Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Opinion on Nikon Monarch X 4-16x50 vs Leupold Mark |
Post Reply |
Author | |||
Gray
Optics GrassHopper Joined: December/25/2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: August/04/2009 at 13:37 |
||
I have never owned a Nikon product. I have several Leupolds including two VX-3 6.5-20x50 Long Range models that I am pleased with but hear the Nikon Monarch X is brighter and more on par with a Zeiss Conquest in terms of clarity and light transmission. I was curious as to any opinions some users may have who have experience with the Nikon Monarch X especially the pros and cons of the Nikon vs the Leupold in this category of scopes. Thanks in advance.
|
|||
grea2278
Optics GrassHopper Joined: July/28/2009 Status: Offline Points: 17 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I believe light transmissions with all monarch's is 95%. I have had alot of problems with durability and predictability with the Zeiss. I have seen some monarchs and top end leuopalds and they appear very close at the store but i did not do any range tests as every one's eye see's a little differnt i would say go to a gun store and compare that's what i did and seen the Monarch was comparable to topper end models for less price.
|
|||
Chris Farris II
TEAM SWFA - Admin MODERATOR Joined: August/13/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Comparing them in a store with artifical lighting is the worst comparision you can do. The Zeiss is a better scope grea2278 had a problem with ONE Zeiss scope, so he assumes they are all that way. I state and will back up this statement, no matter how good a company or a product is somewhere along the lines something will go wrong at some point. Given some companys definately have more problems than others, but I have used Zeiss for years not ONCE and I believe they are a very good value and quite reliable. As far as the Nikon Monarch X I would spend the money on the Zeiss first everytime. Nikon is a good company and offers great products, but I personally feel the Zeiss is hands down a better scope than the Nikon Monarch X. The Nikon is more a level below the Zeiss and Leupold.
Edited by Chris Farris II - August/06/2009 at 14:47 |
|||
One day your life will flash before your eyes; Make sure it's worth watching.
|
|||
Chris Farris II
TEAM SWFA - Admin MODERATOR Joined: August/13/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Gray did you own the VX-3 or the VX-III? The Zeiss and the VX-3 are close and pretty comparable especially since Leupold upgraded the glass and added an additional erector spring in the new VX-3 where the old VX-III did not. The VX-III is comparable to a Nikon Monarch or Bushnell Elite 4200. The new and improved VX-3 is more comparable to a Zeiss Conquest.
|
|||
One day your life will flash before your eyes; Make sure it's worth watching.
|
|||
tjtjwdad
Optics Journeyman Joined: December/11/2007 Status: Offline Points: 365 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Roger that regarding the VX-3 vs Zeiss Conquest.
I have no experience with any Bushnell or the VX-III. The Monarch is a good choice for the $$$ but are not in the same class as the VX-3 or Conquest.
HTH
|
|||
Oldtrader3
Optics Journeyman Joined: May/16/2009 Location: WA (state) Status: Offline Points: 445 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
The Bushnell 4200, the Nikon Monarch and the VX-3 Leupold all have claims of 95% light transmission. This factoid of marketing does not tell much about scope contrast index, or sharpness, parallax or color rendition, it tells only about total light transmission through the scope.
Is that light atactic or scattered? It also does not say anything about parallax control in higher power scopes, with or without AO and AO parallax effectiveness on scopes over about 12x. Really the light transmission is only a rough indication of scope relative brightness. Sharpness, color rendition and contrast are the attributes that make great scopes. Ruggedness and W&E dial setting accuracy are the other important parameters. If you have all that, you have a great scope.
The scope market has not reached the market maturity yet to statistically and objectively evaluate one company against the other, with double blind, no holds barred statistical performance standards. The scope companies do not want that scutiny because then the truth comes out and the marketing stories become just that, stories. Which they are anyhow! Edited by Oldtrader3 - August/09/2009 at 22:27 |
|||
CDR3
|
|||
trigger29
Optics Master Extraordinaire X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ? Joined: September/29/2007 Location: South Dakota Status: Offline Points: 4353 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." |
|||
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I don't own the Monarch but I am looking at one as well. FWIW, I own a VX-II, VX-III and a Mark 4. I bought the Mark 4 as an upgrade to the VX-III only to find they use the same glass. I called Leupold to ask when they will be upgrading the Mark 4 to VX-3 glass and was told they have no plans to because "the only way to tell any real difference in clarity and light transmission between the VX-III and VX-3 glass is in the lab with specialized equipment".
