Side-by-side comparison of Leup. and Zeiss

Quote:
because the Burris Signature beats the crap out of every VXIII I have ever owned,..



That's what I thought! I'm amazed to hear some people talking crap about them. I was a Leupy fan until a bud aquired a signature (not FFII) through a trade. I was amazed at the difference at low light. All my whitetail rifles now wear signatures or eurodimonds (actually like the sigs better).

If you crank the turrets alot, I don't doubt other brands may be better. If you are going to sight in an inch high & leave it for the life of the rifle (like we deer hunt here in the thick stuff of NC)... the signatures sure work good.

I had a 6br built recently as a all purpose varmint/yote/fun rifle (similar to a remington varmint platform). Been thinking about a high end scope for it. Keep this thread rolling guys!
 
I really want to try one of those Signature series. I didnt like my FFII, but the Signature series impressed me in the store!
 
Glass is different and can be distinguished from one to another,...but then again my eyes are still in great shape (knocks on wood). The ability to resolve mirage shows a huge leap fwd in either glass quality or coatings or both. Glass such as that from the Schott Glasswerks and many other top teir offerings has a much reduced LEAD content as well as other impurities. these impurities are EXACTLY what will make two peices of glass with the same coatings seem different from one another. The "cleaner" glass will exceed the focus and resolution abilities of the same lens with more impurities.

The coatings make difference in resolution as well as light transmission. There are several different color spectrums that can be utilized,..but you are approaching the point of diminishing returns once you get the S&B and Swarovski etc (IMHO). Their price increase over the NXS for a VERY SMALL amount of color distinction at low light means very little when the accuracy is the goal and not the color of the object you are aiming for. Hence the reason my NXS's havn't been swapped for S&B Tacticals,...I can't justify that much increase in price for the little gain in color/contrast.

Set a Nightforce next to a leupy MK IV,....the side focus on the NXS is MUCH FINER when rotating the focus knob, has better clarity (MHO) and is also a lot brighter.

All glass IS NOT created equal,..and although there are relatively few manufacturers of glass for scope companies,..there is a LARGE differentiation of quality and therefore cost of different grades of finished product coming from these factories. Good glass costs money,..and ask any BR shooter out there,....a world record rifle with a junk scope,...is a JUNK RIFLE. If your sight axis doesn't stay consitent inside the erector tube, and your glass can't deal with any field condition it is presented with, including facing into the setting sun (one of the worst), then you don't have the best equipment available for the job.
 
Well, guys, I started this thread and I am pleased at all of the insightful responses that we've received here. It really makes me want to try out some more brands before I make a purchase.

I will admit that the Leup. that I'm comparing the new scopes to is over 15 years old (at least) - I don't know if the new Leups. are better or worse than it is.

I really want to try all of 'em side by side with it after reading your responses.

One thing to note for me: I don't necessarily care about color rendition...I'm more interested in clarity in low-light. However, I have a feeling they go hand in hand.
 
Quote:
The ability to resolve mirage shows a huge leap fwd in either glass quality or coatings or both.



There is no optical lends or coating technology today can steer clear of mirage, in fact the better the lends the vivid the mirage you will see.
 
Well what can I say...I have six leups have shot them for years. Prefer some of the older models as they have AO where the newer ones don't.

Have never had any of the potential problems listed above but I will say I am comforted knowing customer service and warranty of leupolds is unsurpassed.

Never had one stray from point of impact adjustment. I would think anyone who has, probably had problems attributed to a poor mounting rather than the scope itself.

Have shot many coyotes on the snow covered prairie at night with no light aids of any kind.

I'm very pleased with the performance of the leupolds I have. Never had one let me down in any way, so I guess I'm old fashioned in thinking if it aint broke don't fix it.
 
Quote:
Quote:
The ability to resolve mirage shows a huge leap fwd in either glass quality or coatings or both.



There is no optical lends or coating technology today can steer clear of mirage, in fact the better the lends the vivid the mirage you will see.



Mr. Buzzbee, that is exactly what RESOLVE mirage means.
 
As important as the glass is in a scope,it is not the most important consideration if it gives an acceptable image, The internals and the mounting systems are most important. It just kills me the number of these "tests" you read that only involve looking through the scope,.and only involve one scope of the models "tested".Anyone of these "testers"S ever test to see how much the point of aim changes as the power ring is moved. Many scopes won't have the same point of aim on high and low power.Or what happens when you start cranking the elevation and windage knobs and then return to zero.Many scope do not return to the original zero. The only scope I have ever had to do it all is Nightforce nxs.
Scopes are a competitive market with lots of companies.That is why price is a good indicator of quality.Spend all you can and get all you can. Maybe????????
 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The ability to resolve mirage shows a huge leap fwd in either glass quality or coatings or both.



There is no optical lends or coating technology today can steer clear of mirage, in fact the better the lends the vivid the mirage you will see.



Mr. Buzzbee, that is exactly what RESOLVE mirage means.



Yes, that's what I said. Your point is ?
 
I will have to agree on the fact that different folks have different needs from their optics. Someone who sights-in and never touches the adjustments again can be resolve with a number of optics. Like the Burris. I have a BD Burris 6-24 I think that when you move the clicks 10"'s it goes clean off a 12" paper. Therefore, not what I need a scope to do as I shoot long range. Eveyone has their own needs and many optics out there to meet those needs. I have a 1" tube Weagver 4.5-14x40 Tactical scope. It has great optics and the clicks are pretty close to what they say. I use it for hunting yotes on one of my AR's. Don't know if they make this anymore as I have never seen one except for the one I have. The main point here is learn to test all the optics for yourself in an informed way.
 
There are several scopes out there that look as good or brighter than Leupold, like the Conquest or Monarch. However, when ALL things are considered, it don't make 'em better. For those of you who like the Conquests, you'll like 'em even more pretty soon. Zeiss has teamed up with Pride/Fowler (rapid reticle), and some new ballistic (holdover) compensating reticles are on the way......... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
I hate those types of reticles for hunting. I would opt for one of their standard reticles over that.

I like the fine plex reticle in the Leups, if I'm shooting farther than 400 yards I revert to the bottom vertical hair where it thickens and shoot as I would with a post crosshair. Works great for long shots without all that extra clutter.

If the animal is to far for this technique, it is to far to be shooting at. Paper targets would be a different story.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top