My opinion that Leupold is over rated has nothing to do with light transission. I for one would not be able to tell 92% vs 95% light transmission. But I can and have seen the noticable difference in the clearity and sharpness of the optice between Leupold vs Zeiss and Swarvoski. And there is a noticable difference, in the the Zeiss and Swarvoski are clearer and sharper, and as oldelkhunter stated, transmitts more light. I own a couple Zeiss and one Swarvoski, and about a dozen Leupolds.

The reasons I have for thinking that Leupold is over rated, is that for many years they set and were the industry standard. Leupold is what all others were judged by. I beleive this caused them to become complacent and content to maintain that same quality and standard. Well, over the past decade others in the scope industry has closed the gap some what, a few have closed the gap completely. and a couple have surpassed them. It seems to me that in just the past couple years Leupold has made an ernest attempt to recapture the industry lead and market new and upgraded scopes. But it is my opinion that for the past decade they were riding on the reputation that they earned back in the 70' & 80' s. Don' t get me wrong, I do own and use about a dozen Leupolds. But they have all been reworked and modified by Dick Thomas of Premier Recticles. Premier Reticles turns a good scope into a most excellent scope. My Leupolds are a better scope now than when they left Leupold' s factory, because of Premier Reticles.

It is also my opinion that if one has a lot of experience with scope manfactures customer service dept' s, then they must have an awful lot of problems with an awful lot of scopes. Makes me wonder if it is the scope or the individual? To me a more accurate mark of a good scope is not how good the customer service is, but how many NEVER HAVE TO USE THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JMHO.