Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Older Alpha vs new mid tier

Would an older Alpha glass scope such as a Zeiss Diavari V with T coatings outperform something like a Zeiss V4 or Nightforce SHV?

If "outperform" is refering to optical quality then yes in both cases.

Yes buy a good margin especially in low light.

Yes, I meant optical performance, I don’t dial when hunting. Was specifically considering a Diavari V 3-9x42 T* for a Dakota 97 in 300 winchester mag.

I have an older Diavari and newer Nightforce NXS. Optical performance still goes to Diavari. Lower light, resolution, any way you want to measure it, Diavari wins. I want to compare it to a S&B but can't justify the three thousand dollar price tag and don't know if I really would gain anything over Diavari.

The Polar smokes the Diavari actually. I have owned both and a Zeiss HT .

That's what I hear. But that price is hard to swallow when the Diavari does everything I need on a hunting rifle. And in that price range your getting into nightvision and thermal territory.

That price plus the 34mm scope tube is whyI don't own one anymore. I can get by very nicely with a Leica Amplus , S&B classic and a Swarovski Z5 2.4-12x50

I believe with optics you reach a point of diminishing returns. In most cases with top tier alpha glass such as a Polar or Victory HT etc. you get a pretty small percentage of better optical quality/performance compared to upper mid-tier but it generally comes with a price significantly higher than the performance is worth.

There is a very clear difference between a Polar and a premium 30mm German/austrian scope., makes no difference where one hunts 30 minutes after sunset with the exception of heavy dark woods.

zeiss v4 isn't really comparable to SHV, even less so to NXS. the zeiss v4 is quite a bit better by a good margin. any of them are plenty good. keep in mind your scope isn't a spotting device.

That’s a pretty bold statement. I won’t argue the S&B may be brighter, but “smokes it” I think may be a bit much…

96% light transmission vs 94.5 for the Zeiss HT vs 90-92 for everyone else. Using one in the dark is like cheating.

Tube size (34mm vs 30mm) has no little to no bearing on glass quality, light gathering ability, contrast, resolution etc. Glass and coatings are another matter....

"96% light transmission vs 94.5 for the Zeiss HT vs 90-92 for everyone else. Using one in the dark is like cheating".

That's what the manufacturers specs state, but what I'm saying is for the extra 2-4% of light transmission the cost almost always doubles. I'm not knocking Alpha glass by any means, I own a couple of Victory HT's. It's up to the end user to decide if double the cost is worth a few more minutes of light transmission. In most states a mid tier or less can be used at legal shooting time. If I'm hunting in the dark I'll use NV or Thermal.

Who said they did? I don't like them because they are bulky. They just have better glass then anyone else.

Never the less, scopes are used for verification of the target. Is it legal? Is it what you want?

Not worth the price , there’s only so much available light a scope can transmit, also for those who don’t know this, scopes only transmit available light they do not gather anything.

I use my scope a lot more than most people, or so it seems. Once I locate a target, I put my gun up and watch it through the scope sometimes for several minutes before deciding to take a shot or not. And often I have to wait a while to get a good shot, if the target is moving in and out of cover, for example. To me, the optics in a scope are important.

You are saying what most should if they told the truth.

My binos cost more $$$ than any scope I've ever owned, FWIW.