Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Schmidt & Bender vs. Zeiss vs. Swarovski |
Post Reply |
Author | |
SwiftKS
Optics GrassHopper Joined: December/05/2005 Location: Afghanistan Status: Offline Points: 6 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: December/05/2005 at 17:31 |
Ok, thinking about putting a new scope on my weatherby, this is what I'm looking at:
1) Schmidt & Bender 4-16x50 w/ 30mm tube
2) Zeiss Diavari VM/V 3-12x56 w/ 30mm tube
3) Swarovski Habicht 4-16x50 w/ 30mm tube
All of these scopes are around the same price, w/ the Swarovski being a little bit cheaper. I am leaning toward the Schmidt & Bender, b/c I don't really need a 56mm scope, and the S&B has a little better twlight factor than the Swarovski, but the Swarovski has a little bigger field of view on the lowest magnification than the S&B. Anywho, tell me what you think. |
|
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You could always go with a Zeiss Diavari with a smaller objective lens, No?
I like the S&B, but the Diavari(with a smaller objective) is a superb as well.
I'd take the Swaro last.
A hunting rifle setup I assume??
Welcome, friend!! |
|
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
|
|
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
|
|
noddah
Optics Apprentice Joined: September/06/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 129 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I have owned products from all three companies mentioned.
I own the a S&B 3-12x42 (Cheaptrick mentioned scope) and S&B PMII in 3-12x50 (34mm Tube) If this is for hiking / hunting my vote would be for the 3-12x42 S&B. If this for long range the 4-16 in the Swaro or S&B would be my pick; giving the S&B my nod.
I too am not a fan of the big 56mm Zeiss Scopes; just because of size. Have you looked at the new Zeiss Scopes just released?
|
|
Redfish
Optics GrassHopper Joined: November/30/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 7 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
When you purchase your scope keep in mind that the objective size affects how the scope is mounted on your weapon. I just got me a new swaro, and after mounting my first choice (4-12x50) I was not satisfied with the way it mounted on the rifle. With the high rings It didnt feel good to look through so we had to go with the 3-10x42 mm on standard rings which felt much better when looking through the scope in field conditions. Did I lose any dim light performance? I dont feel that I did, the 42mm is plenty bright. Just my humble opinion.
I dont think that you are going to make a wrong choice with any of the scopes you listed. |
|
cheaptrick
MODERATOR Joined: September/27/2004 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 20844 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
http://www.riflescopes.com/products/5216619920/zeiss_5-15x42 _davari_vm_v_rifle_scope.htm
This one??
This scope appears to be a RFP reticle scope, which is cool for big game hunting I suppose.
The S&B 3-12x42mm is a great scope!! I owned one too!! |
|
If at first you don't secede...try..try again.
|
|
tbone1
Optics Apprentice Joined: May/31/2004 Status: Offline Points: 195 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I currently own a S&B 3-12x42, Zeiss VM/V 3-12x56, Swarovski 1.5-6x42, Swarovski 2.5-10x42 and I love them all. They are all very similar optically but very different in size, weight, construction, ect.
I agree with most people and am not a big fan of large objective riflescopes and I prefer 42mm due to being able to mount them lower, more portability, and comparible performance with the larger objective scopes.
However I have to argue this point. One of the most important things to me is to have a portable scope, that is not too bulky and "resonably" light. Of the choices mentioned I would go with the Zeiss 3-12x56. I know many of you will argue that it is more bulky due to the large objective but have you really looked at the scopes mentioned in person. The Zeiss is much smaller and lighter than any of them.
S&B 4-16x50 it is 15.71" long and weighs 27.6 ozs. Swaro 4-16x50 it is 14.2 " long and weighs 22.2 ozs. Zeiss 3-12x56 it is 13.54" long and weighs 17.8 ozs.
Unless this is strictly a beanfield rifle and never meant to be carried, I think that you might regret getting such a large scope. I own the Zeiss and it is very short, light, and very portable despite the large objective and it is much more versatile. Just my opinion. I hope this helps. |
|
ranburr
Optics Master Joined: May/16/2004 Status: Offline Points: 1082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
All are good, I prefer Zeiss products. Personally, I would not want any of the above scopes. They are all too big for my taste.
ranburr |
|
timbercruiser
Optics GrassHopper Joined: May/05/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 23 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I don't understand the problems that many people say they have with the larger (56mm) scopes. I don't notice the height difference at all. I finally bit the bullet and bought a Zeiss 3x12x56 a few months ago and I am as tickled as a twopeckered billy goat.
|
|
ranburr
Optics Master Joined: May/16/2004 Status: Offline Points: 1082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I find the height difference to be a real pain when it comes to getting a good cheek weld. I also don't like the extra bulk and weight that come with a larger objective.
ranburr |
|
SAKO75
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/29/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 246 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I just bought a S&B KlassiK is 3-12x42 with the 9 reticle and it is
phenomenal. I think all scopes are good but i like the S&B flavor
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |