Swarovski vs Zeiss

[Scooby-3]

I like your thinking with the coin toss Scooby. My results were 3 heads in a row. How much difference in low light would you say there is?

This is all my opinion and what works for me. I own a pair of Swarovski and zeiss binoculars and also Swarovski and zeiss scopes

as an example it’s ovs not scientific but to my eyes:

I was zeroing 2 rifles late one night and I purposely stayed until very last light zeiss and Swarovski scopes
the target Was a big white plaque with targets dotted around it, I could still see the white plaque through both scopes at 12mag but I couldn’t adjust the Swarovski to still clearly see the targets at X o’clock yet I could still with the zeiss for probably another 2-5mins roughly

scope were Swarovski 5-30x50 z6 and zeiss 1.8-14x50 victory

 

[Dale57]

Hi Dave I have the swsarovski z6 on my 308 and find it great and bt works really good

 

[Chasey]

This is all my opinion and what works for me. I own a pair of Swarovski and zeiss binoculars and also Swarovski and zeiss scopes

as an example it’s ovs not scientific but to my eyes:

I was zeroing 2 rifles late one night and I purposely stayed until very last light zeiss and Swarovski scopes
the target Was a big white plaque with targets dotted around it, I could still see the white plaque through both scopes at 12mag but I couldn’t adjust the Swarovski to still clearly see the targets at X o’clock yet I could still with the zeiss for probably another 2-5mins roughly

scope were Swarovski 5-30x50 z6 and zeiss 1.8-14x50 victory

This is where the silliness stems from


Fact: a top quality 8 X 56 fixed lens scope will have better low light capability than a equal quality 2.5-15 variable scope set to 8X because of the complexity and number of internal lenses the light has to pass through

a 5-30 scope will have no where near as good a light transfer as a 1.8-14 for the very same reason

A 5-30 scope is VERY powerfull and frankly cant even be used on full power in the middle of the day if theres too much light pollution, heat haze etc etc.

Simply by comparing the weight of the scope and the length of the scope, you can see how much harder the light has to work to give a sight picture.

Which is why a 2-12-50 or 2.5 15 56 is my prefered choice. Its a compromise on light gathering over a fixed 8X56 but frankly I find I pack up long before my scope cant do its job

I shot a fox with my 2.5 15 56 on my way walking back to the car the other day in such low light it was pitch black by the time I found the carcass and cleared it

Didn't even need the red dot just cantered it on the thicker cross hairs.

The ONLY thing id need those extra tiny bit of light gathering for is foxing and for that I find the 8 X 56 to be a bit lacking in power.

The advantages of the variable scope far outweigh the down sides. In fact the bigger down side is the weight.

If i were walking and stalking several miles up and down hill in Scotland a lot, I could see me having a fixed 8 X 56 on my Tika T3 lite with no mod to keep the weight down.

 

[Scooby-3]

This is where the silliness stems from


Fact: a top quality 8 X 56 fixed lens scope will have better low light capability than a equal quality 2.5-15 variable scope set to 8X because of the complexity and number of internal lenses the light has to pass through

a 5-30 scope will have no where near as good a light transfer as a 1.8-14 for the very same reason

A 5-30 scope is VERY powerfull and frankly cant even be used on full power in the middle of the day if theres too much light pollution, heat haze etc etc.

Simply by comparing the weight of the scope and the length of the scope, you can see how much harder the light has to work to give a sight picture.

Which is why a 2-12-50 or 2.5 15 56 is my prefered choice. Its a compromise on light gathering over a fixed 8X56 but frankly I find I pack up long before my scope cant do its job

I shot a fox with my 2.5 15 56 on my way walking back to the car the other day in such low light it was pitch black by the time I found the carcass and cleared it

Didn't even need the red dot just cantered it on the thicker cross hairs.

The ONLY thing id need those extra tiny bit of light gathering for is foxing and for that I find the 8 X 56 to be a bit lacking in power.

The advantages of the variable scope far outweigh the down sides. In fact the bigger down side is the weight.

If i were walking and stalking several miles up and down hill in Scotland a lot, I could see me having a fixed 8 X 56 on my Tika T3 lite with no mod to keep the weight down.

this is all true and correct

I still think my zeiss victory rf binos 8x45 are better than my 8x42 Swarovski elrf in low light, ie foxing
but during the day at work I prefer the ‘ brighter ‘ picture of the Swarovski

out of the 2 manufactures I’d say I prefer Swarovski overall

 

[John Gryphon]

Geezuz blokes so much about this and so much about that!

What has happened to getting off your freckle and going out and shooting a deer with just a plain old 'cross haired' scope without all the worry of the added attractions that reel in the buyers every year.
At every Shot Show there are the new attractions,whether they be some special coating or special distance ranging bars and algebra calculators,whats next ? Wifi recordings so you can hear your favourite Abba song while squeezing the trigger,hmmmmm now that I think of it I wonder if I could get [FONT=Roboto, Arial, sans-serif]The Ride of the Valkyries in my scope tube.....or the new line of "x" scopes that play the cannons of the 1812 Overture simultaneously with the squeezing of the trigger,ooooooh that would make me hard [/FONT][h=1][/h]To the OP q`s either brand do me and I worked through a lot lesser brands that were used in harvesting thousands of animals on my way up to buying the Z and S scopes that are currently used.
[h=1][/h]

 

[Scooby-3]

Geezuz blokes so much about this and so much about that!

What has happened to getting off your freckle and going out and shooting a deer with just a plain old 'cross haired' scope without all the worry of the added attractions that reel in the buyers every year.
At every Shot Show there are the new attractions,whether they be some special coating or special distance ranging bars and algebra calculators,whats next ? Wifi recordings so you can hear your favourite Abba song while squeezing the trigger,hmmmmm now that I think of it I wonder if I could get The Ride of the Valkyries in my scope tube.....or the new line of "x" scopes that play the cannons of the 1812 Overture simultaneously with the squeezing of the trigger,ooooooh that would make me hard To the OP q`s either brand do me and I worked through a lot lesser brands that were used in harvesting thousands of animals on my way up to buying the Z and S scopes that are currently used.

very true that man

 

[Heym SR20]

All our eyes are different so for one Zeiss will be better than Swarovski and for the next S&B will win. Personally I think S&B have the best optics.

But I would however question the need for a 2.5-15x56 scope for deerstalking. Its going add at least 2lbs in weight and will have to be mounted high, and will reduce your wallet by £2,000 plus.

If you are shooting at last light, you should not be taking longer range shots and any deer should be against a clear even background, otherwise you cannot ensure safety, and in this day and age there is always somebody out walking the dog or misbehaving in the bushes and you have to factor that in.

I would suggest a 4-12x42 or 50 Swaro Z3 or equivalent will do all that the OP requires, will be much lighter and will save a big wadge of cash that can be used for stalking. On my 7x57 I have a 1990's vintage Swaro 3-9x36. I can and have taken deer with this long after naked eye can't see things. OK not a 9x but wound back to 3 or 4.

If you want the low range at 2.5x for driven shooting, with a 56mm scope the rifle will be so unbalanced it won't handle well. Also you don't have a particularly wide field of view. I would suggest going to 1.5-10x42 or 48 - Ed at Edinburgh Rifles has a Docter Comfort 1.5-10x48 on his own Sako 270 and I think it is a very good allrounder and handles well.

But the best would be a dedicated 1-4x24 wide angle scope coupled with a 4-12x42/50 or 8x50, both on detachable mounts.

 

[caorach]

This is easier than you imagine. Swaro are a marketing company who sell very expensive small glass ornaments, and some other things also made of glass. Zeiss are an optics company.

