New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Opinion on Nikon Monarch X 4-16x50 vs Leupold Mark
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Opinion on Nikon Monarch X 4-16x50 vs Leupold Mark

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/04/2009 at 13:37
Gray View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: December/25/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9
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. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/05/2009 at 13:01
grea2278 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: July/28/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 17
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/06/2009 at 14:45
Chris Farris II View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Staff
TEAM SWFA - Staff
Avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: August/13/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3063
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/06/2009 at 14:50
Chris Farris II View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Staff
TEAM SWFA - Staff
Avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: August/13/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3063
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/07/2009 at 23:19
tjtjwdad View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: December/11/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 365
Originally posted by Chris Farris II Chris Farris II wrote:

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.
 
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/08/2009 at 00:53
Oldtrader3 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: May/16/2009
Location: WA (state)
Status: Offline
Points: 445
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/08/2009 at 01:38
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4291
Originally posted by Chris Farris II Chris Farris II wrote:

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.
Hands down agree with this. I may have a suspect Conquest myself, but it has had many rounds of pretty hard kicking rifles, and has been a great scope. I'll own more for sure. And if I find out my Conquest won't hold zero, I'm sure Zeiss will take care of me.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/11/2009 at 00:15
fireroad View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/04/2009
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 85
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.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/11/2009 at 00:27
Oldtrader3 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: May/16/2009
Location: WA (state)
Status: Offline
Points: 445
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?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/11/2009 at 13:34
Chris Farris II View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Staff
TEAM SWFA - Staff
Avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: August/13/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3063
Originally posted by fireroad fireroad wrote:

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.
Ok fireroad where to start. Let me say this I used to be the BIGGEST preacher about why buy a Leupold VX-III when you could buy a NIkon Monarch or a Bushnell Elite 4200 for less money. However I have looked at the VX-3 and compared it to the VX-III and you CAN tell a difference with the Naked eye. In my eyes personally I feel it is a big difference. If you do however choose to go with a NIkon don't go with the Monarch X go with the NIkon Monarch. The Monarch were upgraded from a 3x erector to a 4x erector and a bigger eyebox, etc. when they went from the Nikon Monarch UCC to the NIkon Monarch and they never did upgrade the Nikon Monarch X. Just a littl FYI there for you. The new VX-3 also has a dual sprig erector system which is better for holding zero.


Edited by Chris Farris II - August/11/2009 at 14:11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/11/2009 at 14:44
fireroad View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/04/2009
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 85
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?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/11/2009 at 14:52
Chris Farris II View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Staff
TEAM SWFA - Staff
Avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: August/13/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3063
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/11/2009 at 14:55
Chris Farris II View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Staff
TEAM SWFA - Staff
Avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: August/13/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3063
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/11/2009 at 15:22
fireroad View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/04/2009
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 85

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!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/11/2009 at 17:17
Oldtrader3 View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman
Avatar

Joined: May/16/2009
Location: WA (state)
Status: Offline
Points: 445
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!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/11/2009 at 21:44
fireroad View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/04/2009
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 85
oldtrader3 - I was afraid of that....
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/12/2009 at 23:33
fireroad View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/04/2009
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Originally posted by Chris Farris II Chris Farris II wrote:

Originally posted by fireroad fireroad wrote:

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.
Ok fireroad where to start. Let me say this I used to be the BIGGEST preacher about why buy a Leupold VX-III when you could buy a NIkon Monarch or a Bushnell Elite 4200 for less money. However I have looked at the VX-3 and compared it to the VX-III and you CAN tell a difference with the Naked eye. In my eyes personally I feel it is a big difference. If you do however choose to go with a NIkon don't go with the Monarch X go with the NIkon Monarch. The Monarch were upgraded from a 3x erector to a 4x erector and a bigger eyebox, etc. when they went from the Nikon Monarch UCC to the NIkon Monarch and they never did upgrade the Nikon Monarch X. Just a littl FYI there for you. The new VX-3 also has a dual sprig erector system which is better for holding zero.
 
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?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/12/2009 at 23:51
Urimaginaryfrnd View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Resident Redneck

Joined: June/20/2005
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Points: 13868
10594 Kahles 2.5-10x50 Helia CS Multizero 51824, Matte finish, 4A reticle, 30mm tube, fast focus eye piece, allows you to zero your scope at five different ranges, 100% new in box discontinued model   $1,199.95
For not that much more you can have a really top of the line scope.
9942 Swarovski 2.5-10x42 Professional Hunter 57045, Matte finish, plex reticle, 30mm tube, fast focus shock absorbing eye piece, reseatable windage and elevation, like new condition demo model $1,299.95
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/13/2009 at 00:13
fireroad View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/04/2009
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 85
Nice scopes, but way out of my price range and a tad short on power (looking ffor a 4-14x or 16x).
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: August/13/2009 at 09:09
Chris Farris II View Drop Down
TEAM SWFA - Staff
TEAM SWFA - Staff
Avatar
MODERATOR

Joined: August/13/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3063
Originally posted by fireroad fireroad wrote:

Originally posted by Chris Farris II Chris Farris II wrote:

Originally posted by fireroad fireroad wrote:

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.
Ok fireroad where to start. Let me say this I used to be the BIGGEST preacher about why buy a Leupold VX-III when you could buy a NIkon Monarch or a Bushnell Elite 4200 for less money. However I have looked at the VX-3 and compared it to the VX-III and you CAN tell a difference with the Naked eye. In my eyes personally I feel it is a big difference. If you do however choose to go with a NIkon don't go with the Monarch X go with the NIkon Monarch. The Monarch were upgraded from a 3x erector to a 4x erector and a bigger eyebox, etc. when they went from the Nikon Monarch UCC to the NIkon Monarch and they never did upgrade the Nikon Monarch X. Just a littl FYI there for you. The new VX-3 also has a dual sprig erector system which is better for holding zero.
 
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?
The 6500 glass is good glass as far as the the scope scale that is over a lot of different criteria not just optics. I agree the Zeiss has the best glass of them all but, the Leupold and the 6500 are not far behind. I have had customers go both ways some say they like the new Leupy more some say they still think the Conquest is brighter and clearer. You say that the Leupold was lacking brightness? What power was each individual scope and with what size objective? Did you compare the scopes with similar objectives and on the same power?
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Opinion on Nikon Monarch X 4-16x50 vs Leupold Mark"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Opinions: Nikon 6.5-20x44 Monarch UCC 2000Z-71 Rifle Scopes 3 8/23/2007 6:10:25 PM
Leupold VX II vs Nikon Monarch Blue Duck Rifle Scopes 3 7/13/2005 9:27:57 AM
Nikon Monarch VS Leupold FX 3 stubewan Rifle Scopes 3 8/18/2005 1:44:13 PM
Nikon Monarch -vs- Leupold VXII Majja Tactical Scopes 4 2/10/2007 8:40:15 AM
Nikon Monarch vs Monarch Gold vs Titanium royy2 Rifle Scopes 1 9/21/2006 2:26:34 AM
Opinions on Nikon 16-48x60 XLII Spotting radiojohn Spotting Scopes 7 6/30/2006 5:44:29 PM
Nikon range finders -opinions wanted varmitspaw Laser Rangefinders 5 3/27/2007 9:27:07 AM
Burris 4-16X50 or Leupold VX III 4.5-14x5 Superlite17 Rifle Scopes 6 11/3/2005 1:08:33 PM
Leupold Mark 4 with H32 and tripod for sale ccoker Optics For Sale 1
Leupold 1-3x14 Mark 4 CQ/T Marine24 Tactical Scopes 3


This page was generated in 0.484 seconds.