As my search for the right Zeiss Diavari 6-24x56 continues, I was wondering if there are any new scopes out there that match the Diavari for glass quality and light transmission at low light? I currently have one of these scopes and tried it next to friends Valdada Recon gen 2 as I was considering getting new scopes for my new rifles that are on order but the Diavari was just better. It had more colour, contrast and detail at last light, so now I’m in a quandary. Do I continue my search for these rare scopes or is there a new option available in a similar high mag range?
Zeiss Diavari still king of low light?
- Thread starter Chazza
- Start date
They surprisingly didn’t come out on top of a detailed review on YouTube (although they were up there) but that all comes down to personal opinion I suppose? Either way, they’re both slightly too low in mag range for my purposes. I like the 6-24 mag range (or similar i.e. 5-25 etc) as it gives me the option of leaving my spotting scope at home..
John Gryphon
Well-Known Member
And the credentials of the reviewer?
Find one with the 72mm objective:
K
K
paulbshooting
Well-Known Member
Own a zeiss HT and V8, both 56mm, the HT is better. Tried the S&B polar at their factory but not hunting. It was incredibly bright so not surprised it has the quoted light transmission it has and must be good at low light.
This punches above its weight and unlike Swarovski of a similar vintage does not have the slight yellow cast:
K
K
austin1999
Active Member
I get on really well with my zeiss HT
The "Hubble"
I should have purchased Colin N’s many
’s ago but knew I’d have to compromise on scope rings/mounts so didn’t. What a fool I am!K
From personal experience the Diavari 6-24x56 is all the scope you'll need - many is the morning I have sat there willing the hands on my watch to move faster or lamenting the fact that it's already an hour past sunset.
I'll confess, I have three of them - two with #63 reticles and one with #60 reticle.
I'll confess, I have three of them - two with #63 reticles and one with #60 reticle.
I should have purchased Colin N’s many
K
Colin has certainly had some good kit - really glad I bought the rook rifle from him when I did
Yes, he even swam with a Dolphin but it didn’t float my bipod.
Colin has certainly had some good kit - really glad I bought the rook rifle from him when I did
K
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
Have a Diavari V T* 3-12x56.can’t imagine any scope having better light transmission that would be remotely perceivable by the human eye. Zeiss definitely have better low light abilities than swaro IMHO
Last edited:
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
I bought the polar 18 month back and I am totally in love.
It sits on my .223 woodland munt stalker, and its sublime at last light, I took a muntie buck off a ride this evening at 16:59 tonight and could still make it out enough to plant one in the boiler room.
I put it side x side against a ZEISS and z6i when I bought it (had it on a buy or return basis)
It blew the ZEISS away, and was a few minutes past the z6i for shootable picture
That combined with the price swung me, and have to say no regrets.
I am always the last to pack up amongst our group, often 10-15 minutes later, and yet to look through a day scope that provides better clarity and last light performance
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
Interestingly a friend bought a swaro z6 and was so under-impressed he went and got a victory Zeiss immediately. Said the z6 was utter rubbish compared to Zeiss.
Has anyone reviewed the Leica PRS at last light?
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
I certainly don’t agree that for my eyes, my swaro is much better than my victory,
Similar threads
