Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Zeiss vs. Kahles vs. IOR: Side by Side |
Post Reply |
Author | |
ceylonc
Optics Journeyman Joined: September/13/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 514 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: July/13/2006 at 10:01 |
I was fortunate enough to compare three "heavyweights" of rifle optics a few days ago. I did so for about a half hour before sunset & the test ended at dark. I did not shoot the rifles so there is no test measuring point of impact adjustments, box test, etc. I simply wanted to compare the glass. For this test, all scopes were set at 6x. Here are the scopes that I compared: 1) Zeiss Victory Diavari 3x12 56mm (30mm tube)-- brand new scope; 2006 manufacture; duplex reticle 2) Kahles CL 4x12 52mm (1" tube; not multizero) -- late '05 manufacture; immaculate condition; duplex reticle 3) IOR 6x24 50mm (30mm tube) -- 2003 manufacture; MP8 reticle
The entire test was performed outside on a target about 75yds away and a dense group of trees at 150yds. Here are some thoughts: Clarity & Resolution: all three were outstanding. Each scope picked up minute details of each "target". Colors came through vivid. The IOR was not quite as good as the other two but I would still rate it as excellent. The Zeiss was better than the Kahles by only the tiniest of margins. Brightness: again all three were outstanding. However, the reticles played a big part in this test. The IOR MP8 reticle is very fine in this scope and didn't show well after dusk. If I had been in the woods, this scope would have been unusable 10-15 minutes before the other two. What suprised me was how well the Kahles showed against the Zeiss. According to my watch, I got almost exactly one minute more "shooting time" with the Zeiss over the Kahles. Mind you that both of these scopes were still shootable at least 25-30 minutes AFTER what would be considered legal shooting hours. The reticles were still visable against the "target" and details of the targets came through. Field of view -- a tie between the Kahles & Zeiss. Both of them have a huge field of view and are very well suited for deer hunting, etc. The IOR's FOV was noticably smaller than the other two and, again, is probably designed to suit shooting at paper targets, not live ones.
All in all, I would have to say that the Zeiss was the best scope. However, the Kahles CL was so close that 90% of hunters/shooters wouldn't notice any difference. It is priced quite a bit less than the Zeiss and, in that regard, is a much better value when you compare price & performance. This particular IOR was very, very good but is better suited as a target scope. The glass wasn't quite as good as the other two but it is older and even at it's greater age is better than most current scopes priced up to $800-900. Of particular note is that this test hints that lens coatings may be more important than tube width when it comes to determining the brightness & low light performance of a scope. The CL has a 1" tube and it was every bit as bright as the Zeiss & brighter than the IOR.
|
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Interesting test.
A couple of comments though: tube size has absolutely nothing to do with light transmission. Overall optical quality is the key factor here and lens coating are just a part of that: glass polishing and geometry play a huge role as well. Kahles: are you sure you are not referring to a 4-12x52? Field of view: to compare field of view you really have to compare similar scopes. A 4-14x50 IOR would be a better comparison, and if memory serves me right it has a little larger field of view than either the Kahles or the Zeiss. A 6-24x50 IOR is a long range scope intended for long range target shooting and for varminting. That is why the reticle is so thin: it is designed to not obscure small targets at long range. All in all, I agree that Zeiss VM/V and Kahles CL have better glass than IOR. Although you may be interested in looking at IOR's new line-up of scopes with 35mm tubes. They seem to have also improved the glass a little in addition to a larger tube. It is still not as good as VM/V, IMO, but it is closer than the older IOR. ILya |
|
ceylonc
Optics Journeyman Joined: September/13/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 514 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You are indeed correct. It is a 4-12x52. I made a typo. Thanks for pointing that out.
I have learned from the sages on this site that tube size does not play the role in light transmission. Much to the chagrin of all the former SEALs now trying to sell scopes at our favorite hunting/sporting goods stores, I agree with this fact (it's glass quality & coatings, stupid!) but wanted to point out that I came to the same conclusion in this real-world but definitely unscientific test.
I have heard that the new 35mm line from IOR is a marked improvement from their previous models. I LOVE the MP8 reticle but was hoping that it would stand out better in low light. However I do recognized that it is unfair to bash the reticle & scope when it doesn't do well on a test for which it wasn't designed to be used. Either way, I do believe that this particular IOR tested is/would be fantastic for paper punching and varminting. Maybe I should compare it to some other long range scopes and the 35mm IOR's??? Perhaps another test in the works??? Sounds like fun!!! |
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
MP8 reticle will stand out in better light if it is calibrated for a lower magnification scope. I have a 2-12x32 IOR and the reticle is quite visible. Try to get your hands on some 35mm IOR optics and I think you'll see the improvement.
ILya |
|
ceylonc
Optics Journeyman Joined: September/13/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 514 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The new 35mm IOR models definitely intrigue me. I even called SWFA & asked them a few questions about availibility & features. However I am disappointed to learn that you can't get a 35mm model non-illuminated reticle in the higher power ranges. Why do you think that IOR would design and introduce a new line and NOT give a non-illuminated reticle option??? I was ready to buy one from Brady today but it seems that IOR doesn't make the scope I want/need! Am I missing something? Do I really need an illuminated reticle? I don't want to pay for an option that I don't believe I want or need... |
|
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Illuminated reticles are popular nowadays. To make the scope without an illuminated reticle requires some changes to mechanical parts. I suspect IOR does not sell enough of these to warrant making both versions. I do not use illumination a whole lot, so I just keep it off and leave it at that.
ILya |
|
Trinidad
Optics Master Joined: May/04/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1555 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ceylonc are you still considering that Nightforce or are you leaning towards something else at this time. My Nightforce is on its way and I will post a review and pic ASAP. |
|
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 |