Found it on a UK web site for £359, which puts it in the $500 to $600 US range.
Rambling Warning - Rambling about to begin!
I've been thinking about optics prices for scopes. Consider this - I shoot Nikon equipment and have for over 40 years. (Canon fans, please refrain, this is for example only)
Right now, I can buy a budget, Nikon brand 55mm to 300mm F4 lens which is about a 1.5 to 9 power scope (I shoot a cropped sensor) goes for around $400. Used it goes for under $200.
Premium Nikon (Pro-Class) lenses such as the 70-200mm F2.8 go for considerably more at $2800.
There are two major differences. Speed and resolution.
The 55-300 is an F4, while the 70-200 is F2.8. Doesn't sound like much but it really is. Lets in about twice the light of the F4. That's hugely important. Resolution or sharpness of the 70-200 is vastly superior. The question becomes, do you need it? The 55-300 resolves down to about 10mplx while the resolution of the 70-200 is considerably higher. This translates into sharper images, IF and only if you have a higher resolution sensor that works with the lens.
The scopes we buy follow many of the same pricing rules. It seems to be generally accepted that under $100 scopes have poor optics, are generally somewhat generic, and pretty much useless.
As you hit the $150 - $300 range, quality seems to go up. You get into brands that aren't Zeiss or Leupold, but quite usable. Just saw a comparison of a Nikon Prostaff at $160 vs a Leupold low end at $500 ish, and the Leupold was definitely better. The ProStaff was very good (I'd use it in a heartbeat), but the Leupold was noticeably better in both light transmissison (lens speed) and sharpness (resolution) Considering the Mark-III in the demo was about 2 and a half times more expensive than the ProStaff, it better be better, right?
At $500 and up, you start to get into the higher quality optics that are super sharp edge to edge, have better light transmission, and such. These elements improve as you get more and more expensive.
The main observation I have is that as you get more expensive over $500 these days, the improvement per dollar spent decreases. The real difference between a $500 scope and a $1000 scope will NOT be anywhere near as great as the difference between a $80 generic scope and the $160 Prostaff.
Same goes for lenses. I could spring the $2800 for the 70-200, but do I really need the quality improvements? You should see the pictures I get with the 55-300mm I really don't know how much the 70-200mm quality would improve my pictures as I don't have one to compare with, but when I crop a picture and blow it up to 11x14 for mounting, they still look great, able to pick out whiskers on the fox.
Yes you get more, but how much more do you really need?
As for Leupold, I'd love to see the scope described here, and at the price point of $500, however, for Leupold quality I doubt they would do it. With their name and reputation, they could easily charge $900 to $1000 for the features described. Wish I had some really good reasons for them to hit that $500 price point.
Rambling Over - Return to normal life
