Is swarovski worth the price

Bowie said:
That said, I have sold my Euro scopes (S&B, Meopta. etc.) and gone back to Leupold. I do not deny that the European scopes have better optics, however, for my purposes of hunting in North America, a Leupold VX3 is hard to beat. I like the fact that they have good eye relief, are extremely rugged (with warranty available in Alberta), are light weight, have good reticles, and have a reasonable price point. I think the same could be said for the conquest series Zeiss, but I haven't used one yet.
Click to expand...

Whew!! Thank god I was just about to put all my Leupolds up on the EE;)
Your right on the money IMHO. Theres more to a hunting scope than great glass. My VX3's and VXL's are getting the job done for me.
 
I do not deny that the European scopes have better optics, however, for my purposes of hunting in North America, a Leupold VX3 is hard to beat. I like the fact that they have good eye relief, are extremely rugged (with warranty available in Alberta), are light weight, have good reticles, and have a reasonable price point.
Click to expand...

The Swarovski z-3 3-10x42 is smaller and lighter than the VX3,they are very rugged,and have good reticles.As for eye relief,the Swarovski, Zeiss,and Kahles scopes,all have a nearly constant eye relief,unlike Leupold,whose eye relief varies significantly as the magnification setting is changed.One more thing to consider is field of view,and the Leupold trails Swarovski and Kahles in that area as well.
 
I have to say I'm not sure how much a Swarovski scope costs, because they don't seem to have them listed in Cabellas or Wholesale sports. If its say $1,000 or more, and the advantage is crystal clear image, I'm not willing to spend the extra coin for that property. My $300 and up scopes seem to hold zero, don't fog up, gather light well enough that they function within the legal limits for hunting, and produce an image clear enough for the deer I'm about to squeeze the trigger on. A camera lens, I can see the value in optical perfection, as I will be gazing at the image for years to come, but on a rifel scope, I spend only a fraction of a minute looking through it on a hunt. I mostly spot with my eyes and binoculars.
 
Some folks do spend hours at the range tinkeing with loads, plinking, target shooting, just playing, and looking through great glass when doing so is a lot easier on the eyes than looking through a $300 hunting optic. If you are only going to use it for a few minutes a season under ideal hunting conditions then a $40 tasco from Walmart in fact will do, Everyones needs and wants are different and for what Swaro's were intedended to do they are absolutely worth the $$, but so are Leupolds and burris and zeniths and kahles and meopta. None of them are Junk just some are better than others, and it starts to get real expensive to move up small increments when at the top end.
 
stubblejumper said:
The Swarovski z-3 3-10x42 is smaller and lighter than the VX3,they are very rugged,and have good reticles.As for eye relief,the Swarovski, Zeiss,and Kahles scopes,all have a nearly constant eye relief,unlike Leupold,whose eye relief varies significantly as the magnification setting is changed.One more thing to consider is field of view,and the Leupold trails Swarovski and Kahles in that area as well.
Click to expand...

Not true. Leupold is 12.6 oz. Swaro 12.7 oz. Length is the same.
 
I use sworovski binos and spotter the scopes are equally as cristal clear. For the average hunter they are more than you could ever want. But for guiding in the mountains of BC/ YK/AB for 4 months of the year I have learned that sworovski and ziess are the first to loose there zero
 
Not true. Leupold is 12.6 oz. Swaro 12.7 oz. Length is the same.
Click to expand...

You are correct.The Swarovski av 3-10x42 was lighter and shorter than the VXIII, and shorter than the VX3.The new Z-3 is slightly longer than the AV,and is the same length as the VXIII, and the VX3.Apparently the vx3 has lost .3 ounces, compared to the VXIII.So length and weight are virtually identical. That just leaves the Z-3 with more actual maximum magnification, a larger field of view, a much more constant eye relief,and better lenses and coatings.Those advantages are still enough for me to choose the Swarovski.
 
I remain unconvinced that there is a more rugged sporting scope than a Leupold. Ultimately I am willing sacrifice a bit of optical resolution for absolute reliability in a scope because it's function is primarily to aim. Not so with binos, which are not subjected to recoil, resolution is here is primary.
 
