Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

I'm in the market for a better than average rifle scope. I'm trying to get a lightweight scope that offers good glass. Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss, all have scopes in the 11-13oz range, 3-9x mag. but vary greatly in cost ($200 - $1000)

Now, I do a bit of photography and when looking for 'fast glass' (lenses that offer a high amount of light transmission and low distortion/abberation) I can refer to a 'f-stop' rating. For example an 85mm f1.4 is 'faster' better glass than say an 85mm f4.5 (the latter is 'slower' meaning less light transmission and nearly impossible to get a crisp non-blurring shot in low-light conditions). Is there a SIMILAR number that can be referenced to rate the quality/ight transmission of rifle scope glass?

I know that when I buy any f1.4 glass from any lens maker (Canon, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss) it's gonna cost $$$. I have yet to see a number used to rate light transmission for rifle scope glass.

Is it all a matter of $$$—the more you spend, the better glass you get? Or am I missing something?

So, if I had 1k to spend and wanted a lightweight, roughly 3-9x scope which should I go with? Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon or Zeiss?

Any experience/advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
C

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

When speaking of the technical things, you're above my head on this one. In the scope industry, the light transmission #s one most often sees are in percentages, such as 93% or 95%. However, those figures don't seem to mean much, as many scopes with lower numbers will seem much brighter/sharper than others with higher numbers - to my eyes, anyway.

$1,000 will buy an excellent (and then some!) scope, & the makes you've mentioned are all good. Swaro & Zeiss are usually mentioned above Leupold & Nikon, but trying to rank optics 'round these kinds of forums usually stirs up pages worth of heated (if ill-informed) debate among the partisans of each brand.

At that price level, I'd also suggest checking into Kahles, Docter Optics, and Schmidt & Bender.

To give you an idea of how my own eyes work, I compared a $399 Zeiss Conquest to a $960 (at the time) Swaro AV, & couldn't tell the difference. So when you go to the optics counter & start checking scopes for yourself, if your eyes tell you differently, then you'll know exactly how much of my post you should disregard.

Good luck on your scope quest!

FC

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

Folically Challenged, thanks for your advice. I'll def. check out those brands and thanks for the tip on the Transmission %. I just read at zeiss.com (from their handy ABC's of Optics:

=====
Transmission
This is the amount of light in % which can pass through an optical system. Here, it is not only important that it is as high as possible - 90% is standard in binoculars and riflescopes from Carl Zeiss - its maximum must also lie in the right spectral range, an important factor in binoculars to be used in low light conditions. As the sensitivity to blue of the human eye increases in twilight, an image with a yellow or pink tinge in daylight indicates a low transmission in the blue spectral range and hence poor detail recognition in low light conditions.
=====

But they also mention other factors like Exit Pupil and Twilight factor/Twilight performance among others.

While I know it will all depend on my going to a few scope dealers (there aren't many in my town) I really appreciate the information, advice and opinions of people like you. Thanks!

I hope this thread doesn't ruffle too many feathers.

C

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

If you have the $1,000 to buy the A-Line Swarovski. Then by all means BUY IT. It is definitely the superior scope. I have one of the 3X10's on my go to 30-06 for deer hunting. I have had it for years, and will have it for years to come. It is by far the best of the ones you listed. Tom.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

You've got 2 choices: Zeiss or Swarovski. I recomend Zeiss diavari victory or victory varipoint. Swarovski is also great but always comes second to zeiss in tests. Note I'am not talking about the conquest series.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

For 1,000 bills, I'd say it'd be worth the drive to find a place with a good selection to compare these high-end scopes against one another. Offhand, I can think of Cabela's, & Sportsmen's Warehouse. BassPro doesn't have the high end of either the Zeiss or Swaro lines.

Can anyone else think of some other places?

Cardopski, can you tell us where you're located?

FC

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

If your main criteria is optical quality, then the normal "rank" IMO is Swaro Z6, Zeiss Diavari and Schmidt and Bender. Down a tiny bit are the Kahles "C" series and Swaro AV. That's certainly very important, but other factors that need considering include reticle type and design, reticle in what plane (1st or 2nd), tube size and length, objective size, exit pupil, weight, price / value, durability and warranty coverage. Factoring all these together you'll come up with the best compromise. I recently did that for a new rifle and selected the Swaro AV 3.5-10 X 42 with the TDS reticle.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

They have great customer service but an overpriced scope sorry but the truth hurrs. My 4-12x50 had a blemish and lost zero first time out of the box on a sako 300 wsm. I got excellent service from Swaro and then it got mounted on a 25-06 where I used it and then sold it after buying a few Kahles scopes.A kahles KX or Cl is every bit the scope a AV is and I believe more recoil proof and are a fair bit lower priced. BTW I thought I was the only one that felt this about Kahles but evidently over at the SWFA forum they are held in a similiar light.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

I will agree that the Kahles is a good piece of glass. So is the Meopta, but they were not on his list of considered scopes. Also everyone else listed the higher end Zeiss and Swarovski-these higher end heavier scopes are not on his list either. Most of those bigger scopes are heavier, and not as "sleek" as the ones listed. I purchased the A-Line Swarovski for the same reason. It is fantastic glass, but stilll in a more compact package.

