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

LeftFootOfDoom said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds practical and if they hold up to the daily rigors your good to go..
 
It's an OK ranking. No way I'd place a Leupold Mark 4 below a Bushnell Elite 4200, and the Mark 4 is definitely above the Viper. I'd bump the 4200 and 6500 down one, bump the Leupold up one, bump the Vortex Crossfire down with the Leupold rifleman scopes. I'd also add the Falcon Menace in line with the Millet Tactical scopes.

bearkilr said:
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
Click to expand...
 
High end optics have better clarity, resolution, light transfer and colour rendering. Most folks never look through a high end optic except maybe at a store under very favourable conditions. It means much more that a good scope performs well in low light, can resolve very fine detail at distance and do it throughout the entire field of view. A lesser quality optic often seems close in performance in a store because the lighting is good and the ranges are short. Once you have used really good optics under field conditions it is hard to go back, however the small gains in performance come at high cost so most people are settling for a lesser optic because it is all they can afford.
 
Ar180shooter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and one should also never forget that expensive scopes break too, and I've actually had more $1000 scopes sent back for warranty than $500 scopes. Which doesn't necessarily prove anything except that any single example of a scope failure doesn't mean anything by itself.

Hunters buy $500 leupolds because they work pretty well for most people most of the time, not because they break most of the time. Stubbyjumper will be here soon to beat me up on the leupold remark but i'll stand by it anyway.
 
Some of the bargain optics actually have coatings designed to enhance their performance under incandescent lighting.....a practical solution for those that do most of their hunting in the store. Look at quality optics under real world hunting situations and the difference quickly becomes apparent. Do you absolutely need them for hunting.....no Are they significantly better than lower priced optics....yes. All comes down to how involved in the sport you are and of course your budget.
 
Ar180shooter said:
It's an OK ranking. No way I'd place a Leupold Mark 4 below a Bushnell Elite 4200, and the Mark 4 is definitely above the Viper. I'd bump the 4200 and 6500 down one, bump the Leupold up one, bump the Vortex Crossfire down with the Leupold rifleman scopes. I'd also add the Falcon Menace in line with the Millet Tactical scopes.
Click to expand...

I agree, I would put the Mark 4 up 2 spots, and the bushnell down one or 2. The 6500 is pretty good, but the 4200 is definitely not above a Mk4 lol. For a general sense, it is fairly accurate but there are some mistakes for sure.
 
mattf87 said:
I agree, I would put the Mark 4 up 2 spots, and the bushnell down one or 2. The 6500 is pretty good, but the 4200 is definitely not above a Mk4 lol. For a general sense, it is fairly accurate but there are some mistakes for sure.
Click to expand...

Good to know, I'm looking at a couple used ones.
 
It and the 3200 have been replaced with the Elite...reports are that it is about the same quality or even slightly better than the 4200.
 
Just go Conquest and be done with it!!! ;)

Decide on the specs you need and you will be in that $450.00ish to $1200.00ish range which negates your $500 vs $1000 debate since they will be the same optical quality.
 
Shooting Centre said:
High end optics have better clarity, resolution, light transfer and colour rendering. Most folks never look through a high end optic except maybe at a store under very favourable conditions. It means much more that a good scope performs well in low light, can resolve very fine detail at distance and do it throughout the entire field of view. A lesser quality optic often seems close in performance in a store because the lighting is good and the ranges are short. Once you have used really good optics under field conditions it is hard to go back, however the small gains in performance come at high cost so most people are settling for a lesser optic because it is all they can afford.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this.
They all look very good on a sunny day until the weather changes or you running out of day light.
I find that the Zeiss Conquest is the best bang for dollar. For anything better, you would have to go up to the $2000 range.
 
Where would the z3 fit in there? I looked through one of those recently and thought it quite superior to the Zeiss conquest. And almost double the price. I would love to be able to trial about 6 of the scopes in that list out at the range at 100 and 200 yards looking at resolution targets, etc. At a store there isn't enough detail in anything you look at to really distinguish big differences in quality. Doing that test at dusk would be nice too. And doing a blind test so you don't know what you are looking through at the same power setting, say 9x.
The other thing is deciding on exactly what features you need; weight, size, turret type, reticle type, eye relief, objective size, illumination or not and specific coatings like Rainguard. And then putting it all together.
I also think that a couple of the Muellers are at least at the 3200 level.
 
Expect the difference in quality and performance between a $500 scope and a $1000 dollar scope to be less than half the difference between a $250 scope and that $500 dollar scope. It's called the law of diminishing returns - it's easy to make something twice as good as a crappy thing, but very hard to make something twice as good as an excellent thing.
 
Honestly, I think that Leupold and Vortex give the best bang for the buck. There are definitely better quality scopes, but for the cost of them the benefits are not as great. The quality and features of a 600$ Vortex and Leupold scope are competitive with other scopes in the 1000$+ range I think. Also the warranty with them are fantastic. What's nice is you can get a used Vortex/Leupold and save even more money and still feel comfortable knowing the warranty is there no matter what. No argument that the 2000$ scopes are better, but for the money I cant justify it.
 
snomad said:
Where would the z3 fit in there? I looked through one of those recently and thought it quite superior to the Zeiss conquest. And almost double the price. I would love to be able to trial about 6 of the scopes in that list out at the range at 100 and 200 yards looking at resolution targets, etc. At a store there isn't enough detail in anything you look at to really distinguish big differences in quality. Doing that test at dusk would be nice too. And doing a blind test so you don't know what you are looking through at the same power setting, say 9x.
The other thing is deciding on exactly what features you need; weight, size, turret type, reticle type, eye relief, objective size, illumination or not and specific coatings like Rainguard. And then putting it all together.
I also think that a couple of the Muellers are at least at the 3200 level.
Click to expand...

A Swarovski Z3 3-9x36mm is less than $800 (our price is $775), a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x50mm scope runs about $700 most places ($720 at Cabela's). I agree with you that the glass is better in the Z3, it is also much lighter. But the price differential is very minor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom