Low light scope expectations. How much better are they than the Leica I might return?

[Tl15]

I never bought a Polar because I demand illuminated reticles for hunting black pigs in dark brush and the ridiculously stupid seperate illumination control that S&B uses confounds mounting the scope easily and looks incredibly impractical. When they fix that, I would consider buying one just to see what the fuss is about.

As to the Magnus, if you go by the product literature, the Fortis actually surpasses the Magnus line now in theoretical performance. That tracks considering how old the Magnus design is.

 

[KenLee]

A couple weeks ago europtic had some of the t96 marked way down. I’m not sure how the glass in the Leica er5 compares to the amplus but, I have a er5 4x20x50 & a leupold vx5hd 3x15x56. The vx5hd is the better low light & through the magnification range.

ER5 3-15x56 is just as good with light as the same VX5 HD, and more dependable. Amplus is a little better and has illumination.

 

[stevevan]

ER5 3-15x56 is just as good with light as the same VX5 HD, and more dependable. Amplus is a little better and has illumination.

Guess my experience is different. I have 3 of the 3.5-15x50 Leica Amplus6 scopes and they work real well past legal shooting light.

 

[KenLee]

Guess my experience is different. I have 3 of the 3.5-15x50 Leica Amplus6 scopes and they work real well past legal shooting light.

What did I say that was different than your experience?

 

[ChrisAU]

I used a 50mm Amplus 6 some last season and looked through a 56mm on a friends rifle. I can't fathom anything being noticeably better to the point that a no-shot scenario becomes a dead animal.

 

[Spoobs]

This thread might give you some ideas:

Low light comparison of 17 scopes

There are always constant threads of discussions about “glass”, low light use, etc of scopes here. The last couple of week I have gotten many more questions about it (due I believe to SWFA being back in stock), so while working with a couple of scopes on other things, I brought out 10 different...

rokslide.com

lol, I'm exactly his audience. The only model I see in here that's consistently highly recommended for low light from my research is the S&B 8x56. It's interesting to see this users report: "Conclusions at legal sunset: “glass” differences in the timber made no difference in ability to make a shot- none whatsoever with these scopes. Reticles however, made a very large difference."

If the 8x56 is a good as people say, it's likely the more premium optics are going to be similar.

If you don’t need to dial for range, the 8x56 Schmidt and Bender is as good as it gets.
The 2-10 Trijicon would be my best bang for buck pick. We can legally hunt one hour after legal sunset here in SC, and the Trijicon is a very popular scope for guys trying to stay in the stand till the very last minute.

Honestly I don't really care about BDC for my hunting rifle. I'd be lucky to get an opportunity to shoot pass 200 yards. The 8x fixed zoom is a problem for me tho, I suspect I'll mostly be around the 2-6x zoom range as I want large FOV.

Can you still get the magnus in the US?

Not from a retail distributor. I've seen one on gunjoker with the zeiss rail mount option, and there was a user here who had one for sale in the classifieds about 6 months ago. Pretty rare I see these on second hand sites.

 

[Spoobs]

Can’t buy your way around physics. Exit pupil is everything. All the bigger objective is buying you is the ability to run higher magnification at the same apparent brightness.

That said, coatings and light transmission DO make an objective difference in the last few minutes, but that’s really what we are talking about here, minutes.

Interesting, I was under the impression objective size collects more light and thus results in a brighter image. The Amplus 6 2.5-15x56 has the same exit pupil as the 2.5-15x50 at the lowest magnification (11.6mm) and at max magnification the exit pupil is 3.7mm and 3.4mm respectively. The difference doesn't seem that huge and I honestly only seeing myself using magnification above 10x at the range in daylight. If this is true I may have been better off getting the x50 so I can get lower rings.

54 or 56mm Polar at 2-3x the price is your choice if you need better low light performance than a 56mm Amplus.