 

[Chasey]

This is easier than you imagine. Swaro are a marketing company who sell very expensive small glass ornaments, and some other things also made of glass. Zeiss are an optics company.

What a silly thing to say

Swarovski was a company formed in 1895 specialising in leaded glass manufacture & optical coatings

Swarovski have been building the actual Optics since 1935. Swarovski Optics was formed as a separate company in 1949

The company founded by Wilhelm Swarovski started out making binoculars and then moved into rifle scopes in 1959

Swarovski Optic is a separate company from Swarovski Cristal and its other arm which is called Tyrolit (SP)

Some of the coatings used for optics today are patented by Swarovski

Zeiss beet Swaro to it by 30 odd years with its first hunting scope in 1922 but Zeiss/ Lycia's main business was cameras and binoculars. Unlike Swarovski, who actualy designed and made the glass used, this was out sourced by Zeiss
Scmidt and Bender was formed out of an internal argument in Zeiss/ Lycia over Prisms. Schmidt decided to leave and set up his own company

 

[neillfrbs]

both are great scopes brother has swaro ,i have zeiss .i have the victory ht 3-12x56 with asv .brother has the z8 2.3-18x56 .for my two penny's worth apart from the swaro having more mag ,i find the image from the zeiss better for my eyes .and with out a doubt the zeiss is better at low light .have tested them side by side .so could be the difference of a kill or not .

 

[John Gryphon]

What a silly thing to say

I thought that also.

 

[Everlong]

Mostly good info, Zeiss however built its business on microscopes which were produced from 1846 in
Jena.

The binocular/scope business came when they acquired Wetzlar based optics company Hensoldt in 1928

What a silly thing to say

Swarovski was a company formed in 1895 specialising in leaded glass manufacture & optical coatings

Swarovski have been building the actual Optics since 1935. Swarovski Optics was formed as a separate company in 1949

The company founded by Wilhelm Swarovski started out making binoculars and then moved into rifle scopes in 1959

Swarovski Optic is a separate company from Swarovski Cristal and its other arm which is called Tyrolit (SP)

Some of the coatings used for optics today are patented by Swarovski

Zeiss beet Swaro to it by 30 odd years with its first hunting scope in 1922 but Zeiss/ Lycia's main business was cameras and binoculars. Unlike Swarovski, who actualy designed and made the glass used, this was out sourced by Zeiss
Scmidt and Bender was formed out of an internal argument in Zeiss/ Lycia over Prisms. Schmidt decided to leave and set up his own company

 

[Dave881]

All our eyes are different so for one Zeiss will be better than Swarovski and for the next S&B will win. Personally I think S&B have the best optics.

But I would however question the need for a 2.5-15x56 scope for deerstalking. Its going add at least 2lbs in weight and will have to be mounted high, and will reduce your wallet by £2,000 plus.

If you are shooting at last light, you should not be taking longer range shots and any deer should be against a clear even background, otherwise you cannot ensure safety, and in this day and age there is always somebody out walking the dog or misbehaving in the bushes and you have to factor that in.

Thanks for your reply and I have to agree that all our eyes are different but other people's experiences can be a huge factor in choosing a new piece of kit. I do have to disagree with you that 2.5-15x56 is not a good scope for deer stalking. I feel it covers everything from short range woodland stalking to longer range open field shooting, I do agree with you about safety at longer ranges but just because the kit is capable of doing long range in low light it is still the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger to make sure that the shot IS SAFE. Where I am stalking now shots could be 20 yards in quite heavy wood or 250 yards in open field situations and I need a scope that will handle anything in between these two situations. With modern technology being as good as it is now surely a responsible stalker will use any effective tool that is available within their means to ensure clean kills, hence my request for compensation between light gathering and turret quality on these to scopes. You have mentioned some excellent scopes but for me they will not be able to cover all the shooting I do with 1 scope. I do however appreciate your taking the time to share your experience.