Don't get me wrong, Leupolds are super rugged and have a great warranty, but there are scopes out there with much better glass for less money. I have found alot of Leupold to Nikon converts on different forums so I'm going to take my cahnces and give them a try.
|
|||
Oldtrader3
Optics Journeyman Joined: May/16/2009 Location: WA (state) Status: Offline Points: 445 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I noticed in the Leupold manufacturing video that they appeared to be examining the concentric Newtonian rings of the scope's individual lens to verify if the scope's lenses were aligned which would assure transmition and focusing of the light properly. If I was seeing this correctly? This was being done by a human machine operator with a light table on a sampling basis. I wonder how accurate this system is in assuring parallel lens elements?
|
|||
CDR3
|
|||
Chris Farris II
TEAM SWFA - Admin MODERATOR Joined: August/13/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Edited by Chris Farris II - August/11/2009 at 14:11 |
|||
One day your life will flash before your eyes; Make sure it's worth watching.
|
|||
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Chris - Thanks for the input. What got me was the fact that Leupold said they would not be changing the glass in the mark 4. So, in you opinion, are the vx-3 models a better scope now than the mark 4 LR/T? Would it be correct to assume that you compared the Monarch to the VX-3 outside of the store and in real field conditions? Even with the VX-3 glass being better, do you feel that the VX-3 4.5-14x40 LR VH worth the twice the cost of Nikon Monarch 4-16x42SF mil dot?
If I'm going to spend over $600, would the Sightron 4.5-14x44 SII Big Sky mil dot be a better optical value?
|
|||
Chris Farris II
TEAM SWFA - Admin MODERATOR Joined: August/13/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Chris - Thanks for the input. What got me was the fact that Leupold said they would not be changing the glass in the mark 4. So, in you opinion, are the vx-3 models a better scope now than the mark 4 LR/T? Comparing Apples to oranges here. The VX-3 is ten times a better deal for the Money than a VX-III. The mark 4's have a little more tactical features.
Would it be correct to assume that you compared the Monarch to the VX-3 outside of the store and in real field conditions? Yes along with the Zeiss conquest. I think the new VX-3 is better than the Nikon and close to the Zeiss conquest
Even with the VX-3 glass being better, do you feel that the VX-3 4.5-14x40 LR VH worth the twice the cost of Nikon Monarch 4-16x42SF mil dot? That is a question only you can answer. there is a certain point where you spend alot more money say double the money for only a 25% increase. Make sense? Kind of like Swarovski is a Swarovski Z6 2-3 times better than a Zeiss conquest? No but it is better. Unfortunately when you get into the good stuff you have to pay a substantial amount more to get it.
If I'm going to spend over $600, would the Sightron 4.5-14x44 SII Big Sky mil dot be a better optical value? Yes and maybe even throw in the 3-9 SSV in the Mix and be done with it. 3-9 First Focal Plane Mil dot with Mil clicks windange and elevation.. Edited by Chris Farris II - August/11/2009 at 14:53 |
|||
One day your life will flash before your eyes; Make sure it's worth watching.
|
|||
Chris Farris II
TEAM SWFA - Admin MODERATOR Joined: August/13/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
One day your life will flash before your eyes; Make sure it's worth watching.
|
|||
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Thanks again for all the info Chris. I've heard so many folks say they can't tell the difference between the VX-3 and VX-III I didn't bother to look at them. I agree, it is hard to judge how much improvement you are getting for the extra money. For me a 25% improvement for $250 is worth it, a 10% improvement is not. Just trying to find that point on the curve of where you get diminishing returns for the money spent. I have a Mark 44-14x40 LR/T and just feel that I could have done better for the money. It sounds like the Zeiss Conquest is top on your list in that price range, guess I should have looked at them over the mark 4. What are your thoughts on that Sightron? I hear excellent things on how much better the SIII is than the Mark 4, but nothing on the Big Sky SII.If SWFA would make the SS in a 4-16x42 all my problems would be solved!
|
|||
Oldtrader3
Optics Journeyman Joined: May/16/2009 Location: WA (state) Status: Offline Points: 445 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I think that you get the first 90% of perfromance for the first 90% of optimal cost. Then you get the other 10% performance for the other 90% of cost. In other words, 10% incremental improvement for double the cost!
|
|||
CDR3
|
|||
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
oldtrader3 - I was afraid of that....
|
|||
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
We'll, I went to Sportman's today and checked out the VX-3, Nikon Monarch, Bushnell 6500 and the Zeiss Conquest. First, I have to disagree with you on the VX-3 being a major improvement over the VX-III. Yes, they improved clarity and contrast but, to my eyes, they are lacking in the brightness department. I will agree with the Forum's 2009 Scope List that the 6500 is a step above the VX-3,not a huge step but overall a more optically well rounded scope. What I did not like about the 6500 was the length, weight and most importantly eye relief. I will, however, go back in a couple of weeks and try them again.
Maybe it was the flourescent light, maybe my mind was playing tricks on me but I was really imnpressed with the optics of the Zeiss. It seemed like the best of both worlds between the VX-3 and 6500. What's your take on the Conquest? Why is it rated so low on the Forum Scope List?
|
|||
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
|||
fireroad
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/04/2009 Location: Idaho Status: Offline Points: 85 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Nice scopes, but way out of my price range and a tad short on power (looking ffor a 4-14x or 16x).
|
|||
Chris Farris II
TEAM SWFA - Admin MODERATOR Joined: August/13/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3196 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
One day your life will flash before your eyes; Make sure it's worth watching.
|
|||
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |