There is a very unique feature that Zeiss Victory Diavari eyepieces have: The edge of the eyepiece is barely visible when you position your eye at the exit pupil. Therefore, you see the sight picture almost seamlessly superposed on the surrounding background. I call this "edge-less view". This is opposite of "tunnel view" where you see a thick dark circle around the image shown by the eyepiece before the background starts.

I was wondering if Zeiss Victory HT also has the same eyepiece. But after a brief comparison at a gun shop I noticed that the eyepiece of the HT models is different. It's size and length is also different than the Diavari eyepiece. While the view through the HT eyepiece is nice, it did not seem to be the same "edge-less" view that I was expecting. I am wondering if anyone else has experience with Zeiss HT scopes and has compared them with previous Diavari models. (The Zeiss Diavari 6-24X56 FL models and Hensoldt 6-24X56 tactical scopes have the same amazing edgeless view as well)

Thanks,
-Omid

OK, let me ask another question: What is the difference between the illuminated reticles (say #60) in Zeiss Diavari models and in the Varipoint model? I know that in the Varipoint, the reticle itself is in the first focal plane whereas the red dot is in the second focal plane (so it appears fixed size when magnification changed). How about the Diavari models? Do these models have the dot and the reticle in the same focal plane?

My scope (shown above) is not illuminated so I am curious to know how Zeiss illumination system works.

I have a Zeiss HT 1.1-4x24mm with #54 illuminated reticle, and a Zeiss Victory Diavari 2.5-10x50mm with a #40 illuminated dot.
The HT reticle and small illuminated dot are 2nd plane.
The Diavari reticle and illumination are both 1st focal.
The HT illumination is bright daylight / sunlight usable, if one desires.
The Diavari being in the first focal is low light only. I don't see the illumination in bright light.
The Diavari illuminates the existing dot.
The HT illumates a small dot in the very center of the #54 reticle.

I have not found much use for daylight illumination. The 1st focal does what I need, with proper reticle for my eye.

I have 1.1-4x24mm Schmidt & Bender Zenith, 2nd focal plane reticle Flash Dot #7. The illumination on it is daylight visible if adjusted so. The Flash Dot, more or less, projects a dot onto the center of a reticle and the dot is not visible if off. Their 1st focal Stratos model functions the same and it also is bright light usable.

Yes, I have compared the HT to the Diavari side by side. They are very similar--at least the HT example I currently have in a 2.5-10x50. Edge to edge without the border ring in the view throughout the power range. Very nice.

fwiw, the 2000 era Victory Diavari are the models I prefer and the glass itself is as good as it gets. The HT does have a transmission advantage but it is not enough to be too concerned about in low light for me, particularly with a good binocular handy. The lowest magnification on the current Zeiss HT models shows considerable aberration outside of the center, which is not a problem, but noticeable. Zeiss CS said it is due to the design--maybe that is where they pick up a transmission advantage--I don't know. The older Diavari have a great view throughout the power range.

The Zeiss Victory Diavari with the LotuTec in 1.5-6x42, 2.5-10x42 and 50mm's, with the #4 & 40 reticles are some of my favorite scopes. I wish Zeiss still offered them for sale in North America.

Agree on the lotutec. Have never seen a #40--was that the same dimensions as a #4?. The #4 in that 1" Diavari is a great scope & in the 50mm. Have in a plex & #1, as well.

I do like the illuminated #60 in the HT. In the daylight there is a normal crosshair and the illuminated dot subtends less than most.

The #40 as near as my eye can tell, without measuring or looking up subtensions, is the same as the #4. But, it has a dot in the center that is not connected to the center of the crosshairs. I like this reticle and the 1st focal illumination of the dot.
All the Victory Diavari scopes that I have are 30mm 1st focal. I do have a 1" Conquest with the Z-Plex / #20 reticle. I like this reticle and the Swarovski Plex in their 1.7-10x42 2nd focal non-illuminated. That Swarovski is my favorite all-around non-illuminated 2nd focal scope. I do like Bold reticles for my hunting.
I also like the Schmidt & Bender 1st focal # 4 reticles. They seem extremely close to the Zeiss dimensions, by my eye. I definitely like their Flash Dot illumination with the #4.

Thank you for the information. Based om "Tomk" observations, the HT and the Diavari have the same apparent view through the eyepice. Regarding reticle's I have not seen a #60 yet but I shall see soon.

I too prefer thicker reticles such as the Schmidt and Bender A7 in the 3-12X42 classic model. The newer designs such as Flash Dot FD7 are nice too but they look a bit too thin at low magnification (I have 1.5-8X Startos with this reticle, havn't hunted with it yet).

Any thouthts or comments on the Zeiss Varipoint model? They have crosshairs in FFP and the red dot in the SFP. I wonder how well that works. Another question: What's the difference between Diavari V, Diavari M, Diavari VM/V etc? What do these letters mean?

Thanks again,
-Omid

Based on tomk's observation, his HT and Diavari V's have very similar views. I used to extrapolate, but today in the age of a different designer rifle scope cranked out every other minute--who knows? I 'd check for yourself.

The VM referred to rail mounted, I believe. Don't recall seeing a lone "M".

Looking at my "notes" which should not be quoted...the V Model was from approx. 1997-2006, then the Lotutec model with the umlaut Lotutec trademark was introduced. The "Classic" from that era were generally longer and heavier. The Z model preceded them (both the T* and MC) and the C model was earlier.

all fwiw, am sure someone has more reliable notes than mine...:)

You might ask Bobby Tomek about the VariPoint.

My take as to the Schmidt & Bender reticles:
I have the 1.1-4x24 FD 7. This being a 2nd focal reticle, I do not have much issue with it. All in all, I am satisfied with it, combined with ability of the excellent FlashDot.

I also have two of the Statros 1st focal 1.5-8x42, one has the FD 7 and the other a FD 4.
The FD 7, will be sent back to S&B to be replaced with the FD 4. And both scopes, will have the push button / touch-pad / whatever you call the illumination control is going to changed to a rotary type as on the Zenith models.
The FD 4 reticle seems very close to the same as the Zeiss #4.

The rotary Zenith illumination control, I like Very much.
The push button stuff, is definitely not agreeable with my fingers or their sensitivity. I cannot imagine trying to use it with gloves on. It seems that several manufacturers are producing push button type controls, give me the rotary type for a hunting scope.
Nor do I care for ocular placement of controls.

Interesting! I have an Schmidt and Bender Stratos with FD7. What makes you prefer the FD4 reticle? As far as I know, there is just less horizontal gap between the posts in the FD4. Could you please post pictures of the FD4 reticle in your scope?

I too agree that the Zenith-style elevation knob is fine. My scope just came like that and I am not complaining.

Omid,
The FD 4, not only is the horizontal opening smaller, but the thick vertical post extends closer to center also. So, the opening is quiet a bit smaller / tighter. The FD 4 appears to me to be the same as the Zeiss #4, which is one of my favorite reticles.

The knob that I am referring to replacing is the illumination control / Flash Dot lighting / intensity control. Replacing the sun / moon / S&B logo switch with the Zenith rotary type.