As far as saying the Kahles is better than Swarovski. I disagree, but we may be splitting hairs. there is a major difference between Swarovski and Kahles(and Meopta). That would be resale value. My Swarovski and Zeiss pieces of glass have greatly appreciated over the years. I think I gave a little over $200 for my first piece of Zeiss glass(straight W. German 6X). I have people try to buy it from me all the time. I have one Meopta scope(great scope). I have never had anybody offer to buy it.I have looked at the Kahles before, but just stepped up a bit and bought the Swarovski.

One guy said Swarovski alwayscome in second to Zeiss. I am not sure what his source of information is?? I have not seen these comparisons.I will admit that Zeiss makes a good product. I have3 Zeiss scopes. But the only Zeiss that compares to the Swarovski is the West German 3X9 in their one inch scope(with the features the author listed). And that scope is over $1,000(last time I checked). The Conquest does not compare quality wise to the A-Line.

The power ring on my A-line scope is as smooth as butter. The smoothest I have ever felt on a rifle scope. And the repeatability of the adjustments is second to none. It is the only scope I have ever done a box test on that returned to exact zero. Not close, but exact. And I have done the box test with a lot of quality scopes. The only other scope that came close(within 1/2 inch at 50 yards) was a S&B. Most Leupold's and other scopes are off an inch or so. Some friction adjustment scopes are not even close. I do a 4 inch box test.

I must add that I have never done any testing on the Night Force scopes. Tom.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

I don't know how someone that hasn't owned both products can even comment on this subject but yet you did and even to throw Meopta into the mix(although a fine scope in its price class) and to lump it in with Kahles. Lets go thru it point by point.

Resale value ? First off there is a few hundred dollars difference between the 2 brands(retail fixed price)and both companies at one point operated under Swaro because the owner of Kahles haddied and the owner of Swaro(his best friend)took over temporarily . Theyhave now splt up again to go their separate paths.

Let's see I bought a 4-12x50 AVwith plex for 999 and sold it on Ebay for 745. I purchased a 3.5-10x50 Kahles AH for 625 with TDS 3 years agoand later sold it for 625. Now where is the resale value difference?Here are some addt'l tidbits for you. Most Kahles scopes have etched reticleswhich only 1 Swaro av has.The Swaro 4-12x50 I owned had a reticle turn orange one day at the range, a call to their CS and they confirmed it was a wire reticle all that for 999.As far as durability I have purchased just a few 30mm Swaros and one AV and only one had to go go back since it lost POI and it was an AV. I have never had a problem with any Kahles i have ever owned.

I had one of those a few years back and I didn't pay 1000 dollars for it either and it couldn't compare with either a Swaro or a Kahles.


Yeah I have to use a pipewrench to turn the dial on my Scopes. Conquest is a lot close to the AV then any Swaro owner or Swaro themselves care to admit. It is just a little bulkier that is all but it has a etched reticle .Schmidt & Bender dude get real. I like Kahles scopes but S&B is the rolls royce of scopes.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

I do not mean to hijack this thread, but I need to defend myself. I will admit that I do not personally own a Kahles scope. But I have shot several, and have very good friends who own several. And we all shoot together, so I do feel qualified to speak of the ones I have used.

It seems like you have had some problems with Swarovski. We have not had any problems with ours. I would be upset if I were you also. It would be a shame to pay that kind of money for something and have a problem with it.

As far as resale is concerned. My point was basically two pronged. From my first post I referred to the appreciation value of the higher end scopes. The second prong is simple. If you think that Kahles has as good of a resale value, and perceived value as the Swarovski, then I believe you are mistaken. I would have purchased the one off of you.

As far as the West German 3X9 Zeiss scope-I do believe it compares to the better scpes. I have had one for years, and it is a dandy IMO.

I will admit I have never used a pipewrench on my Swarovski.:D:D:D

For some reason you think I am knocking Kahles scopes. I assure you I am not. If you read my post carefully I specifically said the difference is splitting hairs.

