Cheap "glass" versus "expensive" glass

[Dean Parisian]

Q: "I hear all the time that I should buy the best binoculars and riflescopes that I can afford, but how much better is premium glass, and is it worth the upcharge?"
—Scott Hamilton, Austin, Tx.

A: A decade of Outdoor Life's optics testing reveals that premium binoculars and riflescopes provide about 30 minutes of additional game-viewing opportunity a day compared with budget optics.

The brightest, clearest optics—generally produced by European manufacturers and costing upwards of $1,200—resolve details about 15 minutes earlier in the morning and about 15 minutes later in the evening than lower-end, budget-priced glass.

Low-light performance is an important consideration for hunters. How many times have you not taken a shot at twilight because you couldn't count antler points or be sure of your bullet placement? And low-light brightness is a good proxy for other attributes, including optical resolution, color flaring, and lens aberrations.

But a key trait of premium optics isn't neccesarily their glass. It's their construction, which minimizes eye fatigue and enables you to glass longer and more effectively. To me, that performance is worth the premium price.

Did You Know?
You can get decent optics at a decent price by looking for ED (extra-low dispersion) glass, which corrects color aberrations.

 

[Wildcat]

"But a key trait of premium optics isn't neccesarily their glass. It's their construction, which minimizes eye fatigue and enables you to glass longer and more effectively. To me, that performance is worth the premium price."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That right there is worth all the money. Look at people who have to wear eyeglasses. They get the best optics they can afford because they have to wear them all day and cheap glasses WILL soon start to give them problems like eye fatigue and headache.

 

[Jon54]

I buy the best glass I can afford and it's for the eye fatigue. All of my scopes are Leupold VX3, which used to be the top of the line. I have a small pair of Sworovski binoculars and their clarity is simply amazing. I wish I could afford a full size pair as I once used a pair of 8x56 that would blow your mind.

 

[bandit3]

Re: Cheap "glass" versus "expensive" glass

I buy Leupold because they're made in America and I can't afford Sworovski or the other high end optics. I've always had good service from Leupold.

 

[rj112275]

Buy what you can afford. Leopold seems to be plenty for me. The VX3 is pretty darn good in my eyes.

As for binos... wow, you can buy a lot for $500, more for $1000 and a lot for $2000. I've owned some very nice Leica, Swaro and Zeiss. They are all excellent in the $1000-2000 range. And yes, there is a difference in eye fatigue, clarity, light capturing capability. With that said, if you have a pair of $200-300 binos, they will work. However, better glass is pricy for a reason. For me the diminishing returns come somewhere in the $1000 range. There is very nice glass that is considerably better than $500 glass, but not super, $1000 more better in my opinion.

Find some used Zeiss Victory FL-T or some used Swarovski in the $1000 range and you'll really see a difference. Literally.

 

[Snowwolfe]

There is not the relationship between the amount of $$$ spent vs the quality you receive in todays world compared to 25 years ago. I bought a pair of Leica BA binocs guessing about 22 years ago for almost $1,000 and they were heads and tails better than any other bino I ever used up to that point. About 5 years ago picked up a pair of Zeiss FL's that cost more than the Leica's but the quality was about the same. Last year picked up a set of Nikon Monarchs for about $250 and they were just as good, and lighter than the Leica's or Zeiss.

Glass production has vastly improved over the last 5 years or so with superior quality and lower prices. Still, one needs to be careful when choosing as there are gems and there are busts. Nikon seems to rule in low priced binos while Pentax absolutely sucks. It is extremely important to hold and use a set of binos before buying. I am so happy with the Monarch bino line that I plan to put up both my Leica and Zeiss binos for sale soon.
Scopes seem to be about the same. I never had a reason to go above a Leupold VX3 or a mid priced Zeiss as my eyes could see zero difference in the quality. Couple of years ago a friend sold all his Leupolds and went to Night force scopes. His first hunt with the Night Force was for a marco polo ram and the scope fogged up!!

 

[stik]

Nikon seems to rule in low priced binos

i love my monarchs but the eye cups leave a lot to be desired.

 

[.444 Marlin]

Im happy with my Nikon Prostaffs and Buckmasters. No more time than I spend looking through a scope, spending $150-$200 on a scope does me perfectly fine.

 

[vixty]

I've always used redfield revolutions. They're made by Leupold here in the US and I think they clarity is awesome. O and they can be had for about 160 to 180 used.

 

[david k.]

25 years ago, before Nikon, Leupold, etc. started making binoculars the options were either cheap or really expensive....I don't remember there being any "mid priced" binoculars available back then.

I was fresh out of college but had a friend who had a pair of Swarovski SLC and when I compared them to the Tasco's, Bushnells, etc. that were more in in my price range, there was no comparison.

I decided to save up and bought a pair SLC 7x30 for $450.00 and they'll probably be the only bino's I ever buy. I've looked through a lot of glass and they're still as good as most anything on the market

I agree with Snowwolfe in that the glass is better today and when you couple that with more manufacturers competing in the space, we win.

Buy the best you can afford and you'll never regret it.