New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Zeiss decision
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Zeiss decision

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 10:03
johnnyo View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: June/16/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 50
Well I'm down to two scopes for my Reminton 700 alaskan (300 win mag) I cant decide to go with the Zeiss victory diavari 2.5 x 10 x42 or the 2.5 x 10 x 50.  I am going with reticle 4 but which scope would you choose and why?   Thanks!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 10:14
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8045
I would get the 42mm simply because it mounts lower and the exit pupil at 8X won't make much of a difference compared to the 50mm at 10x.
 
Doug
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 10:24
mike650 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: May/14/2006
Location: West of Rockies
Status: Offline
Points: 12710
+1 (on a 2.5x10)





Edited by mike650 - July/09/2010 at 10:41
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 10:33
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
I would probably go with the 2.5-10X42 as well, unless you do a lot of hunting in low light, where the 50mm version will start showing a slight advantage in light transmission when using 7-10X.  Which is more important to you -- portability, compactness and lower mounting height or having additional low light performance?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 12:25
stickbow46 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/07/2009
Location: Benton, Pa
Status: Offline
Points: 4673
+2 [2.5-10x42]
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 12:33
pyro6999 View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
OT TITAN

Joined: December/22/2006
Location: North Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 22024
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

I would probably go with the 2.5-10X42 as well, unless you do a lot of hunting in low light, where the 50mm version will start showing a slight advantage in light transmission when using 7-10X.  Which is more important to you -- portability, compactness and lower mounting height or having additional low light performance?

my thoughts exactly.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 13:09
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18340
I like anything that has the word "performance" in it...
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 13:10
lucytuma View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight
Avatar

Joined: November/25/2007
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Points: 5389
I wish I could afford this problem.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 15:32
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

I would probably go with the 2.5-10X42 as well, unless you do a lot of hunting in low light, where the 50mm version will start showing a slight advantage in light transmission when using 7-10X.  Which is more important to you -- portability, compactness and lower mounting height or having additional low light performance?
Ted is spot-on.  I have both, and I just bought another 2.5-10x42 for my newest rifle. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 16:17
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10966
Get whichever one you can get a lower price on.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/09/2010 at 20:51
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8045
Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Get whichever one you can get a lower price on.

ILya


That is sage advice indeed.
I have a few 50mm scopes and the cheek weld won't hurt you unless you are paper punching a lot.

Doug
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/10/2010 at 08:27
Gunshow75 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: December/23/2004
Location: Kentucky, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 209
[/QUOTE]

I have a few 50mm scopes and the cheek weld won't hurt you unless you are paper punching a lot.

Doug
[/QUOTE]
 
Cheek weld is the reason I prefer the 42 mm objective over the 50 mm.  My rifles are tools for whitetail hunting, and I always modify the comb to put my eye in line with the optical axis.  With a long action, the rearward travel of the bolt makes it difficult to raise the comb enough for my body when using the 50 mm objective.
 
In a controlled environment, you can see the marginal gain in low-light performance.  For example, when using line pairs to check resolution, as you lower the light level, the white bars get gray a little more quickly with the 42 mm objective than with the 50 mm objective. 
 
But in practical uses for myself, I found that the difference in low-light performance was so slight that it wasn't worth forgoing the more comfortable fit of the 42 mm objective.  I am, in fact, in the process of selling the 2.5-10x50 scope.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/10/2010 at 09:45
cheaptrick View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: September/27/2004
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 20474
Good to see you back around, Tom.
 
Good shooting to the OP.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/11/2010 at 21:19
Code4 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/11/2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 68
I have the 2.5-10x42 with the #8 reticle which I prefer.
 
 
The fine inner cross hairs allow fine target acquisition and the thicker outer bars still help in darker conditions.
 
The #4 reticle is much better for closer <100 yards quick offhand shooting.
 
For maximum light transmission I turn the scope down to 6x. With a 50mm lense turn the scope down to 7x. Not much difference for extra weight and bulk.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/11/2010 at 21:34
jleinum09 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: June/21/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 49
I also agree on the 42mm!! Mounts lower on the scope and in my opinion can definitely not tell the difference between the two for light transmission!Thunbs Up
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/12/2010 at 17:22
308WIN View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/28/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 120
ive had both, still have the 2.5-10x42 with #4, ive hunted under moonlight with it with no problems. THe #4 is better in lowlight because the posts come closer together which helps when the thinner crosshairs fade... the #8 doesnt take full advantage of the glass IMO, both of their crosshairs subtend .54" @ 100

COnsidering its medium size and excellent transmission, eye relief and optics coupled wit ha truly great precise as well as low light #4 reticle, this is the ultimate non-dangerous big game scope IMO


Edited by 308WIN - July/12/2010 at 17:31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2010 at 20:11
johnnyo View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: June/16/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 50
Thanks to all you gentlemen for responding to my post. I was leaning toward the 2.5x10x50 but after reading your posts- I have reconsidered and probably will buy a 2.5 x10x42. Thanks again!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/19/2010 at 04:21
308WIN View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: February/28/2009
Status: Offline
Points: 120
i think your going to be very happy either way....
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Zeiss decision"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Major decision time - XOTIC or SS Variabl greywolf Rifle Scopes 6 5/31/2005 12:02:35 PM
I think I’m Close to a Decision macky Tactical Scopes 3 2/26/2006 10:42:08 AM
Decision for new scope SC Hunter Rifle Scopes 10 9/5/2006 9:11:42 PM
scope decisions 308 encore Rifle Scopes 2 12/4/2006 12:16:25 PM
Final Decision shoot4fun Rifle Scopes 3 2/18/2007 2:25:30 AM
Kahles or Conquest decision Lobber Rifle Scopes 18 5/31/2007 9:47:56 PM
Scope Decision army_eod Tactical Scopes 2 7/4/2007 5:18:32 AM
$500 Tactical Scope Decision bato762 Tactical Scopes 16 10/16/2007 6:59:05 AM
Zeiss Duralyt compared to Zeiss Victory nbama40 Member's Tests and Reviews 5
Lens caps for zeiss Commander72 Tripods, sun shades, lens covers, etc. 2


This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.