The way we compare scopes is a bit different than what most people do. We do it out of our hunting cabin, right at dusk. At distances from 75 to 150 yards. We use a chart one of us got from Zeiss several years ago(Have youseen one). It is a series of different thickness lines. My A-line scope performs the best of the scopes I listed, including the Kahles, but as I said they are very close. And as I am sure you know there could easily be scope to scope differences, even between the same companies scope.

My A-line scope does not perform as well as the 30 mm tube large objective Swaro's, and Zeiss scopes, but the post is about the lighter one inch scopes, not the big boy's. And I do agreee with you on the S&B. I only own one S&B that I bought in 1990, and it is a dandy. Tom.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

Man, thanks everyone! This is goooooood stuff. I live in Harrisonburg VA (Shenandoah Valley) so the nearest Cabelas is about 3 hours away (Wheeling is 4 hours away). And you're right, for 1k I should take the drive. The misses is into cabelas trips thank GOD!

I picked up some other good name brands I'll look into. Again, lightweight is key. I'm not much for carrying heavy setups. I'm also looking for a lightweight rifle. But I'll start another thread about that. Please keep the conversation coming! You guys rock!

C

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

I can’t comment on Kahles and Zeiss scopes but I have the Swarovski 3-10 x 42 and purchased this scope because of size and weight and it has worked very well and one of my best scopes for low light conditions...:eek:

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

Kahles scopes are delightful. I had (and sold) a CL only because I didn't want a SF. The KX I looked at recently at Bass Pro was also good. They just didn't have the reticle I was interested in. I also came very close to grabbing the Meopta Meostar 4-12 X 40. It was very good optically and cheaper than the KX (the old AH brought back). However, it's heavier, has shorter eye relief and the #4 reticle I was interested in wasn't to my liking. Conquests are dandy, but they are not a Kahles for sure. Zeiss Diavari's are terrific, but I didn't want a 1st focal plane reticle. S & B is coming out with a 1" , 2nd focal plane reticle, 40mm bell later this year. I was going to look at it, but got impatient to shoot the new toy. As I stated earlier, it's a comprise. There are tons of choices out there. What matters to person A may not to person B. In my situation, the Swaro AV was the best choice. Your choice may be different.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

the 30mm Swaros are a great scope but the 1" tubes are severely overpriced they are a very nice scope but overpriced , the dealer markup on a Leupold scope is around 50 bucks or so ..I can buy a 3-9x36 A-line NIB from a dealer that dropped Swarovski for 689(His cost) now that might explain their high price. Go over to www.swfa.com and look at the consensus list of scopes and their ranking you'll be surprised. That German zeiss you speak so highly of is one of the worst optical riflescpes I have ever had the pleasure of owning and hunting with. I got it as part of a trade with a Remington KS custom shop 280 rem and it had absolutely awful lowlight performance. I sold it for 375 dollars on EBay and that is the going rate on that scope..about 300 too much in my opinion.I can actually buy another one of those "gems" that is currently mounted on a blaser in 7x57 , I told the guy to take 350 off the price and he can keep the scope. BTW there is a guy over on 24hourcampfire that rates scopes although all he owns is Leupolds and goes by Eeremicus., moral of the story if you don't own it or hunt with one extensively don't rate them. YOu might be surprised

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

I will get hammered for this from all the swaro-zeiss-kahales talk but I really like my Nikons.I have no problems hunting with them in low light or bright light.They always seem to preform for me.Two of my hunting buddies have the cash to buy what ever they want (and do). They had swaro's and zeiss,after they looked through my Nikon monarch 3X12X42 they put them on there rifles.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

Well Dan, I have to agree on the Nikon scopes as for brightness. My Nikon Gold does very well for low light conditions but I still would choose my Swarovski for my primary hunting rifle...

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

If you want to see the largest premium selection of glass I've seen aroundand you're willing to drive go to Lost Creek Shoe shop located in outside Mifflintown, PA. It's about 45 minutes North of Harrisburg. Easy for you to get there too. 81 north untill 322 West. Cabelas and and them don't hold a candle to what this guy has in stock. He is Amish but I imagine I can find a phone number if you interested. Probably easier for you to get there than Cabelas in Wheeling anyhow. When I was there we were more interested in spotting scopes but I imagine he has a great inventory in rifle scopes as well. Not much else to look at there so the wife might not enjoy it too much.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

I recentlythought aboutpicking upa Khales Helia KX 3x9x42...very nice scope.I got a deal on Conquest with the Rapid Z600 reticle that i just couldn't resist and seeing i have been very pleased with my other conquests soI had an easy time placing the order for another. To my eyes it a dandy scope and proved itself worthy for canadian hunting conditions. I don't doubt i will buy one of the upper scopes in the future and will be a Euro fo sho!

