Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Which one of these would be best in low light?

Swarovski Z5 5-25x52
Bushnell Elite 4.5-30x50
Leica ER 5 5-25x56

Z5.

ER5 is close and since it is now discontinued, you might find a smoking deal on it. I do not see a lot of 5-25x models for sale though. 3-15x56 is quite good and that one is around.

ILya

I can tell you from side by side comparison. I had four z5s. Two were terrible and two were matched my 6500 4 1/2-30X50 and my Leupold VX-6 4-24X52. I use deer antlers 131 yards from the porch where the scopes were laid on sandbags. I start about sunset and start looking through each until I can no longer see the antlers well enough that I would shoot the deer carrying them.

The idea that Swarovskis are better than other scopes is an internet myth. At least I know that with the four z5 5-25X52.

A friend brought his z6 5-30X50 over to compare with my Bushnell 6500. Both the owner and I agree the z6 was not even close to the 6500. In fact the owner said, "I didn't think that one was very good." He also brought a z8i. Now that scope was fantastic. It smoked the others by twenty minutes.

You’re gonna make me keep my Z8i...

I am not going to re-hash an old argument, but Ringman's eyes do not dilate in low light and likely have other issues. I suspect that he has severely diminished sensitivity to color (we've gone through this whole discussion many years ago).

His experience with riflescopes is generally entirely unique and goes contrary to just about everyone else who has ever looked through a riflescope with a possible exception of a couple of his cousins/friends.

I will say that VX-6 4-24x52 is a very good scope, but the 4.5-30x50 Elite 6500 is known for issues.

Lastly, I just noticed that Doug has some good prices on the ER 6.5-25x56. That is a superb scope, rivaling Z6 and Z8 in image quality.

ILya

Agreed and well stated too. He's 100% accurate in saying that is a superb scope.

6.5 just seems like too much magnification on the low end. Worried enough about going with 5.

I did an informal poll with my brother and a friend to see what power ranges our scopes were set at initially and most were 5-6x . That said the 3-15x56 model looks very nice

Think of the exit pupil size. on 6.5X the exit pupil is 8.61mm. That's larger than what a healthy human eye can dilate to.

I’m talking about for target acquisition at close range though.

And yeah that’s good, but one thing I loathe about my 2.3-18x56 Z8i is the 8.1 mm exit pupil at 2.3x. Shouldn’t be near that hard to get behind a 2.3x 56mm scope.

Ah! I'm on the same page now. I was thinking with most feed locations being about 90-100 yards out, 6X would be a little more than desired, but still doable.

I can tell you from experience that 6x works just fine on deer only 44 steps away.

I used to think so too, when I only had fixed 6's. For me going 4x or lower is a big plus not only up close but on animals moving at even a modest speed.

I used to have my bear bait set up at 28 yds. for reasons that aren't important here. I had one come in while hunting with a 3-9x40 VX-II, and actually turned the power up from 3x to 6x without thinking about it. I didn't need to, but had the opportunity and did it without thinking about it till later.

I guess you didn't get the part where the owner of the z6 agrees with me. So much for uniqueness. And oh yea, he's not old with diminished eyes. And how 'bout my gunsmith. He's only 40 and has observed the same things I have. Let's not leave out my son-in-law. He is not more than 50 and compared the scopes when I have and agrees seeing the same things.

Based on these others and not just me, people on the 'net will probably discover the same things when they do the same comparisons.

By the way, can you tell me why two of the four z5s I had were definitely not as good as the other two z5s? Could it be the lack of consistency of Swarovski?

to be honest all 3 scope brands are good, but if you have the money buy a Niteforce you will get a better scope for that price range. Swarovski makes great binoculars but Swarovski scopes are only so-so. good luck with your choice,Pete53

Pete, do you really think that Swaro uses a lesser quality glass and coatings in their riflescopes?

those Swarovski scopes are not used much in competition ,its been said the turrents on the scope don`t work as well as a Niteforce for accuracy so why use them ? so if you shot in competition you would understand why waste money on a scope just because of the name. Niteforce wins alot compared to any other brand scope these days !

And you shoot competition in low light?

Have done lot of low-light comparisons over the last 20 years and do correspond with other low light hunting scope fanatics who also spend far too much money buying and comparing...some who post here.

Swaro is always in the top three for low light hunting in my comparisons. Regardless of their lower transmission figures, contrast and detail are first rate.

Agree with Koshkin on this one.

With all due respect, I have long ago stopped trying to figure out why you see things the way you do. I have been reviewing scopes for close to twenty years now and making recommendations for well over a decade. I routinely recommend riflescopes to other people and follow up with them after they have had a chance to follow my recommendations. So far, aside from a small group gathered around you, my recommendations have been corroborated by hundreds if not thousands of people on four continents. I work with optical instruments for a living. I make equipment used to test and calibrate weapon sights among other things. It is my job to make sense of how these things perform. I do not know what twilight zone you are in, but everywhere else, my recommendations hold.

ILya