Zeiss

[grizz106]

fellas, lets not inject how good Lp's service is as I am aware of that but I am looking foward in buying a Zeiss Diavari 1.5x6x42 this summer to put on my custom 9.3x64. Does Zeiss have any issues that you know of personally that there service department won't take care of? What percentage of Zeiss scopes go "south" in the field? Lastly, what is your opinion of this particular model? It has been stated that one should put on a high end scope on a high end rifle.....after some serious coin has been invested into this 1909 Arg. 98 action I suspect that my desire of this scope is just. Want a high end dollar scope "within" reason of said rifle.

 

[LuJon]

Of the very few Zeiss I have heard of going back to them I have never heard any negative feedback. I think you will be grinning ear to ear over your new optics!

 

[pinehavensredrocket]

zeiss is one of the great optics company's of the world, having been at the forefront of quality lens coatings. during wwll they developed the coatings making clarity and light transmission possible with many of today's optics.

in my view many european scopes are unnecessarily large in the objective bell ( keeping in mind europeans often shoot after dark ), your choice of a moderate size scope will be a great choice. post some pictures when you get your rifle "set up".

 

[Rick]

I have a pair of Zeiss Diafun 8X30 binoculars, that, after 8 years of hard use, began to slightly fog on chilly mornings. I called Zeiss customer service who said send them back. I sent them back and 2 weeks later received a brand new pair. Good service, without hoops to jump through. The Diafuns were comparable to the current Conquest 8X30s and have given long, lightweight service for me. Great company and products.

 

[stid2677]

Zeiss is a great company and my dealings with their customer service on a Bino issue was a smooth process. I have both Zeiss and Leupold scopes and can say for sure that on average I can see to shoot about 15 minutes longer with the Zeiss than the Leupold both with the same Objective. I have a 3.5x10x44 with RapidZ600 reticle and it has proven to be tough enough for Alaska.

 

[cochrj1]

+ 1 Stid.....I have Zeiss conquest 3.5 X 10 X 50 and a number of gold ring scopes. Even the "cheap" version of Zeiss is just a little brighter than LP. But IMO these are the best 2 optic companies in the world!

 

[1Cor15:19]

Zeiss is certainly a reputable manufacturer and they build top shelf items. I've personally had zero issue out of the several Zeiss products I own and I'm awaiting the arrival of a Victory binocular that is a significant purchase on my budget. This purchase is the result of a thorough search and comparison of high end binoculars and customer service concerns certainly figured into my decision. While I've never had an issue with their products I've read about good CS on other forums and realize that in today's market that poor CS from a major manufacturer is enough to cause them to be a relatively minor player in short order. For a hunting scope in that price range I'd certainly give very strong consideration to a Diavari. I look forward to the upcoming pics...

 

[tvfinak]

other factors

other factors

Other factors to consider are how good your eyes are and if you wear correctives lens.

If you are older and/or wear corrective lenses you won't appreciate the higher end glass as much as a young person with excellent uncorrective vision.

I'm 64 and wear glasses and I just can't tell a lot of difference in any of the better rifle scopes. Most lenses today are excellent compared to a few decades ago so a lot of the optical quality differences have become less distinct. . Once lenses coating go transmission above 90% or so you just won't see much difference in that area. Contrast and resolution are also excellent on any of the better lenses.

You certainly won't get any junk with Zeiss or any of the other high end glass. The real question is- is it worth the money to you?

 

[Wildalaska]

Zeiss is the number 1 scope in Europe IIRC. Keep in mind that your Euro hunter pays alot more just to hunt that an American...he just cant get go to Walmart to buy a license, he needs to take tests...even shooting tests and ends up in some countries paying E3K just for the license to hunt.

Of course most of the Euro scopes ate large objective, 30mm....thats for the night hunting allowed...but the main differerence in cost between the Zeiss and US made scopes (beyond custom duties and labor costs) is the lens coating and internals. I have been to the Zeiss plant and their coating facility (what they allowed us to see) is like the starship enterpise. Keep in mind the lens process:

1. The glass blanks, all of which generally come from Taiwan built to spec are ground. Leupold grinds theirs in Japan, Zeiss and Swarovski at their own facilities. No matter what, you buy 500 blanks, at the end of machining and your first QC check, you may only get 499.

2. Polishing is next. Lose another one. Leupold polishes their own as do the two Germanic giants.

3. Coating is next. There is where the costs start rising. The more Hi Tech he coating, the more potential flaws may occur due to a variety or reasons. The coating on the highest end Zeiss scopes ares so sophisticated that there is no distortion whatsoever. During these last sophisticated coatings, there is also an unavoidabale loss of product...so by the last coating you may be down a total of 50 lenses out of the box of blanks. Leupold coating is excellent, Zeiss is superb.

Is that worth the cost difference? Myabe, but the nice fat portion comes from good old Uncle Sams tariffs on finisished optical products. Thats why US assembled Zess conquests are the same price as comparable VX3S....

 

[back country]

Wildalaska - great explanation - I suspect that between "excellant and superb" the ability of the human eye to capitalize on the difference comes into play - I know that to my eye my Zeiss 10x40 classic binocular will give me hours of use where a lesser glass will give me a horrendous eye ache (headache) I have no doubt that European scope makers know how to "make scopes" and the added few minutes a good scope will give can make all the difference - One thing that at least Leupold has paid attention to is weight and I for one like that - My 338 has a Kahles 3x9 on it and I think it's great, lightweight and clear as can be - Tariffs aren't the only factor that drives the cost up for us Westerners, European labor costs help too - I will continue to use Leupold VX & FX 3's

 

[fullkurl]

Zeiss is the number 1 scope in Europe IIRC. Keep in mind that your Euro hunter pays alot more just to hunt that an American...he just cant get go to Walmart to buy a license, he needs to take tests...even shooting tests and ends up in some countries paying E3K just for the license to hunt.

Of course most of the Euro scopes ate large objective, 30mm....thats for the night hunting allowed...but the main differerence in cost between the Zeiss and US made scopes (beyond custom duties and labor costs) is the lens coating and internals. I have been to the Zeiss plant and their coating facility (what they allowed us to see) is like the starship enterpise. Keep in mind the lens process:

1. The glass blanks, all of which generally come from Taiwan built to spec are ground. Leupold grinds theirs in Japan, Zeiss and Swarovski at their own facilities. No matter what, you buy 500 blanks, at the end of machining and your first QC check, you may only get 499.

2. Polishing is next. Lose another one. Leupold polishes their own as do the two Germanic giants.

3. Coating is next. There is where the costs start rising. The more Hi Tech he coating, the more potential flaws may occur due to a variety or reasons. The coating on the highest end Zeiss scopes ares so sophisticated that there is no distortion whatsoever. During these last sophisticated coatings, there is also an unavoidabale loss of product...so by the last coating you may be down a total of 50 lenses out of the box of blanks. Leupold coating is excellent, Zeiss is superb.

Is that worth the cost difference? Myabe, but the nice fat portion comes from good old Uncle Sams tariffs on finisished optical products. Thats why US assembled Zess conquests are the same price as comparable VX3S....

+1 for the breakdown.
Europeans are unlike Amercians in that they have always realized the value of really quality glass. Often they would put high quality glass on a sub-par rifle whereas we Americans would put sub par glass on an extremely nice rifle.

Things are balancing out here stateside as we begin to realize the need for great glass on our fine guns, hence the increasing popularity of Zeiss, Swaro, S&B etc.
Hard to go wrong with Zeiss glass, especially the Diavari series...

 

[grizz106]

Other factors to consider are how good your eyes are and if you wear correctives lens.

If you are older and/or wear corrective lenses you won't appreciate the higher end glass as much as a young person with excellent uncorrective vision.

I'm 64 and wear glasses and I just can't tell a lot of difference in any of the better rifle scopes. Most lenses today are excellent compared to a few decades ago so a lot of the optical quality differences have become less distinct. . Once lenses coating go transmission above 90% or so you just won't see much difference in that area. Contrast and resolution are also excellent on any of the better lenses.

You certainly won't get any junk with Zeiss or any of the other high end glass. The real question is- is it worth the money to you?

well......I am older, enough so that I wear not only corrective lenses but bifocals built in, have them in but you can't see them like the "older" generation use to have them. anyways most of my shooting is within good light periods of the day but the Lp's I have don't offer much for that portion of light needed to significantly see the animal in question in low light either early mornings or last light of day. Focus has been adjusted of course...in the field checked often as eyes like you say get "older"?

Zeiss has quite a rep for quality that is understood but what intrigues me more is there being built with that ability to gather the last remaining light to help the shooter clarify the target whether to harvest at that time or to verify for further hunting in the morn etc...sounds very good that their CS is exceptional. That is persuasive, now for the spending/delivering and field use. Something in me always that is nagging, why spend so much on metal work..like 4g's approx, not chump change for me and then order a McSwirly and bed it and have a 300 dollar scope on? Has to be light gathering qualities in a scope huh?