I got the Amplus 6 for $1179+tax, with the T96 on sale their price difference has never been so close. If they are getting discontinued it's possible they may go on clearance, but not before my return window on the Amplus runs out.

if you go by the product literature, the Fortis actually surpasses the Magnus line now in theoretical performance. That tracks considering how old the Magnus design is.

The magnus was on my radar first. I had an unjustifiable bias to try a Leica, one of the reasons I got the Amplus to begin with. It really is the best scope I've ever looked through, but I guess my expectation for low light was really high. The fortis has the same availability situation in the states as the magnus unfortunately. No US distributor offers them, I heard it was because of patent infringement but I never looked deeper to confirm this story so take that with a heavy grain of salt.

I used a 50mm Amplus 6 some last season and looked through a 56mm on a friends rifle. I can't fathom anything being noticeably better to the point that a no-shot scenario becomes a dead animal.

Your friend had the 56 version of your scope? Was there any brightness differences at low magnification?

 

[Southern Lights]

Square area of a circle shows potential here as a rough guide:

50 mm Objective Area: Approximately 1963.5 mm^2
56 mm Objective Area: Approximately 2463.0 mm^2
Increase in Light Gathering (56 mm vs. 50 mm): About 25% more.

If you want best low light, ignoring other factors, look at larger objective first. It's always possible the rest of the scope design compromises the objective size light gathering, but all else equal: Aperture wins.

Second factor is going to be using low magnification. With telescopes, higher magnification results in a dimmer view even on large aperture scopes.

 

[Mtank79]

If you can, tell me the secret

I second that, I was trying to find out his secret.

 

[Mtank79]

Can’t buy your way around physics. Exit pupil is everything. All the bigger objective is buying you is the ability to run higher magnification at the same apparent brightness. It’s all equal once the exit pupil size exceeds your dilated pupil.

That said, coatings and light transmission DO make an objective difference in the last few minutes, but that’s really what we are talking about here, minutes. An extra $2k might buy you 5-6 minutes, but you’d be better off spending that money on a second hand set of Swarovski EL’s or Zeiss SF’s and have some left over for a tank of gas and a good steak. That was ultimately what I did. Bought a pair of SF’s and capped scope purchases at $1,200. That’ll get you good quality European glass with illumination. I live in my binos, the scope is just to park the dim red dot on the vitals of the predesignated animal. It has completely changed the game in how nice my hunts are now, and eased pressure on my bank account.

I’ve got an Amplus, it just bumps past the V4’s to my eye, but it’s not a profound jump. Both beat out the VX5-HD series and Trijicon Credos. Both fall under the V6, but that’s to be expected. I’ve got a Steiner H6Xi that is going on a whitetail hunt with me this weekend. I’ll have a good eval of it versus the V6 when I’m back.

I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the h6xi. It’s on my list for a possibility. My top 3 options swaro x5i 3.5x18x50, zeiss v6 3x18x50, Steiner h6xi 3x18x50.

 

[Tl15]

Square area of a circle shows potential here as a rough guide:

50 mm Objective Area: Approximately 1963.5 mm^2
56 mm Objective Area: Approximately 2463.0 mm^2
Increase in Light Gathering (56 mm vs. 50 mm): About 25% more.

If you want best low light, ignoring other factors, look at larger objective first. It's always possible the rest of the scope design compromises the objective size light gathering, but all else equal: Aperture wins.

Second factor is going to be using low magnification. With telescopes, higher magnification results in a dimmer view even on large aperture scopes.

That’s not how that works optically however. The area of the objective is only relevant in calculating the exit pupil and matching it to the pupil size of the dilated eye. The average guy’s pupil will dilate to 7-8mm in very low light. As long as the exit pupil of the scope matches that size, there is nothing more to be gained from a larger objective. Exit pupil is simply objective diameter divided by magnification power. Therefore, a 56mm scope will give you a 7mm exit pupil at 8x magnification. A 50 will give you the same apparent brightness at ~7x, and a 42mm will give you the same apparent brightness at 6x magnification. All the images will look equally bright because the cone of light entering the eye covers the entire pupillary opening. At any mag lower than 6x, all of these will look the same despite the differing objective sizes. A 56mm comes into its own when you need 8x magnification, like hunting over ag fields or long timber/brush cuts. If you’re hunting at 100yd and in, you really don’t need that much zoom and can get away with a smaller objective and lighter scope.

