There was a statement made on the African Hunting forum that Nikon optical quality was very close to quality of Zeiss Conquest. How do Nikon, Leupold, Swarovsky, and Zeiss compare optically in comparable models?
My guess would be (rated from best down):

Swaro
Zeiss
Leupold
Nikon.

Am I wrong? Maybe these Nikons are better than I've been giving them credit for.

Which model of Nikon are you referencing?
The Monarch?

quote:

Originally posted by cheaptrick:
Which model of Nikon are you referencing?
The Monarch?

Yes, the monarch.

I have seen a Conquest that was a bit short of a Monarch. I have seen two Conquest's that were maybe a smidgen better than a Monarch. Leupold VXII's or VariXIII's are not as good as either of the above. Swarovski is the best I have had the chance to look through and use (though all too briefly).

Conquest's I don't think are worth the extra cost over a Monarch. Leupolds certainly aren't worth the extra cost optically (unless the warm and fuzzy feeling of Leupold's warranty makes it worth it). Swaro's are better and cost lots more.

The Monarchs are certainly getting you into pretty high optical quality. Getting more begins to cost lots for small amounts of improvement.

Now the Zeiss scopes higher in their product line are more like the Swarovski, and cost it.

Leupold is living on its reputation. Other makers have offered substantial improvment in optics/precision while leupold has stood still. It is a good quality scope, but does not belong in the same class as the others mentioned.

Wes

Nikons are very excellent for the money, particularly the Japanese Nikons.

Just a thought to keep in mind...it was reportedly the Nikon s just before the "Monarch generation" that were made in Japan. I have been told that when Nikon began calling them "Monarch" was when manufacture was transfered to Korea. I know several shooters who prefer the older, Japanese, Nikons.

The Monarchs are good scopes, I probably have 10 of them, they are on my second tier rifles but they work well and are perfectly usable. I try to buy them used paying no more than $150 for a used 3x9 or 2x7. The 2x7 works really well on short action rifles. I have probably killed 20 or so deer with nikon scopes..but then when I was a hunter not a shooter I killed 80 or so deer with an old weaver 2.75x7 with poor resolution but I did not know any better.

I have a lot of Leupolds and there are none that are as good optically or as bright at night as any of the Monarchs. My Conquests are not any brighter but have maybe a little better resolution and I like the reticle better.

Conquest offers a laser etched reticle, 4" fixed eye relief, glass quality is better, at least in my experience, to the Monarch.

Monarch has a wire reticle and variable eye relief which make it less desirable too me.

That said, the Monarch is a very good scope.
I'm a Nikon fan, but I think the Conquest is a little better.

German 1"Zeiss
American Zeiss
Swaro
Leupold vx111
Nikon monach
Leupold vx11

This is how I rate them and the difference between all is small. My favorite is the zeiss 3x9 German 1" that I try to buy for $400 used. Last year I hunted with a Leupold vx111 1.75x6 and a VRX111 3.5x10x50 ill.

Try a Schmidt & Bender Zenith model and I'll bet there is a new #1 in town! Costly but worth it!

Nikon better than Leupold? Yeah, and there is a guy named santa claus who comes down chimneys every Christmas.

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
Try a Schmidt & Bender Zenith model and I'll bet there is a new #1 in town! Costly but worth it!

Without a doubt.