass costs big bucks. It is not out of the ordinary to spend $1500-3000 on an OEM lens. There are however manufactures like Tamron, and Sigma that make equally good lenses at about half the cost.

The lesson to be learned... You DO pay for a name, and you DO pay for quality. You CAN save a little by buying a lesser name, but you wont see the same quality across the product line. For example, SOME of sigmas lenses are the best you can buy, others suck dog d*cks. Whereas, if you buy a Nikon or Canon lens you know what you are getting.

I expect this is the same for Bushnell vs NF....

But, what do I care? I shoot irons :D
 
Obtunded said:
Back in a previous life, I worked in commercial photography. As a bit of a lark, I took a series of photographs using my Leica M4P rangefinder camera (worth about ~$4000 and being renowned for having the best lenses in the world) and I also repeated the same series of photographs using a disposable camera. (~$10)

I put these in a frame with the details of the cameras with which they were taken, and it always generated interesting comments, usually at how good the disposable was in comparison. To me, the disposable camera took $hitty photos.

The lesson here is that to the overwhelming majority, there really isn't $2000 worth of difference in the image you see through any Bushnell and any Nightforce scope. Our eyes compensate for most of the differences.

To someone meticulously scrutinous of optical quality, the differences are there, but to most, it is not. I use Bushnells on my hunting rifles... nothing finer, but for long range shooting, the bushnell scopes do not have the features I want or need. For many others, the Bushnells are an excellent choice.
Click to expand...


Well said.

If you look through a bushnell and then a nightforce and can not tell the difference, or at least can not justify the price difference, then by all means don't get the nightforce. It's a waist of your money. However the guys I know that shoot alot and are really good at it, wouldn't dare use a bushnell on thier precision rifle. Sad thing is, they probably all started off with one, or tried one at some point.

I think once a person gets to a certain level of ability, higher quality optics are a logical step to get to the next level. The price may not be justifiable when first starting out because it can not be apreciated but sooner or later as skills are improved better optics will be needed and then just like the rest of us you'll kick yourself and say now why didn't I just buy that nightforce to begin with.

Dave
 
Obtunded said:
Back in a previous life, I worked in commercial photography. As a bit of a lark, I took a series of photographs using my Leica M4P rangefinder camera (worth about ~$4000 and being renowned for having the best lenses in the world) and I also repeated the same series of photographs using a disposable camera. (~$10)

I put these in a frame with the details of the cameras with which they were taken, and it always generated interesting comments, usually at how good the disposable was in comparison. To me, the disposable camera took $hitty photos.

The lesson here is that to the overwhelming majority, there really isn't $2000 worth of difference in the image you see through any Bushnell and any Nightforce scope. Our eyes compensate for most of the differences.

To someone meticulously scrutinous of optical quality, the differences are there, but to most, it is not. I use Bushnells on my hunting rifles... nothing finer, but for long range shooting, the bushnell scopes do not have the features I want or need. For many others, the Bushnells are an excellent choice.
Click to expand...

I have a different take on that one.

It is not just optical quality Nightforce owners love so much. Build quality and long term durability are really what makes the stretch worth while. Nightforce scopes are about as reliable as a hammer and will still be functioning perfectly ten years from now....Who knows how well the brand new Bushnells will hold up....From previous experiences I would say not very well.

Cameras are a completely different ballgame.
 
X-fan said:
I have a different take on that one.

It is not just optical quality Nightforce owners love so much. Build quality and long term durability are really what makes the stretch worth while. Nightforce scopes are about as reliable as a hammer and will still be functioning perfectly ten years from now....Who knows how well the brand new Bushnells will hold up....From previous experiences I would say not very well.

Cameras are a completely different ballgame.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to the lenses than the cameras, but I agree with you on the build aspects. I have never had my scopes apart, so I cannot comment on the quality of their internal construction, but my Nightforce and leupold scopes have what is clearly a very repeatable mechanism and are obviously of superlative quality. S&B are also outstanding, as are Swarovsky.
 
S&B are the Rolls Royce of optics, but from personal experience they score a C+ in robustness.
It also takes a very long time to get one back from warranty work.

With Leupold you are in very good hands (quick turn around if there is a problem).

With Nightforce you can pretty much rule out repair or warranty issues.

I'm a Nikon guy BTW!
 
I have gone through quite a few scopes over the years, then I tried Zeiss and now almost all my rifles wear one. Buy what suits your needs, and sell it when you outgrow it, I have told people to just save and buy a scope once, yet everyone seems to want to learn for themselves.
 
I've found that my Zeiss Conquest scopes optically give the NF a run for the money and they track pefectly. That being said, the NF has all of the features that I like for precision rifles. There are compromises with the Conquest. 1" tube, 45 moa adjustments for example. The NF has no compromises. I love the NP-R1 reticle, the controls are perfect. Clicks are exact, smooth and not tight. The glass is excellent and trackability is dead on. But again it's the overall package that really separates these scopes. It does everything very well.

If the 4200 had a decent reticle choice and the price was a bit lower, I would have bought a few of them.
The Sightron has my interest right now for a .308 precision rifle. They just need to put a decent reticle on the SIII and I'll order one. Crappy reticles are one compromise on a scope that I won't make.
 
redleg said:
If you can afford good quality optics you will not be disappointed. The problem is that small increases come at increasingly large costs. Good advice is to buy as much quality as you can afford.
Click to expand...

It cannot be better said then this, with one exception, and I am sure Redleg will agree, the Bushnell 3200 10X Tactical is pretty hard to beat for the $$$.
 
Epoxy7 said:
I've found that my Zeiss Conquest scopes optically give the NF a run for the money and they track pefectly. That being said, the NF has all of the features that I like for precision rifles. There are compromises with the Conquest. 1" tube, 45 moa adjustments for example. The NF has no compromises. I love the NP-R1 reticle, the controls are perfect. Clicks are exact, smooth and not tight. The glass is excellent and trackability is dead on. But again it's the overall package that really separates these scopes. It does everything very well.

If the 4200 had a decent reticle choice and the price was a bit lower, I would have bought a few of them.
The Sightron has my interest right now for a .308 precision rifle. They just need to put a decent reticle on the SIII and I'll order one. Crappy reticles are one compromise on a scope that I won't make.
Click to expand...

You are in good hands with Zeiss.... They are the most used lenses by Cinematographers IN THE WORLD.

A few movies shot with Zeiss that you may have heard of... "Lord of the Rings", "Alexander", "King Arthur", "Air Force One", "Collateral", "King Kong, and who could leave out .... No Country for Old Men"
 
ben hunchak said:
Def. the Bushnell, I thought you could get one for less then that, i have a 6500 2.5-16 on EE for half that price, I've had a few of them and they are all keepers, save the money and use it on some good precision reloading equipment.
Click to expand...


anyone else :confused: by the above? lol


My vote goes for NF. For my applications, and level of income, I don't need to spend the money on S&B.
 
Epoxy7 said:
I've found that my Zeiss Conquest scopes optically give the NF a run for the money and they track pefectly. That being said, the NF has all of the features that I like for precision rifles. There are compromises with the Conquest. 1" tube, 45 moa adjustments for example. The NF has no compromises. I love the NP-R1 reticle, the controls are perfect. Clicks are exact, smooth and not tight. The glass is excellent and trackability is dead on. But again it's the overall package that really separates these scopes. It does everything very well.
Click to expand...
If you think the Zeiss conquest series gives NF a run for the money, you should try holding a Zeiss Diavari next to the conquest or the NF for that matter. You can get them with all the options you would need for precision shooting and their Lotu Tec lens coating is a bonus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom