Started By
Message
locked post

How much better would a Swarovski Z3 4-12x50 be than my current...

Posted on 12/21/11 at 8:24 pm
Posted by prostyleoffensetime
Mississippi
Member since Aug 2009
11456 posts
Posted on 12/21/11 at 8:24 pm
Nikon Monarch 2.5-10x50?


I had a very nice buck come out this evening that I just couldn't get enough light in the scope. I was able to see him pretty well with my binoculars, Burris Signature Series 12x50, but I could not get him in my scope well enough to take an ethical shot. I also had my little cousin with me and he has a Zeiss Conquest on his gun and I wasn't able to make a shot with that either.

I thought there would be a difference in the Nikon and Zeiss, but I really couldn't tell a difference. So, I'm wondering how big of a difference there would be in a Nikon and Swarovski in low light.
Posted by Ice Cream Sammich
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2010
10116 posts
Posted on 12/21/11 at 8:37 pm to
I can't help you 100%, only 95%. I just picked one of these bad boys up with the BRH reticle, not the BRX. The BRH is a bit thicker and better for hunting, IMO.

I previously had Nikon buckmasters in 3-9x50 on both of my rifles. Ran across a great deal on the swarovoski and got it.

It is heads and shoulders better than my Buckmasters and it's not even close. My father has a Leopuld 2-10x50 (I believe that's the magnification, I know that's the objective) and it is clearly better than his as well.

It would be a tough decision to buy one over the monarch at full price but they seem to go on sale a lot. If you can get one on sale jump on it.

I mounted mine of Friday, sighted in it Saturday and the ole lady got her first deer with it Sunday. After seeing the glass and clarity I would buy again.
Posted by LSUkoozie
30'24'43'N91'11'8'W
Member since Oct 2011
925 posts
Posted on 12/21/11 at 8:39 pm to
ive shot guns with all 3 in low light, not enought difference for me to justify buying. now as far as binaculars, i did see enough difference to spend heavy cash on swarovski. those things are incredible.

i have to say though that the biggest reason i purchased the swarovski binaculars is because we hunt on managed land and we try to make sure we stick to our standards of the size of bucks killed. we make damn sure we know what we are killing before we even put our guns up. so to us binaculars are just as important if not more important
This post was edited on 12/21/11 at 8:43 pm
Posted by jimbeaux82
Natchitoches, La
Member since Oct 2008
1337 posts
Posted on 12/21/11 at 10:28 pm to
I have a Swaro 1" AV 4 x 12 x 50 with the TDS reticile and it is by far the best scope I have ever owned. I also own several Leuo VX111's, 2 Zeiss Conquest, 4 Burris and it is not even close on the clarity of the scope in the late evening or just after dark. They will make a difference to you. Much better than Nikon but the cost is about double what you pay for the others.

If you are willing to spend the money, you cannot go wrong with the Swaro.

Also, I agree that S&B makes one of, if not the top, scope. But they do not make any 1" American style scopes. All of them are the 30 mm variety. So if you want to compare apples with apples, you must compare a 30 mm S&B to a 30 mm Swaro. If you do, I doubt you will be able to tell much difference between them.

Posted by Hawgon
Texas
Member since Feb 2011
1223 posts
Posted on 12/22/11 at 9:20 am to
What power did you have your scope on when you couldn't see the deer?

It sounds like you've already made up your mind but if you really want maximum low light performance, you need to look at a fixed 6x.

Low light performance is primarily influenced by lens coatings, number of lenses, and exit pupil. Exit pupil is easy to determine, just divide the size of the objective by the power. So, at 6x the exit pupil on a 42 mm scope is 7. 7 mm is as far as the human eye can possibly dilate, so anything more than that in a scope is wasted as that the eye can't utilize it. At 12x the exit pupil on a 50 mm scope is a little over 4, so you are really shortchanging yourself when you have it set up on high power in low light. Drop it down to 5x or 6x for best performance.

Nowadays, even the coatings on the cheapest scopes are good at transmitting light, so the next most important thing is how many lenses must the light go through before it gets to your eye. The more lenses, the more light is bled off before you see it. Therefore, fixed power scopes work best in low light.

The absolute BEST low light scopes in the world are fixed power Schmidt and Benders in the 7x50mm or 8x56mm class. They use those in Germany and they hunt at night with them. However, they aren't for sale generally here in the U.S.. The best scope for low light transmission commonly available here will be something in the fixed 6x range.

A fixed 6x of a little lesser quality overall, will outperform a more expensive and better quality variable nearly everytime.
Posted by DownshiftAndFloorIt
Here
Member since Jan 2011
66763 posts
Posted on 12/22/11 at 10:15 am to
If you want light gathering, get something with a 30mm tube and a 50something mm objective.
Posted by ccomeaux
LA
Member since Jan 2010
8184 posts
Posted on 12/22/11 at 12:38 pm to
You can't go wrong with any of the big 3. S/B, Swarovski or Zeiss. Anyone telling you they can tell the difference between the 3 in comparable models is full of it and all 3 are miles better than anything else out there. I have all 3, 2 in binos and a Swar spotting scope. Pick the one you like and take good care of it.

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram