Which optics brands are “alpha”?

[Macintosh]

The term is used a lot, its clear to me that its generally used to describe the absolute top tier of optics based on optical quality—even if other brands are close, these are the brands and qualities that everything else is compared to. I always understood it to include swarovski and the high-end zeiss models, but Im curious what other brands (if any) people include in “alpha”? For instance is leica an alpha brand? Kowa? Meopta? Any other brands? In common usage do people use it to describe rifle scopes, or only binos and spotters?

 

[JohnJohnson]

For riflescopes it's usually not brand when it comes to alpha optical quality, it's a brand + model thing. As well as a usage question. I'll list what are widely regarded as alpha tier riflescopes (optically speaking) as far as I know for long range. And the two that seem (by popular consensus) to stand above all the others are Tangent Theta and ZCO, with TT being the best.

Tangent Theta - All of them. And the 7-35 is likely the best optical quality on the market.
Zero Compromise - All of them
Hensoldt - This is a weird one since they've faded from relevance and don't care about the US market
Schmidt & Bender - Their PMII scopes used to be the shining example but others have caught up. By all accounts the S&B 6-36x56 is alpha tier optically. Better than NF 7-35x56 and Razor G3 6-36x56. Especially the European version without the restricted FOV. For low light hunting, the Polar line of scopes is regarded as the best low-light scopes on the market.
Kahles - This is tricky but their new K328i almost certainly qualifies. Freakish monstrosity that it is.
Minox - Their ZP5 series probably fits the bill.
Nightforce - The ATACR 7-35 is probably the only one.
Leica - The Magnus line of scopes apparently rivals the S&B Polar series as the best low light optics available. But that line of scopes isn't sold in the US due to patent issues with Swarovski which sucks.
March - Very unfamiliar with March since they're more popular with benchrest guys but I'm sure some of them would fit the bill of alpha.
Vortex - The only one which is borderline is the Razor G3 6-36 and even then it'd be a stretch.

As far as Swarovski their scopes just have such a bad reputation on all the parts of the scope that aren't glass so I have almost no familiarity with them. I'm sure some of them are amazing optically but I'm not familiar with any serious LR shooters who use them.

 

[JGRaider]

Since a scope's job is to steer bullets to POA, I consider glass a secondary consideration. As to binoculars (I'm an optics junky), there's so much brand bias it's hard to get people to agree on what is "alpha" nowadays. I own/have owned lots of binoculars including the big 3. There are so many high class binos today, I consider ergonomics to rank right up there in importance to optical ability of a bino. If it doesn't fit your face, hands, etc you're not going to get the most out of a particular binocular. I personally would put Meopta Meostar right up there with the best. A GPO HD, Maven B1, and Vortex UHD are as well, and I quit chasing the absolute highest class glass performance a few years ago because of it.

 

[Macintosh]

Yah, agree with you guys on the scope thing, thats why I said alpha is usually in reference only to optical quality—I think. The question is about the WORD “alpha” as it is commonly applied to optics. When you use the WORDS “alpha optics” what exactly are you talking about?
—Do you use it to apply to scopes or just bino/spotters?
—Are you referring to a quality level, or are you referring to specific “heritage” brands?
—What brands do you include in your grouping of “alpha”?

Also what is the “big 3”? Swaro, zeiss, ??

 

[jfk69]

Leica is the third “alpha” I find it funny you include Zeiss above Leica when I think most folks talk Swaro and Leica as the top dogs in bino’s with Zeiss a bit behind those two.

 

[Dos Perros]

The Zeiss Victory HT's are incredible, and in some ways better than the comparable Swaros. They are absolutely 'alpha.'

 

[JohnJohnson]

—Do you use it to apply to scopes or just bino/spotters?

People commonly talk about alpha tier scopes in LR. The ones I listed all are referred to as alpha, with TT/ZCO being the alpha of the alpha.

—Are you referring to a quality level, or are you referring to specific “heritage” brands?

For me it's a quality level. Some heritage brands like Hensoldt aren't even relevant anymore.

—What brands do you include in your grouping of “alpha”?

See above for LR scopes. For binos I think people generally agree Swarovski is the top dog, especially the NL Pure line. Which is a shame because I'd like to avoid buying their stuff due to their FOV patent behavior. But man my EL 10x50s are just so good for me especially as a glasses wearer. I wish the 10x50 binos got more love in other top bino brands.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Alpha: A term without clear definition, qualifying limitations, or specific technical specifications to describe high quality optics.

