Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters First vs. second focal plane in Zeiss scope

I am about to order a Zeiss Victory scope. Probably the 2.5-10 x50. I am still trying to decipher the available reticles vs. which focal plane they are available in. Zeiss website says *scopes over 50mm have choice of first or second. For whitetail, mule deer and elk hunting, which focal plane would be preferable? I have no experience with a FFP scope. Currently have a Conquest scope with SFP. More reticle options are present if I go with the 56mm objective, but am reluctant to having scope mounted too high on my rifle. I think I understand the difference between ffp and sfp but once again have no field experience with ffp. Thanks!

FFP is only important if you are trying to range with the reticle. I would not pay the extra for one in a hunting scope. Lightman

First focal plane scopes are for hunting. They are superior in low light. You don't get as fine a reticle for target shooting off the bench when you zoom the power up, but it's easier to see in the hunting field when you zoom the power out.

We are so used to 2nd focal plane scopes it might be hard for a lot of people to switch but a lot of people including most European hunters much prefer the 1st focal place scopes for hunting. But then they also often hunt in lower light than we do.................................DJ

I have three Zeiss 1.5-6x42 scopes with FFP reticles, and I have a Schmidt Bender 1.5-6x42 scope also FFP.

I love them! I do not spend that kind of money easily. The glass is fantastic. The low light performance is as good as it gets. The color resolution is as good as it gets. The reticles (the Zeiss are duplex, the S & B is a modified #4) are superb for picking up your target very fast in brush and low light.

For me, these scopes are just perfect for Minnesota deer hunting. Good out to 400 yards without trouble. The best available under spruce in the dark. Surprisingly fast in the brush, much better than my Leupy 1-4. They are tough and absolutely repeatable. The down side is that they are just a little bit heavier than something you might substitue. The Nikon 1.5-6x42 Monarch Gold is the same weight and if I could get my hands on one I suspect it might be just about as good at 1/3 the price.

Were it me, I would go for the FFP reticle and I would go for the 1.5-6x42 over the 2.5-10. With glass this good the resolution is so much better that the extra magnification is not necessary. I would much rather have this on a gun than a lesser 9x/10/12x. MUCH RATHER.

Miles,

Right on!!
Great posting.

Depends on what you want the scope to do. With a SFP scope, the reticle opening changes size as you change the magnification. This can allow you to bracket and range an animal by changing the magnification. If your scope is so marked, as with the Leupolds, you just read the range off of the magnification ring.
First Focal Plane scope don't do that. You have a set opening size no matter what the magnification, much the same as a fixed magnification scope. Some find this simplier and more useful. They also are easier to see in bad light at the higher magnifications because they don't appear to get thinner.
As far as low light use goes, their are lots of heavier reticle choices for SFP scope users that make using a FFP reticle unnecessary.
There are also lots of fully multicoated, much cheaper scopes than those listed that will perform the same under low light conditions. Many other, cheaper makes have very similar performance. E

bonefish,
I had my first FFP scope in a Zeiss Victory and absolutely couldn't stand the reticle swelling up when the magnification is increased. Sold it, and chaulked it up to a $1000 lesson to help me remember to never do that one again.

Couldn't resist commenting on your misinformation. Everyday you post in the optics forum you get more courage (I know your ban expired not long ago) - soon, and I sense it'll come quickly you'll be banned again from the optics forum. You just can't help yourself E.

It'll be then the rest of the forum users will breath a sigh of relief and be able to have normal conversations again without interuption from your noise.

Keep on beliving that the VX3 will match a top of the line Zeiss or other high end scope, pathetic . . .

All right, cfran. Since yopu dislike the reference, I've deleted it.
I would point out however that another poster started this argumment with his reference to his euros being better than his Leupold. His euros being 42mm scopes vs.. his Leupold which is a 20mm model. Very odviously an unfair comparision. E

Thanks - just don't stoop to others level E, it's just that simple. He lied so don't you do the same, nothing will get solved.

I hope you are doing well!

