This isn't intended to start a flame war, but IMHO, Leupold scopes are outrageously over-priced and of inferior optical quality. They have a reputation for being rugged, and have a lifetime no BS warranty, but so does Burris.
When shopping for a 3-9x scope for my hunting rifle, I went to Cabelas and compared a Burris Fullfield II ($200), Nikon Monarch ($300), Zeiss Conquest ($400), Bushnell 3200 ($230 IIRC), Leupold VXII ($350 IIRC).
My "comparison" was looking at a game mount about 80 yds away on the wall, at 3x and at 9x, looking at FOV, brightness, clarity (being able to pick out detail on the hide). My rankings were:
1) Zeiss (clearly picked up 3 spots of decreasing size)
2) Nikon (clearly got 2 spots, and 50% of the smallest)
3) Burris (clearly picked up 2 spots, and 25% of the smallest)
4) Bushnell (picked up 2 spots, definitey not as clear)
5) Leupold (could barely pick up the largest spot, not even close to the other 3 in clarity/brightness)
Was the Zeiss $100 better than the Nikon? Nope!
Was the Nikon $100 better than the Burris? Nope!
Was the Zeiss $200 better than the Burris? Definitely NOT!
Was the Burris better than the comparably priced Bushnell? Definitely.
Was the $200 Burris head & shoulders better than the $350 Leupold? ABSOLUTELY!
Hands down, I think Burris makes the best scope for the money.
--Otter