Tough Question on High End Scopes

O.K. here is one for the experts. On the high end scale, are Schmidt-Bender, Swarovski, Zeiss all comparable with one another. Maybe just a matter of personal taste. I am looking to save and spend some coin and get my dream optics. I just want to make the right choice.

Need some help out there.

Thanks all,
Steve

Heinsoldt   for Tactical

Yes, they are all pretty comparable.  It's really a matter of personal preference -- what features do you like best, whose reticles do you like best, etc.  Optically, all the premium scopes all fantastic, and you won't see much difference, though there are some subtle differences where you may prefer the view through one over the other.  I can't comment on which is best from a mechanical integrity standpoint, as I've never had a problem with any of the brands mentioned, and I own only a few scopes in this class. 

if your looking at these -- you should get the one you want/like-- especially the reticle. also be aware that the zoom erectors are different in each one, and each has a different sight picture in the lower range of the zoom.

I am looking for 1.5-6x42.  A scope for under 300 yrds.  Low light situations. Mounted on a 338-06. As stated before, mostly for moose, deer,  It must also have the quickness in a certain brown bear situations.  No batteries. I will not need this scope till next fall so I have lots of time to research.

Thanks Again to everyone for there help.

Steve

I'd get a proven S&B for that rifle.  However, I consider the Zeiss Diavari the best hunting scope in the world right now.  The Swaro Z's are too new to know how they'll hold up.  I believe when you get to that level of optics it's a matter of personal preference. 

For that target range two things you don't need are a ranging reticle or target knobs. So that frees you up to consider all scopes that fall within your requirements for magnification range and low-light performance. You're certainly right in that a 1.5-6x42 will take care of both shooting out to 300 and will give you max. exit pupil even at the highest magnification. Stay away from busy reticles. And don't reject a scope because it does offer battery-powered illumination. Those batteries last a long time and you can still use the scope without it. However, it might come in handy just as it's getting light out.

A scope that I can think of that are worth looking at are the NF 1-4X24,  which I know is a little low on the high-end mag, but with the NP-1 or FC-2 reticle would be quick and an absolutely solid scope. But you're probably going to be incredibly well-served by the Zeiss Diavari or this S&B: http://swfa.com/Schmidt-Bender-15-6x42-Zenith-30mm-Riflescope-P4805.aspx. You might also consider a USO (just because it hasn't been mentioned) but I don't think their options for objectives vs. magnification are quite what you want.

http://swfa.com/Zeiss-15-6x42-Victory-Diavari-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P7722.aspx

bagderRed wrote: http://swfa.com/Zeiss-15-6x42-Victory-Diavari-30mm-Rifle-Scope-P7722.aspx This is what I would jump on.  Lotutec lens coatings, $100 dollar rebate, #4 reticle for would help low light applications.  Although with these kind of optics, low light would not be a problem.

I think the best 1.5-6x42 on the market is the Zeiss Victory Diavari (either the illuminated or non-illuminated version).  S&B Zenith is also very good, but it is appreciably heavier and has a notably narrower field of view.

O.K. the Zeiss Victory Diavari 1.5-6x42 with a #4 reticles it will be.  Unless I change my mind at the last second.

Thanks again to all,
Steve

You won't be unhappy, ever, with the Zeiss...

$2000 is what $100 used to be in the sixties..............

And at the rate were going that will = $10,000.00 in a couple more years...  Hmmmm..

I've looked through one new Victory Divari and it was nothing short of spectacular.

That is music to my ears.

I can't argue with the consensus here.  I have a 2.5-10X50 Zeiss Diavari, and it is indeed spectacular, as is all other Diavaris I've seen.

I bought a Diavari at the same time a friend bought a Z6, I like mine more, he likes his more, both have outstanding glass and perform unbelievably well in low light.

Get what you "want", or you'll never be happy with it, no matter how good it actually is.

I do not know anything compared to the people on this boeard, but would a Kahles CL not be considered as good as some of the ones you are decribing? Especially when you can pick one up for $600 or less brand new at another site. If I overstepped my boundaries sorry. Just curious as I own the CL in 3x9x42 and it sits so high on the 2009 scope ratings.

Kahles makes fine scopes, great glass; however, at the moment, they have no US distribution channel or importer.  That changes nothing regarding the scope, but makes some shy away since any problem with the scope means you are dealing directly with the manufacturer - which is in Austria, I think.

So long as you never have problems with it, the deal is great, be happy; but if there is an issue, you'll hate yourself for buying a scope with no Customer Support system in place for US sales.

Now That I got it narrowed down a bit, I have a reticle question.  I do not have the opportunity to compare them in person and only on paper or should I say internet.  I like the looks of the Zeiss #4. How does it compare to S&B #7?  They look very close to me.  It seems that Zwarovski #4a and #7 are wider between the thick post.

I am correct or close?

Steve

Go down to your local range and take a peek through some other folks' glass. This is a surefire way to get some real world feel of each one as well ie weight and ruggedness along with clarity of sight picture.

0311GRUNT,

That is a good suggestion.  The only problem is my nearest rifle range is 250 miles by plane and will not be open until late spring.  I will have to wait till I head down to the "states" this summer to do my comparisons.

Steve

Stein3282 wrote: I do not know anything compared to the people on this boeard, but would a Kahles CL not be considered as good as some of the ones you are decribing? Especially when you can pick one up for $600 or less brand new at another site. If I overstepped my boundaries sorry. Just curious as I own the CL in 3x9x42 and it sits so high on the 2009 scope ratings.

If there is no other comments on reticles, I will let this thread die.

Thanks to all for you help.

Steve