Does anyone know who made the Leica ER5?

They are made in the USA to German specification.

When I asked is the glass German - I was told made in USA to German specification.

The scopes are amazing. I think only Leupold would make something this good.

Mike

At SHOT in 2016 they told me the glass was made in Portugal at their plant. The German glass goes into camera lenses, the high end binocs and microscopes/other optics.

They wouldn't share the location of assembly in the USA. It, I assume, is an OEM partnership they would rather not disclose. The tubes and some other machined components are made here, the glass and various other small parts are imported. That was what they would share.

Designs are German, assembly is in USA to avoid tariffs.

The Meopta reps stated plainly that they did not assemble for Leica, so maybe the US Zeiss facility. I think eveyone assumed Meopta since they OEM'ed a couple of Zeiss Conquest scopes. Very good ones, I might add.

Jeremy

Mike-

From what I have been able to find out, the glass in the ER5 series went through final grinding, polishing and coating at the Portugal facilities. They were indeed assembled in the US for sake of being able to offer the line at a competitive price.

Leica once had a working relationship with Leupold, but it dissolved fairly quickly. That was years ago, and while it's possible they worked together again, I doubt it. If, like Jeremy noted, Meopta did not assemble them, then that leaves Burris, which would make sense as they assemble a portion of the Steiner line and are certainly capable of meeting Leica's strict guidelines..

I have an ER5 2-10x50 with the heavy 4-a reticle that was redesigned specifically for this series in an effort to maximize low-light performance. The center wires subtend 0.5" at 100 yards at 10x, and the reticle is very easy to pick up in poor lighting.

The optical quality is very, very good -- not quite in the same league as the ERi but close enough to not matter. The ERi offers slightly better vibrance/contrast and the highest resolution of any comparably-priced/designed models. But in the field, you'll never notice a difference as the ER5 will get you to and through legal shooting time with incredible ease.

quote:

I think only Leupold would make something this good.

I am a fan of Leupold scopes. In fact, I find no reason to buy anything else.

Regardless, neither Leupold (nor anyone else I know of) makes its own lenses or sources them in the U.S.

Excellent optical glass is cheaper and more easily made today than ever before. I wouldn't give you a nickel extra for glass from Germany or Austria as opposed to Japan or Taiwan. That said, Leupold's lenses come from wherever they can be sourced the least expensively and still meet their specifications. The same is true for most optical manufacturers.

I can't say where Leica's lenses are coming from right now but wherever it is could change with the visit of the sales team of a competing lens manufacturer or the letting of the next contract.

When I bought my first Leica scopes Leupold was the assembler. Reticule changes or repairs were sent to their repair facility. Don’t know if that is still the case.

It is not the case. Leupold has no affiliation with Leica any longer

Leupolds wins hands down for me!

The Germans make good scopes, but they ruin them with complicated controls!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Leupolds wins hands down for me!

The Germans make good scopes, but they ruin them with complicated controls!

They are also bulky, heavy, and typically have rather critical eye relief. Hunting deer by sitting in a tower at the edge of an agricultural field waiting for the moon to come out from behind the clouds is a fine pursuit if that's what suits you.

But please don't tell me even one more time how I need a 56mm objective and illuminated reticle for the other 99.9% of the world's hunting that is done. I've hunted a half dozen states in the U.S., two countries in Europe, as well as in Canada, Mexico, and Africa and in not one single jurisdiction was (game) hunting allowed more than one-half hour prior to sunrise or one-half hour after sunset.

Wagging around a two-pound scope the size of a Little League baseball bat that has to mount so high that you get a crick in your neck trying to see the sight picture simply isn't helpful to the vast majority of hunting pursuits.

Stonecreek-

For the most part, I definitely agree with you. But there are exceptions -- and I consider myself one of them. Without being able to get out and hunt like I once did, my shots are restricted to a few opportunities from near the house. And the wisest critters often won't move until they feel secure in the darkness.

In fact, the majority of hogs I've taken the past few years have been under the cover of darkness -- with only the moonlight to betray their presence. Four out of the last five coyotes have been taken long after the sun has gone down as well.

