I recently tried two scopes head to head. Both of the scopes I tried were 18x magnification. The Swaro had a 1" tube with a 40 mm objective lens and the Leo was a 30mm tube with a 50 mm objective.
I looked through them in store then outside. I then looked at them after the sun had gone down. My expectations where turned on there head. I shoot Euro optics on several of my firearms. I thought that the low light performance of the VX6 was superior to the Swaro. I cant believe how far the VX6 has come in lowlight performance. I guess i cant be a Euro optic snob anymore. Let me say that both scopes performance was outstanding.
I am interested in hearing what your hunting experiences have been. Please feel free to comment.
The Leupold had an advantage going into this comparison, because of the larger objective lens. In order to do a fair comparison, you would need to compare two scopes with the same size objective lens. For hunting , I find no need for a 50mm objective lens. I have the Swarovski Z5 3.5-18x44 scopes on two of my hunting rifles, as I prefer smaller objective lenses, so that I can mount the scope lower.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
I had a Leupold VX-6 3-18 x 44 that I've since parted ways with (not due to wanting to ), and I was very fond of it. When finances allow I would like another one, but perhaps with a different reticle than the B&C. I like the fine duplex reticle so I can pick which hairs I'll be splitting. I don't know if they do the fine duplex in the illuminated reticle though
__________________
"The trouble with people idiot-proofing things, is the resulting evolution of the idiot." Me
A 50 mm objective is 56% larger than a 40mm,
but some lens dia is lost to mounting,
A 46mm effective is 63% larger than a 36mm.
A larger objective collects more light.
I suspect the Swaro may have better coatings, which may result in a higher % light transmission,
but the Leupold gathers with much more.
I am not an optical engineer, but suspect that the Swaro probably transmits ~90%,
but the larger objective scope would only need to transmit 55% to achieve an equal amount transmitted.
This is one of those situations where 'size matters'.
My z5 is 18.1 ounces on the postal scale. My VX-6 is 22.8 ounces. The VX-6 shows better colors and is requires about 1 1/2X less magnification setting for me to see the same detail. I checked with a friend at the range who has a z6 3-18X and a VX-6 3-18X and I noticed the same thing with his as I did with mine. He told me he noticed the same thing. The VX-6 just seems nicer.
The z5 has a 1" tube while the VX-6 has a 34mm tube. That's right! a 34mm tube. The crosshair in the z5 is maybe 1/3 the thickness of the one in the VX-6. Also the side focus and magnification ring of the z5 is effortless, while the VX-6 both are rather stiff.
Leupold VX6 vs Sawro Z5
), and I was very fond of it. When finances allow I would like another one, but perhaps with a different reticle than the B&C. I like the fine duplex reticle so I can pick which hairs I'll be splitting. I don't know if they do the fine duplex in the illuminated reticle though 
Linear Mode
