For glass quality, its not a normal distribution curve. Once you pass $700 (msrp) in the price ranges, you start getting into the ED (extra low dispersion)/flourite glass range. To that end, there is a huge quality increase from spending $800 on a scope with ED glass as opposed to a $500 scope that does not. However, the question as to whether a $1,300 scope is better than a $1,000 scope when both have ED is more personal preference and staunch brand loyalty than quantifyable science.

If I could do it over again, there's no way I'd go up to the Swarovski... If you have that kind of money it should be on top of your rifle, IMHO. Again, I'm sure its a bit better scope than the one I have, but I asked many bird watchers who own both the Nikon and the Swaro, and some say they're almost neck-and-neck as far as image quality. No offense to the Swaro diehards.

Also, you mentioned the Leupold's... I checked several out and one of the things I really didn't like was the small focusing knob. Just my personal preference, but I like the Nikon/Swaro/etc style of the large focus ring that wraps around the whole scope. As I remember, I think the eye relief also left something to be desired. Go to your local Cabelas or Sportsman's Warehouse and play around with as many as you can. I found that the large focus ring allows for quicker, more precise focusing than the small knob.

If you do like the small focus knob, consider the Pentax PF-II 65 or 80mm. They're in the price range you mentioned, and Pentax has the strenght of a vast array of eyepieces (astronomy, digiscoping, etc).

I spent literally months researching my scope purchase on my free time. No offense to hunters, but the birdwatchers have our butts kicked as far as scope and glassknowledge. Check out www.birdforum.net or a few others for some research. You can post questions there, but I wouldn't use the word 'hunting,' just 'wildlife viewing' hehehe