Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
Kahles CL vs. Zeiss Diavari VM/V |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | ||
jbb9166
Optics GrassHopper Joined: July/19/2005 Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: February/18/2008 at 10:29 |
|
Looking at the 3-10x50 CL and the 2.5-10x50 VM/V. Interested to hear from someone who has actually looked through both these scopes in low light...how does the CL compare to the VM/V? I hunt in the south where deer don't usually move until just before dark. Also, are the post on the 4a reticle of the CL considered "heavy?" Again, I prefer a heavier reticle for low light. Thanks.
|
||
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
i bet rifledude can tell you about them both i know he has a cl and vm/v
|
||
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Welcome, jbb9166!
I own the Zeiss Diavari VM/V 2.5-10X50 and I do own a Kahles CL, but not the 3-10X50. However, I also own a Kahles CB 2.5-10X50, which is essentially the same optically as the CL series except in 30mm tube.
I did in fact very recently do a comparison between the Zeiss 2.5-10X50 and the Kahles 2.5-10X50 and I can tell you that, at least to my eyes, I couldn't discern any meaningful difference between the two in terms of low light performance. Both will take you well past any legal shooting hours and into near darkness. If I had to give one the edge over the other, I would have to go with the Zeiss, only because it has a little more forgiving eye relief.
I think the Zeiss has slightly better contrast, but both have equal resolution as best I can tell. Colors seem ever so slightly more vibrant through the Zeiss. The Kahles has more of a tunnel effect at lower magnification setting than Zeiss.
The Zeiss Diavari is hard to beat optically, when you look at the whole package. It does most everything well. However, the Kahles CL is much less expensive, and not too far behind the Zeiss optically, so I think it's the better value.
I would choose based on which scope gives you the best combination of reticle design, size, weight, eye relief, field of view, etc. and then balance the pros and cons against price.
Either way, you'd be getting a first class scope! Edited by RifleDude - February/18/2008 at 10:59 |
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
jbb9166
Optics GrassHopper Joined: July/19/2005 Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks, RifleDude. I have a Diavari V/MV 2.5-10x50 w/ #8 reticle on a bolt gun already. Was looking for a new scope for a BAR 30-06. I keep hearing all the buzz @ the new CL, and the $600 difference is attractive. What @ the 4a reticle on the CL? Are the post heavy enough to see the reticle well during those last moments of light? Are the post heavier on the 4a than the Plex?
|
||
Ed Connelly
Optics Retard God of no Chihuahua Joined: December/16/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 24225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
( Hey, jbb9166, remember that RifleDude is from Texas and ya cain't b'leeve nuthin' he says cuz he's full of brown beans and Lone Star....................) which means ya wanna stay UPWIND, too................................................
signed PYRO
|
||
pyro6999
Optics Retard OT TITAN Joined: December/22/2006 Location: North Dakota Status: Offline Points: 22034 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
They call me "Boots"
375H&H Mag: Yeah, it kills stuff "extra dead" 343 we will never forget God Bless Chris Ledoux "good ride cowboy" |
||
tahqua
MODERATOR Have You Driven A Ford Lately? Joined: March/27/2006 Location: Michigan, USA Status: Offline Points: 9042 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Rifledude's comment on the 30mm tube is quite important to me. I have had the pleasure of using several of the Diavari's and they are excellent. The same goes for the 30mm Kahles C models, of which I have three.
With those bigger Hubbel sized objectives I prefer the bigger tube. It gives the scope a more balanced look. It is also much stronger, read stiffer. I'm not even a fan of those big scopes, but some members around here have them on guns as small as Reminton M7's. They look great. I have a 1" Leupy with a 50mm lens on a Ruger M77 and it looks gross. Hey, that's just me
You can get into a 30mm Kahles off the samplelist and still save some big money if you are interested.
|
||
Ed Connelly
Optics Retard God of no Chihuahua Joined: December/16/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 24225 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
On a serious note, I think the larger objectives look a little more sedate with a 30mm tube--and the angle of the objective lens is less severe, kind of.... --Ed
|
||
tahqua
MODERATOR Have You Driven A Ford Lately? Joined: March/27/2006 Location: Michigan, USA Status: Offline Points: 9042 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
BTW, I have both 4A and 7A reticles. On the power range you are looking at, I think the 7A is better for long range accuracy.
