Rifle Scopes Leopold mk5 5-25 or Vortex gen 2
- Thread starter Lrdchaos
- Start date
This is a pretty good comparison I’d imagine. Biggest thing most people will say is the weight, so that being a non-factor will get into a better discussion I think.
I think this is maybe a more fair comparison then everyone putting the Mark5 up against a Kahles or ATACR. Much more compatible street prices at least.
I just bought the Mark5 and I am happy with it. Haven’t shot the Razor so I can’t compare that but seeing as how it is a good margin better then my PSTs, my guess is they are probably pretty close.
Hopefully someone with both will provide a good response beyond it being nearly 2 pounds lighter
I think this is maybe a more fair comparison then everyone putting the Mark5 up against a Kahles or ATACR. Much more compatible street prices at least.
I just bought the Mark5 and I am happy with it. Haven’t shot the Razor so I can’t compare that but seeing as how it is a good margin better then my PSTs, my guess is they are probably pretty close.
Hopefully someone with both will provide a good response beyond it being nearly 2 pounds lighter
Tagging in and watching. I love the EBR2C reticle but I want to shave some weight. MK5 looks nice but would like to hear from people that have been behind both.
The Leupold 5-25 MK5 is a bit lighter than the Vortex Razor 4.5-27 but to my eyes the optics in the Razor is superior, and I say that in the resolution, color, and flat image all the way to the edge of glass. The depth of field is pretty good also. The eyebox is a little tight but better than the March eyebox and about the same as NF ATACR.
The leupold is good optically but not quite as good as the Razor but much improved from the MK6 scope. the depth of field is good, maybe a little better than Razor. The eyebox is good.
The Razor is pretty consistent with eye relief through the zoom but the the Leupold has a slightest shift but not much like the MK6 turd did.
Both have nice knobs and good build quality, maybe a slight edge to Vortex.
Without the scopes side by side I would be hard pressed to say one is considerably better than the other. but since I shoot both I would have to give the edge to the Razor.
The leupold is good optically but not quite as good as the Razor but much improved from the MK6 scope. the depth of field is good, maybe a little better than Razor. The eyebox is good.
The Razor is pretty consistent with eye relief through the zoom but the the Leupold has a slightest shift but not much like the MK6 turd did.
Both have nice knobs and good build quality, maybe a slight edge to Vortex.
Without the scopes side by side I would be hard pressed to say one is considerably better than the other. but since I shoot both I would have to give the edge to the Razor.
I have both sitting in front of me now. The Razor feels more solid as far the the turrets go. The Mk5 turret has a bit of "wiggle" to it. The glass on both is very nice and I am not sure I can tell the difference between them.
The lowest parallax setting on the Razor is 32 yards. On the mk5 it is 75 yards. To some this may matter.
The EBR-7 reticle really makes the Razor everything I ever wanted it to be.
I vote Razor out of those 2 choices.
The lowest parallax setting on the Razor is 32 yards. On the mk5 it is 75 yards. To some this may matter.
The EBR-7 reticle really makes the Razor everything I ever wanted it to be.
I vote Razor out of those 2 choices.
Point of focus is 85 yards away. Both pictures are at maximum magnification.
Leupold mk5 H59
Leupold mk5 H59
Looks like the razor is a bit less sharp on the roof tiles there. Is it a bit out of focus?
Also, looks like the leupold has some shadowing on the left side there.
Both look much better than my current scope (Argos 6-24). I get a lot of CA above 18x or so. Which is to be expected with lower quality glass. Either of he Vortex or the Leupold look like a significant improvement for me.
I think I'm going vortex. Has the locking turrets, illumination, and I prefer the zero stop and zero reset on the Vortex.
Also, looks like the leupold has some shadowing on the left side there.
Both look much better than my current scope (Argos 6-24). I get a lot of CA above 18x or so. Which is to be expected with lower quality glass. Either of he Vortex or the Leupold look like a significant improvement for me.
I think I'm going vortex. Has the locking turrets, illumination, and I prefer the zero stop and zero reset on the Vortex.
Yes it may not be totally aligned with my camera. I took those without a phone scope. They look very similar in real life.
Thanks. I kinda figured that.
Is that also why the Razor seems a smidge darker as well?
Appreciate the time to take some pics too.
You can't compare a scope's glass with a picture through them. It does them no justice.
That said if weight is extrememly important to you get a Mk5. If you want a better scope in literally every other category get a Gen 2 Razor.
I have 2 MK5's and they both correct parallax at 50 yards...
I have owned a few of both the Razor Gen II and the MK5, they are really so close it comes down to personal preference and features.
What did you prefer and why?
The general consensus seems to be the Vortex has better glass, turrets and reticles, just weights a huge amount more and doesn't come in black.
The Mark 5 has my vote and is close the the NF ATACR as far as glass is concerned.
Turrets the Razor is more stiff than the Mark 5 but both have very audible and tactile turrets. Weight of course the Razor is quite a bit heavier.
Turrets the Razor is more stiff than the Mark 5 but both have very audible and tactile turrets. Weight of course the Razor is quite a bit heavier.
