One third the price of the rifle for a rifle scope seems reasonable for hunting. Precision bench rest or long range shooting may be different (I don't participate in either). But for "spot and stalk hunting using binoculars and spotting scope the higher end binoculars and spotting scopes are worth the cost. My binoculars are probably worth twice what one of my Weatherby MK V is worth. After over 3 decades of hard use, I sent them back for "refurbishing" this summer. Scratches on the lenses were not covered, but everything else was. Cost me $75 for new lenses and one way shipping costs. Like new again, except the new ones are over $2K.

 

Steven, I'll give you my take on "good glass". I myself like pretty decent glass on my rifles. By "decent" I mean I don't buy Simmons, TruGlo, Tasco, and all the other bargain basement hundred dollar scopes that are out there and put them on a good gun. I also don't spend two grand on a scope that I can't see the difference in between my Leupolds and them. The really cheap scopes aren't "heirloom" scopes.....if they don't break during your lifetime, they will when your son gets them. Leupolds are warranted to who ever owns them forever, with no strings attached (not pushing Leupolds, just pointing out the difference between them and the cheapies). Getting the scope for two grand for me is like me buying the best sound system money can buy: I'm half deaf and can't tell the difference so why waste the money. For all practical purposes, a scope that has 91% light transmission isn't going to cost you an animal. Yes, 95% is better but can you really define by how much it means to your eyes. I think the Leupolds, better Burris, better Bushnell, etc are more than adequate for just about anyone's hunting needs. You're still going to pay anywhere from three hundred up to eight hundred. With a decent rifle going for a grand or more (some a lot more) that's not really out of proportion. Most of my guns have Leupolds in the VX-2 or VX-3 quality area. I can't find any fault in them at all. It's the marketing people who are preaching the mantra to spend as much on the scope as you did on the gun. That's how they make money. Just my two cents.....

 

First, I'm pretty sure you knew the answers to any of the rhetorical questions you asked in your post before you typed the first word. Nothing really unusual about posts like that, however. If you're happy with your scopes, then you should simply remain happy about that. Not one thing wrong with being content with what one has (I'll insert my 12 yr old pick-up truck daily driver as a similar example).

I own 4 or 5 Burris scopes and they're pretty darn nice scopes. I own a bunch of other scopes as well and in some cases they work way better than my Burris scopes for my needs. Of course for typical deer hunting, there would be little difference, but for hogs 2 hrs after SS, there is definitely a noticeable difference.

I've never spent more than about 5 Benjamins on any scope, although I'm about to pull the trigger on one a good bit more. Needed? I really can't say now, but I'd prefer to err on the safe side rather than cry in my beer whilst on a pricey hunt myself.

Like a lot of things in this world, simply buy what suits you. I buy what suits me and do not concern myself with what others prefer to choose. Its all good

 

Most of the above advice. I object strongly for having to pay for the name. For instance I have five or six maybe seven Hawke scopes which retail here in the UK at the equivalent of about $500. One or two have illuminated reticules and when I can't see a fox safely to shoot at 100yrds in the evening with them then I can't see them properly either with my Swarovski binos which today retail well over $1500 here and I turn on the lamp . One or two of them also have a fair few air miles as well. I have one or two of the original Tascos and they still do the job after 20-25yrs.
Basically don't buy silly cheap items and expect them to last but my view is don't go paying for a name either.

 

Young eyes, like young knees and backs, stretch and flex more easily than older eyes. What didn't create eye strain when I was in my mid-20's very well might, now that I'm a touch older than that.

When it comes to scopes, whatchya see is whatchya paid to see, more or less. A good quality varmint rig will run you $600 to $1,200, so a fitting scope might be $200 to $400. Yeah, you can spend more than that these days, but you could 30 years ago, too...if you wanted the best glass available.

It's called "inflation", and it's really nothing to lose any sleep over. The only caveat to that is many things cost 3, 4, 5 times what they did 30 years ago, while salaries have certainly not increased as much.

 

How good do ya need?

DEFINE "YA". Certainly not everyone's wants/needs/wallets are the same. I EVENTUALY figured out that buying "quality" once is cheaper than buying junk over & over. If I could afford better, I'd have it, even though Leup VXlll's are "pretty good enough".

 

Buy what you want and I'll do the same. Had too many bad experiences in the past with cheap low end stuff whether tools, household items or optics.
Have some of the rifles from 30 years ago still mounted with scopes from the same era. If a person can't tell the difference I'm thinking your blind. Same with Tasco binoculars compared with pre-Monarchs or even the newer Monarch 5. Each one is a step up as is the top tier stuff over what I own.

 

I'll go one further and say that, on average, optics are measurably better than they were a generation ago. Part of why there are VERY expensive options available is because there have been interesting advances in the technology of optics...some of which have bled over into more reasonably-priced scopes and binoculars, making them easier on the eyes than a lot of what was available 20-30 years ago.

 

I am convinced that at a point in the higher prices, there is that area where one is merely paying for name and how that product is hyped by those who have to have something about which to write, in the gun rags each month.

Whether it is firearms or optics, one reaches a point where one cannot get better steel or wood or glass. Then the higher price is generated by artistic embellishments, in the case of engravings on metal and carvings on wood, OR the higher price is driven by some subjective belief that the name on the product makes it not only more expensive, but better.

I would love to see some blind test done, where binocular and rifle scopes are laid out with makers name and all other ways to ID them masked. Let the sportsmen could walk down the row of items, all of which are no less on a retail basis than $1000 and no more than $3000. Does anyone believe that a shooter can tell the difference between a well made glass costing $1000 and a well made glass costing $3000. Again, I am not claiming that all glass costing $1000 can match up, but some of them can and do come up to very high standards, in every way.

I fully agree that everyone should spend there money on what they want, because people buy what they want and not what they need. That is our way in the free world. All I am saying is that I believe that there is a point where the optics are not more effective in the field, but simply more expensive, for whatever reason.

I never indicated from the beginning of this thread, that I would buy the cheapest optics. I buy glass in the mid range and have never been let down by any of it.
Best,
Steven

 

Op's sour grapes???

SO you are saying that if the scope fairy offered to replace ALL your "good enough" scopes with top of the line Leupold, Burris, Nikon, Leica, Schmidt & Bender, Zeiss, Swarovsky, etc (of your choice)That you would say no thanks??? I know I'd be on that offer like white on rice, even though what I have now works "fine" for my needs. Pro's that need quality glass for say movies/tv/photography sure don't go with "good enough". If firearms were strictly about NEED only, MOST of us would all have a shotgun & a 30-06 ONLY. I call scope envy.

 

Have mainly Higher end Burris and middle ground Leupold and Nikon scopes on the firearms. All are great performers.

A Minolta 20x50x60 spotting scope from many years gone by and a newer high end Bushnell 10x42 bino. Again, these get the job done to my standards.

Rifle scope quality varies with manufacturers and models. Don't think the economy scopes are really set up for hard usage and if the parallax isn't too bad, they should suit the fall hunter for most hunting needs.

Binoculars are strictly a different matter. These get looked through many times more than the riflescopes and if a cheaper model, your eyeballs will soon feel like they are being sucked out of the sockets. Eye strain develops quickly with inferior glasses. Best to acquire the very best set you an afford.

 

Good spotting scopes cost major bucks. I would love to have a top-end Swarovski, but I have too many competing interests to justify the expenditure. I get by with a 20-45x70mm Bausch & Lomb for now.

I have several Burris Fullfield II scopes, and have always been impressed at how good the optical quality is for a reasonably priced hunting scope. I own better, but they are a great value.

I just bought a new pair of Nikon Monarch 5 10x42 binoculars. For the price I paid ($350 CAD), they are superb. Could I afford more? Yes, but I probably would have had to outlay triple what I did in order to get a noticeable difference in optical quality. I used the money saved to buy a new Leupold rangefinder, which is a major upgrade over my faithful 10 year old Bushnell.

 

There is a big difference between a $200 scope and a $500 one to my eyes. The difference isn't as big of jump between each incremental increase to the top end stuff but its there. If worth the added cost is for you to decide.

 

Not joking. Serious question. I have been hearing good things about Vortex binoculars. These are offered : List price, $779. Sale price, $669.29. Vortex Viper HD, 15x50 Roof prism binoculars.
I need to buy binoculars. Are these a good choice for hunting, within this price range? There is another model on sale that are 12x50 at $10 less, so price difference is not important.
I believe that these are made in China, but what is not these days?
Best,
Steven

 

I have read good things about Vortex, as well.

Some advice? I would caution against getting binoculars much over 10x for general use. That's about my limit for hand holding for any length of time. In fact, if I think I'll be glassing for long periods, I'll choose my 8x42 over my 10x42. Optically clarity means nothing it if is offset by hand tremor. 12x or 15x aren't going to be very useable for extended periods, unless they're on a tripod. Also, glasses weighing much over 20 ounces aren't comfortable to wear all day, and if you aren't wearing them all day, you aren't using them enough. I have a pair of 10x50s, but they are strictly for fixed position and/or night use.

