I've heard so much about the brightness of Swarovski and Zeiss rifle scopes and need some advice from those that have owned either and can compare to the Leupold scopes.

I ask this, as I'm heading to Zimbabwe in 2008 for a Leopard hunt and wish to take advantage of the brightest scope available. I currently have a Leupold 1.75x-6x mounted, but have often heard that Swarovski and Zeiss offer much greater light gathering. Is this so? And, are the differences that vast to warrant the purchase of one. No local dealers, so unable to compare and would have to mail order one. Help!!

I'm considering the Swarovski, 1.5x-6x PH, 30mm tube. How about the new Zeiss conquest, much lower priced, but what about brightness?

Bearhunter,

All good questions. There is no "right" or "wrong" so to speak. Your VX-III 1.75-6 has a 32mm objective bell which does a fair job gathering light. At some point it is the human eye that limits light transmission not the scope. I consider scope weight when mounting on a .375 caliber and up in order to keep scope mount stress minimized under recoil. Some countries 270 Winchester is legal for leopard. Also, consider eye relief so you don't get scope hitting you under recoil.

With this said, it is a good idea to take a second scope anyway. I recommend buying a scope with the leopard in mind so I would start with a 3-9x40 and go-up from there in objective bell size. Also good clear reticle so easy to see in low-light. Consider illuminated recticle but only the better quality.

Bottom line is the price tag. Buy the best optics you can afford.

FWIW, my low-light rifles wear:
1.5-5x20 Leupold Illuminated Duplex
3-9x40 Ziess Conquest Z-Plex
3-12x56 Ziess Diavari #8 Reticle
4.5-14X40 (non-adjustable AO) Leupold Duplex

sounds like the new Swarovski Z6 1.7-10x illuminated would fit the bill perfectly for your purpose. If you are hunting in the thick stuff, keep it turned down to 1.7x If you need a long & precise shot (hippo, croc, leopard, etc.) crank it up with the potential to get to 10x. The 30mm tube and 42mm objective lens should bring in a lot of light. Add the illuminated reticle and you have a great Leopard scope.

Tim

You might consider the German Schmidt&Bender 1.5-6x42 with Magnum eye relief and no 4 or Illuminated reticle.
ozhunter

I have 2 Swarovski and one Zeiss in use: The Swaros are brilliant!
I had the chance to see the new Swaro Z6 1-6x24: It´s a big step in technology: That´s my next scope! I have compared it with the Zeiss Varipoint 1,1-4x24: It´s not bad, but compared with the Z6 it´s not worth half the money it regular costs...

I have half a dozen fixed power Swarovski and Kahles scopes (same company)(8x56, 6x42 and 4x) and they have been my "go to" scopes for over 20 years. I've found them brilliant and near indestructable in use. Looked at a batch of new production Swarovski scopes at the local SCI show two weeks ago, and it appears that they are only getting better.

LLS

I have been using a Varx111 ill in 3.5x10x50 for the last 3 years as my big field scope & find it to work better than zeiss or swaroviski in low light conditions. Keep the power as low as you can in the conditions, get German 4a, & tape an extra battery to the stock

I have been using Swarovski,Schmidt Bender and Leupold.I have never been Leopard hunting but in the last minutes of light in the deer stand you can tell the differance in the european scopes.The 56mm objectives are the ultimate in low light peformance but I find them a bit cumbersome.The bold reticle also helps like 7a.I've never used Zeiss so I can't comment on their peformance.I expect their high end would be very good.Fixed power scopes are the brightest because of less lens surface but I feel they are'nt as versatile.A illum. reticle could be a big help.My next scope will be a Schmidt Bender 1.5x6x42 Zennith to go on my 30-06.I can't imagine a more versatile combo.If you don't allready own a high end binocular I would suggest that you purchase a set.In low light they are used together and need to have equal peformance.I use Swarovski 8.5x42 ELs and have been extremely pleased.

Good Hunting

The previous posters' advice is very good. But let me reiterate a couple of points.