 

[User00003]

1 scope from 20-250yds, only one, my all time favourite Zeiss 4x32

Thanks for your reply and I have to agree that all our eyes are different but other people's experiences can be a huge factor in choosing a new piece of kit. I do have to disagree with you that 2.5-15x56 is not a good scope for deer stalking. I feel it covers everything from short range woodland stalking to longer range open field shooting, I do agree with you about safety at longer ranges but just because the kit is capable of doing long range in low light it is still the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger to make sure that the shot IS SAFE. Where I am stalking now shots could be 20 yards in quite heavy wood or 250 yards in open field situations and I need a scope that will handle anything in between these two situations. With modern technology being as good as it is now surely a responsible stalker will use any effective tool that is available within their means to ensure clean kills, hence my request for compensation between light gathering and turret quality on these to scopes. You have mentioned some excellent scopes but for me they will not be able to cover all the shooting I do with 1 scope. I do however appreciate your taking the time to share your experience.

 

[John Gryphon]

And that`s where my fading eyes need a bigger objective lens,32 mm to me is like looking through a Bic Biro.

 

[PasqualeM]

I´ve had a HT 3-12x56, a Z6i 2,5-15x56, a diavari 6-24x56 and now own a Z8i 2-16x50. The best low light scope is HT 3-12x56, no doubt there. The zeisses in general seem to have little colder picture compared to the swarros. I think that gives them an advantage in low light but the colours seem to be better in the Swarros. I also have the El range 8x42 binos but before that I had a victory 8x42 bino, same there with the picture. In my opinion it all comes up to what the personal preferences are but all the mentioned scopes/binos are excellent.

 

[Everlong]

You are are right about the colour cast - Zeiss is more neutral (colder) whilst Swaro tends to be warmer.

However, that shouldn’t impact low light performance.

The difference comes from the physical properties of the glass used along with the actual optical design.

The Victory HT achieves 95% light transmission whereas the Z8i is only 93%.

This will make a difference in low light.

I’ve worked with a number of dealers that stock both ranges who have the 3-12x56 Victory HT on their personal stalking rifles.

why? Because they believe it’s the best all round deer stalking scope, as do I.

thats not to say the Swaro isn’t fantastic, it is, but to my eyes the Zeiss is better.

I´ve had a HT 3-12x56, a Z6i 2,5-15x56, a diavari 6-24x56 and now own a Z8i 2-16x50. The best low light scope is HT 3-12x56, no doubt there. The zeisses in general seem to have little colder picture compared to the swarros. I think that gives them an advantage in low light but the colours seem to be better in the Swarros. I also have the El range 8x42 binos but before that I had a victory 8x42 bino, same there with the picture. In my opinion it all comes up to what the personal preferences are but all the mentioned scopes/binos are excellent.

 

[PasqualeM]

You are probably right, I´m not that in to the technical aspects of the glass. The lack of parallax adjustment and mag range made me turn to the Z8i. If it wouldn´t be for that I would still have the HT on my rifle. Absolutely fantastic in low light.

 

[Everlong]

Also good points. Both excellent scopes at the end of the day. Ultimately it’s like saying which is better Audi, BMW or Mercedes.

the answer is that they are all brilliant but one will feel best when you drive it. Same for the scopes, one will just feel better when you look through it.

You are probably right, I´m not that in to the technical aspects of the glass. The lack of parallax adjustment and mag range made me turn to the Z8i. If it wouldn´t be for that I would still have the HT on my rifle. Absolutely fantastic in low light.

 

[sauer]

Also good points. Both excellent scopes at the end of the day. Ultimately it’s like saying which is better Audi, BMW or Mercedes.

the answer is that they are all brilliant but one will feel best when you drive it. Same for the scopes, one will just feel better when you look through it.

True .... I just wish that the above car makers put indicators on their cars...

Or maybe they do but up here it seems that every pr1ck driving one doesn’t know how to operate them !

Paul