I remain unconvinced that there is a more rugged sporting scope than a Leupold. Ultimately I am willing sacrifice a bit of optical resolution for absolute reliability in a scope because it's function is primarily to aim. Not so with binos, which are not subjected to recoil, resolution is here is primary.
Click to expand...

I have yet to experience a Swarovski,Kahles, or Zeiss scope fail due to recoil,or require any type of warranty work.I have owned at least five each of all three brands,and all have proven to be very durable,be it on horseback hunts,boat hunts or on atvs.But my binoculars,have also been exposed to the same rough handling with the exception of recoil,which is likely the least concern as far as reliability is concerned.If I didn't trust my binoculars to be as durable as my scopes, I wouldn't use them.
 
stubblejumper said:
You are correct.The Swarovski av 3-10x42 was lighter and shorter than the VXIII, and shorter than the VX3.The new Z-3 is slightly longer than the AV,and is the same length as the VXIII, and the VX3.Apparently the vx3 has lost .3 ounces, compared to the VXIII.So length and weight are virtually identical. That just leaves the Z-3 with more actual maximum magnification, a larger field of view, a much more constant eye relief,and better lenses and coatings.Those advantages are still enough for me to choose the Swarovski.
Click to expand...

No doubt the Z3 is a great scope. Whether it's worth twice as much as a VX3 is a personal matter. As far as lenses and coatings, I doubt anyone on this board knows with certainty they are superior to Leupold, but we assume they must be, since the scope is double the cost.

My favorite thing about Leupold is that they have no rubber anywhere on the scope. I've found out over the years that Canadian winters and friction fit or rubber glued to steel don't mix. :)
 
As far as lenses and coatings, I doubt anyone on this board knows with certainty they are superior to Leupold, but we assume they must be, since the scope is double the cost.
Click to expand...

The fact that they are clearer,and brighter to my eyes,is good enough for me.But then again,I have actually compared them side by side under hunting conditions.A coworker also compared his new VX3 to my Kahles which I actually paid less for,and he preferred the Kahles enough to immediately order one for himself.
 
saskcop said:
When it comes to optics, you quite often get exactly what you pay for.
Click to expand...

The law of diminishing returns also applies to optics. You can pay three times the price to get binoculars that are 5% better. $600 buys some awfully good binoculars these days.

If a person has more money than they know what to do with, spend it on anything you want, but like I always told my kids, "you can spend your money any way you want but you can only spend it once." So in answer to the "You only live once" crowd, if you are an ordinary Joe without and extra $2000 that you don't need for anything else, spend it any way you like, but for most of us if we were so inclined the question would be, If I buy them, what don't I have money for?"
 
Lenses in optics are shaped like corneas of the eye to focus light. coatings filter the unneeded or unwanted frequencies making the final image visibly more clear. Swarovski takes more care in shaping their lenses so their input costs are higher, the feedstock glass is superior, less imperfectons, to begin with before the shaping process takes place, german glass is known to be superior to japanese glass and the coatings have different filtering qualities (for me better) than leupold. In my case I don't need to understand why Swarovski is clearer, it just is, much like I have no clue how the computer works from a scientific perspective, all I need it to do is work for me.
If you want do a little research on glass quality, base chemicals in coatings, and adhesives which hold the lenses in place, tube strength etc. once you have toured both manufacturing facitlities and see the testing and QC programs in both places, share your findings. Once you do that your Leupold claims will not be so bold.
 
sigh... if you can't afford a swarovski then don't buy a swarovski. The original question is "Is a Swarovski worth the money?" The answer to that is yes. It is a well made scope and the optics are top notch. If you are happy with your Bushnell scope then goodie for you nobody is saying that bushnell or leupold are not worth the money that it would cost to buy one. Asking for justification is just plain stupid -- it is my money after all not yours if you don't think it is worth it great - move along but to demand an explanation sounds just plain lame. I have been shooting for a very long time and I can comfortably hold a hand on my heart and say that Swarovski is better then Leupold... It doesn't mean the Leupold isn't a fine product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom