Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Field comparision rifle scopes - Zeiss and Weaver

Good morning,

prompted by the discussions around the 'best 4x riflescope' thread I have done a field trial with documentation this morning.

I looked for the practical side of price and gain in the hunting field as far as optical performance goes.

Question:

Is a low price scope a detriment; is a high price scope an asset?

The following is taken as read and agreed upon:

All scopes considered are mechanically sound - but need NOT withstand 'dialing'.

Scopes used:

Zeiss Diavari *T 2,5-10x48 set to 4,75x (as high end as I had) sold for arouns 1200 $

Weaver Grand Slam 4.75x40 sold for 120 $




Reference was a Zeiss Victory 8x44



Methods:

I went out in pitch dark and set up a standard german roebuck target.

[img]http://i552.photobucket.com/albums/jj358/mar1895/Optics%20test/Neu_559target.jpg [/img]

Distance was 80 meters.

I went through the following routine:

1) Look through binos - record times and visual
2) Look through scopes record times and visual
3) take picture from car roof for darkness reference
4 take picture through scopes, if possible

Proceedings

5:16 am:

Setup:



Visual:



Target idetification not possible.
Shooting not possible with either scope.

5:39 am:

Visual


Binos show outline of target paper and dimmly features.

Reticles on scope show up.

Target idetification not possible.
Shooting not possible with either scope.

5:52 am:

Visual:


Zeiss
[img]http://i552.photobucket.com/albums/jj358/mar1895/Optics%20test/Neu_556zeiss.jpg[/img]

Weaver
[img]http://i552.photobucket.com/albums/jj358/mar1895/Optics%20test/Neu_557weaver.jpg[/img]

Target idetification possible with binos.
Shoots not possible with either scope.

(Light is far good enough already with both scopes for real life hunting at this point.)

continued:

6:03 am

Zeiss


Weaver


Getting close - with both scopes.

6:11 am

Shots judged possible - through both scopes.

6:29 am (full light)

Zeiss


Weaver


Binos


Test documentation:

front


back
[img]http://i552.photobucket.com/albums/jj358/mar1895/Optics%20test/Neu_IMGP2340.jpg[/img]


Results II:

The larger, heavier, more expensive Zeiss does NOT offer any in practice detectable advantage over the Weaver when used at the same power level.

Discussion:

This is a practical evaluation. A scientific approach might show differences this test could not detect.

A side by side video through the scopes viewed closed captioned might show a minute (pun intended) advantage of the Zeiss.

I let everyone draw there on conclusions - if I set out at all to show something, then this:

The guy with the 'lowly' scope is not neccesarily the optical loser, that needs to be shown the light.

He just might only be a hunter - contend with a working tool and happy if that does not cost an arm and a leg.

Very informative CMG.

I could actually see the target better at 5:52 with the Weaver vs. The Zeiss.

However, there were a couple of things I noticed:

It does appear that the Zeiss is set on a higher power than the Weaver when the 5:52 photos were taken, or you could have been standing a little closer to the target when the Zeiss photo was made. In noticed 2 small patches of snow on the right in the Weaver photo, only one is visible in the Zeiss pic.

The ground also appears brighter in the Weaver photo. I know when it starts to get light on a clear day it happens quickly, but it appears this photo was taken in slightly brighter conditions, probably while you were switching equipment.

Thanks for conducting the test and posting the results.

Best,

JM

No.

The guy with the cheap scope IS a loser!

I mean, duh....

JM,

thanks. I think the offset is an angle thing. i had the rifle on one side of the hood and the scope on the other. In general I stood at the same spot, but in the pics it looks like I did not that time.

On the brightness - it may be as you say. It also probably factors in that I used a cheap camera with both rifle/scope and camera held off hand.

As I said, not a scietific test, just a quick try to put into pictures what I see out there.

You would have been fine for a shot with at 0539 with an S&B, just saying....


No surprises and thanks for your time and effort.

differences i see are reticle size and color, neither of which would have mattered towards success

the best part about this test was that it was done in germany ... LOL

im sure my leupold would have been fine

Thanks for the effort. The resolution/clarity so often touted in higher end optics has never been anything that would be a game changer in the field,IME. A large forgiving eye box is one of the most important things to me. Durability as well.

A fine and practical post, cmg, and one that's much appreciated. And that's all I have to say about that.

The test certainly makes one wonder about the wisdom of dropping an extra grand on a scope in hopes of gaining a few minutes more of shooting light.


JM

There is more to this than darkness, when looking into the shadows with overcast skies there is a major difference.
It takes more than a day to appreciate the difference IMHO and expereince

It is up to each individual as to whether or not this is important to them. The older I have gotten the more important it has become for me

Very nice write up, thanks for doing that. The big difference I notice is I like the Recticle the Zeiss has better. Other than that the two scopes seem to perform more alike than different. I'm in the market for a new scope and this sure makes one think about that $$ difference.

I respect your opinion.

Please try to appreatiate the fact that I spent my every workday hunting or hunting related.

A lot more time than this one day have gone into this none the less very subjective opinion.

For scale - the 2009/2010 hunting year saw me over 160 field days between May 09 and Jan. 10. Start in May with Roebucks through Red deer and Fallow deer, Dall Sheep in AK into the chase hunt season over the winter.

I am sorry if this sounds like chest banging. That is not my point.

But I do strain of attitudes like - spent some more time, you will come around.


Steelhead,

I recognize you were speaking tongue in cheek. At 5:39 I very much doubt a S&B 4x would have done a number on the Zeiss.

With post I intend to end my input into this discussion between pragmatism and perfectionism in hunting optics selection - this seeminly to be the core difference.

Great test and thanks for posting. Looks like the little 6x Weaver I have on order should do just fine.

I strain with attitudes that make fast assumption and/or conclusions.

I know it takes me a bit of field time to fully appreciate the difference. I have spent a lot of time afield as well and over 50 years and my opinion is not made up lightly or fast. Since I am 59 and I started hunting with my grandfather at the age of 8

JWP,

and your conclusion of your experience is a 'perfectionists' approach.

My conclusion of my experience is a 'pragmatists' approach.

I content with letting it stand as such. I hope you can, too.

I do not want to strain anybody.

Best wishes.

Carl

I appreciate the fact that you made a comparison, no aguement there..

There are good facts in both camps no arguement there

Carl,

Thanks for the comparison pics.

And the great amount of common sense in your opinions.

All the more interssting to me ,coming from Germany itself.

Very illuminating..

The simple fact is both will do the job. The real question: Is the Zeiss 10 times better than the Weaver. Hell, is it twice better. Is it 10 times tougher? What?
Other than ego stroking, what about the Zeiss is worth 10 times the worth of a Weaver?
I am not a Weaver champion but the first new rifle I bought was a Model 700 in 30-06. I put an El Paso K4 on it. I still own that rifle and, even tho I haven't shot it for a while, I can take it out of the safe and go hunting with it w/o checking the zero.

The forum seems to stand united in their believe of absence of any common sense from Germany.

Something I might have to take for discussion to the Euro forum...

Thanks for the kind words.