BrutalAttack

I'm willing to match up the Leupold indexed lense system against a Swavorski of equal price. Also the purging and impact resistance are likely better than Swarovski but I guess we've gone this route before haven't we?

jeepkid

HAHA, Brutal, I think were going in the same direction with this one.

retrieverman

I like the idea of the low mount/large objective, but for the price tag, I will stick to my Zeiss Conquests.

stubblejumper

My swarovski scopes are the 1" av models.I am from Canada ,so the prices won't likelymean much to you.At the time I paid $1150 for my swarovski 3x10x42s while a friend paid just under $900 for his vxIII 3.5x10x50. The brightness is comparable,but the swarovski scopes are lighter,more compact and can be mounted in lower mounts than the 50mmvxIII.

HEAD0001

Wow-Swarovski versus Leupold, this should be fun. I own both, and more than one of both. I believe the Swarovski is a superior product. Sorry, I would rather say the Leupold is better(because it is American made), but it just is not so. The argument about one being clearer, or brighter than the other is other is crap. I have a test that I use to check the qualty of a scope that I believe is foolproof.

The first thing I do is sight the scope dead on at 100 yards. The next thing I do is go up 16 clicks, and to the left 16 clicks, then I shoot 1 shell. Then I go down 32 clicks. Shoot once. I go right 32 clicks, shoot one. Go up 32 clicks(I hope by now you get the point)

After I return the scope to zero, I expect to see a square, and I expect my impact to have returned to zero. Swarovski's and one S & B were the only scopes that ever passed this test. I have tried it with at least a dozen Leupold's. I was never successful. Either the square was off, and/or the scope did not return to zero.

Next is the question of which lenses are superior-I believe the Swarovski has superior lenses. This is subjective-but I believe the Swarovski to be superior. Tom.

Solitary Man

I bought a VX III when they first came out and compared it tothe Zeiss Conquests I owned at the time. I have a USAF resolution chart I use for this purpose. I'm not sure exactly what an index matched lens system is, I only know what my own eyes saw and the Leupold could not resolve detail quite as well as the Zeiss scopes. I was surprised because Iwas expectingthe VX III to be a vast improvement over the Vari X-III (based on Leupold's claims), but to my eyes it wasn't at all.

I might give the VX L a tryatsome point, but I really don't have a strong desire to do so.I just can't get past the goofy looks.

bigcountry

Ok, first things first. Optics 101. With all things equal, the resolving power of a scope, microscope, camera lens or a 100mm telescope is proportional to the objective size. So biggest factor with resolution was which scope had a larger objective?

Coatings only help with the transfer of the photons to the eye. There are a few things that cause issues, that index coating can help. The biggest is back reflection. I am lucky enought to have several of these in my lab for several different types of optics. But for me to measure on a scope the lense should be removed, or results may very. Think of it as a reflection on a pond. Thepond is actually reflecting "POLARIZED" photons. Polarization is important. Every surface has an index of refraction. What you want is to match the index the index of the glass to the air. Better match, better transfer of photons. Photons are not polarized and scattered back. GOOD THING. Several other, kinda hard to explain like, Buillion scatting, SBS, polarization dependent loss. Dont' worry, its boring crap.

Matching this is easy in a lab enviroment. We do it all the time up to 99%. But we can only match it in a particular humidity, temperature, and altitude. Whats difficult is matching it in high quanities. This is where QA (quality assurance) comes to play. Which company does a quality check more, and which adhears to thier quality policy? Also, depends on your enviroment. A ziess may work good in the valley where a leupold might work better at 10,000 feet with 10% humidy and 20F.

You can stack 30 leupolds and 30 ziess on a countertop. If all are correctly adjusted for focus for "YOUR EYE", you are going to find a spread of performance. Just because you looked thru a leupold at bass pro, doesn't mean the one in the box you are getting will have the same performance. Biggest mistake I see is most people will not focus correctly for thier eyes. They confuse out of focus with clarity, lens quality, and tranfer of photons. These people have specs. Just because we ship out a optics reciever with awesome performance doesnt' mean they all will be that way. But all are in spec.

SwampCollie

I'll give that an amen.






With regards to the new VX-L, I am hesitant to try it just yet. For the price, I would just as well have a Schmidt & Bender.

The real reason I am hesitant, is because it is just so innovative and such a different design, that it really hasn't had time to prove itself. The thing that worries me, is those hard corners. If a window leaks, for example, where will the leak be 90% of the time....corners.

I love Leupold's product; I think their service is a standard that every company in every industry should benchmark, but I am going to hang fire on the L line for now.

Solitary Man

The scopes I compared all had 40mm objectivesand improper focusing was eliminated as a cause of the disparity. The Leupold was a VX III 3.5-10x40. The two Conquests were 3-9x40. I think it just boils down to Zeiss using a slightly higher quality glass (Schott) than what Leupold's Japanese source provides.

bigcountry

Maybe, but I have compared classic optics parts from Asia to Europe. And hate to say it, but the Asians matching thier specs, plus at 1/2 the price. As a company, at firstwe wouldbuy only the best, not matter the price. But 10 years later, things in the optics world have getten so competitive, we have been forced to put out specifications and take bids, and Asia wins most of the time now. Difference I see now, is if they don't continually meet those specs, we have a hard time forcing them to take responsibility.