It's interesting to read the comments and do these comparisons.
One of the things I've noticed is that many often don't understand how to do this. How many times have you seen a prospective rifle scope purchasers compare rifle scopes in a store, and not bother to focus them ?
The euro scopes are usually easy to focus as are the Long Range/Mark 4 Leos. But most US design rifle scopes have an involved process. I urge you to take the the time to do this. I have gotten to point of focusing mine for whatever range I need the most clarity. There is a difference, however small, between 100 and 300 yds. And a thought to be clear and sharp scope can become a little sharper if you take the trouble.
So which is best ?
I like Leupold best. They have the reputation for holding up. Weather there are others that are as good or better, in this respect, only time will tell.
Beefier construction doesn't mean they will hold up better. It's the G forces that get them. The lighter the scope, the better it will hold up, all other thing being equal. Not the other way around.
I am not comfortable with Zeiss rifle scopes. Their testing procedures are to subject their scopes to 1000 impacts lenthwise, and 1000 up and down. Those that survive, are deemed ready for sale. John Barsness, in his great book, Optics for the Hunter, reported he's heard more about Zeiss scopes grouping weirdly than any other top name. It does stand to reason. They have been beat up when you buy them.
Another one that constantly amazes me is how many claim that a companpy's, like Leupold, or Swaro, 30 mm scopes are better optically than their one inch scopes. Leupold uses the exact same lenses, and coatings in the their 30 mm scopes as they do in their one inch VariXIII's. What you get in a 30 mm scope is increased adjustment range, not optical quality, or low light performance.
What does happen is from year to year there are small variations in optical quality. All top makers are constantly tweaking their products, to make them better. A ten year old Leo may well not be as good as a new one, or another top name.
Then we come to twilight performance. This brand is better than that brand. Maybe. As a rule, fixed powers do much better than variables. Fewer lenses to dim the image. And, above all, you loose the reticle before you loose the image. The Mil Dot goes first, then the standard duplex, then the 4a, etc. At least in my experience.
I find that only on the darkest nights, no moon, 100% cloud cover; do I loose the duplex reticle on my 6X42 Leo in open country.
Then there is the fact that some peoples eyes can't open all the way to use a 7 mm exit pupil. To get more twilight performance, more magnification works too. Again, Barsness in his book, reported, at twilight, that he did better with a 2-7X Leo Compact, than with a fully multicoated 4X even though the 4X had a larger objective diameter. At 7X, he could see slightly better.
So, compare them, and pay your money. If money is an issue, I always go for a fixed power over a variable. In fact, after using the variables for 46 years, I find I don't need one for almost everything. Only on truly multipurpose rifles do I put them any more. I get more lattitude to mount them, I get better low light performance, and they weigh less. E

I have all Leupolds and have for many years and I'm obviously satisfied..I still like the 3X and I have a few of them...I like the 1x4 also...

I have never tested a scope other than looking a a barbed wire fence in the evenings that is about a mile from my house and the Leupold is as clear as any...I have tested them in the field (for 50 years give or take a few) extensively and I suppose that is the ultimate test in my opinion....they passed in flying colors.

Emericus,
Great post and observations. Too bad many have not read John's book, might be more Leupold fans then. Oh well, some learn the expensive way. MtnHtr

I have owned many scopes including leupold varixii's and varixiii's ziess 1" scopes and swarovski a lines(both old and new styles).After comparing them I have noticed no difference in the consistancy of my group sizes with any of them.The swarovskis have been the brightest followed by ziess with leupold last.As far as clarity both swarovski and ziess both appear to be better than leupold.The vari xii's are a little cheaper than the a-line swarovski's and about the same as the american made ziess here in canada.As a result I now use only swarovski as I feel they are worth paying a little more for.

I have a 10x Leica binoculars I am very happy with, and my hunting partner has a very old 8x Leupold binoculars he is very happy with. I have used them both, and at times I can swear I see better using his, while sometimes mine. Which would be my choice? Either one. What we sometimes fail to understand is that different lighting conditions and other atmospheric variants can affect the way we see through a lens. Some lenses enhance brown colors, while others may enhance all the colors to a lesser degree. A scope that may be "best' for certain hunting condition, may not be the "best" for other hunting conditions. The Leupold Vary-X III 2.5-8x I use is the best for my specific hunting conditions in Alaska, so I have been very pleased with it for the past seven years. I buy Leupold rifle scopes, and for the home plumbing I buy Moen.

Erimicus,

I read the Barsness book, and I hope he brings it up to date or publishes an update in Rifle magazine. It is definitive work.

My opinion is that Leupold scopes are the most cost-effective units on the market. I would rather spend the extra money in the binoculars. I do replace my top-line hunting binocular about every five years, because the makers are improving them. I am using a Sawarovski EL 8.5 now.

I also think that the scope makers are putting their R&D money into their variable scopes, so I have switched from buying fixed-power scopes to buying low-power variables for my scoped hunting rifles.

jim dodd

I agree that leupold is the best for value and performance. Ther is porbably scopes that are better out there but you are subjecting yourself to the law or deminishing returns severly when you purchase one of these Euro scopes.

Eremicus: Good points, especially the point about scope focusing. I can't tell you how many times I've had others tell me after looking through a high-quality scope or binocular that "its not as clear as my Tasco!", only to find that the scope they were viewing through was far out of focus.

I may slightly disagree on later products being optically superior to earlier products. I have a 1965 vintage Leupold 3-9X which is optically equivalent to a Vari-X II I bought last year. While Leupold does constantly update their products, the emphasis is on building the same quality at a lower price, which they have done a very good job of. That 1965 Leupold was bought at a mail order discount of about $70 (list at the time was $89.95 -- and the competing Redfield was 99.95). According to the inflation calculator at http://www.interest.com/hugh/calc/, that $70 translates to $394 today. The Vari-X II I bought last year cost $180, and the replacement VX-I is about the same, at discount. So, as you can see, Leupold has done an outstanding job of keeping high-quality scopes affordable.