Real World Difference Between a $500 and a $1000 Scope?

S

shanesymyrozum

BANNED
Member
BANNED
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Over the course of the last year or so, I have been on a bit of a journey to replace what would be considered "average" guns with higher quality stuff. After reading, listening to, and maybe moreso conversing with certain people on this forum, I decided to get something I would be happy with for some time. I started the journey with a Sako 85 Hunter, got rid of that and ended up with a Sako 85 Bavarian. After a month of looking at what I felt was a very pretty wood oil finished wood stock, I was convinced that I would inevitably beat it up during hunting season, and get mad about it. So I got rid of it, and got the gun I deep down really wanted, a Cooper Jackson Hunter (stainless/composite stock)

Now to my question. I currently have a Zeiss Conquest 3x9x40, that I picked up about 7 months ago, on this new rifle. Like many, I consider this to arguably be the best $500 scope on the market, but now I am pondering on putting a different scope on this gun.

In your experience what is the real world performance difference between a $500 scope and a $1000 scope such as a Zeiss HD 5, Swaro Z3 or even a Trijicon Accupoint?

I look forward to your answers, particularly from people who use $1000 (or better) scopes.
 
Put it to ya this way with the Zeiss, the glass quality is the same between your $500 and $1200.00 Conquest, options are the difference there.

In all reality IMO there isn't must difference in the optics quality from the 500 to 1000 range , not enough to make a huge difference.The scopes in that price range these days are extremely high quality and the market is very competitive so quality for price must be high.

There are kinda 3 tiers IMO on scopes with some falling a bit in between and within these tiers in comes down to personally preference and how the glass is viewed by the individuals eye.

1.Tasco, NC Star , Ruko, etc.................... all very similar with not the best quality.

2.Conquest, VX III, Nikon, Vortex..........................all have pretty good glass and vast options.

3.S & B , US Optics, Premier Reticles...........................all have very good glass and extreme durability and vast options.

The mid range scopes have a very wide price range with similar quality, I'd say $400.00 to $1500.00 approx.

The high end stuff just gets started around 2K.

I don't have anything much over $1500 and can't speak for the very high end stuff but there are some differences , not as great as some would like to believe however.

Find the glass that looks good to your eyes, then pick the options and sizes that fit your needs. You may only be spending $500.00 for a scope that works well for you.

Looking at a target or object with writing and color is an excellent way to determine clarity and contrast, a magazine cover would be an excellent object to view and compare scopes with.
 
Vortex viper 2.5-10 hs. Or hunting scope is around $500. The vortex viper pst which is the same optically same scope basically has exposed tactical turrets, Ffp, illuminated so it has more features. The glass is the same. The $1000 scope will not help you see the target any better than the $500 scope. It can't they have the same lenses of the same quality. There are many many good $500 scopes. If you need the absolute best bang for your buck buy a used Leupold. That the best value buy on the Canadian market.
 
I have a 6.5 x 20 ziess , 4 x 30 6500 elite and a 8 x 32 nightforce and I always questioned if there really was that much difference in the optical quality they all seemed good until one day we were shooting in 31 deg cel weather I had the 6500 on my 280 a.i. and the N/F on my 338 edge a.i. , on this day with all the mirage there was a very noticable difference with the N/F being far better.
 
i cant say i have any experiance with the zeiss scopes so i cant comment on them

but the differance between lower end optics, and high end, is like putting an old CRT moniter, beside a brand new HD lcd/plasma. the image is sharper and brighter, the adjustments are repeatable and accurate, detail is out standing.. i have a millet 4-16 on my .22 which i used to think was a good scope (in the 400 range) is sat atop my 308 target rifle for a while. then i got the chance to pick up a S&B, needless to say, now all my scopes are S&B on my highend rifles, and looking goin back to the millet for some .22 plinking fun is like being poked in the eye with a sharp stick!
 
ultimate_monkey said:
i cant say i have any experiance with the zeiss scopes so i cant comment on them

but the differance between lower end optics, and high end, is like putting an old CRT moniter, beside a brand new HD lcd/plasma. the image is sharper and brighter, the adjustments are repeatable and accurate, detail is out standing.. i have a millet 4-16 on my .22 which i used to think was a good scope (in the 400 range) is sat atop my 308 target rifle for a while. then i got the chance to pick up a S&B, needless to say, now all my scopes are S&B on my highend rifles, and looking goin back to the millet for some .22 plinking fun is like being poked in the eye with a sharp stick!
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. I have a Falcon Menace on one of my .22's, and it's almost painful to use when comparing it to my Leupold Mark 4 or Vortex Razor HD (which are really just at the top of the mid range scopes, although there is some overlap with lower end NF scopes, etc.). I can really see the difference at longer ranges, especially when you are shooting in hot weather.
 
