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?