Just speaking in terms of clarity, sharpness, light gathering (not overall quality or warranty):

Is it true that a person's eye might not be able to take advantage of a better scope? Also is it true that one's unique hunting situation (distances and amount of light available during the hours the person hunts) would affect whether he could take advantage of the quality differences.

Or will better optics simply be better, no matter what the eyes.

For instance, I have a Leupold VII (2-7 X33) and compared it side by side at before sunrise with amuch cheaper Weaver V3 (1-3 X20) that I have. I chose a time of day that was as dark asI would ever hunt and compared at 2X and 3X. I really couldn't tell the difference at my normal 100 - 200 yard distances. I also compared my Leupold VII with a friends Leupold VIII and couldn't tell the difference. I looked through a friends Zeiss and while I could certainly tell it was a wonderfulscope, I didn't do a side by side so can't comment.

On the other hand Ialso compared a Leupold VII with a very cheap (<$100) scope (I think Bushnell) at a store and could definitely tell the difference looking down the aisle in bright store light - an obvious difference in crispness and clarity. I would imagine the difference would be more significant in lower light.

I do NOThave great eyes though. Good enough to pass the driver's test w/o glasses, but I'm not an eagle eye and am more than 50 years old.

I am not disputing that more expensive scopes are probably better quality all around -from lenses to construction to warranty -but I'm wondering if we all can take advantage of it - given our eyes and the time of day and distances we hunt.

As a comparitive example, I also love high quality acoustic guitars. Frankly, other people hear things that I don't. I have a threshold above which all guitars sound just great. For instance on a scale of 1 - 10, everything past 8 sounds REALLY great to me, while others are able to distinguish beyond in many degrees of "super excellent"between 8 and 10.