 

[tvfinak]

"Light gathering" is actually a myth. A larger front lens doesn't give you any more light - it just gives you a bigger- but not brighter- exit image. Once the exit image gets larger than your pupil can open it is essentailly wasted. As we age the ability of our eye pupil to dilate decreases and the large objective scope that we used a 25 may be wasted at 55. A 3x9x50 makes sense when you are younger but a 3x9x40 works just as well when you are older. Like wise for binoculars - a pair of 7x35 works as well as a pair of 7x50 for us older hunters. In addition it is easier to make a quality 35 mm lenses than a 50 mm - so you save money, get lighter optics, and may get better quality.

Contrast is an important factor in low light conditions - can you pick the dark animal out amoung the dark trees? Without the ability to detect contrast the brightness factor doesn't matter. Contrast is a big factor in the higher end scopes - it requires excellent glass and color correction for different light frequences. Picking out .22 caliber bullets holes in the black on the range is another good example of where contract is important.

I've got several Zeiss scopes including two almost identical 6X scopes - one scope has the latest T* coating and the other does not. Comparing them both in low light conditions shows no difference to my eyes. The older Zeiss scope has an excellent coating already and the difference in light transmission once you get above 90% just isn't noticeable. In the earlier days when we were going from uncoated lenses like the Weaver K series to coated lenses the difference was startling-a jump from 75% t0 90% is very noticeable- but those days are long since past.

The mechanical qualities are another factor that is important but I think all the good scopes have that pretty well nailed down. We found that in camera lenses in the 60s and 70s after everyone started using quality lenses - the better lenses like Nikon used brass and nylon or teflon where the cheaper guys used aluminum and cheap plastics.

well......I am older, enough so that I wear not only corrective lenses but bifocals built in, have them in but you can't see them like the "older" generation use to have them. anyways most of my shooting is within good light periods of the day but the Lp's I have don't offer much for that portion of light needed to significantly see the animal in question in low light either early mornings or last light of day. Focus has been adjusted of course...in the field checked often as eyes like you say get "older"?

Zeiss has quite a rep for quality that is understood but what intrigues me more is there being built with that ability to gather the last remaining light to help the shooter clarify the target whether to harvest at that time or to verify for further hunting in the morn etc...sounds very good that their CS is exceptional. That is persuasive, now for the spending/delivering and field use. Something in me always that is nagging, why spend so much on metal work..like 4g's approx, not chump change for me and then order a McSwirly and bed it and have a 300 dollar scope on? Has to be light gathering qualities in a scope huh?

 

[LuJon]

I would encourage anyone to put a leupy side by side with a zeiss in the field and put the crosshairs on a variety of different colored objects at a variety of different light levels. I have and for me the zeiss reticle showed up clear every time and I cannot say the same for the Leupold.

 

[back country]

Yes, that would be a very legitimate test ... don't forget to compare in brighter light and canyon shadows either ... Your alleigance to Zeiss is commendable as I will continue mine to Leupold - good hunting (2 & 4 legged types)
As for light "transmission", I have read (written by eye docs) that there is only a certain amount of light that is usable to the human eye in the best of conditions making contrast and resolution of utmost importance and I will STILL take my Leupolds

 

[GrassLakeRon]

Add one to the "had to send it back" group. Shot #6 blew the orange o-rings out of her. I guess it is not shock proof. Zeiss still has the scope. I have to call tomorrow to see when she is coming back.

Ron

 

[Alaska_Lanche]

I would encourage anyone to put a leupy side by side with a zeiss in the field and put the crosshairs on a variety of different colored objects at a variety of different light levels. I have and for me the zeiss reticle showed up clear every time and I cannot say the same for the Leupold.

Very true. Especially when you are getting ready to shoot at a goat...which scope did you end up choosing LuJon Leupy or Zeiss

 

[LuJon]

Very true. Especially when you are getting ready to shoot at a goat...which scope did you end up choosing LuJon Leupy or Zeiss

The one that didn't have loose rings.

 

[Alaska_Lanche]

The one that didn't have loose rings.

The "loose ring" one seemed to work ok at 200 yards on a fox

 

[LuJon]

The "loose ring" one seemed to work ok at 200 yards on a fox

Wish I would have seen the shot on the fox before I made my choice! Instead I saw the other one make a shot at over 300 yards.... Oh well