If you are implying that total light entering the optic directly equals apparent brightness, I would really hate looking through a big spotter during midday sun, and I’d start a scope company, slap a 100mm bell on the end of a tube and crown myself low light king.

 

[Southern Lights]

That’s not how that works optically however. The area of the objective is only relevant in calculating the exit pupil and matching it to the pupil size of the dilated eye. The average guy’s pupil will dilate to 7-8mm in very low light. As long as the exit pupil of the scope matches that size, there is nothing more to be gained from a larger objective. Exit pupil is simply objective diameter divided by magnification power. Therefore, a 56mm scope will give you a 7mm exit pupil at 8x magnification. A 50 will give you the same apparent brightness at ~7x, and a 42mm will give you the same apparent brightness at 6x magnification. All the images will look equally bright because the cone of light entering the eye covers the entire pupillary opening. At any mag lower than 6x, all of these will look the same despite the differing objective sizes. A 56mm comes into its own when you need 8x magnification, like hunting over ag fields or long timber/brush cuts. If you’re hunting at 100yd and in, you really don’t need that much zoom and can get away with a smaller objective and lighter scope.

Yes and as we age ability for the pupil to dilate goes down also. The objective and magnification are both in play and I wasn't clear. The larger objective though is able to collect more photons and also produce more contrast which is something the human eye also perceives as a better/brighter image.

ClarkVision: Visual Astronomy: M51 and Telescope Aperture

If it's so dark that I think a larger objective is going to fix things, I'm going to thermal/IR dual mode which is safer as I can positively identify what I'm shooting at without any guess work. Again though I understand if this is not legal for some people. But if it is, I would just go that route.

 

[Spoobs]

That’s not how that works optically however. The area of the objective is only relevant in calculating the exit pupil and matching it to the pupil size of the dilated eye. The average guy’s pupil will dilate to 7-8mm in very low light. As long as the exit pupil of the scope matches that size, there is nothing more to be gained from a larger objective. Exit pupil is simply objective diameter divided by magnification power. Therefore, a 56mm scope will give you a 7mm exit pupil at 8x magnification. A 50 will give you the same apparent brightness at ~7x, and a 42mm will give you the same apparent brightness at 6x magnification. All the images will look equally bright because the cone of light entering the eye covers the entire pupillary opening. At any mag lower than 6x, all of these will look the same despite the differing objective sizes. A 56mm comes into its own when you need 8x magnification, like hunting over ag fields or long timber/brush cuts. If you’re hunting at 100yd and in, you really don’t need that much zoom and can get away with a smaller objective and lighter scope.

If you are implying that total light entering the optic directly equals apparent brightness, I would really hate looking through a big spotter during midday sun, and I’d start a scope company, slap a 100mm bell on the end of a tube and crown myself low light king.

Yes and as we age ability for the pupil to dilate goes down also. The objective and magnification are both in play and I wasn't clear. The larger objective though is able to collect more photons and also produce more contrast which is something the human eye also perceives as a better/brighter image.

Thank you for this, I learned a thing. Ended up listening to optics videos last night before bed trying to get a better understanding. Most scope guide sources easily found through search engines or YouTube I came across gloss over the nuanced relationship between exit pupil, magnification, brightness, and eyebox. Came across plenty of sources making statements without a detailed explanation of why. Most commonly from my search experience being "exit pupil above 8mm is wasted," which is only true in certain context as large exit pupil aids with eyebox.