I love my Mark 5. Turrets are what I'd expect at $2k, glass is as perfect as my eyes are capable of discerning.
Looking through them for a decent amount of time is key. I found vortex glass gives me horrible eye strain for some reason. I had a loaner 4-27 razor for a few weeks and was more than happy to give it back when my Mark 5 arrived.
Looking through them for a decent amount of time is key. I found vortex glass gives me horrible eye strain for some reason. I had a loaner 4-27 razor for a few weeks and was more than happy to give it back when my Mark 5 arrived.
I really dislike the lock on the Razor's turrets, I had 2 and both were super hard to manipulate (especially in the cold). I am not real particular about "glass" as long as nothing funky is going on, but I feel like MK5 is a little better. I may be lucky but my 2 MK5's turrets line up, and I like the lock and revolution indicator better than a lot of scopes. But the big one for me is weight.
**The only thing I do not like about the MK5 is the reticle selection. I have the CCH and while it is a good reticle for a tree style it is too cluttered for me. I dial elevation and hold wind, thus I really don't need a tree reticle. Reticle choice is the only thing that will end up allowing me to sell the scopes, that and my ADD...
Exactly why I went with the TMR. I'm glad I did as I feel like I can see more without the reticle clutter. The elevation turret is working great for dialing elevation.
If the TMR did not have the open center, I really dislike open center reticles...
Little known fact:
Re:TMR center on Mark 5HD (not sure about other models)
The illuminated TMR has a center dot. https://cdnp.leupold.com/content/do...r_reticle_spec_sheet.pdf?mtime=20190217165023
The non-illuminated TMR has the open center.
Why? Only ye gods know.
Re:TMR center on Mark 5HD (not sure about other models)
The illuminated TMR has a center dot. https://cdnp.leupold.com/content/do...r_reticle_spec_sheet.pdf?mtime=20190217165023
The non-illuminated TMR has the open center.
https://cdnp.leupold.com/content/documents/88956_ffp_tmr_reticle_spec_sheet.pdf?mtime=20190217165024
Why? Only ye gods know.
I'd guess it's because that center dot is illuminated, but they had demand for open center.
I like the open center, feel like it's easier to "bracket" the target and see the small ones way out there. It did take some getting used to.
I just ordered a MK5 been watching for weeks and there was a big sale going on so I couldn’t pass it up!
They're both great optics but what's the intended use? Need to save weight? It's a no brainer for the MK5. Comp rifle without worry about weight and you dislike Horus style reticles? Gen II gets my vote. Both are great for the money.
Glass - it's a wash, i kind of prefer the MK5 though.
Fov - Gen II Razor no comparison
DOF - no concerning issues with either
Turrets - i prefer the razor
Reticle - Razor
Weight - MK5 no comparison
Warranty - pretty much equal
Beating a dead horse here but if Leupold had a decent tree reticle i'd be hard pressed to recommend anything over a mark 5 for the money. Love that optic. Don't get me wrong it has it's drawbacks but overall they're great.
Glass - it's a wash, i kind of prefer the MK5 though.
Fov - Gen II Razor no comparison
DOF - no concerning issues with either
Turrets - i prefer the razor
Reticle - Razor
Weight - MK5 no comparison
Warranty - pretty much equal
Beating a dead horse here but if Leupold had a decent tree reticle i'd be hard pressed to recommend anything over a mark 5 for the money. Love that optic. Don't get me wrong it has it's drawbacks but overall they're great.
I’ve only had he G2 3-18. It tracked right on. From what I’ve seen the G2’s rarely have tracking issues. How do the 5’s track to far?
I have used both, and I have the MK5 on my competition gun. The MK5 glass is noticeably better plus it tracks and holds zero like a champ. I am not nice to my scope at all, and it has never had an issue in the slightest. Obviously the MK5 is a lot lighter, but it doesn't appear or feel "cheaper" or weaker in term of construction. I really like the zero stop design for the MK5. Reticle and turret design are more personal preference than anything. You can find the Gen 2 w/ EBR-7C for around $1600 and the MK for not much more here on SH, so the price isn't a big factor. To succinctly answer the question, I am buying another MK5 this month rather than a Gen 2 even though weight isn't a factor on the rifle.
I went with the Mark 5 personally. I think the vortex has a slight edge in "glass" during ideal conditions, but overall the Mark 5 performed better in 'non-ideal' lighting such as overcast/low light/glare than the Vortex. At least to my eyes. Plus i don't like the color of the vortex or the fact it weights so much more than the Mark 5.
Apparently vortex has some big announcements at SHOT this year. I'm interested to see what they do.
Watch. I’ll buy a gen 2 razor and they’ll come out with a gen 3 5-30x or something higher powered lol
Seems to me it is kind of like caliber chasing. Both the Vortex AMG and the Leupold Mark 5 are awesome optics. I'd be hard pressed to make the choice. Wondering what Vortex has for the next generations.
I’ve had both and prefer the mark 5 personally in most areas
I do like the eye box better on the g2 razor though
I do like the eye box better on the g2 razor though
Similar threads