|
||
antleraddiction
Optics Apprentice Joined: January/27/2008 Location: North Carolina Status: Offline Points: 137 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
+1
|
||
Tip69
Optics Master Extraordinaire Tip Stick Joined: September/27/2005 Location: Nebraska Status: Offline Points: 4155 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I just got the CL to put on my BAR 30-06........... I just love that gun! I would recommend you find a CL and look at the reticle yourself. I got the plex and I think its a little on the slim side. I've never seen the Zeiss, so can't comment on it.
|
||
take em!
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I too have the #8 reticle in the Diavari, except in an illuminated version. It's hard to beat that reticle for low light; it's about as bold as reticles get.
Yes, the posts on the 4A are quite a bit heavier than the thick posts on the plex. The Kahles plex is rather thin, so their 4A is a much better low light reticle than their rendition of the plex.
|
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If the plex reticle on a Kahles is like that of a Swarovski, it reminds me of a Leupold thin duplex. The 4a and 7a posts should both be heavier. I'm old school being raised on duplexes, I find the 4a slow but that's just me, and would prefer the 7a for low light. For precise shots, I like the plex. Edited by mike650 - February/18/2008 at 23:04 |
||
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
||
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The #8 looks like a 7a, nice, is there much difference between the two, maybe the center cross hairs? Edited by mike650 - February/18/2008 at 23:21 |
||
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I believe the thick posts of the Zeiss #8 are thicker than the Kahles 7A posts. I have the illuminated #8 on my Diavari, which Zeiss has discontinued. I haven't seen the 7A in person, so I can't verify, but it appears to be similar to the #8. There should be a subtension chart on both manufacturers' websites. Keep in mind that the 7A is available in the C series Kahles, but not the CL, where you have a choice between the 4A or plex, according to their latest literature and website information.
|
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks Ted!!
I know the Swarovski 7a but not the Kahles 7a and Zeiss #8, funny how that works. Lucky you to get a illuminated #8 for your Diavari, that would have been my choice. |
||
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
||
tahqua
MODERATOR Have You Driven A Ford Lately? Joined: March/27/2006 Location: Michigan, USA Status: Offline Points: 9042 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Note that the 4A and 7A reticles in the Kahles C series are FFP. The thickness gets heavier as the magnification is turned up. |
||
mike650
Optics God Joined: May/14/2006 Location: West of Rockies Status: Offline Points: 14569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Knowing that both the reticle on FFP scopes and the game both get larger as the magnification is increased, does it present a problem with longer shots where the center of the cross hairs may cover too much of the target? My scopes are all SFP so I'm FFP challenged. |
||
“A hunt based only on trophies taken falls far short of what the ultimate goal should be.” – Fred Bear
|
||
RifleDude
MODERATOR EVIL OPPRESSOR Joined: October/13/2006 Location: Texas Status: Offline Points: 16337 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Keep in mind that the reticle and the target image enlarge at the same rate as magnification is increased on a FFP scope, so the reticle will always subtend the same amount of the target regardless of magnification. Still, a thin SFP reticle will usually cover up less of the target than a FFP reticle because the reticle stays the same size and therefore subtends increasingly less of the target as magnification is increased. How much of an issue this really is depends on the thickness of the crosshairs in the particular FFP reticle chosen. You can still get extreme precision shooting capability with a FFP reticle, again depending on the design of the reticle.
I generally prefer the low light visibility benefits of FFP reticles for big game hunting and a super thin SFP reticle for target and long range varmint shooting.
|
||
Ted
Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle. |
||
abailey54
Optics Apprentice Joined: August/17/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 74 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Welcome to the OT. I have 2 Kahles CLs with 4a reticles. They are fairly heavy and are perfect for lowlight hunting. I havent compared them against the Diavari but I compared them against my brothers Swarovski PH. To my eyes the Kahles are just as clear. Good luck.
|
||
abailey54
|
||
Post Reply | Page 12> |
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 |