I'm in the process of procuring a rifle with the aim of longer range shooting. For me it will be accuracy at significant distance (over 600m, with a goal to become proficient @ longer distances.) I've always seen optics as a "you get what you pay for" item but don't know how much of that is really true anymore. I've looked at Schmidt and Bender quite a bit, and also spent some time doing some reading recently on U.S. Optics. But on price the Leupold Mark 4's tend to be about half of what the others run and at least from the reviews I've read the Leupold seems to deliver a decent, durable scope. Here's my question: Is the quality so significantly different that paying $1500 or so for a scope will potentially show a noticeable difference over a $3000+ scope? Or is it a lot like electronics nowadays - when you buy a Sony, you're paying for the words 'SONY' on your equipment and a perceived value add that's not necessarily (or actually) there?