That just points out that, if you’re going to do a fair comparison between brands, you pretty much have to have equal build times and equal price points. To compare something ten years old and a different price point is most likely highly unfair.
I also think one needs to consider the diminishing returns one gets once you hit about 500 bucks. For each noticeable increase in optical performance, youll likely incur a substantially larger increase in cost...this is comparing similar scopes used for the SAME applications. Some times youll see little increase in optical performance, even within the same brand, what you WILL get is better tracking, or lighter weight...stuff like that.
Application matters as well
Honestly I think my Athlon Midas BTR has as good or better optics than my Conquest, and it cost less than 1/2 what the conquest did, BUT its also weights almost double what the conquest does, and is built on a 30mm Tube. I KNOW it has better optics than the FF E1 4.5-14x42 I had, which cost the same, but id take the ff e1 over the Midas for a dedicated hunting rifle, just because of the other features.
IMO the FF2s hold a very solid balance of all the feature a HUNTING scope should have, as do the Conquest line, Vx2+ leupys, Bushnell 3200+ etc. The difference in cost does show an increase in optical quality thru the whole range, but bang for buck, i think the FF2 (or perhaps the VX-Fs) offer the most.
