I think both are over magnified. Your PH will only let you shoot under 300 yards - maybe 250. If you are hunting and you haven't gotten within 300 yards, you aren't hunting, your target shooting using live animals as the gong. (My opinion) 95% of Americans get too damned big of a scope. The biggest magnification I would entertain for hunting is the 2-10x44 with Leupold. I have a single 3-9x40, otherwise everything is 1-4x20, 1-6x24, 1-5x24. My 4-14x40 from Primary Arms with ACSS reticle is for slaying humans who misbehave and is on a .308.
More magnification means: more weight to carry, a towering cheekiest to get your eye aligned with the scope mounted higher over the bore, more money out of your pocket, tends to mean less field of view/mismanaged power selector when adrenaline is running high, more visible shake when at higher magnification. Maybe too much for a 75 yard shot in the woods vs. if you are out west where you might find fields of fire suited to the higher magnifications.
If you want it, get it - just playing devils advocate to check that you get the best match to what you hunt.
VX5HD 1-5x24 did me right in RSA on my .375 Ruger Alaskan, for ONE data point. Maybe that is towards what WAB was getting at in regard to more flexibility for having one round to hunt the world with - .30-06 can take most anything, but it is on the small side for numerous critters. .375H&H? .338 WINMAG? Even .35 Whelen would give you better target effect, on, say, your eland. However, Boddington's daughter whacked an eland with a 7mm-08 if I am remembering correctly, so shot placement is the first thing to get right.
My giraffe bull almost soaked up a 270gr Barnes through the heart - he died after a 40 yard run, but the bullet just made it to the far side of his heart from 100 yards away. The second round into his shoulder never made it into the chest cavity. I think more gun is better. My next one is a .495 A-Square.