For the money, you would be hardpressed to find a scope better than the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 that Buliwyf mentioned. I have one on my 375 H&H and love it. Fixed 4" of eye relief and optically better than just about anything around.

The 56 mm objectives get you a large exit pupil but are often mounted too high (out of necessity) for what most shooters are accustomed to.

A 4a reticle is definetely worth a look.

LWD

With out a doubt the three big EURO scopes are the best, however you need to decide if in REALITY WILL IT MAKE A DIFFRENCE, if hunting leopard over a bait with a light why would you need a scope with such a large 50/56 mm objective, a standard 4x under a light is all you need. a good reticle is of far more significance than the "make/brand" of scope
i think this is one place where Leupold scopes really fail, there duplex are just to thin, if you get a chance compare the leupold duplex reticle with a zeiss z plex and you will see what i mean....
the other thing to consider is the european scopes have there reticle in the first focal plane which i find a real pain, it just about defeats the purpose of going up to a higher magnification , especially on small game as the cross hair covers a significant portion of the target, however the latest z6 range of scopes are in the second plane
regards daniel

There is only a few percentage points difference among any of them. Not enough to affect performance much.
To get a brighter scope, you need a larger objective. That allows you to use more magnification. It may not look as bright at a higher magnification but you will be able to see what you are looking at better.
Even more important is reticle size. The heavier the reticle, the better you can see it during low light conditions. Whatever you use, play it safe and use a heavier than normal reticle. You really don't need much image brightness to make a shot, but you do need to see the reticle.
The other factor is that nights vary as to how bright they are. I've seen nights where scopes or binoculars with 4mm exit pupils worked. I've seen nights where nothing with less than a 7mm exit pupil worked.
On your 1.75-6X32 Leupold that means a little over 6X for the darker twilights and about 4.5X for night use. In contrast, a good, fully multicoated 40mm scope would allow the use of 8X at a 5mm exit pupil and almost 6X with a 7mm exit pupil. That's about 18-22% more brightness. E

quote:

For the money, you would be hardpressed to find a scope better than the Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40

Since it has a more visible crosshair at dusk, it is clearer than my VX2 of the same configuration. The crosshair is actually more important for night shooting than magnification.

However, a multi-coated 40 mm scope set at 3x for night shooting (assuming shorter distances)provide a more than wide enough exit pupil (13.3 times) - even at 6x magnification it still yields an exit pupil of 6.7 times.

The smaller magnification of 3 or 4 times provide a better FOV especially in the dark and I have found it to work better where a herd of Blue Wildebeest comes to drink water just after midnight and you have to pick the biggest male from your hide, whilst they are continually moving and then dashing in on the last minute to the waterhole to quench their thirst.

Warrior

For early morning or late evening light gathering . Almost any quality scope 1" or 30mm tube with an objective of 50mm or more is going to gather more available light , than say a 32mm 40mm 42mm !.
Just the nature of optics say as with any camera lens Larger the Aperture more light gathering capability .

I've used the Leupy 1.75-6, Zeiss 3-9, and the Swaro 1.5-6 scopes. The Leupy is a good scope, the Zeiss is a very good scope especially for the money but the Swarovski 1.5-6 PH is a Great Scope. It's in another league than the much less expensive Leupy and Zeiss scopes, as much more as it costs it should be.
I'm sure you could hunt without real problems with any of them but if you want the very best to hunt with it's the Swaro. The Swaro has the larger objective, better resolution and extra clarity that might make the difference in marginal conditions.
In the Swaro the 4a is a superb all around reticle. It has the large lower bars that are easy to pick up in low light but the thinner middle bars allow for precise aiming. Another reticle to look into might be the #24 Battue. It's not to everyones taste but some people really love them, it has a circle in the middle that really draws your eye to it.
Another nice thing about the Swaro is that it really isn't as heavy as some think. at 16.2 oz it's only 1.2oz heavier than the zeiss 3-9 and is lighter than several 3-10x40 scopes out there.
Again any of the three are worth hunting with but the much more expensive Swaro does perform much better if you can afford it.

