Looking at replacing a bushnell 4200 elite on my 270. Thinking about a german zeiss diavari 3-9x36 or kahles kx 3-9x42. Which one would be better in low light & clarity?
I would buy the Kahles. I've owned several examples of both.
Neither are worth a fhuqk mechanically and both are an easy pass. Hint..............
both are pretty nice optically, i'd probably go kahles, but look through both and see what you like.
Neither, buy a better "low light" scope like the Zeiss Victory HT 2.5-10x 50mm which I am selling.
PM me for details.
Kahles over anything mentioned in this thread. I have owned all three .
One other factor you might consider is that the adjustment turrets of Diavaris aren't sealed against moisture. This doesn't often cause problems in the field, but it can. Kalhes started fully sealing all their scopes in the 1960s.
You're going to stir up the 3-9x36 Diavari cultists.
Kahles.
Does the Diavari really offer a lot optically over a 4200?
I think a 4200 Elite would be optically good enough plus you get RAINGAURD. THE higher end scopes may give you a bit better contrast in low light or better resolution at longer range but brightness wise I don’t see a lot of difference in most quality scopes.
Kahles.
Does the Diavari really offer a lot optically over a 4200?
Other then it being more compact in dimensions about the same weight.
What is the warranty on the Kahles scopes ? I've had to send back 2 Zeiss conquests for warranty work which they sent me a new scope.
I do like the rainguard on the 4200.
Years ago I sent in one of my Kahles AH 3-9x42's to Swaro for some "grit" I had gotten into the focus mechanism...they went through it, cleaned it up and sent it back to me at no cost.
I had bought the scope second hand.
Kahles all day long. One of the best made in that size & magnification class. I am admittedly a little biased against that particular Diavari as it is the only scope I’ve ever had fog up on me internally during a hunt.