Do you think that in terms of pure resolution (not brightness) current glass is as good or better than the leaded crystal that can no longer be produced?
Leaded glass is still around, high end chandeliers, glass jewelry, etc. And especially when there's a need for dampening Xrays in a transparent medium like a cathode ray tube. Where you don't see it anymore though is in drinking glasses.
I don't know if your question is an easy one to answer. Leaded glass was always known for its high transmission of light, partially because it was more homogenous, but it also has a 10-20% higher refractive index. This is how it gets its sparklyness that everyone liked for their glassware and chandeliers. One of the other really big advantages leaded glass had was its ease of manufacturing. Being able to melt it at lower temps allowed for fewer imperfections than what you'd get with borax glass.
So I guess the answer is probably yes now that I thought it through. Leaded glass's advantages meant lower skilled people could make near perfect pieces of work compared to the amount of skill you needed to get the same using borax (and other) based glasses. I'd have to imagine technology has helped a great deal in that sense even though I've never had to think of it before.
Of course, the downside to leaded glass was the lead content wasn't stable and would leach into the food and drink stored in it, especially alcoholic beverages. There's good reason to believe that some of Europe's old rulers (Caesar, Nero, and the like) were friggin nutcases from the lead they ingested during their drinking binges.
- - - Updated - - -
Back on the original topic, when I was a kid I had Bushnell, Swift (yuck!), and Simmons (double yuck) scopes on my rifles. I tended to get 2-4 years out of the cheap things. Then I went Nikon for a number of years, not the best Nikons out there, but I never had an issue with any of them and still have a couple laying around. The ex got a Leupold GIVEN to her by a coworker, and that made me kind of become a Leupold fan, but now all I have in Leupold is a spotter and it's kind of marginal (one of those Asian versions SDMF mentioned). Recently put a Vortex Diamondback on my son's new 243 and so far, I really like it.
Technology changes and what was the top of the line yesteryear is now offered in store brand scopes. As SDMF pointed out that Cabela's scope is the equivalent of the older Zeiss Conquest scope that cost $900 just a few years ago...personally I wouldn't know as I am still scared to even pickup and look through a $1,000 scope lest I drop it! This tech eventually bleeds down to the cheap scopes, and if you think I'm kidding...go shopping at the used rifle rack in any sporting goods store. You'll find barely fired rifles with old Bushnell, Simmons, and other scopes on them that are just pure damn junk by today's standards for a $100 scope.
How the hell I ever killed anything with those old scopes of mine just about boggles the imagination!
And, of course, our eyes change over time.
I have Strelok, Strelok+ and Shooter. I like Strelok+ when using the reticle on my AR, but Shooter is far superior for long shots with the bolt action. For example you need to enter your latitude for coriolis affect, and the azimuth of your target too. There is not to much affect under 600 yards, but start shooting 1400 to 1500 and your way off with Strelok+.