I think I'd be happy with the Conquest, but if it makes you happy and you measure performance by $$ spent, then by all means go buy something pricier.

A $1000 scope might be 10-20% better than a $500 scope, certainly not twice as good but that is kinda subjective. It's relatively easy to build "good" quality optics but the price goes up drastically for small improvements when you get into the "better" or "best" quality. And 99% of hunters wouldn't be able to tell the difference in their normal hunting and shooting.
 
jethunter said:
I think I'd be happy with the Conquest, but if it makes you happy and you measure performance by $$ spent, then by all means go buy something pricier.

A $1000 scope might be 10-20% better than a $500 scope, certainly not twice as good but that is kinda subjective. It's relatively easy to build "good" quality optics but the price goes up drastically for small improvements when you get into the "better" or "best" quality. And 99% of hunters wouldn't be able to tell the difference in their normal hunting and shooting.
Click to expand...

It's 10-20% better until your $500 scope fogs up in the middle of a Service Rifle match and your score goes down the tube as a result, then the $1000 scope that doesn't fog up is 100% better.

Basically what I'm getting at is under perfect conditions, the improvement is slight. It's when you get in to less than marginal conditions that the extra money spent becomes worth it.
 
shanesymyrozum said:
In your experience what is the real world performance difference between a $500 scope and a $1000 scope such as a Zeiss HD 5, Swaro Z3 or even a Trijicon Accupoint?

I look forward to your answers, particularly from people who use $1000 (or better) scopes.
Click to expand...

I have a conquest, a Z3 Swarovski, and an Trijicon Accupoint, as well as Leupolds. I have also owned S&B, Meopta, etc.

The Z3 has clearer optics and is lighter than the 3-9X40 Conquest, but the Zeiss has better eye relief, and I like its reticle better (Rapid Z-600 vs BRH). Do I like it better than the Zeiss? Maybe slightly, but it depends on the day. I like the Accupoint, but the Zeiss has better optics. The Trijicon's reticle is amazing though, and super fast, and is also lighter weight. It's not as good a long range scope though.

I think all three are nicer scopes than the VX-3s, but Leupold has the advantage of Canadian warrantee service (that said, I have never needed warranty for any Euro optics yet, but have used Korth twice - to be fair though, I have owned more Leupolds than any of the other brands). I also like the B&C reticle, and they are quite light weight.
The S&B I had had wonderful optics, but was heavy enough to pound fence posts with. My Meopta had crosshairs too fine to use quickly in lower light hunting conditions.

I guess to summarize, you can spend a lot more, but you might not like the scope any better than the Zeiss. For the money, they are a fantastic deal, and I can't think of a hunting scenario where I would find a conquest inadequate.
 
jethunter said:
I think I'd be happy with the Conquest, but if it makes you happy and you measure performance by $$ spent, then by all means go buy something pricier.

A $1000 scope might be 10-20% better than a $500 scope, certainly not twice as good but that is kinda subjective. It's relatively easy to build "good" quality optics but the price goes up drastically for small improvements when you get into the "better" or "best" quality. And 99% of hunters wouldn't be able to tell the difference in their normal hunting and shooting.
Click to expand...

+1 Agree fully
 
Kelly Timoffee said:
Put it to ya this way with the Zeiss, the glass quality is the same between your $500 and $1200.00 Conquest, options are the difference there.

In all reality IMO there isn't must difference in the optics quality from the 500 to 1000 range , not enough to make a huge difference.The scopes in that price range these days are extremely high quality and the market is very competitive so quality for price must be high.

There are kinda 3 tiers IMO on scopes with some falling a bit in between and within these tiers in comes down to personally preference and how the glass is viewed by the individuals eye.

1.Tasco, NC Star , Ruko, etc.................... all very similar with not the best quality.

2.Conquest, VX III, Nikon, Vortex..........................all have pretty good glass and vast options.

3.S & B , US Optics, Premier Reticles...........................all have very good glass and extreme durability and vast options.

The mid range scopes have a very wide price range with similar quality, I'd say $400.00 to $1500.00 approx.

The high end stuff just gets started around 2K.

I don't have anything much over $1500 and can't speak for the very high end stuff but there are some differences , not as great as some would like to believe however.

Find the glass that looks good to your eyes, then pick the options and sizes that fit your needs. You may only be spending $500.00 for a scope that works well for you.

Looking at a target or object with writing and color is an excellent way to determine clarity and contrast, a magazine cover would be an excellent object to view and compare scopes with.
Click to expand...