Knowing this, for my terrain I would feel comfortable including x50 objectives if it means I can get better lens quality/ coatings at a cheaper price point. The real dark areas arent going past 175yd, but averages around 100yd. Anything beyond that distance is meadow/field which which at max can get up to 400yd, averaging 300yd, but now I don't have timber cover blocking light. Any extra magnification beyond this point is range fun unless I move to other hunting grounds.

I am curious though how manufactures get thier data regarding their advertised exit pupil. With the standard exit pupil formula being (objective lens diameter / magnification), I notice many datasheets claim max exit pupil diameter far below the calculated exit pupil, but its very common for minimum exit pupil to match the formula. My guess is that they use measured values and the scope design results in exit pupil loss, but maybe they have the ability to bias any loss towards low magnification where it's far less important. I'd like to know for sure though.
EX:
Amplus 6 2.5-15x56: 11.6-3.7
Meostar R2 2-12x50 : 11.2-4.3
Swaro Z5 2.4-12x50 : 10-4.1

 

[Southern Lights]

I suspect it varies due to internal lens configurations. But this is just a guess. The larger exit pupil definitely helps with critical eye relief when dark. You'll have more leeway for shooting in weird positions. Ultimately, you'll have to play with the scopes at different mag ranges to see which your eye perceives as better. For me, I like really low 3-4X mag range in dim light. More mag helps a bit with detail in fading light, but at some point it's just too dark.

EDIT: I forgot to add that on a telescope the objective size is a big component, but the eyepiece can make or break the image. A bad eyepiece can make a 16" scope look really bad and good eyepiece make a 6" scope look better. With rifle scopes you'll see see the same thing. I'm guessing here, but I'd avoid really big mag ranges if I wanted a scope that did well in low light. I'd want a fixed power or low mag range eyepiece on the end.

 

[Tl15]

I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the h6xi. It’s on my list for a possibility. My top 3 options swaro x5i 3.5x18x50, zeiss v6 3x18x50, Steiner h6xi 3x18x50.

I took 5 scopes out with me on my hunt this weekend,

1. Steiner H6Xi 3-18x50 w/ MHR reticle
2. Zeiss V6 3-18x50 w/ zmoa-2
3. Zeiss V4 4-16x50 w/ illum zmoa-1
4. Leica Amplus 6 2.5-15x50 w/ L-ballistic
5. Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15x42 w/ MOA center

Hunted from elevated box blinds, scope level ~11ft above the ground. First box faces 30 degrees into rising morning sun and is a real test for glare control after 8:30am. Shot opportunity to 95 yards. Second box sits over a 6 acre food plot, maximum shot opportunity ~225yds also with challenging morning sun. Second box also has a 450 yard shot down one of my roads flanked by medium/heavy cover. This lane is north facing, and very shadowy. Aside from direct comparison against each other, I used my Zeiss SF 10x42 binos as a standard reference point for all. From best to worst, I rank below.

1. Steiner H6Xi
2. Leica Amplus 6
3. Zeiss V4
4. Zeiss V6
5. Trijicon Credo HX

The Steiner was far and away optically superior to the other 4 scopes tested this weekend in EVERY category. The glass and coatings are truly impressive. Image is incredibly crisp. It's almost fake news how sharp and how much contrast this optic presents. Image is very bright, and the color rendition very neutral. I had to actively try to get even the slightest bit of glare, spotting, or coating reflection to show up in the field of view. Truly impressive. The reticle really needs to be run at 8x minimum mag to be useful though, but this is expected from a FFP optic and can be overcome easily by flipping on the illumination. Depth of field was also top of this heap. The SF’s binos are arguably the best available at this, and they showed it, but for a riflescope, the Steiner was a surprise. Lastly, the field of view is enormous. At equal magnifications, it outclasses the others handily. Aside from the fact it weighs one metric sh*t-ton, I can't find a single fault with this optic. None.

The Leica Amplus is just a great lineup. I still maintain it is the best all arounder out there right now. It will get you 85% of the optical performance of the Steiner in a lighter package with great warranty. I am also partial to its color presentation over all others, Steiner included. They are a no brainer at $1,000 or less.

