Swarovski or Zeiss

[Ahlosojoe]

I am on the verge of plunging for a high dollar scope. Since this will probably be a once in a lifetime purchase for me I would very much like to hear from some of you who have had experience with Swarovski or Zeiss. Is one better than the other? Are they really worth the price which is ridiculous? Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks, Joe

[yooper77]

I would purchase a Leupold VX-III, I buy U.S.A. made products.

yooper77

[Graybeard]

Were I ready to plunk down that kinda money today I'd buy a Bushnell Elite 6500. I'd not have either of the two you mention if someone offered to trade them to me for a Bushnell Banner. I don't care for their placement of the cross hairs in the wrong focal plane.

[Brithunter]

Hi there,

         Well I have only had one Swaroski personally and it was an old 4x32, nice optics but I sold it for more than I gave for it to get a larger objective scope. Zeiss are good and I have a couple again older ones as I cannot afford the new ones, again the optics are very good, sorry to say this but to my eyes they are way better than the Leupolds and I have a couple of them as well a VariX 111 2.5-8 and a M8 Compact 4x.

      My advice is to look through them both and decide which you like best  some say the Swaroski is brighter others claim the same for the Zeiss  I suppose folks eyes vary some. Now I would also suggest that you consider the Schmidt & Bender ( I have a 6x42 that I did get new) and Khales  don't think Pecar is a big player in the US but they make excellent scopes as well I also have both of those in older models. I hunt down used scopes and am currently waiting on delivery of a Zeiss Jena 6x rail mount scope  .

      As for GB's comment on the reticle and it's focal plane, well I suppse it's what were used to and what the scope will be used for. In the Pecar's for instance the reticle although is appears to the shooter to get larger it actually covers the same area on the target at all magnifications. At least some of the European big makers offer scopes with either types of focussing. Me I like a heavier reticle especially when stalking as it shows up better in the gloom.

Oh GB I think your safe in this:-

I'd not have either of the two you mention if someone offered to trade them to me for a Bushnell Banner.

No one in their right mind is going to offer such a trade even though I have never had or even seen a Banner scope I do have an older and some people calim better Scope Chief but it is not as good as the Zeiss scopes I have. It is not even as good as the lesser Zeiss Jena communist made scopes from the DDR period.

  As for this statement 

I don't care for their placement of the cross hairs in the wrong focal plane.

Just beacuse YOU don't like it it's wrong??? Perhaps their right and it's you that's wrong? 

   I can see having the reticle appear smaller on things such as Prarie Dogs and BR shooting but as that doesn't happen so much in Europe the scopes are used for hunting and made for such use. I am also sure Townsend Wheelan would have liked their reticles better than the US std duplex as he liked flat topped posts which the European scopes have 

       Just about all the stalkers I know use Zeiss, Swaroski, S&B or Khales scopes in fact I don't know anyone other than myself who uses Luepold scopes, oh yes John had one on his .22LR but took it off and fitted a Zeiss Conquest  nearly forgot that but his stalking rifles wear Swaorski's. If I had the sare money and was buying a new scope would I buy Leupold? .............................. Nope I would wait a little longer and get a Pecar or Schmidt & Bender or maybe Khales but that's just MY opinion 

[yooper77]

Brithunter,

I do believe Graybeard was being funny offering a Bushnell Banner for one of the two scopes.

Also, you need to learn to agree to disagree.  Don't take it so personal when someone doesn't believe the same way you do.

There are a lot of choices out there for scope and people can and do have different likes and dislikes.  I strongly believe for the money, I wouldn't buy any other scope other than Leupold, U.S.A. made and one of the highest quality scopes, plus their customer service is stellar.

yooper77

Oh GB I think your safe in this:-

I'd not have either of the two you mention if someone offered to trade them to me for a Bushnell Banner.

No one in their right mind is going to offer such a trade even though I have never had or even seen a Banner scope I do have an older and some people calim better Scope Chief but it is not as good as the Zeiss scopes I have. It is not even as good as the lesser Zeiss Jena communist made scopes from the DDR period.

  As for this statement 

I don't care for their placement of the cross hairs in the wrong focal plane.

Just beacuse YOU don't like it it's wrong??? Perhaps their right and it's you that's wrong? 

   I can see having the reticle appear smaller on things such as Prarie Dogs and BR shooting but as that doesn't happen so much in Europe the scopes are used for hunting and made for such use. I am also sure Townsend Wheelan would have liked their reticles better than the US std duplex as he liked flat topped posts which the European scopes have 

       Just about all the stalkers I know use Zeiss, Swaroski, S&B or Khales scopes in fact I don't know anyone other than myself who uses Luepold scopes, oh yes John had one on his .22LR but took it off and fitted a Zeiss Conquest  nearly forgot that but his stalking rifles wear Swaorski's. If I had the sare money and was buying a new scope would I buy Leupold? .............................. Nope I would wait a little longer and get a Pecar or Schmidt & Bender or maybe Khales but that's just MY opinion 

[Swampman]

Were I ready to plunk down that kinda money today I'd buy a Bushnell Elite 6500. I'd not have either of the two you mention if someone offered to trade them to me for a Bushnell Banner. I don't care for their placement of the cross hairs in the wrong focal plane.

Ditto what Graybeard said, I'd go with a Bushnell 3200 or 4200 (even the Banners are awesome.)  If you want to pay more for the name, just get a Leupold.

[Ahlosojoe]

Thanks to all for your information. I do appreciate your opinion. I guess it is sort of "in the eye of the beholder".  I also appreciate being able to call on this forum. Best Regards, Joe

[Swampman]

in Europe the scopes are used for hunting and made for such use.

We don't use our scopes for hunting here in the US?

Nope I would wait a little longer and get a Pecar or Schmidt & Bender or maybe Khales but that's just MY opinion

No need to settle for an off brand scope when you can get a Bushnell or a Leupold for a reasonable price.

[Graybeard]

Europeans hunt in many ways drastically different from us. Their needs are different than ours. In Europe game is privately owned not owned by the state as here. They are allowed to hunt generally speaking so long as they can still see to shoot safely even if that means all night on a night with moon bright enough. We here in the states generally speaking cannot.

So they need a scope as bright as it can get and size be damned. That's why they go with 30mm tubes and huge honking objectives suitable for the Humble Telescope. They run the magnification up to help make up for lack of light and want that crosshair to grow with magnification so they can see it if they can make out the game.

We in the US are not allowed to do those things and our needs are not the same as theirs. The shame is too many are smart enough to realize that.

[charles p]

Good to see some discussions on upper end scopes. 

[Brithunter]

Hi All,

      Well in the UK (varmint) vermin, i.e. Fox shooting is often done at night with lamps at distances up to 400 yards. Yes there are specialist lamping kits that will provide a beam out that far with enough definition to pick out a fox. Deer hunting by night is illegal as is Boar hunting at present, I expect that to change as the Boar spread as night shooting is the onyl real way to cull them.

      In Germany, Austria and even France shooting Boar by moonlight over crops is a common way of culling numbers so yes you want as much light transmitted as possible with a clear heavy reticle.

      It's also surprising just how dark the gloom can be in the middle of summer in the british woodlands when stalking Roe Buck. Good optics are again needed and good binoculars are a must in this case. Now despite what some others may think or find personally the Leupold's that I have used and those that I own do not not meet with these requirements. The Vari X 111 2.508 will stay on a rifle for now as it can be used for certain trips as I have other rifles with scopes suitable to cover the other applications. One benefit of having a choice of rifles to hunt with  .

    Recently I acquired a couple of Simmons 6-18x40 Competition Air gun scopes, specialty optics but sorry they are nowhere near up to the standards of even my Meopta scopes, I have one Simmons fitted to a 22 LR and the other to a 6mm Remington chambered rifle. OK for range use but not much use for hunting I am afraid, on the 22LR the high magnification allows the shooting a small groups at the range but the paralax focussing it too critical for any real hunting use.

    The only place I can really see the Leupold scopes really be of much use in a hunting situation for ME is somewhere like the Scottish Hills where the stalking is in open country and done during daylight, not often first light but sometimes last light and yes I have tried using them for my woodland stalking same as when I first started out I used the budget optics that I had at that time and soon discovered that they were not up to the job when the light faded or in bad weather. It was after that incident where I couldn't clearly see a Roe Doe at 70 yards due to a thunder storm moving through that I started hunting out good used scopes from the major European makers  .

  Of course another consideration for us here in the UK is the price of Leupold scopes for very little more or in some cases the same amount I can buy a new Schmidt & Bender 6x42 so the choice is a no brainer.

[Drilling Man]

  Well, in the "old" days my eyes were younger, and the way i hunted, my old B&L did the job.  These days with the way i hunt, i need a scope that gathers light and works in near dark conditions.

  I spent more than a year thinking about what scope to get.  In that time i looked at every new scope i could get my hands on, including Leupolds (an old farorite) Zeiss, Swaro's, Bushnell 3200, 4200, and many others...

  For my eyes, and my dime, i bought what i believe to be the absolute best scope for the money spent, and here it is.



  For me this Zeiss works better in lower light, than the Leu's and Bushnells i looked through, and the Swaro's i looked through were no better either.

  DM

[Dave in WV]

Ahlosojoe, I'll share my thoughts on your question. Above all else get what you like and is for the hunting you regularly will do not for a "once in a lifetime hunt".
 
 You should determine how much eye relief you will need. Personally I like at least 3.5" so I don't "wear" the scope.  Decide what you are going to use the scope for (game, weather conditions, field conditions normally encountered IE: brush or open terrain).

