Zeiss 3-12x50 or used Swarovski 4-12x50

kelvo73

Active Member
I can buy a used swarovski with a 25mm tube for the same price as a Zeis Diralyt with a 30mm tube, which is the better for low light?
 
i dont own either of these scopes but i have looked through both and for me it would be the swaro every time i just think there glass is that much clearer and the picture is super crisp but thats not to say that a ziess is a bad scope by any means
 
yeah, I think the used swaro prob has the better glass but the only issue I have really is that it only has a 25mm tube but the Zeiss has a 30mm will this make a difference in the field
 
The 4-12 swaro is a very light scope, if I remember right only around 400grams.
Built for the american market. I don't think the glass will be any better or worse
than the zeiss. Maybe the zeiss is a little stronger in the field due to it's 30mm tube.
edi
 
I doubt if you would be disapointed with either.

The tube diameter makes no difference to the light transmission.

If you have other rifles and scopes then there is some mileage in staying with either 1" or 30mm so that your scopes are interchangeable but this is not really a big deal.

I would say that Swarovski are a company that is going from strength to strength, building on good solid high quality products backed up by legendary customer service.

Zeiss on the other hand seem to be twisting and turning, producing cheaper ranges and then not supporting these to the same standard that they do their top end stuff.

I would contact Zeiss UK before purchasing any product and confirm the warrantee details in writing as I know that the UK main man has publicly critisised the US 'Conquest' range. Not saying Zeiss are crap, far from it, I have two pairs of their binos, just check the small print.

JC
 
I don't think you would notice the tube difference . But ask yourself why a used swaro has held a good price ? And it is unlikely to lose any more value unless you damage it ! What price would you get for the Ziess when it is second hand ?
 
I would go for the Swaro's or a second hand Zeiss Victory, the Victory glass is far better than the Diralyt these are cheap for one reason the glass is no as good, As for 25 mm or 30 mm i dont think it makes much difference to light, but i purchased 30 mm just incase it did.

DS
 
I would go for the Swaro's or a second hand Zeiss Victory, the Victory glass is far better than the Diralyt these are cheap for one reason the glass is no as good, As for 25 mm or 30 mm i dont think it makes much difference to light, but i purchased 30 mm just incase it did.

DS

Is that based on experience with the Duralyt ? Not had a chance to look through one yet but interested to see what they are like , i have chosen Zeiss over Swarovski in the past but not had a chance to compare their latest offerings head to head in the field (and looking through them in a shop is no substitute ).
The 30mm tube is unlikely to increase percieved light transmission through the tube , but it will most likely be stronger and have a wider adjustment range for windage / elevation.
 
I own both these scopes.
I can tell you that 30mm tubes only afford a greater zoom range than 25mm and light transmission is not relevant.Hence the Zeiss being 3-12 and the Swaro being 4-12.
If I were to buy either of these scopes again I would buy the Zeiss. I have had Swaro scopes for 20 yrs but recently have lost confidence in the brand.
McLeods of Tain tell me they are getting huge numbers of returned Swaro scopes not holding zero on moderated rifles. My new 4-12 Swaro was returned twice for this.
The Zeiss Duralyt is a new model, hopefully designed to perform on moderated rifles(as most now are)and up to date mine is faultless.
S.
 
I own both these scopes.
I can tell you that 30mm tubes only afford a greater zoom range than 25mm and light transmission is not relevant.Hence the Zeiss being 3-12 and the Swaro being 4-12.
If I were to buy either of these scopes again I would buy the Zeiss. I have had Swaro scopes for 20 yrs but recently have lost confidence in the brand.
McLeods of Tain tell me they are getting huge numbers of returned Swaro scopes not holding zero on moderated rifles. My new 4-12 Swaro was returned twice for this.
The Zeiss Duralyt is a new model, hopefully designed to perform on moderated rifles(as most now are)and up to date mine is faultless.
S.
Sounds a bit odd - why would they perform worse on a moderated rifle than one without ?
A moderator will soak up some recoil - thus reducing 'shock' to the scope , unless of course the symptoms are actually worse on unmoderated rifles as an untold part of the story .
 
Is that based on experience with the Duralyt ? Not had a chance to look through one yet but interested to see what they are like , i have chosen Zeiss over Swarovski in the past but not had a chance to compare their latest offerings head to head in the field (and looking through them in a shop is no substitute ).
The 30mm tube is unlikely to increase percieved light transmission through the tube , but it will most likely be stronger and have a wider adjustment range for windage / elevation.

by greater zoom range you mean more moa then a 25mm tube scope. if it was the victory zeiss i would have that. as its the lower price duralyt i would have the swaro.
 
Sounds a bit odd - why would they perform worse on a moderated rifle than one without ?
A moderator will soak up some recoil - thus reducing 'shock' to the scope , unless of course the symptoms are actually worse on unmoderated rifles as an untold part of the story .