The PH is much better. But that's because it's got a much larger objective which allows one to use more magnification under low light conditions. But if a PH with a much smaller objective is compared to the others, it will be way back there in last place. E

I can't believe we're even putting Leupold in the same class as the Swaros, Zeiss, and S&B scopes being discussed. That's not to say that Leupold is bad (actually it's a very good scope), but it is not in the same realm optically as any of these other scopes.

If it were me on an African safari, I couldn't imagine not at least mounting a Swarovski. With the time, risk and amount of money involved, spending $$ to mount the best available isn't an option, it's a requirement...

quote:

Originally posted by oheremicus:
The PH is much better. But that's because it's got a much larger objective which allows one to use more magnification under low light conditions. But if a PH with a much smaller objective is compared to the others, it will be way back there in last place. E

Actually Swaro does make scopes with the same size objectives as the others. They aren't quite as good as the PH's but they are still a little better than the conquests and a good bit better than the Leupolds. I've used them all side by side and there is a noticable difference with the Swaro coming out on top. The smaller Swaro's are much less than the PH's but are still more expensive so I think that for a lot of people the Zeiss and even Leupolds are still being considered when on a budget....................DJ

Many thanks to all for the great and detailed information. As it stands, think I'm going to try the Swarovski and may try the new Z6. Calling around, seems that their PH models are in limited supply and most seem to believe that they are going to be discontnued.

djpaintles,

you compare the ZEISS Conquest with the SWARO Premium line. In this forum, when members talk about ZEISS they mostly mean the Conquest.
In Germany the Conquest line isn`t seen as as real ZEISS produkt. The conquest is hard to find in Germany, for its assembled for the large US quantity market. If you want to buy a conquest here you have to pay the double price than in the US, and its very unpopular for its/has

- not available with a rail
- small front lens diameter
- long eye relief
- crosshair in the 2nd focal plane

and, its in German eyes no ZEISS.

So when you compare Zeiss with Swarovski you should compare it with an ZM or VM ZEISS.

Burkhard

Burkhard, you make a good point in that the Swarovski PH compares with the Zeiss Z or V series, the rail series Zeiss are extremely rare here. I did point out that the Swaro was a much more expensive scope than the Conquest. Here a Conquest 3-9 can be found for $400-$500 and the Swaro 3-10 AV is about $1000 the PH's are $1500 or so. The Zeiss Z's and V's compare in price and quality to the PH's.
I think Zeiss markets the conquests well here in the states but hasn't done as well with the Z's and V's. I think Swaro's warrenty and marketing is a little ahead of Zeiss on the higher end stuff.
The Conquest is more a competitor to the Leupold and I find it optically superior to the older Vari-X III's. I haven't compared it side to side with the VX-III line yet.
I can see why the conquests aren't popular in Germany for what they charge for them there. I have no idea at all why they even try to sell Leupy's for what they ask for them there!.....................DJ

I would recommend either the Swarovski 1.5-6x42 with the illuminated circle dot reticle or the S&B 1.5-6x42 with the Flash dot reticle, depending on which reticle you like the best.

I would also mount a Surefire light on top of the scope, so when it is time for you to shoot the light is mounted to the scope and you do not have to depend on the PH holding the light steady.

The only thing better than that set up is a Night Vision Scope.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
Burkhard, you make a good point in that the Swarovski PH compares with the Zeiss Z or V series, the rail series Zeiss are extremely rare here. I did point out that the Swaro was a much more expensive scope than the Conquest. Here a Conquest 3-9 can be found for $400-$500 and the Swaro 3-10 AV is about $1000 the PH's are $1500 or so. The Zeiss Z's and V's compare in price and quality to the PH's.
I think Zeiss markets the conquests well here in the states but hasn't done as well with the Z's and V's. I think Swaro's warrenty and marketing is a little ahead of Zeiss on the higher end stuff.
The Conquest is more a competitor to the Leupold and I find it optically superior to the older Vari-X III's. I haven't compared it side to side with the VX-III line yet.
I can see why the conquests aren't popular in Germany for what they charge for them there. I have no idea at all why they even try to sell Leupy's for what they ask for them there!.....................DJ