My Nikons are made in China, and they come with a lifetime warranty. 'Made in China' is no longer a reason to automatically disqualify a product. I have a pair of Chinese-made 8x30 Pentax UCF compact binos, which I paid less than $100 for. No kidding, these little glasses are sharper than many high dollar full sized glasses I have tried.

 

I'd like to put in a plug for Chinese optics sold under the Zeiss brand, at about a third the cost of the company's made-in-Germany line. I bought an 8x42 model at Gander Mountain after a good hour spent looking through it inside and outside the store. I took my 1979 vintage Zeiss Dialyt 10x40 from the safe and took both binoculars to a wooded area at dusk, alternately looking through them at objects near and far until the light completely failed. Probably because of newer, better coatings the Chinese model was superior.

My understanding is the Chinese will build to whatever standard of quality a manufacturer wants and can set his price to cover. There are no optical secrets anymore.

 

My understanding is the Chinese will build to whatever standard of quality a manufacturer wants and can set his price to cover. There are no optical secrets anymore.

No, the Chinese will build to whatever standard you can force them to maintain, and if you don't make them hold the standard you expect, they won't. And they'll think you're an idiot for expecting them to maintain your standards on their own.

 

At my age of 74, it has become much more difficult to home in on the game and then, need to focus. Should I look into auto focus binoculars? Do they work? At what model should I look for binoculars with auto focus to use for hunting?
These will likely be my last pair of new binoculars, so I don't mind spending some money on something that should enhance my hunting experience.
Any recommendations would be helpful.
Best,
Steven

 

They're not really "auto-focus" They just have a great depth of field. Because they don't have the usual focusing mechanism, they are cheaper to manufacture but, as with all optics, you should get the best glass you can afford. Steiner makes one and I'm sorely tempted to buy one. Their optics are normally top-notch but have to research this one some more.

 

I've owned one Steiner binocular, an 8x30 that my wife gave me for Christmas several years ago. I'd asked for the particular model and brand, of course. I found them very satisfactory for turkey hunting in the Spring in the wooded creek and bottom lands of West Texas. I believe the model was the Predator, which was advertised as giving remarkable clarity to game in wooded terrain. That is, it was said to make non-green objects stand out.

This particular Steiner did have a focusing adjustment. At the time (before my cataract surgery) I wore trifocals and the binocular's ocular lenses were very accommodating.

The only limitation this binocular had was 30mm objective lenses that gave exit pupils of less than the ideal 5mm. That is, it was bright but not as bright as the same glass in 8x40.

At the end of a memorable Christmas deer hunt with my Marine nephew, I gave him the Steiner because he had beaten his own binocular to a pulp during his Division's campaign for Fallujah. Which should tell you what I think about Steiner. I wouldn't have given my sister's son an unworthy glass.

 

I've owned a pair of fixed focus Steiners for over a decade now and they are an excellent value for the $$. Mine are 9X40s IIRC. There's something to be said for using binoculars that need no refocus using from 10 yards on out. They are very handy.

 

Before going back to my honeydew list, I wanted to mention one other thing about where almost all high quality optical glass is actually ground. I have read reliable sources that say the actual grinding of optical lens glass is done by Kyocera, to whatever specification a manufacturer wants and is willing to pay for. Including Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, et al. The specification would include how many coatings and of what kind, how many lens elements, their exact shapes, the purity of the glass and its chemical makeup, limits on chromatic aberrations and distortion, and so on, in such detail and using terms only an optical engineer could understand. The specification sets the price to the manufacturer, which is passed to the consumer.

My second point is that optical quality is measurable objectively. There are machines that can determine the degree of optical perfection of any lens. I have seen tests done on, for example, the Zeiss lenses produced for Hasselblad cameras, which proved to be about as perfect as any man-made object can get. Priced accordingly.

However, there are a large number of professional photographers whose works are celebrated that buy and use lesser medium format lenses because they cost less (a LOT less) and give satisfactory results for the work the photographer is doing.

In short, there is scientifically measurable perfection and then there is "not perfect but plenty good enough for my use." I've spent a lifetime using Nikon lenses - my old AI-Nikkors are non-autofocusing, have no chips so won't give aperture information to a D100 body but are tough as a boot. Their optical quality is almost perfect. I still use them SOME of the time, but for most occasions I use a newer, much less expensive "G" series 28-105 zoom that is not as optically correct and will become junk if dropped (I should know; this is my second one.) Why? It's more than good enough for 85-90 percent of what I do these days. I'll end by saying if I want to make a close view of a gun I propose to auction on Gunbroker, I haul out my old Micro-Nikkor 55mm macro lens and start doing test shots for the correct aperture setting.

All to say, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Buy quality that you can use.

