Scopes I own
I have a handful of scopes, none of them are ultra high end, but a couple are considered pretty decent and cost a chunk of change.
I took out all 5 of them just now as the sun was starting no to set for a quick comparison. A couple of these are on guns i purchased used, and did not actually select myself, so I think this is pretty unbiased.
I glassed a couple things at 150 and 250 yds. That's about as far as I could see in my back yard without people seeing me and calling the cops on the whacko with 5 rifles in his yard.
in terms of only optical clarity I would rate them as follows.
5. Mueller 8-32 x 44 - this scope is awful on 32x, and pretty poor below that, eye relief range seemed very narrow
4. Bushnell banner 3-9x40 - cheapo scope on a 17 hmr, did not expect much, optically similar to the Mueller on equal magnification, so I give this the edge
3. Leapers 4-12 x 44(?). Optically a significant step above the prior 2, surprised me quite a bit as I was planning on replacing this scope when I bought the gun, but I will give it a try now.
2. Zeiss conquest 4.5-14 x 44
1. Bushnell elite 4200 6-24x50 - zeiss and bushnell are pretty close, and a jump up from the others, I would give the slight edge to the bushnell, mostly because it is a little brighter, perhaps a little unfair with the larger objective, but it is what it is.
I surprised how bad the mueller was and how good (relatively) the Leapers was, as it is generally regarded as a POS and from what I can tell cost < $100 new.
Leica 1600 glass is excelent over the Nikon 1200, not even in the same class.
Thoughts? Crazy for thinking the Leapers glass is not awful?