Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leica Magnus vs Amplus?

I've been trying to find some more info on the new Amplus line from Leica and haven't found much other than initial press release material. Have any of you guys found anything more detailed yet or tried them out? I'm trying to gauge whether it's worth springing for another Magnus (I already have one without an illuminated dot and the reticle is WAY too thin to be useful in the dark.... ironic eh?) or if I wouldn't really lose much dropping down to the Amplus for a lot less or someone else's equivalent offering. I'm looking at the 1-6x24s/ 1-10x42s to put on some hog hunting setups, and the 50 and 56mms for low light, longer range rifles.

It seems like a lot of other offerings in this level of glass have super crazy reticles, more turrets and knobs than a medieval castle, and/or weigh half a ton. I've been looking at Zeiss for awhile, but the few times I've checked them out in person I just never fell in love with them, especially at the asking prices. Swaro I'm sure is a good product but I have some doubts regarding questionable warranty and CS policies after reading more than a few threads here and around the internet over the last few years, which is a real turn off to me for a $12-1500+ optic.

What about Docter/Noblex? It seems like they have kinda fallen off the radar since changing their name, but they were always an interesting choice. Are they not worth considering?

Have you considered the Bumberbus?

I am familiar with the 2.5-15x56 model. Person I know purchased one from Cameralandny. So far not an issue, we looked at deer at 100 yards grazing in his yard 3 hours after sunset and they were almost as clear as day, you could see the antlers, colors perfectly. The illuminated dot and illumination in general is very good . Negative were the scope covers, they need to be upgraded . I would certainly not spend 1000 or more for their top of the line scope. It is a simple well made scope with outstanding optics that doesn't have the bells and whistles that are never needed anyway.

Swaro makes excellent binos and spotters. Their scopes are horribly overpriced.

Schmidt & Bender....case closed!!

Snob

I have both. Magnus is a better scope. Better finished, better design, better materials. I have the Magnus on a 270 Winchester, and the Amplus on a Bergara 22 LR. I would compare the Magnus to a Swaro Z6i, and the Amplus a Swaro Z3.

It has better glass then my Z5 Swaro. Which Amplus do you have?

don't have an amplus but am looking to purchase. i do have a leica visus 3-12x50mm that i like alot.
Big Ed

I am also interested in these comparisons.
I have a 1-6.3x24mm Magnus, that I like Lots. I am curious about the Amplus also.

I have the 2.5-15 50mm 4ai. I wanted the 3-18 Z5 Swaro, but Doug was out of them, and he made me a screaming deal on the Amplus. It sits in a set of Warnes on a EGW 20 MOA rail. I've got a 2.4-16 56mm 4ai Magnus on the CZ550 Sonoran in Alaskan Arms rings.

How does the Magnus have better materials? Same Aluminum , Same Glass. The lettering might be nicer as is the illumination feature but is it worth 1K more. It has no more real world functionality.

The switch to turn on the red dot is heads and shoulders better material and design on the Magnus vice the Amplus. I don't know what the designers were thinking putting it on the parallax knob, and it just looks cheap on the Amplus. While the Magnus is the flagship scope of Leica, I would trade the Magnus for a Z6i or Z8i in a heartbeat. Sadly, Swaro's top end lines have priced itself past my means. I don't mean to imply that the Leica is junk. However, for me, I prefer Swarovski, as I feel they are a better product. I would compare the Amplus to a Zeiss Conquest, which is a decent scope but certainly not at Victory level quality.

I completely understand and agree with your feelings on the differences in design of the two, but in your experience are they very different optically? I'm thinking of putting the 1-6 on an AR, so the clunkier aesthetics aren't really a concern there and might actually look BETTER to me than the Magnus's more refined finish, and if the glass actually IS the same (their website does show different FOVs and light transmission % but both of those differences could be due to the physical optic design I assume) then I don't see why I shouldn't consider it over the Conquest V6.

The Swaro Z6 and Z8, Zeiss V8, and SB Exos/Polar are outside of what I'd consider reasonable for me right now too. I'd maybe consider getting one to put on my AB Medallion or MKV or some other nice bolt gun I get in the future if the price is right, but it just doesn't seem that that last jump is worth it for my shooting abilities and applications.

I can't see a discernable difference in image quality. However, I have 62 year old eyes wearing trifocals, and I am not a authority on high end optic reviews. As I have the Amplus on a 22 long rifle, I expect no recoil related problems, and tracking shouldn't be an issue as 100 yards is a long way with a rimfire, and any misses are likely to be operator error, or ammo related. I agree with one of the posters that the scope caps are just this side of worthless, and I'm planning to buy a neoprene cover for it. I'm sure it will work beautifully as a LPVO on a AR. Especially if your doing your initial zero at 50 yards and just leaving it there knowing it will be kill zone capable to 200 or so yards. Probably not a better use for that power range on that platform. Red dot with 4ai on a moving target in low light is what its designed for.