Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Meopta vs Leupold

You mean this product from the Eremicus Design Group....

Actually, an argument can be made that a larger FOV does make the image appear brighter--mostly because a larger FOV almost always means less eye relief. Hence there's less interference from outside light between the scope and the shooter's eye.

But like a lot of optics arguments (especially on the Campfire) it ain't worth arguing about.

I've tested a bunch of scopes with the chart and come to similar conclusions. Heck, I think I've found less difference between a like new Vari-X II 3-9x40 on 6x and a very fine Swarovski 6x42 than some people say they've found between a VX-3 and a Conquest/Meopta/SwaroZ3.

You mean this product from the Eremicus Design Group....

We're discussing the newer 1" tube Meopro version. I have the 3-9x40 model and it has excellent eye relief, both in length and noncritical nature.

I could personally care less what people use, and why they use it. More power to 'em. However, when people say "not in the same league, ballpark, can't compete, etc" it is always purely subjective, especially in the mid-level priced arena. That's why I always say IMO, to my eyes, etc because I realize this fact. But for someone to expect to see a buck and kill it through a VX3 and not a Conquest, Monarch, Elite, etc (or vice versa) is just simply not true unless the reticle disappears. It will not be due to the glass.

Dirtfarmer (and anybody else concerned),

Schott has over 40 glass factories all over the world, including China, and they also sell it to other companies than Zeiss. Meopta may very well be using Schott glass to make their lenses, but making glass and making lenses are two different things.

As for where the Conquest lenses are made, I was informed a few years ago by the guy who was then president of Zeiss USA (there was a change last year) that Meopta made all the lenses and tubes--except for the erector tube and its lenses, which were made by Zeiss in Germany. Somebody else posted last year that this isn't true, that he'd recently visited the Zeiss plant and seen the Conquest lenses being made there. I somehow doubt this, given the price Conquests sell for, but there it is.

Anybody who claims the optics of Meopta scopes are vastly superior to all Leupolds is FOS. I've tested Meoptas, Conquests and various Leupolds on my night chart, and there isn't any discernible difference between the two Euro-scopes and the better Leupolds. This wasn't always so, but it has been for quite a while now.

Try some winged eyecups on your binos if you want a real surprise.

Funny thing about all this...people doubt there is a difference between a Leupold/Meopta/Zeiss, but will gladly pound their chest proclaiming the VX-3 is vastly superior to a VX-1 or VX-2. I cannot see a difference between any of the three leupolds, other than price.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but those Peregrine cups seem to make a difference! I really love those binos.


Travis

If you can't tell the difference between a VX-1 and VX-3, you probably shouldn't be opining on the differences between a Meopta Meopro and VX-3.

All I said was "i prefer the Meopta". I didn't make any outlandish claims like others have. And if you think there is a $200 difference between a VX-1 and a 3, then I feel sorry for you. A fool and his money are soon parted...