I'd be in tier 2
 
I've run the gambit between bushnell and Schmidt and everything in between. I personally have switched everything over to Vortex. For the money you spend on Vortex I believe your getting a scope for double plus some the value.
 
Ar180shooter said:
It's 10-20% better until your $500 scope fogs up in the middle of a Service Rifle match and your score goes down the tube as a result, then the $1000 scope that doesn't fog up is 100% better.

Basically what I'm getting at is under perfect conditions, the improvement is slight. It's when you get in to less than marginal conditions that the extra money spent becomes worth it.
Click to expand...

What I said was that under normal hunting conditions there is not so much difference. Competition, target shooting, etc., are not normal hunting conditions. A $1000 scope that is 10% more reliable and 5% clearer might well be worth it to a serious competition shooter that shoots thousands of rounds a year, but maybe not for the hunter that shoots 20 rounds a year. OTOH if you are looking to upgrade your hunting rig, a better scope is never a bad idea.
 
I'm using the Service Rifle example because I saw this happen at the last Service match. As for hunting, you can encounter severely adverse conditions there too. I would also argue that you get the most gains in terms of reliabbility and clarity when going from the $500 to $1000 range. I just agreed with the "10-20 percent" thing to illustrate a point, being that a less expensive scope will be fine until it isn't.

That being said, I have things like Weaver scopes on my hunting rifles, and they have servedd me well. However, I am under no delusion that even an entry level Swarovski is vastly superior to them.
 
Last week I had the opportunity to shoot a friends rifle that had a Nightforce NXS 5.5-22x56 mounted on it. I know this is a very unfair comparison but it made my Bushnell elite tactical 10x40 look like a total piece of crap. The Bushnell IMO is a solid competitor in its price range. Nightforce is a little too pricey for me, I'm thinking about a Mark 4 to replace that Bushnell.
 
You need to spend above $1500 on a scope to see a noticeable difference from the Conquest. Something along the lines of the Zeiss Victory, Swarovski Z6, S&B Zenith, Leica, etc. Even then, in broad daylight there may not be much difference, but it's at first and last light and higher magnification where you'll notice.

The folks over at the SWFA and opticstalk forum set up a manufacturers rating scale a few years back and I'd say it's pretty accurate, except for the fact I'd place S&B into the top line;



Leica ER, Swarovski Z6, Zeiss Victory


Kahles C - CL & CSX, Premier Reticle, Schmidt & Bender



Kahles KX, U.S. Optics, Swarovski PH & American Lightweight



Bushnell Elite 6500, Leupold VX-7, Nightforce NXS, IOR Valdada, Vortex Razor



Bushnell Elite 4200, Leupold VX-3, Nikon Monarch & Monarch X, Zeiss Conquest


Leupold Mark 4 VX III & VX-L, Meopta, Nikon Monarch Gold & Titanium, Sightron SIII & S2 Big Sky, Vortex Viper



Burris Black Diamond Signature Select XTR & Euro Diamond, Pentax Lightseeker, Trijicon Accupoint, Weaver Grand Slam



Bushnell Elite 3200, Leupold VX-II, Millet Tactical/Buck Gold, Nikko Stirling, Nikon Buckmaster, Sightron SI & SII, Vortex Crossfire & Diamondback, Super Sniper Fixed



Burris Fullfield II & Timberline, Leupold Rifleman & VX-I, Leatherwood, Mueller, Nikon ProStaff, Simmons


Barska, Sightmark, Swift, Truglo

BSA, Tasco, Yukon


ATN, Leapers, NcStar
 
Last edited:
Can't go wrong with Zeiss, they own the mines that everyone else gets their lenses from, lol.

The difference between the 500 & 1000 range seems to be little things, parallax adjustments, lens suspension, gas purge type, manufacturing country of origin, target-turrets (good ones) and all the little bells and whistles we love, but as has been stated before the difference in the glass is almost undetectable by the human eye. One of the Zeiss guys told me they have managed to get up to 98% light penetration in their glass, but found that it was physically impossible for a human eye to pick up the difference between the current 95% (which is still higher than anyone else in the business, and measured from one end of the scope to the other, not based on single panes).
 
best way i have found is simple. When looking thru the scopes at targets, i couldnt really tell that much difference between $400 and 1k scopes.
So I copied this off of the optics talk forum. Print out a large eye chart and put it out at 200m or 300m. Then see the difference in clarity between the different brands in the ability to read the smaller letters.
My 4.5-14 falcon is ok. But the varix III 6.5-20 and sightron S3 were vastly superior. Images were sharp and even when turned down to 14 power they had way better clarity then the falcon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom