I'm in the market for a better than average rifle scope. I'm trying to get a lightweight scope that offers good glass. Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss, all have scopes in the 11-13oz range, 3-9x mag. but vary greatly in cost ($200 - $1000)
 
Now, I do a bit of photography and when looking for 'fast glass' (lenses that offer a high amount of light transmission and low distortion/abberation) I can refer to a 'f-stop' rating. For example an 85mm f1.4 is 'faster' better glass than say an 85mm f4.5 (the latter is 'slower' meaning less light transmission and nearly impossible to get a crisp non-blurring shot in low-light conditions). Is there a SIMILAR number that can be referenced to rate the quality/ight transmission of rifle scope glass?
 
 I know that when I buy any f1.4 glass from any lens maker (Canon, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss) it's gonna cost $$$. I have yet to see a number used to rate light transmission for rifle scope glass.
 
 Is it all a matter of $$$—the more you spend, the better glass you get? Or am I missing something?
 
So, if I had 1k to spend and wanted a lightweight, roughly 3-9x scope which should I go with? Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon or Zeiss?
 
 Any experience/advice is greatly appreciated.  
 
 Thanks,
 C

C, welcome to the forum. You have opened up a can of worms here. Everyone has their opinion on scope clarity, which for the most part is not what's important in a scope. No matter how clear it is or how well it gathers light, if the internals don't do what they're supposed to do, all the clarity and light gathering quality is useless. Scope makers talk about glass, glass, glass. They won't tell you what you should know. Especially eye relief or how well the internals work. I have no problem seeing well enough in low light with my cheap scopes.   ...........Paul H

Your looking for a Light Transmission percentage.  For the money you're looking to spend, don't settle for anything less than 94% maybe more.  You'll probably have to call and ask to get a good number for each scope model, though some of their websites list it under tech data.

An average scope may transmit 85% or so, and inferior scopes substantially less. The human eye can distinguish transmission differences of 3% or more. The very best rifle scopes will transmit to your eye—under perfect conditions—a maximum of 94.5% to 95% of available light. that being said, I seen a difference with my leaupold as compared to my Nikon. Have not tried any of the others. God Bless.

If you spend $1000 on a scope it better not be a nikon!

Hi All,

   A optics brand not mention but that deserves a look is Meopta from the Czech republic and yes I hear they are available in the US. The ones I have I am very pleased with and they are good optically and the scopes are well made and robust. They should be priced lower than the German names like Zeiss and Schmidt & Bender or Pecar. Swaroski and Khales from Austria are very good but out of the two I think I prefer Khales.

   Yes I prefer very good optics as I need to see what I am shootign at often in low light, I also need to see what is around and behind the target to make sure it's a safe shot to take. We don't have the wide open spaces often found in the US hey let's face it the UK is a small group of islands smaller than a lot of US states but rifle hunting is the normal way for Deer and Fox control. I have not mentioned US scope brands as I don't have the experieince of them mainly and those I do ahve are older ones. The newest American scope I got to use was a Leupold (not sure which model) but it was horrid and I found it difficult to get a clear sight picture with it. John who's scope it is has replaced it with a Zeiss Conquest which was the first one of thsoe I ahd seen and it was miles better and comfortable to use. That Leupold was not a patch on my two older ones it quite shocked me as I often keep my eyes open for good used deals and Leupold was a brand I looked for. John's was a new scope not used, the old Bushnell Scope chief 3x I got has far beter optics to my mind .

Hello Card and welcome to THL. Zeiss Conquest assembled in the USA........no competition. I like both the 3-9 and the 4.5-14. Regards, Rick.

zeiss all the way :)

Spend 500$ on a Sightron Big Sky or a Leupold VX-III.
 
Use the left over 500$ on guns, ammo, another scope, or put it towards a hunt...

Quote from: davidlt89;77380An average scope may transmit 85% or so, and inferior scopes substantially less. The human eye can distinguish transmission differences of 3% or more. The very best rifle scopes will transmit to your eye—under perfect conditions—a maximum of 94.5% to 95% of available light. that being said, I seen a difference with my leaupold as compared to my Nikon. Have not tried any of the others. God Bless.

And so, which is better, your Nikon or your Leupold? I appreciate your feedback. God Bless you too.

My leupold hands down. it is a VX-III. can get them for under 500.00. of course the nikon I had was a buckmasters II. not sure what the monarch is like. I will probably stay with leupold from now on, I am sold and need not "search" for anything better. It has spotted me one set of antlers at dusk when my binos would not. God Bless.

Hi David,

   Horns??? were you hunting cattle?

  Deer have antlers

    Only used on new Leupold and it was awful, see the Zeiss Vs Leupold thread will try to find out what modle Leupold it was.

David, if it's made here stateside, it isn't worth a darn according to Brithunter but you prolly already know that.  ''''''''''''Paul H

QuoteDeer have antlers

 
You got me buddy!!!!!:)
 

thanks folks! Just got back from GAnder mtn sports and checked out swaro, leupold, and zeiss. I looked at three in comparable price ranges (700-900), magnification "3-9" and similar bell sizes and to my eye the swaro wins.

Settled.

Thanks!