What is it that you have loose between your ears? I was not "dissing" Leupys. I have a Leupy 1-4 to do more or less the same job as the 1.5-6 scopes, so any comparison I make between scopes I own for the same basic job is fair by definition. I also happen to have a couple of Conquest 4.5-14s that are useless in the brush when compared to the 1.5-6s , and that's a perfectly fair comparison too.

I have put considerable effort into figuring out some of the reasons why I think the Diavari/S & B scopes are so much better.

"As far as low light use goes, their are lots of heavier reticle choices for SFP scope users that make using a FFP reticle unnecessary.
There are also lots of fully multicoated, much cheaper scopes than those listed that will perform the same under low light conditions. Many other, cheaper makes have very similar performance. E"

This statement is just plain wrong. A very simple test for this is to takes they scopes in question out in the dark and actually test to see how far you can resolve a sight picture well enough to shoot. I do not mean in legal hours shooting light. I mean in midnight to 3AM dark. Under varying cloud and moonlight conditions. That's the best way I have found to separate them. In daylight (legal shooting light)virtually any scope can get the job done. When you start trying to put all the bullets as close together as you can, you begin to separate the resolution quality of the scopes, but, it's only a beginning. The quality of the glass and the coatings and the assembly into a unit are all parts of the end result. Compare things like the color resolution at night and the usefulness of the reticle in putting you on target quickly, and you can separate what look like equal scopes in daytime much more easily.

My brain is wired to make use of the information it acquires most often. When I am out with unassisted eyes at night it's severely handicapped. With lesser scopes I get more light typically, but very noticeably less color information, and what color information I do get is distorted. That makes my brain work harder trying to compensate and make the "picture" look more like It thinks it should from daytime experience. That translates into time. That's exactly the same principle at work when I look through lesser scopes at deer in the brush. It takes more time to make that picture match up with what I can see without the scope.

All of that is why I find the very high end FFP scopes to be worth the money to me. I find them adequate to any extended range work I may want to try, they resolve targets so well I prefer them to higher powered lesser quality scopes for normal (to me) ranges. They are just quicker under most conditions and much, much quicker under really adverse conditions.

You couldn't give me one of the 1.5-6s to replace my little Leupy on the gun it's on. I put that together to do something I wanted done and it does it to near perfection as far as I am concerned and making the swap would detract from that.

You have got to get over any perceived slight(by you) towards any Leupy as being a personal affront or an argument in the making. It is not. It is simply in this case a valid comparison with rationale behind it. Making dumb ass statement like the one quoted above just make you look like a dumb ass. It is self evident that there are not lots of much cheaper scopes available that will perform the same. Were that even remotely true the price differences would narrow considerably and I would be a happier person when it came time to buy another scope. I own and use everything from <$100 scopes to >$2000 scopes, and I shoot them quite regularly. I have done this for fifty some years and I like pretty much all of them. My appreciation of what I use today comes from having used pretty well both ends of the spectrum for that time, and having the joy of seeing that spectrum move to such high quality as is available today.

I'm not sure that whether the reticule is First or Second Image Plane as anything to do with brightness or optical quality..

I have an S&B scope with a SFP reticule, but S&B also make the same scope with a FFP reticule..the optical quality of two are identical. I think Zeiss and Swaro offer the choice of FFP or SFP on certain models also..

Years ago, 2FP scopes tended to suffer from a change of point of impact as the powers were altered, which simply can't happen when the riticule is in the FFP. However, time and engineering have marched on, and today on any decent quality scale, that simply shouldn't be an issue..

I do notice that in certain cheaper 2FP scopes, the reticule tends to "silver out" in certain light conditions. I'm not sure thats an issue down to the reticule placement, or that just poor quality design/materials??

For me, I much prefer a quality scope with FFP reticule for deer stalking. For target use or varments, I would think the 2FP would be a better choice, especially when used in conjunction with a lazer rang finder...

I don't think I said that, and if that's what you got from my post it is not what I meant. I see no reason for the 1FP/2FP scopes to be different as far as brightness or optical quality goes if you compare the same scopes for a manufacturer.

