Leopold hd spotter vs swarovski or zeiss

[Magnum_Willys]

So your saying the ats 65  is hands down noticeably way better than the new golden ring 60 power hd?

Depends how old you are ?  My son can see a significant difference between Swaro HD and Leupold.  I can't but though I don't need glasses my eyesight is not as sharp as his.  Swaro is only slightly better to me.  Much better to him.

[Bob33]

So your saying the ats 65  is hands down noticeably way better than the new golden ring 60 power hd?

Depends how old you are ?  My son can see a significant difference between Swaro HD and Leupold.  I can't but though I don't need glasses my eyesight is not as sharp as his.  Swaro is only slightly better to me.  Much better to him.

I would attribute it more to individual eyesight than age. I have 50+ year old eyes that are 20-15. When you're considering high end glass, it's tough to make generalizations because everyone sees a bit differently.

[b23]

You left out one that will at the least equal, those that you have listed and that would be the Kowa.  My dad had a HD 80 Swaro and replaced it with a Kowa.  Having spent time behind both, IMO, the Kowa was better. 

If you're looking for something small yet still has exceptional glass, that little ED50 from Nikon is unbelievably good, especially when you factor in what they cost.  IMO, easily, the best packing spotter on the market.

[magnumb]

I'm amazed that Leica has only been mentioned once, so far.  They take no back seat to any 'high-end' optics and since you seem able to consider Swaro's or Zeiss spotters, find a friend/store or whatever you have to do to be able to view all 3 and give them all a look see.

If you're gonna take the leap and you've already made up your mind that you're gonna buy a great/forever/lifetime companion, 'do it all' spotter ...... make it a fully informed leap.

The landing is gonna hurt either way, but it's what you're left with that counts.

Good luck.......owning any type of 'high-end' glass is a real pleasure.

[Bean Counter]

Leica makes an $11,000 lens for its rangefinder cameras. Plain old boring 50mm focal length.. for $11k, you don't even get image stabilization nor auto focus! 

http://www.amazon.com/Leica-50mm-f0-95-ASPH-E60/dp/B001IKEX68/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435538490&sr=8-1&keywords=leica+noctilux

[Magnum_Willys]

You left out one that will at the least equal, those that you have listed and that would be the Kowa.  My dad had a HD 80 Swaro and replaced it with a Kowa.  Having spent time behind both, IMO, the Kowa was better. 

If you're looking for something small yet still has exceptional glass, that little ED50 from Nikon is unbelievably good, especially when you factor in what they cost.  IMO, easily, the best packing spotter on the market.

Kowa 88mm is the top rated scope by all the birders.....

[Bob33]

Plain old boring 50mm focal length.

Not quite. It has an aperture of .95 which is possibly the world's fastest.

[Bean Counter]

Yep. But ceteris paribus, magnification tends to add to expense in a lens. The normal lengths, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm, tend to be cheaper and easier to make than extreme telephoto and ultrawide.

Not sure why on earth someone would shoot 0.95x with manual focus. then again I've never owned a range finding camera.

[Bob33]

$11K is a bargain. Check out the Carl Zeiss Super-Q-Gigantar 40mm f0.33.

[lewy]

Owned both, and USED em both. Leupy packs better, swaro views better. Both work, but people who can't afford swaro, or go cheap will tell you there lesser brand is equal, it is not.

[Crunchy]

Owned both, and USED em both. Leupy packs better, swaro views better. Both work, but people who can't afford swaro, or go cheap will tell you there lesser brand is equal, it is not.

Well put.  When you are looking at a deer 1,000 yards away, in the brush, you WANT to know what kind of deer you are looking at.  Less expensive glass wont give you the details you want to see.  Top tier glass is top tier glass for a reason. Several different manufactures to chose from.

[AKBowman]

Leica makes an $11,000 lens for its rangefinder cameras. Plain old boring 50mm focal length.. for $11k, you don't even get image stabilization nor auto focus! 

http://www.amazon.com/Leica-50mm-f0-95-ASPH-E60/dp/B001IKEX68/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435538490&sr=8-1&keywords=leica+noctilux

Funny you mentioned that. It likely only costs $11K because Leica purchases their glass from Carl Zeiss. That's absolutely the truth. They do a good job with their coatings but I can't respect a company that purchases the main component of the optics from their competitor.

When you've been in business since 1846 and are still in business today you learn a few things along the way. All the products are good but I do believe Zeiss has the best optics.

[huntnphool]

If you are serious about spending that kind of money, you should take this http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,143206.msg1900531.html#msg1900531 thread into account. 

[Bean Counter]

Leica makes an $11,000 lens for its rangefinder cameras. Plain old boring 50mm focal length.. for $11k, you don't even get image stabilization nor auto focus! 

http://www.amazon.com/Leica-50mm-f0-95-ASPH-E60/dp/B001IKEX68/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435538490&sr=8-1&keywords=leica+noctilux

Funny you mentioned that. It likely only costs $11K because Leica purchases their glass from Carl Zeiss. That's absolutely the truth. They do a good job with their coatings but I can't respect a company that purchases the main component of the optics from their competitor.

When you've been in business since 1846 and are still in business today you learn a few things along the way. All the products are good but I do believe Zeiss has the best optics.

I didn't know that Leica stopped manufacturing their own glass. They sure do carry on like they still do 
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/leica-lens-saga-interview-peter-karbe#yHQO0Lst9f9egtWf.97
http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/lenses/lenses/page57.html

Well Zeiss makes the 55mm Distagon for Nikon and Canon, but it only runs $4,000 instead of $11,000 like the Leica. I'm sure there's at least a few grand added for the Leica name 

Apparently some of the "anomalous partial dispersion" elements within the OTUS Distagon are more expensive ounce-per-ounce than gold.  They wanted to make a lens with Zero. Optical. Compromise. Period. Sounds like they succeeded, but in the end had to forego autofocus and go strictly with manual, simply because of the weight of some of the internal elements. No ass-end weather sealing gasket, either. Not sure this lens would be of much use to many of us in the world of moving animals, kids, sports, etc. Only for studios, landscape, etc where stuff doesn't move and you can carefully set up your shot like a sniper.

[thinkingman]

My best friend is a career cameraman (film) in Hollywood.
He owns a set of Zeiss lenses that cost as much as a house.
He rents them out and makes good money.
Had a set of Cooke lenses and when he sold them he MADE over $30k.