They are called 'Soviets', not Russians.
The T-34 optics were fine. Actual tank combat is within 1,000 meters or less so the 'superior' german optics mattered very little. The T-34/85 had an expanded turret, physical upgrades, five men crews, and eventually most of the tanks got their radios. The 85mm gun had good penetration.
The Panthers were good when they worked, were supported by all the assets of a panzer division, and were well supplied. Their lifecycle in heavy wear and tear, however, was measured in days, not (potentially) many weeks and months like the T-34s. The early models of the Panther were a failure (200 panthers attached to PzD GD, 23rd PzD in the fall, 1st SSLAH, 2nd SS DR, etc.) in 1943 with many total losses. The Panther also required many more spare parts than the T-34. It had final drive defects and major components needed to be periodically replaced. All this wasted time and increased the likelihood that the tank would not be available for combat. If spares were missing the tank remained with maintenance crews. Meanwhile, the ground forces suffered for having so many missing panthers.
The late model Panther tank had poor field presence compared to the 1943-1945 T-34s and could only be used for short periods of time. That's a major weakness and a major opportunity for the soviets. The tank to tank kill ratio may have been nice but tank kill ratios don't win battles. T-34s were knocked out 2-3 times before they were writeoffs, anyway.
If you read 'T-34 in action' and other materials the T-34 tankers interviewed generally destroyed few panzers but killed lots of German infantry and support weapons.
I think you are thinking about tanks incorrectly (IRL is not like in the games). The tanks should be thought as artillery shells expended in order to win. That is how the soviets used them: very aggressively. If they used tanks like the Germans did their losses would be far lower. They would have also fought much more poorly and won fewer battles
Also, 3/4th of Soviet tank kills were credited by the RKKA to their AT artillery and SPGs, not tanks. They used tanks very differently than the Germans. 75% of German panzers were with the divisions. In the RKKA it was only 55%- a major doctrinal difference.
The 1943-1944 T-34s had great field presence: 85%, 90% were often there. They had much fewer parts, and mechanical difficulties were generally fixable by the...driver. More complex ones required repair crews. The simplicity of the T-34 kept it going and kept it around. Knocked out T-34s were quickly recovered, repaired, and sent back to action.
The Panzers?
After a few days it would drop quickly to 20% of available AFVS. The German infantry always had lower numbers of armored support and had serious problems actually taking and consolidating ground as eventually the armor that they had would be non operational. Their counterstrikes in 1943-1945 were quite often like this: The Panzer divisions would inflict heavy armor losses against the soviets but they too would suffer heavily. Then a few days later, their Panther battalion is down to 15 units or something pathetic, and the Soviets have recovered many of their T-34s, and repaired them already. Then the Panzer divisions get pushed out before they could consolidate, cauldron, and capture the soviet formations they overran in the area.
The Panther is a good tank on paper, but it suffered from being German. The Panzer III and Panzer IV were also much more temperamental than US or Soviet designs. The defects of the Panzers often constrained panzer operations to short-term surgical strikes. Then operational pauses in between to repair and bring up the numbers of tanks. The soviets had a much more active tempo during the course of a battle.
Panthers were good for skirmishes and a few days only....The T-34 and Sherman were good for winning battles and campaigns. The German army would have been tougher if they were the ones with the T-34/85 and used it to replace all those heterogeneous models including most of their assault guns and tank destroyers.