DJ

As far as warranty on the V vs. swaro, one is lifetime transferable and one is limited lifetime....hows is that better for swaro. also been hearing the new Z6 is a 10 year warranty?

quote:

Originally posted by PATRIOT76:

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:
Burkhard, you make a good point in that the Swarovski PH compares with the Zeiss Z or V series, the rail series Zeiss are extremely rare here. I did point out that the Swaro was a much more expensive scope than the Conquest. Here a Conquest 3-9 can be found for $400-$500 and the Swaro 3-10 AV is about $1000 the PH's are $1500 or so. The Zeiss Z's and V's compare in price and quality to the PH's.
I think Zeiss markets the conquests well here in the states but hasn't done as well with the Z's and V's. I think Swaro's warrenty and marketing is a little ahead of Zeiss on the higher end stuff.
The Conquest is more a competitor to the Leupold and I find it optically superior to the older Vari-X III's. I haven't compared it side to side with the VX-III line yet.
I can see why the conquests aren't popular in Germany for what they charge for them there. I have no idea at all why they even try to sell Leupy's for what they ask for them there!.....................DJ

DJ

As far as warranty on the V vs. swaro, one is lifetime transferable and one is limited lifetime....hows is that better for swaro. also been hearing the new Z6 is a 10 year warranty?

Does Zeiss have a repair facility here in the United States that repairs stuff with a usual turn-around time of less than 1 week? Does Zeiss fix most things under warrentee even when they don't have too?

A couple years ago when I checked into getting a scratched lens on my Zeiss Classics repaired I was quoted turn around times in the months and several hundred dollars cost to me. My buddy who dropped his EL's off a cliff while on safari and dented the housing (they still worked fine) had a new pair sent to him in less than a week at no cost. I guess that pretty much describes the differences I've seen in Warrantee Service between the two............................DJ

its easy to sight a small sample size but in reality, have heard good and bad about both. my point was the zeiss is transferable but the swsaro is limited and the Z6 is 10 years. now who spends on 1800 on a scope and thinks that it only warrants a 10 year warranty? thats all i was saying. i know your a swaro guy. those zeiss classics were last made in what year? I am sure a swaro model from 20 years ago might take alittle longer to get repairs for. i know conquest owners that got brand new scopes within a week.

quote:

Originally posted by PATRIOT76:
i know your a swaro guy.

Actually I'm not. I own as mentioned the Zeiss Classics, plan to buy a pair of 8x32 fl's one of these days, own two Leica Spotting scopes, would like a pair of 8x20 Ultravids, and have an S&B scope on one of my favorite rifles.

I buy what I think works best for the best price I can get.

Currently I think Swaro has the best thing going on hunting scopes but they darn well better get their thinking away from a 10 year warranty! I find the AV's to be more expensive but superior to the Conquests and therefore think there's room for both.
But all that being said about the great Euro optics manufacturers if some US maker comes out with a better product for the same or better price I'll buy them!......................DJ

quote:

my point was the zeiss is transferable but the swsaro is limited and the Z6 is 10 years. now who spends on 1800 on a scope and thinks that it only warrants a 10 year warranty?

And just think, you can buy a "trashed" Leupold at a swap meet, send it to Leu, and they will fix it for FREE no matter how old it is!

DM

I could see all the spots with my Leupold 1.5-5xVariX3 from 60 yards. But hey if you want a new scope I'm all for it

quote:

Originally posted by DM:

quote:

my point was the zeiss is transferable but the swsaro is limited and the Z6 is 10 years. now who spends on 1800 on a scope and thinks that it only warrants a 10 year warranty?

And just think, you can buy a "trashed" Leupold at a swap meet, send it to Leu, and they will fix it for FREE no matter how old it is!

DM

You might remember a couple years ago when Leupold also tried to go away from thier Lifetime warrantee. It was met with much resistance and they canceled the idea pretty quickly. I'll bet Swaro does the same.................DJ

DJ

When i called swaro and spoke to them, the tech rep said he doesnt know why in the world austria made the 10 year warranty decision. says he will get alot of phone calles about it! I think Swaro makes great stuff as well but there is so much profit built into the high end stuff that a warranty is a small price to pay.