Both the Amplus and the V4 only lead the V6 for 2 reasons, which may, or may not be important to you. The first, is the V6’s lack of illumination. For me, this has become a non-negotiable feature. If you don't night hunt, or shoot dark/black colored animals in very low light, throw this objection out the window. Second, Zeiss really blew it with glare control on the V6’s. Facing into any kind of sun, it's like looking into a scope filled with red Christmas lights. It's truly unacceptable performance for a scope in this price range. If you hunt in shade, or have the sun at your back, throw this issue out as well and stick with the V6. Other than that, the glass is fantastic and a joy to look through. Of note, it does have a slight green hue which is noticeable against some backgrounds while the V4 is more neutral. The V4 is a great scope, but lags behind the Leica just a little bit across the board. That said, you can get V4's all day long for $800 or less and there simply isn't a better value proposition going these days.

The Trijicon was more of a just for fun addition. It never actually had a chance against the others from an optical point of view. It really was trounced pretty bad in all categories except glare control. It performed admirably here, right there with the Steiner. Don't buy this because it looks good through the glass, buy this because you can run over it with a truck and still have it hold it's zero. It's truly a tool for anyone that is on a hunt that requires absolute reliability or runs an abusive rifle platform. That’s why I have it.

I should note, all scopes took me FAR beyond legal shooting hours out to 100 yards in shadow. That said, from a low light perspective, I would move the V6 up to second place and preserve the rankings from there.

Considering the Steiner is on sale right now for $1,100 at Eurooptic, assuming the weight isn't an issue for you, buying anything else right now is frankly...dumb.

 

[stooxie]

Just for funsies, don't forget about this option that Zeiss keeps a secret in the US:

https://www.woods-n-water.com/zeiss/conquest-v6-2515x56-60-plex-ill-186524

I've been fortunate to try out and own some of the best glass on the planet, at least the traditional stuff. Zeiss Victory HT, Leica Magnus, S&B Polar T96, Meopta R2. I agree with much of what has been said above. Exit pupil matters. It used to be that the high end scopes were only 4X in mag range for a reason-- microscopic exit pupils don't do you much good. Then everything in the US went long distance, and I guess bright sun, and you'd have no problem finding scopes with 2mm or 3mm exit pupils. Always makes me chuckle, 20X magnification and a 40mm objective lens. Nightforce and Vortex.

As for which is best? You just kinda have to try them out because there will always be a subjective factor to it. As many have said above, it's not hard to find a mid-level scope that will take you long past last legal light. After that, choices get more subtle.

For example, and this is just my opinion, I was comparing my Zeiss Victory HT 3-12x56 to my Polar T96 3-12x54. I believe the T96 might just be the best glass in the world (and Leica Magnus is right up there), BUT.... the image size SUCKS compared to the Victory HT. The image on the HT is huge and the eyepiece disappears when you look through it. Maybe due to this Swarovski patent stuff I keep hearing about. So... for me, I still give the nod to the Victory HT.

BUT, as the saying goes, would you throw any of them out of bed for spilling crumbs? No way. The S&B T96 is still a joyous phenomenon to witness.

FWIW, the Leica Magnus and Victory HT are equally breathtaking, to my eye.

At some point you stop looking for the "best" and pick one that suits your eye and your tastes and you go with that.

-Stooxie

 

[stooxie]

Somebody buy these last two scopes for retail sale in the US:

https://www.greentop.com/zeiss-victory-ht-3-12x56-riflescope/

Date of manufacture is 2022.

Then I can stop wondering how they are even available for sale.