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

I'll definitely check this out a bit if you give me a phone number. I'll check it online to see if anything else comes up like an address. Thanks!

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

part of my decision depends on the gun/caliber its going on, and what I'm looking for/what they offer. Not everyone makes a scope that directly competes with another.

I've owned most of the above, cept the zeiss. My swaro is beyond sweet, its certainly top notch in every way, i turned to leupold after having a nikon, the nikon was nice, but I thought the leupold was nicer, also leupold had the B&C reticle, at the time not many others did. Now everyone seems to.

Again depending on the caliber, that would kinda determine what size scope I'd want..... at the time swaro had a 3-12, leupold had a 3.5-10, or a 4.5-14, the gun it was going on I wanted both low end mag and high end mag, 3-12 was perfect, 3.5-10, was still too high at 3.5, and 10 wasnt enough on the top end, and 4.5 was certainly too high of a low end mag, even the 3X to me was pushing it a tad, but I didn't feel like 3x would be too much mag in close quarters, and 12x up top was also great. now they have the Z6 which would be a 2-12.

Also 50mm objectives, are nice, but IMO too big/awkward sometimes, I prefer 40-45mm, and also dpending on the gun its going on I still would consider a 50mm.

I wasn't impressed with Zeiss binos, but I'd still consider their products, though being disappointed in their binos certainly doesn't make me jump to use their scopes, though I would compare/look at one.

All 4 brands I think offer some quality stuff, though some brands may not offer what you want in a particular scope etc.... ie they may not offer the 2.5-10 in the monarch gold, but in the monarch....something like that. Or the reticle wont be offered in a particle magnification range.....

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

Is it me you're refering to as "one guy"?
Here in sweden or the rest of europe Zeiss is considered as the number one scope. If you had tried a diavari victory or varipoint you would not dissagre. I've got one diavari victory ill. 6-24x56 and one varipoint 1,1-4x24 also ill. The swarovski simply can't compete with zeiss victory in lo or no light conditions. But swarro's would be my second choice- good scopes. kahles can't compete with either zeiss or swarovski, thats a fact!
AndI do agree with you, zeiss conquest is not even close to a german made diavari victory.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

Yes it was your comment I was referring to. I just did not want to present it as a conflict, but more of a comparison.

I did not speak of the more expensive larger tube and larger objective scopes for one reason. IMO the poster is looking for the smaller lighter scope. But I still agree with you about the W. German 3X9. It is definitely a great light scope. I have one on a Remington pump carbine, and this would be one of the last scopes and rigs I would ever get rid of. But I do not think it is in the price range any more. As a matter of fact anyone who wants to buy import optics better do it pretty quick. With the continued devaluation of the US dollar the European glass is going to be priced clear out of the American market. Tom.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

Here's my $.02. In my opinion, you get what you pay for ... sort of like buying a quality camera lenses. ButI will admit there comes a point of deminishing returns ... and pretty quick $$$-wise.I am of the opinion that with $1000 to spend you are beyond the more dramatichump of that reduction in return for the $$$. I am big time fan of the higher endSwarovskiand Zeisss scopes. I have both and they are superb. But these are several hundred or more beyond your $1000 limit. So I will limit my suggestions to the range that you mentioned. FYI - I have used and/or sighted in scopes made by too many different manufacturers, and too wide a price range to list here. If you need the "long version", e-mail me and I'll share. I'm talkling $40 BSA's to $2500 Zeiss'.

Here's my #1 suggestion ... and this is first hand,a scope that I own and have used on several hunts in the 2007 -08 season ... the Zeiss Conquest.This scope sits on top of an inline 50 cal. muzzle loader that I use 150 gr. 777 to push a 340 gr. bullet. So it has "felt" recoil. I realize there is zero logevity, but I have to think that the long term ruggedness is there in the Zeiss name.As far as optical performance, I put this scopeabove my 2 - Leupold Vari-X III's as far as clarity, crispness and low light viewing. And I put itwell above a comparably pricedNikon Monarch that I have.

Not on your list, but in my opinion and within your price range, there is another good buy ....a Kahles, 1" tube scope. These usually run about $700 +/-. I have a 3-9x40 mm , 1" tube mounted on a "lender' rifle. Several friends have used this set-up with excellent comments. I have used the same many times and this scope has performed well in the field.

RE: Swarovski, Leupold, Nikon, Zeiss?
 

i also have a zeiss conquest 3.5x10x50mm and i wouldn't trade it for vari-x 3 or a nikon monarch either this glass is superior for what i gave for it,if i did purchase another scope it would be a zeiss