Let me start by saying I am a big fan of Minox optics. When I heard they were making scopes I began to read as many reviews as I could, and after finding that most rated the scopes very good, I decided to order one for myself. I wanted to take advantage of Doug's open box sale and get a 3-9 with a BDC reticle, but the day I ordered they had just run out of them. Doug told me though that he had one 2-10 open box with a bdc that he had not yet posted. I had just read some of the criticisms of the 2-10 here and was a little concerned, but decided I would see for my self, and if I was unhappy I would go a different direction. I like the idea of having a 5x power range but only if the scope performs well in all areas.
A couple days later I had my scope and I found about two hours of time to compare the glass with a few of my other scopes. I started in the middle of the day, looking at an eye chart hung in the shade at about seventy five yards away. I compared the Minox with a Zeiss conquest 4.5-14x50 (the clearest scope I own), a Leupold VX-III 2.5-8, a Kahles CL 3-9, a Bushnell 4200 3-9, and a Nikon Buckmaster 4.5-14x40. I compared each scope directly with the Minox, set to the highest equal power, all being mounted on rifles with bipods. Here is what I found:
I found the clarity of the Minox to be about equal with the Conquest in every way. I could read down the chart to about the exact point with both scopes. Edge to edge clarity was a tie as well. Both were clear to almost the very edge of the scope. Eye relief seems to be slightly longer on the minox.
The rest of the order went like this:
Kahles was a slight step down from the top two.
Another step down would be the 4200. I really like this scope for the money and find the rain guard to be a real asset, but it is not as clear as I would like it to be when put next to a better scope.
Almost tied with the 4200 is the Buckmaster. I have always found this scope to be an exceptional value for the money at least in broad daylight (it is on a varmint rifle that I have not really used in low light).
Lastly the VX-III. A great scope as you all know for it's ergonomics, but not exceptionally clear.
I know you all want to know about the eye box as I'm sure you read the same reviews I did. Here is what I found: Yes, the placement of your eye becomes more crucial at higher power, but that applied for every scope. I really scrutinized this comparison and found the Minox to be equal with all others in this department. The only difference I found was, as you moved your eye around in the minox, the view would fade out in a lighter tone than the rest, almost whitish, whereas the Conquest for example would do the same thing but would turn black. I feel you have about the same forgiveness with either scope, and for me it posed no problem. I would even shoulder the rifle from various shooting positions with no trouble maintaining a full field of view. My dad participated in this exercise as well and had no trouble.
Later in the evening as the sun set, we watched the chart until dark with the top 3 scopes, and found their low-light performance to be: Minox and Conquest equal with the Kahles trailing. And yes the Conquest does have a larger objective.
I know this is far from a high-tech review, and says nothing about trackability, durability and other unknowns at this point. It is just my findings that I thought others may benefit from if considering one of these scopes. Needless to say, I am very impressed with the Minox. It replaced a VX-II 3-9 that I don't think is even in the same league IMO, so I am happy.