-Stooxie

 

[KenLee]

I took 5 scopes out with me on my hunt this weekend,

1. Steiner H6Xi 3-18x50 w/ MHR reticle
2. Zeiss V6 3-18x50 w/ zmoa-1
3. Zeiss V4 4-16x50 w/ illum zmoa-2
4. Leica Amplus 6 2.5-15x50 w/ L-ballistic
5. Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15x42 w/ MOA center

Hunted from elevated box blinds, scope level ~11ft above the ground. First box faces 30 degrees into rising morning sun and is a real test for glare control after 8:30am. Shot opportunity to 95 yards. Second box sits over a 6 acre food plot, maximum shot opportunity ~225yds also with challenging morning sun. Second box also has a 450 yard shot down one of my roads flanked by medium/heavy cover. This lane is north facing, and very shadowy. Aside from direct comparison against each other, I used my Zeiss SF 10x42 binos as a standard reference point for all. From best to worst, I rank below.

1. Steiner H6Xi
2. Leica Amplus 6
3. Zeiss V4
4. Zeiss V6
5. Trijicon Credo HX

The Steiner was far and away optically superior to the other 4 scopes tested this weekend in EVERY category. The glass and coatings are truly impressive. Image is incredibly crisp. It's almost fake news how sharp and how much contrast this optic presents. Image is very bright, and the color rendition very neutral. I had to actively try to get even the slightest bit of glare, spotting, or coating reflection to show up in the field of view. Truly impressive. The reticle really needs to be run at 8x minimum mag to be useful though, but this is expected from a FFP optic and can be overcome easily by flipping on the illumination. Depth of field was also top of this heap. The SF’s binos are arguably the best available at this, and they showed it, but for a riflescope, the Steiner was a surprise. Lastly, the field of view is enormous. At equal magnifications, it outclasses the others handily. Aside from the fact it weighs one metric sh*t-ton, I can't find a single fault with this optic. None.

The Leica Amplus is just a great lineup. I still maintain it is the best all arounder out there right now. It will get you 85% of the optical performance of the Steiner in a lighter package with great warranty. I am also partial to its color presentation over all others, Steiner included. They are a no brainer at $1,000 or less.

Both the Amplus and the V4 only lead the V6 for 2 reasons, which may, or may not be important to you. The first, is the V6’s lack of illumination. For me, this has become a non-negotiable feature. If you don't night hunt, or shoot dark/black colored animals in very low light, throw this one out the window. Second, Zeiss really blew it with glare control on the V6’s. Facing into any kind of sun, it's like looking into a scope filled with red Christmas lights. It's truly unacceptable performance for a scope in this price range. If you hunt in shade, or have the sun at your back, throw this one out as well and stick with the V6. Other than that, the glass is fantastic and a joy to look through. Of note, it does have a slight green hue which is noticeable against some backgrounds while the V4 is more neutral. The V4 is a great scope, but lags behind the Leica just a little bit across the board. That said, you can get V4's all day long for $800 or less and there simply isn't a better value proposition going these days.

The Trijicon was more of a just for fun addition. It never actually had a chance against the others from an optical point of view. It really was trounced pretty bad in all categories except glare control. It performed admirably here, right there with the Steiner. Don't buy this because it looks good through the glass, buy this because you can run over it with a truck and still have it hold it's zero. It's truly a tool for anyone that is on a hunt that requires absolute reliability or runs an abusive rifle platform. That’s why I have it.

I should note, all scopes took me FAR beyond legal shooting hours out to 100 yards in shadow. That said, from a low light perspective, I would move the V6 up to second place and preserve the rankings from there.

Considering the Steiner is on sale right now for $1,100 at Eurooptic, assuming the weight isn't an issue for you, buying anything else right now is frankly...dumb.

Does the large illuminated area of the reticle not hinder your view in very low light?

 

[Tl15]

Does the large illuminated area of the reticle not hinder your view in very low light?