Used to be pretty much just the Euro top 3 for binos/spotters. It’s reluctantly accepted by snobs that some others have firmly entered the chat (mostly Japanese). It seems the acceptance into the club is more based on price than anything else now.

 

[Macintosh]

Leica is the third “alpha” I find it funny you include Zeiss above Leica when I think most folks talk Swaro and Leica as the top dogs in bino’s with Zeiss a bit behind those two.

Thank you. And it may very well be funny, if thats at me Im fine with it—I asked because while I generally know how the term is used Ive never been sure what the nuance is of exactly what is and isnt included. I also see that there is enough individuality in optics thats its probably not fair to consider it a “ranking” except that any alpha product could be considered “the best”, depending…my mentioning zeiss and not leica is only my unfamiliarity with how this term is thrown around. And it seems some people use the term differently, hence my question.

 

[jfk69]

Understood. Someone else said, in the “traditional” usage for binos and spotters, those three brands were alpha glass. I agree it’s very personal. My eyes love Leica’s, while Swaro’s have a bit of yellow tint to me and Zeiss a bit of blue tint. My Leica’s also have “warmer” colors to me. At the end of the day though, all three are incredible glass, but the gap has narrowed with some other companies optics.

 

[Maverick1]

This one has got to be right up there. Surprised no one has jumped on it yet.

 

[Hotmail]

I already tried way too many different Optics brands and models to date including an Alpha Swarovski Spotting scope which didn't get along with my eyes unfortunately and Leica and two NL Pures which I recently bought. All I can say is the SIG ZULU 10 and Maven B5 and Kowa Genesis Prominar XD with fluorite glass are plenty good enough without having to spend more than double their MSRPs to buy an NL Pure. Still wanting to buy one each of the 10x42 and 8x32 NL Pures though. I collect Binoculars to keep the really good ones some I even have multiples of. I don't think I can afford to buy multiples of each magnification NL Pures though which is what I usually do to check for sample variance with most other Binoculars I buy. You'd be really surprised some are really noticeably better than others optically within exact same model and magnification.

I think I must have gotten a pick of the litter regarding my ZULU 10 10x50 because optically it's nearly neck and neck with my NL Pures and literally next level up in optics compared to my Maven B5s and Kowa Genesis Prominar XD with fluorite glass but these SIGs have noticeably more POP. I'm really antsy to buy a 10x42 NL Pure to do a side by side with this ZULU 10.

When I say plenty good enough meaning the huge difference in price most times I feel may not be worth it for negligible performance upgrades.

Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 for example I first thought was decent not fantastic didn't wow me honestly for $999 regular price but I paid less buying used with zero warranty support after the fact which I still feel sick about not doing my due diligence about Nikon's non transferrable warranty prior to purchasing it from the original owner. Also bought a used pick of the litter Chinese Vortex Viper HD 10x50 previous owner stated alpha quality glass that's better and clearer than the Nikon Monarch HG he compared it against and very similar to his Alphas in image clarity and it's actually really close in clarity to my Nikon MHGs except for the noticeable chromatic aberration in the Vipers they're surprisingly unbelievably close. Even the $100 (not referring them as $50-$65 anymore since they went up in price) ScoopX UHDs are optically close to the MHGs in fact noticeably better than the $450 Monarch M7. So in this example for a $100 ScoopX UHD vs $1000 MHG both don't have any more warranty support same same. During the daylight hours you'd be hard pressed to really notice the difference except the MHG is easier to focus quickly when compared side by side you'd be really scratching your heads trying to see a $900 price difference and even considering China vs Japan. At least you only toss $100 into the trash if they break and not $1000. I think if you aren't sensitive to chromatic aberration just buy 10 of the 10x50 Viper HDs and only keep the clearest one and return the rest for refund. I'm actually not a Vortex Binoculars fan but this Viper HD made me think again and in fact I just bought another way more expensive Vortex after that.

 

[jfk69]

I already tried way too many different Optics brands and models to date including an Alpha Swarovski Spotting scope which didn't get along with my eyes unfortunately and Leica and two NL Pures which I recently bought. All I can say is the SIG ZULU 10 and Maven B5 and Kowa Genesis Prominar XD with fluorite glass are plenty good enough without having to spend more than double their MSRPs to buy an NL Pure. Still wanting to buy one each of the 10x42 and 8x32 NL Pures though. I collect Binoculars to keep the really good ones some I even have multiples of. I don't think I can afford to buy multiples of each magnification NL Pures though which is what I usually do to check for sample variance with most other Binoculars I buy. You'd be really surprised some are really noticeably better than others optically within exact same model and magnification.