What I do think is more common though is that FFP scopes are more commonly a European thing and more often a higher quality scope as a result of their manufacture. I don't off the top of my head know of any FFP cheap scopes.

First focal plane all the way for hunting if low light is a possibility. I have a swaro 3-12 with TDS plex reticle in first focal plane. Nice to have the big reticle in low light, still works plenty well to shoot out past 500 yards and keep it in the kill zone. And, since it is an FFP scope, the reticle works at all powers.

Second focal plane better for precision target shooting. I have a swaro 4-16 with TDS4 reticle in 2nd focal plane. Those finer lines disappear quickly when it starts to get dark. It also has to be at 16x for the TDS4 lines to work properly. That said, it'll shoot better groups off the bench at 600 yards, which is good for taking $ from friends!!

If you're hunting involves a lot of low light situations for deer sized game and up,you don't mind a 30mm tube,and can get accustomed to the reticle swelling on you as power increases,I would go with the Zeiss Victory having a 6X to 10X top end in magnification,but no bigger than 40-42mm to keep weight and size manageable.The optics on these things is so ggod that 40-42mm's brings you well past legal shooting time.

I say this having owned and played with some other models of Zeiss,Kahles, and Swarovski's in 30mm's;and make no mistake,those heavier reticles and the tack sharp optics of those high end euro's(to my eyes anyway,YMMV can offer a distinct advantage in very low light conditions.

I have an aversion to large,bulky scopes though in much of my hunting because I walk a great deal,still hunt and track,etc.,and like a smaller lighter scope,generally of somewhat less power than is in vogue.

But as I age, I'm a body in transition,and find that my eyes are more sensitive to an upgrade in optics than they used to be....maybe I could always see the difference,but did not care before;and since I do a lot more hunting in Alberta,where you deal with low light,very long periods of dusk and dawn,and very nocturnal deer(especially the big mature whitetails and mule deer), I find that I'm happier with a bit more power,and sharper optics.

It has not yet happened to me but one of my hunting pals has had opportunities at very large bucks in Alberta during legal shooting times where he simply could not see to shoot...he felt a change in optics was required.I do not disagree.

This is distinctly different from the type hunting I do in Wyoming,where the western light is pretty good,and I have killed bucks there out to 300 yards so late you needed a flashlight by the time I got to them,and these shots were made with Leupolds.When hunting rugged country, I like the lighter weight and lesser bulk of 1" scopes like Leupolds.

I am contemplating a Zeiss Victory myself but it will go on a dedicated Alberta rifle;whether these scopes find their way onto my western rifles is another question. I am not real hard to please when it comes to scopes but figure the more active you are as a hunter means you'll run into a wider variety of conditions where one type serves better than another.There's plenty of room for both types.

Bob,

Last year I walked into Ahlmans and there sitting on the counter in a pile of other used scopes was my S & B 1.6-6x42, still in it's factory box. It's a police sniper model with turrets and a modified #4 reticle that has windage hashes. It was as new, and had a pair of Warne Maxima QDs on it and marked at $599. I called Mike over and asked him why he was selling that scope at that price. He said he took it in cheap on a rifle and had tried it himself but thought it was a little heavy so he put it out for sale.

I have used this one in the dark. DARK DARK. It is better than my Zeiss'. If you have a mind to go that route for an Alberta gun try keeping an eye out for used S & Bs. There are actually a fair number of these in existence, most in Euro police/military sniper units. I have seen one or two come up on the 'net. Oddly, the prices have not been anywhere near the normal retail on these things.

Miles,

We have similar hunting conditions here as you have up north. The "under spruce" comment above nailed it squarely between the eyes. It gets dark here fast in the swamps, long before the end of legal hunting for the day, and I can't see a normal second focal plane reticle at all late in the day.

Miles, I will keep my beedy eyes peeled.Thanks for the tip

Check your PMs

Well, Miles, if you want to do a euro comparision during real darkness vs. a Leupold, post it over on the optics forum and we'll go to it. The topic here FFP vs. SFP, not euros vs. Leupolds. Not wanting to hijack the thread, I with drew the post. E