I've been a professional photographer for over 26 years and a Leica camera owner off and on for about 30 years. In the photo world Leica is spoken about in hushed tones, with great reverence. I recently had an opportunity to buy a Leica ER 3.5-14x42 IBS for an exceptional price. I jumped at it, without even thinking about it. I love it and I still feel it was a "no brainer" decision. Since that decision though, I have come to find that very, very few people use Leica scopes, but many people use other premium brands like S&B, Swarovski and Nightforce.

Why so little Leica love out there?

They do not offer anything better than anyone else.

And their prices are quite high.

I am a firm believer that Leupold makes the best scopes for the money.

I have scopes from all the makers you mention, and I prefer to use Leupolds on my own hunting rifles.

Not sure Leica markets their products as strongly as Swar or Zeiss. S&B does not market as aggressively either.
Marketing sells. In the hunting world these days, the latest gimmick quickly draws interest.
I agree with Saeed. Leupold makes very good scopes. Their VX-6 line is exceptional.

Leica has always led the world in optics quality. They made riflescopes for years but got out of that market for decades. Then, several years ago, Leica riflescopes re-entered the market in North America. The reception was lukewarm.

The reason was that Leica had contracted with Leupold to manufacture scopes for them using the Leica lenses. Most people willing to pay for a Leica optic made a point of knowing what they are buying. The Leica-Leupold conection could not stay hidden. People considered the scopes high end Leupolds and not Leicas. That tainted Leica's riflescope reputation while, at the same time, it gave Leuopld more prestige. i also believe it prompted Leupold to make optical improvements in their top-tier scopes.

IMHO, the products Lieca makes are not the problem. Leica itself is the problem, in fact I believe them to be pretty clueless when it comes to competing in the marketplace. First of all, there is no other premium optics maker that has such an abysmal warranty policy. Lifetime to original owner only. You buy second hand stuff you have nada for warranty. This is a pathetic position to take given the prices they command.

Another problem they have is what Saaed says....they offer nothing that someone else doesn't offer that are just as good optically, mechanically, and with better CS and warranty.

I'm involved in 3 guide and outfitter programs among various manufacturers. I seriously considered Lieca, but after visiting with them, and for the reasons I mentioned, it was a waste of time for me.

+1

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

All excellent responses, thank you!

I did not know about the Leupold/Leica connection, when did that end? Sounds like Leupold benefited the most from that deal.

My best friend and shooting buddy deals in Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Swarovski. It is because of him that I was able to buy the ER scope for less money than the other equivalent models from the other brands. In fact I paid less for the Leica than the equivalent Leupold. I understand that this was a rare, privileged opportunity, so I hold nothing against the other brands. He also, handles the returns and repair requests for those other brands and finds the customer service equal. The warranty bias against Leica sounds reasonable. I have heard about Leica CS issues elsewhere in the world, particularly the U.S., but thankfully they seem to be as good in Canada as the other premium brands.

I just reread this post and realized I sound a little like a biased fanboy. This is not the case. I just have respected the brand from the photo side and have sincerely wondered why Leica isn't more respected in the scope world. Oddly it seems that Zeiss is the only photo company that has the same reputation amongst both groups of "shooters". Nikon is the camera brand I use professionally and will probably be the manufacturer of my next scope. Yet it is another scope manufacturer that seems to have a very small following in the gun world.

I guess people start a conversation about any product because it appeals to them or poses some problem. The analogy with Nikon could be a clue to Leica's failing to excite us, in that both companies make excellent cameras but may lack much experience in scopes. In the case of Nikon, I think that shows at least in the massive tunnel vision of the Monarch 4-16x42.

I would like to see in person the new range of mid-priced Leica scopes, particualrly the 1-5x. They sound... good.

Leica had their new scopes at SCI and I'm sure at DSC price point was $800-$900us. They looked very good

Here is a list of their new ER5 scopes.

http://www.bearbasin.net/category_s/3447.htm

They have a 1.5x8 that would complement my 400H&H very nicely..

The prices of their smaller scopes are attractive - glad I don't have much use for big ones, though.

Use the ER 2,5-10x42 With #1 reticle on my moose rifle (M77/338 Winmag)
Exellent Scope as far as I`m conserned.

The ER model was dumped to a very low price here in Norway a couple of years ago and the feedback from owners a generally very good.

Try to get something fixed under warranty and you will soon determine why they suck.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I guess people start a conversation about any product because it appeals to them or poses some problem. The analogy with Nikon could be a clue to Leica's failing to excite us, in that both companies make excellent cameras but may lack much experience in scopes. In the case of Nikon, I think that shows at least in the massive tunnel vision of the Monarch 4-16x42.

Note that Nikon has leased the use of their brand name to a scope manufacturer. The company making Nikon brand scopes has nothing to do with the people making the cameras.

quote:

Try to get something fixed under warranty and you will soon determine why they suck.