 

However, there are a large number of professional photographers whose works are celebrated that buy and use lesser medium format lenses because they cost less (a LOT less) and give satisfactory results for the work the photographer is doing.

Wiz, I do the same - I have a lot of legacy Pentax 35mm film lenses that have made the transition to digital just fine. They are optically superior to some of the equivalent digital only lenses, but are larger and heavier, so I use them when that isn't a factor.

Then there is the digital format itself - with processing software, lens defects we were 'stuck' with in the film era (e.g. distortion, chromatic aberration) can be compensated for.

 

I forgot to mention the name of the Chinese-made Zeiss line of binoculars: "Terra ED". Field and Stream gave them its "Best Bargain" award the year they came out.

About having to make the Chinese observe the standard: I am sure that is right and Winchester discovered the same thing about Japan when they were building the 101 and 23 in Tochigi Prefecture. All the best wood was being set aside for Golden Eagle production, behind Winchester's back.

I would bet a nickel Zeiss keeps some pretty tough hombres circulating on the Terra production floor.

 

I would bet a nickel Zeiss keeps some pretty tough hombres circulating on the Terra production floor.

That's the rub: You have to have constant surveillance on them. Mueller found that out. Their initial runs from China were excellent but as soon as they stopped on-site oversight, quality fell off considerably.

 

I think there is considerable variation in observance of ethical standards from company to company, within any particular culture. I don't have much experience dealing with manufacturers in foreign countries, although I had some clients who did. It was explained to me by people who should have known, that a major difference between Western and Eastern business culture was, what would merely be considered shrewd and prudent business practice in the East would get you fitted with an orange jump suit in the United States and Western Europe.

Still, after having represented business people here in America for 4 decades, some of whom had honorable and successful careers and others of whom wound up in orange jump suits, I think dragons are where you find them and you need to keep a close watch on your stuff after you shake hands. Trust but verify, anywhere.

 

Steiner binoculars

The Steiner Predator 8x30 I owned was a porro prism binocular wth a very deep depth of field - it could be set to put everything more than about 20 feet away in focus - but it could be manually focused and it did have a diopter adjustment on one or (can't remember) both of the ocular lenses.

I don't recall getting eye strain from the Predator, but I never left the focus alone because I've been focusing optical stuff for sixty years now; that is, since I was twelve, and I used to shoot a lot of high school football games and weddings with a Crown Graphic that was manual everything.

So I can't speak to whether constructing a lens so it can have max depth of field over most hunting ranges results in enough distortion to cause eye strain after long scans. Maybe the distortion has nothing to do with the construction. Don't know.

I do think intended use is a big consideration. If I were going to spend hour after hour looking through a binocular on a thirty grand sheep hunt (which I'm too old, stove up and poor to ever do), I'd be inclined to shoot the moon and make it thirty-two grand and bring home the very best I could buy. In for a dime, in for a dollar.

But West Texas turkeys don't need a Leica range-finding binocular. I'd love to own one anyway but would soon tire of sleeping in my garage shop - for as long as I had a shop or a garage, which wouldn't be very long.

 

My Steiners allow both oculars to be focused and I have used them for hours on end on both western hunts and in Alaska. They were not cheap when I bought them and I actually prefer them over the nice Vanguard Endevour 10x45s I also own. To each their own.

 

If I am not going to see any big difference, I may as well stick with the Burris 8x42 BAK4 binoculars that I have been using for years. I have not noticed eye strain and I have been able to see what others with me see, with their binoculars. Sometimes, I just want to spend my money, instead of believing that my son will throw it away, if I leave it to him! LOL

 

I think the difference is in the lower price of the guns...

You consider back in the fifties a scope was one third the price of a rifle and then wonder why the scopes are so much higher in price than the rifle today. Maybe the CNC machines and advances in making guns has kept the price of guns way down. And the relation of the price of scope to rifle may, in part, be due to the relatively lower price of the rifle.

 

My first binocular purchase was from Montgomery Wards in the mid '60s. 10x50 Empire model 264 7.5 degree wide angle, even has a serial#. Even though I now have many binoculars, these still set on the kitchen counter to see varmints better.

On rifle scopes, I'm not sure why folks pay so much for them since I have several including a Leupold VX-1 3-9x40, a UTG 3-9x40, and a Hawke 4-12x50 all under $200. They are tough, weatherproof and have very clear imagery. Clearly you can pay thousands for a rifle scope and you can destroy any of them out hunting. Some of my rifles do cost several times the cost of these scopes but not by much. My AR is a Sig and it cost many times what these scopes cost. I can easily put glass on it that cost 1/3 it's cost. $200 might be a good limit in MHO.