An exit pupil of 6mm is about all you will get an advantage out of in dim light. That's is about the max you pupil will dilate. 6X is about the max magnification you will actually see the best in dim light (with a 6mm exit pupil). A heavy reticle is better to me than a thin one for all around use. My son has a 6x42 Leupold with the heavy duplex reticle and we shot clay birds at 211 yards and then could hit the larger pieces. That educated me about thicker reticles. If I can hit a piece of a clay bird at 211 yards I would not be hampered by the thicker reticle for a 300 yard shot at a deer or elk. I don't have a need for a long range reticle.  When I bought my last new scope I ordered a Leupold VX2 3x9x40 with their post & duplex reticle.  Far more useable to my over 50 eyes. In my experience younger eyes can compensate for lesser optics and thinner reticles, older eyes are more appreciative or better optics and thicker reticles. The reticles for range compensation work but only if you practice.

 The next thing to consider is weight. Euro scopes can be heavy compared to good pacific rim or US made scopes. Euro scopes can seem brighter than much of the competition. Besides the quality of materials and engineering they rely on less eye relief and larger ocular bell sizes to help get more light to your eye. If you are going to use the scope for hog hunting or other game taken in really dim light an illuminated reticle is useful.

I hope this info is useful for you.

[Tunaman]

Drillingman, That is one interesting mounting job. What size ring is that around the bell? I to prefer Zeiss scopes. I have them on several rifles, both the conquest line, which I believe is the finest glass in the price range, and in the German lines. Until you get them into the woods, they seem just like a comparable Leupold but the darker it gets the better they seem. They are worth every penny.

[charles p]

Only had one Bushnell and it was pure junk.  I think it was a Banner.  It was a 1" tube for a 22 rimfire.  I took it squirrel hunting and could not see anything through it.  I remember a squirrel about 15 feet from me on the ground.  It would not pick it up.  Light was low but certainly not too low.  You can have your Banners, and the others too.  I shoot Leupolds on my centerfires except for one Burris pistol scope.  I don't need a scope to handicap me.

[Drilling Man]

Drillingman, That is one interesting mounting job. What size ring is that around the bell? I to prefer Zeiss scopes. I have them on several rifles, both the conquest line, which I believe is the finest glass in the price range, and in the German lines. Until you get them into the woods, they seem just like a comparable Leupold but the darker it gets the better they seem. They are worth every penny.

  The front ring is 40mm, and it's a "claw" mount.  I can snap the scope on or off in seconds, and it comes back to zero EVERY time 100%!  Yes, it really works just that good.  Many times i carry my scope in my pack, and only snap it on if i have a longer shot to take.

  I still have my B&L to use too...



  It's been a great scope, it just doesn't let enough light in for me...

  DM

[Swampman]

Only had one Bushnell and it was pure junk.  I think it was a Banner.  It was a 1" tube for a 22 rimfire.  I took it squirrel hunting and could not see anything through it.  I remember a squirrel about 15 feet from me on the ground.  It would not pick it up.  Light was low but certainly not too low.  You can have your Banners, and the others too.  I shoot Leupolds on my centerfires except for one Burris pistol scope.  I don't need a scope to handicap me.

You are the only person I've ever heard say anything negative about that scope.  I don't use Leupolds.  I don't need a scope that makes me wonder who turned out the lights.

[Drilling Man]

Only had one Bushnell and it was pure junk.  I think it was a Banner.  It was a 1" tube for a 22 rimfire.  I took it squirrel hunting and could not see anything through it.  I remember a squirrel about 15 feet from me on the ground.  It would not pick it up.  Light was low but certainly not too low.  You can have your Banners, and the others too.  I shoot Leupolds on my centerfires except for one Burris pistol scope.  I don't need a scope to handicap me.

You are the only person I've ever heard say anything negative about that scope.  I don't use Leupolds.  I don't need a scope that makes me wonder who turned out the lights.

  OK, lets make it two then...  I've had a couple Banners, and i considered them to be 22 scopes. (read not fit for a gun i had to depend on) When i ran my gunshop, i sent a few in for repair, so i guess the number keeps climbing...

  Perhaps they are better these days??

  DM

[Swampman]

For the money, I don't think you can find a better scope than the Banners.  The Elite series is first class all the way.

[12ptdroptine]

For a spotting scope or Bino's I believe one needs the better glass..Swarovzki or Zeiss..And there are other's that will fare you as well..However they are made for "Glassing".. When one make's the shot you will probably be looking through the scope for mere seconds... In that amount of time will you be able to notice the differance in the quality of that glass? If YOU feel so then so be it..That is what you should buy. I use Swarovski,Leica, and Leupold product's. That is what I have decided to do. These people all have their opinion's and the reason's that support them. You should keep doing your research.. And then make the decision as to what will work best for YOUR application...Then make the plunge... Good Luck and Good Shooting Drop