Which model AV do you own?

How do you like the Optilocks?

Do you use loc-tite on your optilocks?

I am toying with the idea of a the zeiss 2.5-10x42 w/ #4 retile. How does 1st focal plane effect your group sizes?

quote:

Originally posted by PATRIOT76:
DJ

When i called swaro and spoke to them, the tech rep said he doesnt know why in the world austria made the 10 year warranty decision. says he will get alot of phone calles about it! I think Swaro makes great stuff as well but there is so much profit built into the high end stuff that a warranty is a small price to pay.

Which model AV do you own?

How do you like the Optilocks?

Do you use loc-tite on your optilocks?

I am toying with the idea of a the zeiss 2.5-10x42 w/ #4 retile. How does 1st focal plane effect your group sizes?

I have several of the AV's in all of the models except the 3-9x36. The 3-10 and 4-12 are probably my favorite all around scopes. The PH's are a little better optically but the 3-10x42 fits on some lightweight rifles that I don't think the PH's would look right on.
I think the Optilocks are the best way to mount a scope on Sako 75's. They match the finish perfectly, don't scratch scopes, don't slip, return to zero when removed, and give some windage adjustment. They aren't that light, are a little high for small scopes and aren't cheap but IMO the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
I swap scopes a lot and have moved scopes in and out of the same optilock rings a half dozen or more times and still use the same screws. The Optilock screws are a little soft so use a properly fitted allen wrench and lightly tap it with a hammer when tightening it so it doesn't slip out and mar the screw head. I only use Loctite on the Base screw for the above reason.
A 1st focal plane reticle shouldn't effect group size at all if you use the right targets. Get one thats large enough to see light on all sides of the crosshair at it's higher setting and you can use the amount of light on the sides of the crosshair to aim perfectly. Try targets that have a 4-8" square with a white center and you'll see what I mean.......................DJ

Was talking to a 'smith today. Between SB, Kahles Swski, Zeiss and Leupold, he likes Kahles and Leupold.

Strangely he's had more adjustment problems with German scopes than with Leupold.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by richj:

Strangely he's had more adjustment problems with German scopes than with Leupold.

Rich

Maybe he's not smart enough to figure out how much a centimeter is. A typical Zeiss/Swaro/S& B scope has far more accurate and repeatable adjustments than your average Leupold..................DJ

That's just it. Optically centered was way to one side of the adjustment on more than a few of scopes, where Leupold was more centered. and YES the mount screws were centered.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by richj:

Strangely he's had more adjustment problems with German scopes than with Leupold.

Rich

Maybe he's not smart enough to figure out how much a centimeter is. A typical Zeiss/Swaro/S& B scope has far more accurate and repeatable adjustments than your average Leupold..................DJ

Sounds like he's going about it the wrong way. The right way is to optically center the scope with it out of the rings. You then mount the scope. How far the scope is off boresite will tell you how centered your mounting system is, not how far off the scope is..........................DJ

quote:

I'm considering the Swarovski, 1.5x-6x PH, 30mm tube. How about the new Zeiss conquest, much lower priced, but what about brightness?

I don't have experience with the conquest. As stated earlier, it is made for the American market, and is a "low end" type of product. I don't mean that in a disparaging manner, it is just a basic fact. Unlike the old Zeiss American assembled "M" series (which was by far the best bang for the buck around, and a great scope in and of itself) which had the "better" German lenses, the Conquest line is "scimpy" on the lenses themselves, cut in half I believe.

I do have Leupolds, but I only put them on my .22LRs. Allegedly, though not as optically crisp as the euros, they have a reputation for taking a lot of abuse and perform better in the adjustment-mechanics functions ie two clicks does equal 2 1/4MOA adjustments etc etc than the european scopes.

