swarovski or nikon?

Nevadahunter · Post by **Nevadahunter** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:38 pm

what i don't get is there is no camparison?. are u just saying they are both very good optics and it's hard to camparre them?

Post by **killerbee** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:58 pm

no--- thats not what is being implied, your comparing a $1800 item to a $300 item. they are not even competing against each other in their marketing because they are trying to sell to totally different people!you might relate to this--- it's like comparing playstation3 to the original nintindo! no comparison

Nevadahunter · Post by **Nevadahunter** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:02 pm

hahaha even know its on me!...good one!

hahah dude, i'm stupid!

StickFlicker · Post by **StickFlicker** » Sun May 06, 2007 1:21 pm

When I used other brands like Leupold and several of the other mid-level brands, I always thought that brands like Zeiss, Swarovski and Leica can't be THAT much better for THAT much more money. Now that I own two pairs of Swarovski, I realize I was wrong. I especially love my 10 x 50s, although they are pretty heavy to tote around.

ricochet · Post by **ricochet** » Sun May 06, 2007 9:33 pm

"You get what you pay for" is exactly right. I can't afford Swaros but I have used them a little, they are awesome. If you can afford Swaros, by all means get them. If you can only afford Nikons or Leupolds, you will be operating with a handicap, there is a difference. I feel your pain, I can't afford the high end stuff either. And remember, the Nikons and Leupolds are way better than the cheap stuff.

7mmgilbert · Post by **7mmgilbert** » Fri May 18, 2007 8:38 am

All of the replies are correct you get what you pay for, when it comes to optics.