premium vs. new optics- how do you judge ROI and relative quality

[nagibson1]

There are four schools of optics thought on here.
1. what you have is fine. Don't overthink it. Get some Vortex Vipers.
2. You get a lot of glass for $1000 Get some Nikons, conquests, Razor UHD's and so on.
3. Buy the best you can afford. You'll never regret it
4. Buy premium optics used. You get a lot of value.

Can you share your thought on #2 vs #4 relative to the age of the premium bino? For example, how old would a Swaro SLC or EL need to be before you're better off with a new set of Maven's or Conquests? For example, there are EL's that are on Facebook here that are 2008 and 2011's. Should I think the glass on 2008 EL's is better than 2025 Maven B.2's or something in that 1000-1200 range?

Or what about the Conquest HD's vs HDX's? How mush do you think glass quality improves year over year, if at all? IT seems like that would be a significant factor in sustained value of binos.

 

[WRO]

The els were upgraded in 2011 or 12 and are relatively un changed since then, buy them. They’re better than everything you have listed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hereinaz]

3/4 buy a used pair of the best optics you can afford. The newer UHD glass is keeping up and almost indistinguishable from alpha glass for all intents and purposes. But, any alpha glass the last 5-10 years will exceed it on the edges and colors. So, the difference between Razor UHD and Maven and old Alpha glass is much less.