I just wanted to chime in because I was just in this position-
I bought a Remington 700 SPS Tac "AAC-SD" .308 Tactical/'Sniper' rifle... and i had saved enough to pick almost any reasonable scope I wanted. The Leupold Mark 4's were a little too much for me to be honest, but below that, I had the run.
I settled on most likely a Leupold VX3 (the highest end VX3's, a 4.5-14x50mm Illuminated Boone and Crockett Reticle was the most likely candidate) or a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14x50mm Rapid Z 800/1000 reticle.. Both were about $1000 give or take.
I wound up comparing the Leupold to a Nikon Monarch side by side at a local gun shop... and let me tell you: I came home and bought a Nikon Monarch 5-20x44mm BDC reticle Side Focus .... at HALF THE PRICE of the other two, *and* i think I might have got a better scope.
The Leupold VX3 was awesome, amazing quality. I was very impressed. Then I tried the Nikon Monarch. And I was like, Is it just me or is it, at the very least same??? And the Monarch was about $500 or so, the VX3 was about $1000. Minimum. The nicer VX3L's (with the wierd recessed bottom for fitting over a barrel) were like $1300... and again, I was not sure I was getting a better scope, at close to triple the price now.
The Nikon Monarch I got is The Truth. I am EXTREMELY impressed. Leupold has been trading on its name for a LONG TIME now, and Zeiss is certainly the flashiest of the 3, but pound for pound there is no doubt in my mind I Did the best I could have.