New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Zeiss vs. Kahles vs. IOR: Side by Side
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

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

Zeiss vs. Kahles vs. IOR: Side by Side

 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/13/2006 at 10:01
ceylonc View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: September/13/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 514

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. 

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2006 at 13:02
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10981
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2006 at 13:47
ceylonc View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: September/13/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 514

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:



Kahles: are you sure you are not referring to a 4-12x52?

 

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!!!

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2006 at 13:51
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10981
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2006 at 16:19
ceylonc View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: September/13/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 514

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

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

 

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...

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/13/2006 at 16:44
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10981
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
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: July/14/2006 at 14:09
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

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 Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Zeiss vs. Kahles vs. IOR: Side by Side"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Epinions Side by Side Compare 333_okh Rifle Scopes 3 7/4/2007 12:21:15 PM
Excursion vs Sandpiper - side by side comparison. tpcollins Spotting Scopes 2
Master Side by Side Scope Comparison?? REP Rifle Scopes 1
Does IOR 2x12x36 Spartian have side focus? Clark Tactical Scopes 2
Kahles Helia cl 3x9x42 side focus... Harriershot Rifle Scopes 2
Side by side scarface_usmc Firearms 10
Side focus vs adjustable obj army_eod Rifle Scopes 4
SIDE FOCUS OR ADJUSTABLE OBJECTIVE countryboy Rifle Scopes 9
Questions on side focus scope mickey Rifle Scopes 4
Best 6x24x50 side focus... Harriershot Rifle Scopes 5


This page was generated in 0.406 seconds.