Swarovski vs zeiss question

15 March 2006, 16:16

Arrow Slinger

No contest -- Definitely the Swarovski A series. A few years ago Zeiss abandoned the Diavari Series which was a great line of scopes and built the new Conquest line to make a cheaper scope to directly price compete with Leupold and others in the American market. However, they don't use the kind of quality lenses and prisms that they used to use in the Diavari -- remember the first time that I looked through a Conquest, and being a Zeiss fan I was very disappointed at the lack of flatness of field, traditional Zeiss brightness, and the amount of abberation in the view. Certainly not the type of product that Zeiss built their former reputation on.

I have a few of the old Diavaris and a Zeiss Classic Bino, they are fantastic and completely blow away the new Conquest series. Also, have several Swarovskis, including both the PH and A series scopes. They are all made in Austria, and are clear, crisp, bright, and very rugged. Certainly a better choice than the Conquest.

15 March 2006, 17:00

freischuetz

quote:
Originally posted by Arrow Slinger:
No contest -- Definitely the Swarovski A series. A few years ago Zeiss abandoned the Diavari Series which was a great line of scopes and built the new Conquest line to make a cheaper scope to directly price compete with Leupold and others in the American market. However, they don't use the kind of quality lenses and prisms that they used to use in the Diavari -- remember the first time that I looked through a Conquest, and being a Zeiss fan I was very disappointed at the lack of flatness of field, traditional Zeiss brightness, and the amount of abberation in the view. Certainly not the type of product that Zeiss built their former reputation on.

I have a few of the old Diavaris and a Zeiss Classic Bino, they are fantastic and completely blow away the new Conquest series. Also, have several Swarovskis, including both the PH and A series scopes. They are all made in Austria, and are clear, crisp, bright, and very rugged. Certainly a better choice than the Conquest.

Zeiss still building the Diavari series I just got 3 new ones they actually all new models I got 3 older ones (50years old) when they were still labelled â€œHENSOLTâ€ and 2 newer once about 25 years old and never had any problems with any of them.
Excellent scopes just a tiny little bit expenses.

Donâ€™t know about the conquest scope had some conquest 12x Binoâ€™s but using the classic and victory series mainly.

Check on their website you can download the full catalogue.

Good Hunting

15 March 2006, 19:34

rdelius

I have experience with both. Swarovski A line over Zeiss Conquest in almost all aspects except eye relief (Conquest 3-9 only, however). On the other hand, the Zeiss Diavari trumps the Swaro series. In my opinion (which is worth what is costs you!), the Zeiss Diavari was the finest scope out there with a 1" tube. They have recently been discontinued, but are still available at some stores, ebay, etc.

15 March 2006, 20:41

freischuetz

quote:
Originally posted by rdelius:
I have experience with both. Swarovski A line over Zeiss Conquest in almost all aspects except eye relief (Conquest 3-9 only, however). On the other hand, the Zeiss Diavari trumps the Swaro series. In my opinion (which is worth what is costs you!), the Zeiss Diavari was the finest scope out there with a 1" tube. They have recently been discontinued, but are still available at some stores, ebay, etc.

rdelius

you right no 1" but plenty of 30mm in current program checkhttp://www.hensoldt-zeissgruppe.de/C12567A80033F8E4/Contents-Frame/0D01F620E30FCCD2C1256FB8002DAC68

cheers

15 March 2006, 21:18

dogcat

I do not have experience with a Swaro scope, I have 3 sets of Swaro binos. I have one Zeiss Conquest scope and would not use it again versus my Leupolds. My eyes do not see well out of the Zeiss for some reason. The Leupold VX III is right for me.

If the choice is between Swaro and Zeiss, I would select the Swaro.

16 March 2006, 01:40

jorge

Between the two suggested, the Swaro's the better option, provided of course you don't mind the significant price difference between the two. The A line's a FINE scope, but, expensive. jorge

16 March 2006, 02:57

jjs

Differences in ones "eye sight" will have a bearing on which scope works best for you..we all see things differently, to some degree.

My understanding is that Swaro "A" line (1") uses the same quality of glass as the PH (30mm) model...the difference between them being tube size and the ability of the PH (30mm) model to handle recoil a bit better..it has a different internal system for handling recoil than the "A" line...

I used Zeiss and Swarovski's top of the line scopes over a number of years and for my eyes the Swarovski work better....The Swaro "A" line is a top notch scope but it does cost a bit more than most other 1" scopes...For my eyes the Swaro "A" is superior to the Conquest...no doubt...

16 March 2006, 03:44

tradewinds

The "A" Line has more eye relief than the "PH" by almost 1/2 inch. I have "upgrade" 4 of my rifles to the "A" line.

16 March 2006, 04:27

bulldog563

I have heard of too many problems with the Conquests to be confident in one.

16 March 2006, 07:09

wapiti7

Thanks for all of the help guys, I just ordered the swarovski av 1" 3-10x42 I'm sure I'll love it!!.......wapiti7

16 March 2006, 07:34

vapodog

Swarovski, I'm told by my optomitrist, makes their lenses from lead glass crystel. Can someone confirm this.

All I know is that when I look thru their product it is strikingly clear. However beyond my checkbook.

I'm curious if one is buying superior optics, superior mechanical function and reliability or both.