My brother in law, as a gift to self, bought a Zeiss Denali (did I spell that right?) scope for last season. I was talking with him a couple of days ago and he could not stop raving about how bright the scope was. He has a lot of good scopes on a lot of rifles, so when he starts raving I have to sit and listen. I told him to bring the dang rifle and scope out to hunt pig with me and I'd have a look, side by side with my various scopes. If it's that darned bright, I think I'll get me one for that 260 Chad is having built for me. I was gonna get a new tractor, but a new scope is cheaper.

Never heard of a Zeiss denali but I have used Zeiss Diavaris and the 6-24x56 on my pasture poodle gun might be the brightest glass I've ever shot thru.

If you want to spend all your tractor fund on a Zeiss look thru a Hensoldt Tactical. Be warned it may temp you to Craigslist a kidney.

Diavari, that's almost 4k. It better be good.

I'd pass, for that much coin. I believe in spending what is needed for good glass, but $4k is ridiculous. Especially when there's perfectly good scopes between $1k and $1500.

4k? If you're paying that much you need a new dealer. Try CameraLand or SWFA. Even though my wife thinks they cost less I've never paid more than 2k for a Zeiss Diavari.

Now ya'll calm down for a second. I'm not spending $4k on a scope. No way. BIL said he paid $1500 and he did call it a Denali, though maybe he meant Diavari. Said the magnification range was either 3-12 or 4-12. For me, it'd have to go up to 14 or 15 max power, and I'd MAYBE pay $1500 or a bit more if the scope was nothing short of fantastic. Before I'd even buy another expensive scope, I will have to look through it side by side with my Leupolds.

As it stands right now, I don't really need another scope. I've got one on my workbench that's waiting for the new Tikka 260.

I've just never seen my BIL so excited about a scope. He hunts with Swaro binocs and he said the scope was brighter than the binocs. Gotta tell you that I'll take that statement with a grain of salt.

The problem with any good clear scope is it will easily get you past legal shooting times.
One of the biggest problems with Zeiss is their weight is sometimes a lot heavier than a good Leup, Swaro, Leica, etc.

Makes me happy that I only like to shoot during the hours of brightest daylight.

BIL is, of course, right. That said, when the pigs are eating my corn and I can't quite find them in the scope, but I can hear em crunching, it's then that I want more scope. And, these days I'm into light gear. A big heavy scope doesn't work for me any more. So who knows what I'll do...eventually.

The Zeiss Conquest Duralyt would be about $1500 at full retail

Maybe that's the Zeiss that the brother in law was talking about. He went on and on and on about how bright that darn scope was. He's been hunting for many many years, so he's looked through a lot of scopes. If the Zeiss got him to woofin and snortin like that, there must be something to it. Heck...I'll probably just go with another Leupold, if I buy anything new at all.

Lot of misinformation on this thread and only one person posting that actually owns a Diavari of some flavor.

603, if you want the best conventional low-light/no-light scope, look at the Diavari HT 3-12x56. They ain't heavy and do not cost anywhere near $4k.
Skip the Duralyt and thank me later.

If it was a diavari, here is a very good price for the 4-16x50 for $1699, while most are asking 2500-2600 for the same scope! Shot show leftovers! Ordered a conquest from them and had it in a few days, believe they are in Arizona.
http://www.redhawkrifles.com/products/ze...icle-asv-turret

I would have to say that you need less scope.

The problem is, when you implement more magnification, you choke light right of the scope.

The key is Less mag + Large objective Lense = great low light preformance.

Having more mag doesn't always help. Matter of fact it is more of a hendrence than a benefit. The exit pupil has diminished when you use alot of magnification that you won't be able to pick anything up.

I would say that if you can hear them cruching corn, you relatively close to begin with and a nice red dot more be the most ideal product for you, but that is ones humble opinion.

agreed..
People think they need higher magnification to "see better"
When they really need better glass..

I would take my 1.5-6 S&B for hunting from 10 yards to 500 over an inexpensive higher magnification any day of the week...

Don't assume that I don't know much about scopes. And I'm fully aware of the importance of the ratio of objective pupil size to magnification power and what that means to young eyes and to old eyes. And I hunted for years with 4 power, 6 power, 1.75 to 5 (Redfield of years past), 3-9, 4-14.5, 6-24, 4-16, straight 10 power, 2-7 and 4-16. My favorite range now is 4 to 16 or 4.5 to 14. In low light, I'll stick to about 6 power or so.

I've hunted with Zeiss Conquest (a 3-9) and I wasn't particularly impressed. I've never hunted with the high dollar German scopes.

The question that remains is whether or not the BIL's high dollar Zeiss at 6 power is noticeably brighter than anything that I presently hunt with at that power. I'd like to know, and if he'll get over here and hunt with me, I'll find out. If it is, then I'll have to decide if the difference is enough to spring the cash for it. It will have to be absolutely spectacular for me to pay that much for a scope. He has been raving about it, but we all tend to rave about new toys that were real expensive.

Get one of these and test the Zeiss side by side with what you already have. Outdoor Life or Field and Stream uses them to test new optics.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_USAF_resolution_test_chart

I was planning to use an eye chart to compare the scopes at various times during sundown until I could see nothing from either scope or both. I'll print off what you sent. Of course I still need the BIL to bring his scope.

The eye chart would work, too. I just thought of the Air Force version since that's what I've seen rifle scopes, spotting scopes, and binocs measured against.

have a few different scopes that have been named and for seeing crosshairs and critters in low light the ones that is best for my eyes is a Kahles 2-7X32. Like BIL said it is easy to shoot past legal shooting time (of course for hogs it does not matter) with a good scope. Minox Z5, Swaro Z6, Kahles 2-7 and 3-9, Zeiss diavari (on friends rifle I have shot) will all get the job done.

You are dead on. The HT is the latest and greatest addition to the Zeiss lineup. I have one and comparing it to the Swarovski Z6i models don't see much difference overall. I will give the nudge to the Zeiss for being a bit better in no light (moonlight) on the low end than the Swarovskis. I compared it to the Z6i 2.5-15x56 and the Z6i 5-30x50. Any of the three will do whatever you ask them to do.

Agree that the Duralyt isn't even in the same neighborhood as the HT. It's a good scope but not that good.

I'm going with a Leupold VX3. Probably a 4.5-14x40. Haven't decided on the reticle yet.

I've spent many a night with just about all of the top tier scopes as it gets dark watching a treeline a couple hundred yards away. At one point I had a Hendsoldt, Zeiss, Swarovski, Schmidt & Bender, Leupold, Nightforce, Vortex razor, and a few others sitting out there. I wanted to see a side by side comparison of which ones actually made a difference as it got dark. A very brief conclusion is on the same power settings, Zeiss with FL glass wins. Hendsoldt is the same glass and not worth the extra coin. Swaro is a close second. followed by Schmidt & Bender. Nightforce glass is slightly better than what I call the Leupold crowd, but I have not had a chance to check out the brand new Beast. Most glass falls into a category that is almost to close to call, that's your Leupold, Vortex, Nikon, Bushnell ext... speaking of upper end Lupys, vortex razors, Bushnell 4500's ext..
Really good glass cost a lot, and I tell people if your planning on 1000 for a rifle, plan on 1500 for the scope to be comparably matched.