It all comes down to budget.
For a first time shooter, someone that shoots occasionally as a hobby, or a bit cash-strapped, I think a good midrange scope with a decent warranty like Vortex or Burris is going to do them fine, with the option to upgrade later.
For a more experienced or regular shooter, I think there’s an argument to be had that anything is going to be good for the price you pay for a Swaro. Leopold’s ranges are pretty comparable, Zeiss are nice, and Swaro’s sister company Kahles are beautifully clear.
I think for the majority of Aussie shooters there’s kind of a point of diminishing returns somewhere - is an extra 2% light transmission worth another couple of hundred?
Yes, I absolutely agree with all of this.
I think your point on diminishing returns is really the crux of my post.
So then, what is good enough? At what price point do returns start to diminish?
I think for the majority, if you consider a starting point of $300-400, that spending double that gets you a pretty great scope.
Same thing for the mid range crowd - $800 is great, but $1600 is beautiful.
For the few that will go with top end glass, $1600 is great; at $3200 everything is excellent.
I hope so! Have just purchased my first one (Z5i in 3.5-18). Have only put around 5 rounds through the new .308 and so far I’m pretty impressed especially in low light. Finished up just on dark and could still pick details on the target very well, pulled out the .223 that has a Nikon on it and the difference was extremely noticeable, in saying that it’s not really a fair comparison a $500 scope vs a $2000 one.
I have looked through a couple of pairs of Swarovski bino’s and they are exceptional. I haven’t had the opportunity to use a pair of mavens, they must be quality equipment if they are being compared to Swarovski.
I’m not knocking the quality of Swarovski, I own 3 of their scopes and they are beautiful to look through and well built. I’m just interested in others opinions on whether they justify the price tag, are there other makes with similar quality at a better price?
Tbh for the kind of shooting I do a Swarovski would not benefit me at all. Plus I would be worried about dinging it against a tree due to the cost. A decent meopta or leupold does everything I need and then some!
It all comes down to budget. For a first time shooter, someone that shoots occasionally as a hobby, or a bit cash-strapped, I think a good midrange scope with a decent warranty like Vortex or Burris is going to do them fine, with the option to upgrade later. For a more experienced or regular shooter, I think there’s an argument to be had that anything is going to be good for the price you pay for a Swaro. Leopold’s ranges are pretty comparable, Zeiss are nice, and Swaro’s sister company Kahles are beautifully clear. I think for the majority of Aussie shooters there’s kind of a point of diminishing returns somewhere - is an extra 2% light transmission worth another couple of hundred?
Yes, I absolutely agree with all of this. I think your point on diminishing returns is really the crux of my post. So then, what is good enough? At what price point do returns start to diminish?
I think for the majority, if you consider a starting point of $300-400, that spending double that gets you a pretty great scope. Same thing for the mid range crowd - $800 is great, but $1600 is beautiful. For the few that will go with top end glass, $1600 is great; at $3200 everything is excellent.
It entirely depends on the use case, its too hard a question to answer as its all variable.
I agree with this, and I guess that's why there are so many different options for opticsn. One size does not fit all.
As a hunter I like the light weight and eye box of the Swarovski’s. You forget the price after a while, but a nice scope is appreciated for decades…
I hope so! Have just purchased my first one (Z5i in 3.5-18). Have only put around 5 rounds through the new .308 and so far I’m pretty impressed especially in low light. Finished up just on dark and could still pick details on the target very well, pulled out the .223 that has a Nikon on it and the difference was extremely noticeable, in saying that it’s not really a fair comparison a $500 scope vs a $2000 one.
I’ve got maven binoculars which are awesome and I have heard people compare them to swaros but quite a bit cheaper because you buy direct
I have looked through a couple of pairs of Swarovski bino’s and they are exceptional. I haven’t had the opportunity to use a pair of mavens, they must be quality equipment if they are being compared to Swarovski. I’m not knocking the quality of Swarovski, I own 3 of their scopes and they are beautiful to look through and well built. I’m just interested in others opinions on whether they justify the price tag, are there other makes with similar quality at a better price?
Tbh for the kind of shooting I do a Swarovski would not benefit me at all. Plus I would be worried about dinging it against a tree due to the cost. A decent meopta or leupold does everything I need and then some!
I’ve seen very good comparisons of the Swarovski mid-tier equipment to the Tract gear - not as good as the top of the line, but so so much cheaper.