Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics scopes compared

For those who have not had an opportunity to look through several scopes and use an optics chart.

Zeiss Conquest HD 5-25X50 - bad
Vortex Razor 5-20X50 – good
Minox ZA 5HD 5-25x56 SF PLEX - bad
Nikon Monarch 3 5-20X44 - good
Sightron 6-24X40 - good
Sight-Mark Ezekiel 3-30X56 - acceptable
Bushnell 4200 4-16X40 - good
Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 – very good
Leupold VariX-III 4 ½-14X50 Long Range Side Focus - good
Kahles 3-9X42 – very good
Leica ER 6.5-26X56 LRS – Excellent!
Bushnell 6500 4 ½-30X50 – very good
Swarovski x5i 5-25X56 – very good
Swarovski z8i 2.3-18X56 – Excelent!
Swarovski z5 3 ½-18X40 – Very good
Leupold VX-5 CDS-ZL2 3-15X56 – Excelent!
Bushnell 6500 2 ½-16X50 SF mil dot – very good
Bushnell 6500 2 ½-16X42 SF – very good
Nightforce NXS 12-42X56 – Excelent!
Swarovski z5 5-25XD52 – very good

Which optics chart and where did you obtain it from?

I’ve thought about trying something like that.

prm,

The avatar is a photo of a military chart someone here at the 'fire emailed me. I forwarded it to Staples and had them laminate it at about 12" square. It is 127 yards from my porch.
I just edited the Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50, Swarovski z5 5-25X52, and Swarovski z5 3 ½-18X40 to very good. The Bushnell 6500 2 1/2-16X are very good, but not as good as the other three I just changed.

Was each tested on same power or individual max,or???

Each scope was tested on three different powers:

1) Excellent!

2) Very good!; and

3) Good.

That’s how it would appear to the untrained eye, but there are actually two levels of “Excellent!”:



There’s only one scope that was worthy of the “Double L” rating of “Excellent!” (Well done Leica, I imagine this accolade will definitely be used in product marketing...)
Then there is “Excelent!”, which is a “Single L” version of the rating, for scopes that fell just short.

I’m struggling to rate this review myself, as I’m not short of it falls just short or if it is a full on “Double L”...

I think that was me, but I pointed you to somewhere out on the Internet. It was a good version because it would print out to scale on 8.5 x 11 paper. Sadly, I can't seem to find that web site any more.

If you search for USAF Optical Resolution Chart, and limit it to images, you get a lot of hits. This one looks promising.

http://www.accurateshooter.com/shooting-skills/targets/

Since my favorite scope is the Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 all were compared with that one at various magnification settings. The significant thing to me between the Leica ER 6.5-26X56 LRS and Swarovski x5i 5-25X56 was the 1X more in the Leica definitely made a difference. The Leica was better on 25X than the Swarovski, but it really shined with that extra 1X.

In fact 1X started me on the quest for a high magnification scope. I went to the store to purchase a new 3-9X. I started comparing with Tasco and whatever else he had. Finally after checking them all I finally settled on a Swarovski. Then the clerk told me, "Don't look at the brand just look through it." I did. It was noticeably better than the Swarovski. I looked at the brand and noticed it was Leupold LPS 2 1/2-10X. Since it had 10X I turned it up and looked at the "line" on a roof a few hundred feet away. The "line" was actually an extension cord. Immediately I could see the line was an extension cord. “If 10X is this much better than 9X I need maybe 14X or 15X.” By then the sun had set.

I took a Swarovski 4-12X, a Sightron 3-15X, and a Leupold LPS 3 ½-14X outside. The clerk accompanied me. Because I thought the Swarovski would be the best I started with it. I found a twig about two blocks way and memorized its surroundings. Next I checked it out with the LPS. It was not a twig, but two twigs very close together. Again, I looked through the Swarovski and saw a twig. Next, I looked through the Sightron II: Two twigs. I bought the Sightron.

Ringman wrote: "I took a Swarovski 4-12X, a Sightron 3-15X, and a Leupold LPS 3 ½-14X outside. The clerk accompanied me. Because I thought the Swarovski would be the best I started with it. I found a twig about two blocks way and memorized its surroundings."
---

So you hand-held these scopes to evaluate them? They were unmounted, so how did you maintain optimum eye position to gauge them all? Just curious as I find that is an impossible situation -- for me, at least. Without having them bench-steady and checking them under varied lighting and atmospheric conditions, I personally find it impossible to accurately assess or compare scopes, particularly when they are close in overall optical quality.

Just curious...

In a dictionary definition of the word 'Subjective', this list should appear..........

Shaking my head Bigly

I hope you don't mind me changing it. I think this is the word you wanted. By the way, I feel the same as you.

Not sure why you lot are kicking the fellow down, he has posted in good faith.

If you do not agree with his opinion then post up your reasoning.

JSTUART, there is a lot of history there with this particular poster and his take on optics. This is sort of a "blind squirrel comparison test".

Either way, I am staying out of this one.

ILya

The scopes were placed on a sandbag on a solid rest.

You just proved you can't!

Most comparisons are subjective. Of course all opinions are objective.

Thanks. What in particular brought about the "bad" ratings for the Minox ZA5 HD and Zeiss HD5 scopes?

Every magnification setting in Minox ZA5 HD was 3X - 5X worse than the Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50. That is the one I want to beat in a price range I can afford. The Zeiss HD punked out twelve minutes before the 6500 on the antlers. That's about like the Tasco I have on the .22.

Interestingly I've had both those scopes too, and I also would rate them poorly with my experience.

With the Zeiss the side parallax focus was finicky, very finicky - annoyingly finicky. And the Minox's plex appeared "pixelated" instead of having a nice crisp cross-hair.

Glass was in line with cost.

That's my experience with 1 example of each so whatever that's worth.