I've tried about every viable optic out there and have found that only a few are suitable. They must not only have good glass for a relatively high rate of transmission but must provide ample resolution and contrast. And while a heavy reticle works, a small, illuminated dot -- one that adjusts so dimly that it won't negatively impact your vision -- makes precise bullet placement so much easier. Reticles that fully illuminate are useless to me -- and no amount of expensive glass or quality performance can atone for it.

None of the scopes are perfect, and I find fault with every single one of them. But the very best of them are Euro and do indeed have illuminated reticles.

As to mounting height, I will have to disagree. My 54 and 56mm scopes work nicely in medium Warne rings. No crick-in-the-neck situations here.

The coyote below was taken near the end of January. With its coat similar to the tonal range of the winter grass, the coyote blended in very well. Only a handful of scope models would have worked for this particular shot -- and all of them are Euros.



But again, my situation is an exception. If I still had my mobility, I'd likely have little need for anything other than a Conquest 3-9x40 or a VX-2 in the same power range. They'll take care of just about any hunting situation most folks will ever encounter.

Here's my 6.5x30-30 AI with a 3-12x56 in medium rings. I could likely squeeze it into lows but would have little room for cocking the hammer, and I do not use extensions.

Bobby, I have followed your posts on optics and feel that in terms of low light optics your knowledge and experience level is certainly worth learning from. I would be interested to hear what you believe the Top Five low light variables are currently based on a combination of performance and value. Thanks.

Mike-

1.Schmidt & Bender Polar 3-12x54 D7
2.Schmidt & Bender Stratos 2.5-13x56 FD7
3.Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56 #60; Schmidt & Bender Klassik (2017 production) 2.5-10x56 L7
4.Kahles CSX 3-12x56 4-Dot
5.Leica ERi 3-12x50 4-a

Here is my top 5. There are actually 6 listed. There is a tie for 3rd, and the 4th and 5th positions were so close that I could not leave one off.

If gauging from a pure optical perspective, the Stratos 2.5-13x56 is the most impressive scope I have ever used. But it is plagued with an MOA-sized dot and illumination that would benefit from being a step dimmer. Inside of 100 yards at night, that really doesn't matter, but as the range increases, the larger surface area can become a bit of a hindrance due to how much is illuminated. Lastly, the "choose your illumination" feature is a bit cheesy and truly unnecessary. But even as such, the Stratos 2.5-13x56 edges out the highly-touted Zeiss Victory HT and falls only behind the SB Polar for the top spot.

The Polar addressed the issue of oversized dot and produces an image with perceived brightness that must be seen to be appreciated. But the D7 reticle could benefit from slightly bolder center wires should illumination ever fail or for times it's not needed. Also, while it gives it a streamlined look, the smooth, all-metal magnification ring is difficult to operate for someone with hand/finger issues, someone wearing gloves or in cold weather.

Schmidt & Bender constantly tweaks existing lineups without fanfare or changing the model designation. Klassik models from a few years ago lagged slightly behind Zeiss, but the current-production Klassiks equal the Victory HT in every regard (even surpassing it in terms of edge-to-edge sharpness and color rendition) . I used the version with he L7 reticle, but it, too, like the MOA dots, is a bit much for longer shots in moonlight (most of my opportunities are 150-180 yards or so). It will work, but a smaller illuminated area would be preferable.

The Victory HT is an interesting scope. It features the smallest dot in the industry. The dot is very intense, but its small size means your vision won't be negatively impacted. Even so, it could be a bit dimmer. It is not a scope you want to spend much time viewing through, though, as you are apt to get an eye-strain headache. Everything is a tradeoff, and Zeiss sacrificed much of the outer portion of the viewing area in order to achieve a high transmission rate. The center sweet spot is nice, but the swirling and falloff at the edges can be annoying. Nonetheless, it still may be the most versatile of the top-five low-light scopes as the #60 reticle, while not as bold as a #4, remains visible very late in the day and is easy to pick up quickly.

The Leica ERI and Kahles CSX round out the top five. Neither is available anymore. Both had fantastic illumination systems and adjusted to very dim levels. The Leica produced a stunningly-vivid image -- and one of the sharpest as well. It is on par with the Stratos in terms of resolving fine detail. The Leica also holds the distinction of having the smallest objective size in the top 5, proving that good glass can -- to a degree -- negate the edge of a larger objective.

