Last time I looked, you can get a Zeiss 3-9X40 Conquest for under $500. Nobody makes one that tests brighter. You can also get a Leupold VXIII that's so close to the Zeiss, the difference is very difficult to see.
You must, of course, do comparisions w/o biasing the test by comparing old scopes, by setting their actual magnification at the same magnification etc, and you can't expect a scope with a larger objective to be as bright as a smaller scope. By making these errors, many have come to conclusion that some more expensive scopes are brighter and sharper, etc. than other, cheaper scopes.
Where did I get all this ? From a guy named John Barsness, who posts here under the handle of Mule Deer. He tests about 20 scopes a year. He dunks them in warm water to check for leaks. He checks them for changes in impact when the magnification is changed. He checks them for accuracy of their adjustments. Then he puts them on some real heavy kickers and shoots until they give up or he thinks they might. He's done lots of brightness comparisions as well.
In his article "Tough Scopes" printed in Rifle magazine's July 2004 issue, he makes an excellent point. Good tough scopes aren't necessarily the expensive scopes. HE also makes it very clear that fixed magnification scopes hold up much better under recoil than variables. Small, light variables hold up much better than heavy, large scopes. No matter who makes them.
He went on to say that even cheap variables like the Burris FFII's and the Nikon ProStaff have done very well in his testing. On the other hand, no where in his article did he mention the expensive euros as particularly tough. He mentions Leupolds. He mentions the Bushnell Elite 4000-4200's.
Barsness also interviewed several custom gun makers in that article. None of them have found any of the more expensive scopes better when it came to with standing recoil. Hard kickers being defined as a sporter weight .338 Magnum. I do believe that the .325 WSM does meet that level of recoil, particularly in a light rifle. E