I have both Swaros AVs/PHs and Zeiss VM/Vs on my hunting rifles. Can I tell them apart? I don't know, maybe. The plus on Zeiss is absolute clarity and low light transmission. Swaros however look and to me feel "softer" on the eyes. Low light transmission is the same. You can't go wrong with either.

The same holds true for the binos. The Zeiss FLs, Swarovski ELs and Leica Geovids are all fantastic. The Zeiss are by far have the most clarity, BUT the focus is too abrupt. The ELs are just as clear, but softer to look through. The Leicas are a very close second, but they are indeed second to those two. But they have a range finder built in, I absolutely love them. (Truth be known, the old Zeiss classics are tough to beat, I've still got two of them.)

That all being said I would NOT buy a Conquest, I am a firm believer in not buying any company's entry level model- period. If money is a consideration, then there is nothing wrong with the Leupolds. As stated above I have NO experience with them, BUT they do indeed have a reputation for toughness and a good rep in Africa.

I actually have the 1.5-6x PH, which I'll be putting on a 375 H&H, so if money is not an object, that's a good scope. I know nothing of Schmidt & Bender, but I have heard they are tough. Perhaps that would be something else you may want to look into.

quote:

the Conquest line is "scimpy" on the lenses themselves, cut in half I believe.

FMC,

Could you please elaborate on your above statement - "cut in half" ???
Their lenses are brighter than the Leupold VX3 - majority opinion here on AR.
They may be the bottom end of Zeiss, but still better than the over-prized VX3.

Thanks
Warrior

I have used Leupold my whole life. 63 now and have never had a problem with them. Living in the West I have hunted in all conditions early light and last shooting hours and have always been able to see my game. I shoot guns from 223, 220 swift up to 416 and have not had problems with these scopes. I have read on the forum a person having difficulty with his 1.75 x 6 and sending it in a getting it back the same week. Do that with the european scopes. I've hunted for over 50 years and buy Leupold. They work fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
[FMC,

Could you please elaborate on your above statement - "cut in half" ???
Their lenses are brighter than the Leupold VX3 - majority opinion here on AR.
They may be the bottom end of Zeiss, but still better than the over-prized VX3.

Thanks
Warrior

I don't remeber where I heard this, but I do distinctly remember someone telling me (may have been my dealer) the lenses are cut in half ie one "full" lens split in half per scope. Don't ask me how.......

I don't know, that is all I remember. I've never looked through one, as I said I like the VM/Vs from Zeiss.

quote:

Originally posted by FMC:

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
[FMC,

Could you please elaborate on your above statement - "cut in half" ???
Their lenses are brighter than the Leupold VX3 - majority opinion here on AR.
They may be the bottom end of Zeiss, but still better than the over-prized VX3.

Thanks
Warrior

I don't remeber where I heard this, but I do distinctly remember someone telling me (may have been my dealer) the lenses are cut in half ie one "full" lens split in half per scope. Don't ask me how.......

I don't know, that is all I remember. I've never looked through one, as I said I like the VM/Vs from Zeiss.

I have eard this too, even don´t know the kind of source...

Take on of the new Swar Z6: absolutely best I have ever seen!!!

I have 2 Zeiss's. One is a 2.5x10x50 30mm tube VM/V T* and the other is a 3x9x50 1" tube Conquest. From experiences at the range I would say that the Conquest is crisper and clearer than the European VM/V. You can see the ragged edges of the holes at 100 yards. I don't think it gathers as much light and it does not have as large a FOV but it costs 1/3 what the VM/V does.

I have mounted 3 other Conquests on other rifles for friends. All of them have been exactly as expected and are crystal clear and easy to adjust.

At one range session a friend was shooting his 7 mag with a Leupold VXIII 3.5x10x50. I was shooting with the 2 Zeiss's and a Kahles. When he would shoot I would tell him where he hit. He would get up and go back to the range spotting scope to look. After a while he asked how I could see the holes. I just plopped the Conquest down on his bags and his jaw dropped.

He is now one of the 3 that for whom I have mounted Conquest scopes on their rifles.

I know now why shooters bring spotting scopes and use the range spotter at the 100 yard range. A lot of Leupold users out there.