I think I must have gotten a pick of the litter regarding my ZULU 10 10x50 because optically it's nearly neck and neck with my NL Pures and literally next level up in optics compared to my Maven B5s and Kowa Genesis Prominar XD with fluorite glass but these SIGs have noticeably more POP. I'm really antsy to buy a 10x42 NL Pure to do a side by side with this ZULU 10.

When I say plenty good enough meaning the huge difference in price most times I feel may not be worth it for negligible performance upgrades.

Nikon Monarch HG 10x42 for example I first thought was decent not fantastic didn't wow me honestly for $999 regular price but I paid less buying used with zero warranty support after the fact which I still feel sick about not doing my due diligence about Nikon's non transferrable warranty prior to purchasing it from the original owner. Also bought a used pick of the litter Chinese Vortex Viper HD 10x50 previous owner stated alpha quality glass that's better and clearer than the Nikon Monarch HG he compared it against and very similar to his Alphas in image clarity and it's actually really close in clarity to my Nikon MHGs except for the noticeable chromatic aberration in the Vipers they're surprisingly unbelievably close. Even the $100 (not referring them as $50-$65 anymore since they went up in price) ScoopX UHDs are optically close to the MHGs in fact noticeably better than the $450 Monarch M7. So in this example for a $100 ScoopX UHD vs $1000 MHG both don't have any more warranty support same same. During the daylight hours you'd be hard pressed to really notice the difference except the MHG is easier to focus quickly when compared side by side you'd be really scratching your heads trying to see a $900 price difference and even considering China vs Japan. At least you only toss $100 into the trash if they break and not $1000. I think if you aren't sensitive to chromatic aberration just buy 10 of the 10x50 Viper HDs and only keep the clearest one and return the rest for refund. I'm actually not a Vortex Binoculars fan but this Viper HD made me think again and in fact I just bought another way more expensive Vortex after that.

That’s nice. That didn’t answer the OP’s question.

 

[Hotmail]

That’s nice. That didn’t answer the OP’s question.

Swarovski Zeiss Leica Meopta Nightforce March Tangent Theta ZCO S&B Kahles

 

[IDVortex]

Leupolds......


I'll be reading this thread, looks like some interesting conversation to gain some knowledge on the subject.

Besides the mechanical parts of the optics, wouldn't glass be more user specific just due to the nature of a person's eyes being different from one to another, or is there a more dominant alpha glass? I'm not comparing a vortex diamondback glass to a swavo, but of each level of quailty of optic.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

That’s nice. That didn’t answer the OP’s question.

That profile is either a buggy AI or a dude pretending to be a buggy AI. Ignore button is the real MVP.

 

[Spiral Horn]

The title “Alpha” in terms of binoculars has been around for quite some time. It traditionally meant those brands/models with their own in-house manufacturing operation producing product lines offering consistent optical excellence, exceptional build quality and the best materials, as well as durability. These were often synonymous with trend-setting design. To a lesser degree this also considered brand prestige. This usually meant premium models from Leica and Zeiss as they were the first to offer “phase corrected” premium roof-prism designs combined with the best glass. Later, Swarovski joined the club. Some also consider the Nikon EDG an Alpha.

Now, decades later the moniker “Alpha” still has some prestige but nowhere near what it used to. Others have been able to develop very good optical designs and Zeiss and Ohara make their glass widely available. The explosion of OEM manufacture make it possible for just about anyone to contract Kamakura/LOW to build a high quality optic that they market under a unique name.

Still today, the premium models of Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica bow to nobody for their optical excellence, materials/component/build quality and durability. Although the mid grades have closed ground the true “Alphas” still offer a bit more highly refined optical device.

 

[TheWhitetailNut]

Alpha Glass- You know you have it when you don't have to brag about how awesome the warranty is.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

For glass quality in binoculars and spotting scopes?

Probably Swarovski, Kowa, Leica, Ziess,...maybe more?

 

[flatelk]

I really like my Nightforce. In full disclosure. Fit, feel, function, image quality, etc. I like moa scopes and go with a simple moa graduated cross. No Christmas tree’s. I also really like their zero stop.