HORSESHIT!
A couple of years ago I bought a Leica Rangemaster 1200 CRF range finder and used it for several months. I was dissatisfied with the way it performed so I called their warranty department. They said to send it in and they will take a look at it. I sent it back to their warranty dept.
Within about 7 days or so, I received a brand new one. No questions asked. The one I received has worked fine since.
Yeah, I know they discontinued that model and came out with the 1600 CRF since then but I had absolutely no issues with them on my first return to their warranty dept.

It is not horseshit. You likely had a good experience with Leica warranty because they ripped off so many of us and the bitching was loud and long. I was one of those who had a LRF 1200 go tits up after less than a year and Leica refused to warranty it. A big brouha ensued over quite a period of time, and Leica seriously tarnished their image because of it. You obviously missed the firestorm and in the end benefited from it.

quote:

Originally posted by Kebco:
Note that Nikon has leased the use of their brand name to a scope manufacturer. The company making Nikon brand scopes has nothing to do with the people making the cameras.

So who is this scope manufacturer? Maybe not so well chosen, IMHO.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
They do not offer anything better than anyone else.

And their prices are quite high.

I am a firm believer that Leupold makes the best scopes for the money.

I have scopes from all the makers you mention, and I prefer to use Leupolds on my own hunting rifles.

I agree with Saeed.

However I wanted fancy showoff scope for my favorite rifle so I got a Swarovski! Even my wife knows that brand!

Thats as good a reason as any for spending some bucks on our favorite thing. Guns and rifles.

Swarovski makes some of the best, but they come at a premium. I run more Leupold than others, but mainly due to cost. Euro optics are hard to beat, as a die hard but USA man.

Leica and most foreign scopes are overpriced and over engineered, bulky, heavy, and that makes them hard to hold in rings...Some look at them as a status symbol and swear by them, but there is a sucker born every minute..

IMO, a scope is nothing more than a picture with cross hairs, you put the X on the animal and shoot, although most of todays scopes are clear and work just fine, they need not be of binocular quality to shoot a game animal.

IMO Leupold vari x 11 is all the scope anyone would ever need for hunting anywhere in the world and I have pretty well proven that to myself, not that Burris and Nykon aren't great scopes, they are, I have just used Leupolds for near 60 years with few problems, and those few problems were fixed and back within a week at no charge, mostly replaced scopes..Can't beat that kind of a guarantee.

My binocs are Leica 8x30s and I wouldn't take for them, they are perfert, but binocs have a different purpose in hunting, than a scope.

^^^^^^^^^Well said.

I respected the German makers for resisting image-movement for 20 years after most US ones caved in to it. But now they've all thrown in the towel, I can't see much point in paying the extra money, either.

Really like the Leupolds.

quote:

Originally posted by Kebco:

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
I guess people start a conversation about any product because it appeals to them or poses some problem. The analogy with Nikon could be a clue to Leica's failing to excite us, in that both companies make excellent cameras but may lack much experience in scopes. In the case of Nikon, I think that shows at least in the massive tunnel vision of the Monarch 4-16x42.

Note that Nikon has leased the use of their brand name to a scope manufacturer. The company making Nikon brand scopes has nothing to do with the people making the cameras.

Can you source this? When did Nikon quit making their scopes? Frankly I don't think that is correct.

Yes, Kebco, don't leave us hanging. Who do you even guess the Japanese scope maker might be?

I keep reading of various makers like Zeiss and Lynx getting scopes made in Japan but no one ever lets on who does the work. That's not the sort of assurance I appreciate in regard to precision products.

quote:

Note that Nikon has leased the use of their brand name to a scope manufacturer. The company making Nikon brand scopes has nothing to do with the people making the cameras.

Ken

I have been ignoring this statement since I don't wish to have my thread high jacked... but, since people are troubled by this statement, I will now add some clarity.

Nikon has not leased the use of their brand name to a scope manufacturer. This is completely false. As mentioned in my original post, I have been a professional photographer for over 26 years. Many of those years have been spent working directly with Nikon Canada. I asked Nikon Canada's Sport Optics manager about this comment in February and I paraphrase:

Nikon designs and engineers all of it's Sport Optics products (binoculars, scopes, range finders, etc) in-house. Not all of these products are sold in sufficient volumes to support the building and maintaining of Nikon owned manufacturing facilities. Therefore, Nikon sought out and contracted manufactures capable of building some of their Sport Optics products to Nikon standards. Nikon personnel constantly oversee and manage these subcontractors. This arrangement is not unique in the manufacturing world. Ford and Mazda have shared manufacturing facilities going back 30 years. So has Toyota and GM. Nikon optics are engineered and perform like Nikon optics... because they are Nikon optics.

Looking at Leica's experience building scopes , I was reading up on the World War 2 tank the Tiger II . The sight for it's main armament was made by Leitz . I had not been aware that they they made optical sights that far back .

Mark