Ok, so I received my Leupold 6.5-20X50 mk4 m5 last night and I got to say this is a good piece of glass. You guys are right, it isn't quite NF but it is still very good and IMO, the difference is pretty minimal. Would I pay $1600 for this scope? No. Would I pay $1000, probably. Anyways while I was playing around with it last night I noticed that as long as whatever the scope was aimed at was somewhat lit up then I could see the reticle just fine as the glass is that clear. Then obviously if whatever I was aiming at had no light on it whatsoever then you would not be able to see it anyways. So, I got to thinking why one would need an illuminated reticle. If your target has no light on it whatsoever then your not going to be able to see it illuminated reticle or not and if I can see the reticle just fine normally as long as something has a little bit of light on it then I see no need for an illuminated reticle whatsoever. I could argue that sight pick up would be faster with the illuminated version but other than that unless you are blind then you should be ok with the regular one. So, what would be some other reasons other than quick sight pick up that one would want a illuminated scope over a regular one? I am just curious.