The Kahles wis more neutral in terms of color rendition and doesn't give you a "wow" factor in full daylight, but as the day fades into night, it steps into its realm as a top-notch low-light performer. It is incredibly easy to get behind as the eye box is the most forgiving of the lot. For that -- and its sharpness all the way to the edges -- I ranked it just ahead of the Leica, but truth be told, they are extremely close in overall performance.

There is a sleeper out there that gets no mention. While I haven't ranked it just yet, it will fall somewhere into the lower portion of my top 10. The Minox ZE 5i 3-15x56 features a 4-a reticle with a center dot. The contrast levels are superb, and the scope features 2 illumination curves (most folks do not know this, and Minox does not advertise it, either).

Set to the darker curve, it is very, very dim. Thirty minutes after sundown, you still cannot see the illumination on the first setting. I like that a LOT. The side focus helps give it an edge in moonlight, too, as the precise focus helps render detail. A bit of ghost-imaging can be present on the ocular lens when there is a strong light source behind you, but that is about the worst I can say about it. This one deserves mention among the true alpha optics.

Thanks for all the great information Bobby. Is the rating you have provided based on the combination of performance and value and primarily performance? If the latter, what do you consider the best low-light value at the moment? Thanks again, very useful information.

Mike-

These were based strictly on performance and didn't factor in value or cost.

Going by actual retail, they don't vary enough in terms of cost vs. performance.

But the closeouts are where I recommend one pay close attention. The Kahles and Leica went through a couple of markdown phases, and both wound up around $1100.

A few months ago, the Klassik that I referenced went for 1199. A new Victory HT on eBay recently went for $999 from an authorized dealer.

One of the best recent bargains is the Leica ER5 series. No, it's not quite on the level of the ERi, but a 2-10x50 at half-price ($499) is about the most scope you can get under $1K.

Another incredible deal was the Conquest DL 3-12x50/illum. #60 that one dealer blew out for something like $639. But I believe all of those illuminated DLs are long gone.

Thanks for all the information Bobby. That is all very useful. Sent you a PM on a related matter.

Mr Tomek is indeed the Guru of low-light optics!

Bobby: Have you done any evaluation of Nightforce scopes?

Lou

Lou-

A few years ago, I gave them a brief once-over and did not feel they warranted purchasing for evaluation. The glass is very good but not quite what I'd consider true alpha level. But the primary factor in my decision not to check them out any more was reticle selection. At that point in time, the scopes in their lineup that I would have considered featured reticles much more suited to long range target shooting and not low-light hunting applications. And one that did seem heavy enough for low-light usage was in mil-dot format, which would have been OK, but the entire reticle illuminated, which -- in soft moonlight -- is overwhelming even on the dimmest setting and defeats my intended purposes.

Things may have changed by now, and perhaps it would warrant further looking into.

Hate to agree with you, Bobby, but I don't like the Nightforce reticles much either.

They make a small variable that could be OK for dangerous game (and claim their mechanics can stand cannon recoil for thousands of shots) but seem not to offer any reticle with heavy bars anywhere near the centre.

Yes, I still defend the old German No.1 (a picket with two heavy side bars). The picket must be blunt to save the top getting lost in poor light, of course. This may not sound very precise but the one in the old B. Nickel 3-10 on my 47-year-old Anschutz .22 can still manage 5mm, five-shot groups at 25 metres.

quote:

Stonecreek-

For the most part, I definitely agree with you. But there are exceptions -- and I consider myself one of them. Without being able to get out and hunt like I once did, my shots are restricted to a few opportunities from near the house. And the wisest critters often won't move until they feel secure in the darkness.

Hey, Bobby, special circumstances require special equipment. We're in total agreement. Just like I don't quibble about the Austrians and Germans using specialized large-objective scopes for their moonlight stand hunting, I can understand how such scopes make your night hunting possible.

My point, as you've acknowledged, is that oversized/overpowered/overly complicated scopes offer more disadvantages than advantages for the typical game hunting situation. Bigger and more expensive is not always better.