A moderator doesn't make the recoil just disappear as such but the energy is exchanged in a different way- newton's 3rd law and all that. I assume it is this type of recoil that the scopes are not designed to withstand as they are used to a simple backwards recoil.

However do correct me if i have been misinformed.

George
 
Last edited:
Re 1 inch to 30mm

The reason for the bigger tube is only to get a wider adjustment range for windage & elevation.
The 24.5mm tube (1 inch) has less material in it"s diameter than a 30mm tube so it is therefore also lighter by a few gramms.
I do not feel disadvantaged by the smaller size.
Martin
 
A moderator doesn't make the recoil just disappear as such but the energy is exchanged in a different way- newton's 3rd law and all that. I assume it is this type of recoil that the scopes are not designed to withstand as they are used to a simple backwards recoil.

However do correct me if i have been misinformed.

George
Agreed that the recoil does not disappear - but it is reduced , i have read the physics on it - but a bit beyond me , however it is fact that the recoil is reduced by a moderator - my own shoulder will bear witness to this , moderators and muzzle brakes are routinely used to reduce muzzle flip and tame the recoil on the monster calibres .
This is why i am interested to know why rifles equipped with moderators have been identified as a cause of a problem with zero shift on Swarovski scopes , a rifle that is recoiling less should be causing less problems not more .A moderator on a centrefire rifle would not cause a different type of recoil - just less , for a different type of recoil look at springer airguns - the recoil is fore and aft - caused by the forward impact / energy of the spring and the 'standard' recoil caused by the pellet leaving the muzzle , known to reduce less well built scopes to a pile of parts .
 
Agreed that the recoil does not disappear - but it is reduced , i have read the physics on it - but a bit beyond me , however it is fact that the recoil is reduced by a moderator - my own shoulder will bear witness to this , moderators and muzzle brakes are routinely used to reduce muzzle flip and tame the recoil on the monster calibres .
This is why i am interested to know why rifles equipped with moderators have been identified as a cause of a problem with zero shift on Swarovski scopes , a rifle that is recoiling less should be causing less problems not more .A moderator on a centrefire rifle would not cause a different type of recoil - just less , for a different type of recoil look at springer airguns - the recoil is fore and aft - caused by the forward impact / energy of the spring and the 'standard' recoil caused by the pellet leaving the muzzle , known to reduce less well built scopes to a pile of parts .

Once again the recoil is reduced hugely my shoulder would also bare witness to this but the energy that causes the recoil doesn't disappear, it can't. It is simply converted into another form of energy thats physics, energy can't be created or destroyed it just changes form or so GCSE physics taught me any way. The energy must simply be exerted in a different way quite how that is i am not sure but it does it none the less and i did read it somewhere how the energy from the round is change but i forget. Anyway i think the reason that scopes struggle with the moderator is that the way the energy is transferred is not the way that scopes are designed to withstand and this is why it is meant to be causing problems.

George
 
Once again the recoil is reduced hugely my shoulder would also bare witness to this but the energy that causes the recoil doesn't disappear, it can't. It is simply converted into another form of energy thats physics, energy can't be created or destroyed it just changes form or so GCSE physics taught me any way. The energy must simply be exerted in a different way quite how that is i am not sure but it does it none the less and i did read it somewhere how the energy from the round is change but i forget. Anyway i think the reason that scopes struggle with the moderator is that the way the energy is transferred is not the way that scopes are designed to withstand and this is why it is meant to be causing problems.

George
You are right , the energy produced cannot simply disappear, but the direction of movement that this energy causes to the rifle may be changed (and this may well be the reasoning behind the claims / possible effect to a scope ).
A moderator works by trapping the expanding gases emerging behind the bullet - channeling them around a set of baffles , this also has the obvious effect of changing the direction of these gases and thus the rearward energy that they produce ,but since this cannot introduce significant movement in another direction (or the accuracy of the rifle would be affected and the unmeasured but real benefit of maintaining sight picture /on point of aim would not be the case ) i still cannot see how the use of a moderator could possibly introduce 'abnormal ' recoil energy into a scope that might damage it .
I suspect that this might be a convenient excuse to explain away problems with a less than perfect product - but i remain open to being convinced otherwise ..................
 
Is that based on experience with the Duralyt ? Not had a chance to look through one yet but interested to see what they are like , i have chosen Zeiss over Swarovski in the past but not had a chance to compare their latest offerings head to head in the field (and looking through them in a shop is no substitute ).
The 30mm tube is unlikely to increase percieved light transmission through the tube , but it will most likely be stronger and have a wider adjustment range for windage / elevation.

I was talking to Jon Rigby at Zeiss a few months ago and it was his comments, the victory glass is the better quality than the Duralyt and classic or older conquest lenses.
 
Swarovski Moderator Fault

I was of the understanding that the weakness in Swarovski scopes that was highlighted by moderator use was that they had been using wire reticles, and therefore changed to glass etched reticles to deal with the problem.
 
Back
Top