differences in diavari?

[Karhumies]

So... again trying to score a diavari, last one again didnt work out.

So i have my eye on 2 versions with vastly different prices. I actually havent looked trough the newer looking ones. Is there a difference?

the older 80s one i am currently holding has amazing glass as should be expected. One thing it shows its age in however is that its like looking trough a tunnel, its a rather confined view.

do the newer ones only look more modern on the outside or are they also better to look trough?

 

[Karhumies]

To be more precise.

If i spend 500 extra for that 3-12x56, am i getting better eye relief, less tunneling, better FoV anything like that? or am i just coughing cash for a reskin and some extra mag

 

[WildBoarHunter]

The old diavaris were notorious for tunnel effect. Someting the Zeiss fixed with V / VM series. So also the Z / ZM series suffer from some tunneling effects. The new V / VM series were also considerably lighter than the previous Z / ZM series. Also the coatings were somewhat better than Z / ZM although not by much as both ZM and VM use the T* coatings. The Z 3-12×56 you have there on the pic probably weights about 700 g. Also these were the first with the ZM rail, this is why the rail is called ZM rail. The one on your picture is Z, so no rail, just 30 mm tube.
I would advise you to look for a good condition VM model or the newer Classic / Victory series. They are considerably more expensive but are much better overall. I used or still use Classic Diavari 3-12×56 and 1,5-6×42 and I must say they have the best daytime and nighttime picture from all the scopes I ever used.
How long will Zeiss still service these old scopes is also something to take into consideration. So also consider a comparable Swarovski Habicht.

 

[Karhumies]

The old diavaris were notorious for tunnel effect. Someting the Zeiss fixed with V / VM series. So also the Z / ZM series suffer from some tunneling effects. The new V / VM series were also considerably lighter than the previous Z / ZM series. Also the coatings were somewhat better than Z / ZM although not by much as both ZM and VM use the T* coatings. The Z 3-12×56 you have there on the pic probably weights about 700 g. Also these were the first with the ZM rail, this is why the rail is called ZM rail. The one on your picture is Z, so no rail, just 30 mm tube.
I would advise you to look for a good condition VM model or the newer Classic / Victory series. They are considerably more expensive but are much better overall. I used or still use Classic Diavari 3-12×56 and 1,5-6×42 and I must say they have the best daytime and nighttime picture from all the scopes I ever used.
How long will Zeiss still service these old scopes is also something to take into consideration. So also consider a comparable Swarovski Habicht.

Iam bount to a budget. victory etc is just not realistic.

What i have in my hands now is an 80s 2.5-10x50 with no1 reticle (i love the post)

Is that 3-12x56 an upgrade? I dont care mutch for the extra mag, just wether il be squinting less.

Not worried about servicing, there is a guy here in Finland who is considered a scope doctor. He worked on my diatal too, came back as new. He even changes reticles sometimes. depends on if he has The right one laying around in the case of FFP

 

[WildBoarHunter]

Here is a pic from a 1995 Franconia Catalogue. The model in question is 731 g. Quite a scope. I think the real upgrade came with the V / VM series so there shouldn't be too much of a difference between the scopes you are asking about. Another interesting point is that these Z / ZM scopes were by far the most expensive scopes on the market. 2200 DM for a scope in a time when most people here were working a full time monthly job for much less.

 

[Karhumies]

Here is a pic from a 1995 Franconia Catalogue. The model in question is 731 g. Quite a scope. I think the real upgrade came with the V / VM series so there shouldn't be too much of a difference between the scopes you are asking about.

alright. Then perhaps i should invest into mounting the one i have now. I bought it last week, came with a different rail type than the seller seemed to imply. He said Zeiss herringbone rail, googling that it shows the newer rail.

turns out its an older LM type for wich i have no mounts.... scope cost me 290. My other options are the ones pictured, 3-12x56 for 730 or 2.5-10x50 for 400 both without the tube. I dont like the reticle on either of them very mutch tho. Shooting small came from 200+m with that german 4 on the first focal plane.... bit of a guessing game.

So i might not loose out if i buy the correct mounts from rusan(120 euro).

Scope weight doesnt bother me, i feel like i shoot better with heavier guns. I intentionally ad bulk to my rimfire to make it handle more like my big guns

That 3-12x56 just looks so mutch more "modern" that i figured it might have more advanced eyebox etc.