I thought it might, and I was concerned about that because the illuminated V4 reticle can blow out your sight picture really easily. On their lowest setting, it’s not a problem at all. Much beyond the first two clicks I wouldn’t use unless I needed daytime assistance. My preference among the list is the simple dot that Leica uses. It is perfect on its lowest 2-3 clicks

 

[Mtank79]

I took 5 scopes out with me on my hunt this weekend,

1. Steiner H6Xi 3-18x50 w/ MHR reticle
2. Zeiss V6 3-18x50 w/ zmoa-1
3. Zeiss V4 4-16x50 w/ illum zmoa-2
4. Leica Amplus 6 2.5-15x50 w/ L-ballistic
5. Trijicon Credo HX 2.5-15x42 w/ MOA center

Hunted from elevated box blinds, scope level ~11ft above the ground. First box faces 30 degrees into rising morning sun and is a real test for glare control after 8:30am. Shot opportunity to 95 yards. Second box sits over a 6 acre food plot, maximum shot opportunity ~225yds also with challenging morning sun. Second box also has a 450 yard shot down one of my roads flanked by medium/heavy cover. This lane is north facing, and very shadowy. Aside from direct comparison against each other, I used my Zeiss SF 10x42 binos as a standard reference point for all. From best to worst, I rank below.

1. Steiner H6Xi
2. Leica Amplus 6
3. Zeiss V4
4. Zeiss V6
5. Trijicon Credo HX

The Steiner was far and away optically superior to the other 4 scopes tested this weekend in EVERY category. The glass and coatings are truly impressive. Image is incredibly crisp. It's almost fake news how sharp and how much contrast this optic presents. Image is very bright, and the color rendition very neutral. I had to actively try to get even the slightest bit of glare, spotting, or coating reflection to show up in the field of view. Truly impressive. The reticle really needs to be run at 8x minimum mag to be useful though, but this is expected from a FFP optic and can be overcome easily by flipping on the illumination. Depth of field was also top of this heap. The SF’s binos are arguably the best available at this, and they showed it, but for a riflescope, the Steiner was a surprise. Lastly, the field of view is enormous. At equal magnifications, it outclasses the others handily. Aside from the fact it weighs one metric sh*t-ton, I can't find a single fault with this optic. None.

The Leica Amplus is just a great lineup. I still maintain it is the best all arounder out there right now. It will get you 85% of the optical performance of the Steiner in a lighter package with great warranty. I am also partial to its color presentation over all others, Steiner included. They are a no brainer at $1,000 or less.

Both the Amplus and the V4 only lead the V6 for 2 reasons, which may, or may not be important to you. The first, is the V6’s lack of illumination. For me, this has become a non-negotiable feature. If you don't night hunt, or shoot dark/black colored animals in very low light, throw this objection out the window. Second, Zeiss really blew it with glare control on the V6’s. Facing into any kind of sun, it's like looking into a scope filled with red Christmas lights. It's truly unacceptable performance for a scope in this price range. If you hunt in shade, or have the sun at your back, throw this issue out as well and stick with the V6. Other than that, the glass is fantastic and a joy to look through. Of note, it does have a slight green hue which is noticeable against some backgrounds while the V4 is more neutral. The V4 is a great scope, but lags behind the Leica just a little bit across the board. That said, you can get V4's all day long for $800 or less and there simply isn't a better value proposition going these days.

The Trijicon was more of a just for fun addition. It never actually had a chance against the others from an optical point of view. It really was trounced pretty bad in all categories except glare control. It performed admirably here, right there with the Steiner. Don't buy this because it looks good through the glass, buy this because you can run over it with a truck and still have it hold it's zero. It's truly a tool for anyone that is on a hunt that requires absolute reliability or runs an abusive rifle platform. That’s why I have it.

I should note, all scopes took me FAR beyond legal shooting hours out to 100 yards in shadow. That said, from a low light perspective, I would move the V6 up to second place and preserve the rankings from there.

Considering the Steiner is on sale right now for $1,100 at Eurooptic, assuming the weight isn't an issue for you, buying anything else right now is frankly...dumb.

Soooo have the Zeis’s been kicked to the curb? Will the Steiner be the dedicated hunting scope?