Are HD scopes really BETTER?? Tale of five scopes

[Elkwonder]

Ok, so I was itching to get a better scope for my new Kimber Montana in 280AI and thought I would get something with HD glass. Anyways I ordered two of the Zeiss HD5 in 3-15x42 scopes. One for my 280 AI and one for my 22-250.
SO tonight as it was getting dark, I took the following and had a looksey...

Zeiss HD5 3-15x43 (brand new)
Zeiss 4-14x44 conquest (older model)
Nikon 2.5x10x44 (older modle) 30mm
Sightron SIII 3.5-10x44 (brand new)
Razor Gen1 5-25x50 (brand new)

To my surprise, They didn't rank the way I thought they would!!
This was a VERY BASIC test to see which scope was clearest and preformed best in LOW light. I had already looked through the new HD5's in the daylight and thought they looked very clear and crisp.
As it started getting darker I looked at several obstacles at different distances, some with writing, some without.
To make a long story short, OBVIOUSLY, the razor was the top dog, with NOTHING to complain about.
As for the Sightron, well it was a small step behind the Zeiss scopes.
The shocker was the HD5 scopes.....They, (TO MY EYE), were NO clearer than the older Zeiss conquest, and only VERY VERY slightly better than the old nikon!
I was expecting the HD5 to walk off and leave the old conquest, and it simply failed to do that. As a matter of fact, I can see NO DIFFERENCE in it and the older conquest at all, and i bought this conquest a LONG LONG time ago. I know the older conquest is a 44 bell vs the 42 of the newer HD5. SO I even turned the power up a couple settings higher than the HD5, and it didn't matter!!
To my old eyes, the older conquest is every bit as good of glass as the newer HD5.......thats my story and Im sticking to it....lol
I know this is not a very scientific test, but it is all i need to do for me to determine which scopes I like best for hunting. I hope this helps someone that might be trying to decide if its worth the coin to upgrade.
Looks like the HD5's will be getting shipped back tomorrow and the new Sightron will get listed in the classifieds soon....
I will be mounting the old conquest on the 280AI and look for another used one to put on the 22-250.

Once again....not looking to start a war, just trying to give MY opinion.

 

[Bbear]

I did a similar test but with the HD 3-15x42 two different Minox scopes (Both ZA5 HD's, one a 3-15 and the other a 2-10) and an inexpensive Bushnell Ultra HD 3-9.

Setting them all at 9x, the Minox's were tops but not by much over the Zeiss. I was surprised at how well the Bushnell did for a sub-$300 scope though.

Cranking the two up to 15x, the Zeiss, in my eyes, was the sharper of the two but not by much.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I have a Swarovski z5 5-25X52 and a Bushnell 4200 4-16X40. The z5 sure appears brighter, but when low light comes they go down about the same time when set on the same magnification.

 

[jehu]

Vortex makes a good scope but in your test the Razor had alot bigger objective than the Zeiss scopes and that's what counts in low light conditions for maximum light gathering.Plus you had alot more magnification with the Vortex.

 

[westcliffe01]

Remember that with age, the maximum pupil dilation typically decreases. So if you have a low mag scope that has a big bright exit pupil, us older folks may not be able to tell the difference since our own pupil may not open wide enough to let in all the light that the scope is capable of providing.

High mag scopes tend not to have a very large exit pupil in the first place so differences in quality will be most noticeable at the high magnification end. So if you are older, beware of judging things at 3x. 10 or 12 will tend to tell the story. What that suggests is that one can reach an age where there is no benefit to be had from higher quality optics unless one is using the higher magnification part of the scale.

 

[ohiohunter]

"To my old eyes, the older conquest is every bit as good of glass as the newer HD5"


Chances are they're the same glass. Its a marketing ploy by zeiss. All they did was change the model name, increase the price, then introduce a budget scope for customers to be familiar w/ their name to create loyalty.

Nikon is doing the same thing. Leupold has done it but they have been far less devious w/ their pricing.

From my standpoint I think all these new models w/ their own little intricate amenities have really congested the middle market. Prostaff 3,5,7.. monarch x,3,5,7.. vx-I, II, III, 2,3,6... conquest hd5, terra. At this point a person could really benefit from a comprehensive comparison of all these scopes and what separates them from the previous models.

 

[B-P-UU]

I was very underwhelmed by my 3-15x42 HD5. I spent almost an entire day with it and some other optics and my 4.5-14x40 VX-3 smoked it when resolving small things at distance. Low light, they were comparable. I was really surprised by this and fully expected the Zeiss to win handily.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I was very underwhelmed by my 3-15x42 HD5. I spent almost an entire day with it and some other optics and my 4.5-14x40 VX-3 smoked it when resolving small things at distance. Low light, they were comparable. I was really surprised by this and fully expected the Zeiss to win handily.

This experience reminds me we don't "get what we pay for." We get what we shop for and compare side by side. The only brand scope I have compared that always beats the others in the optics department is Nightforce. But then I have no experience with USO, March, or Schmidt & Bender (except a 1-8X on a .375).

 

[yobuck]

Claims of Hd, or Flurite glass in optics can be very (misleading).
During normal viewing hours, most people wont tell the difference between two scopes with and without in a side by side test. Research, and not just what youve heard, will prove that a very small ammount of flurite glass is used even with the high end optics.
A spotting scope for example has several lens elements joined together that make the front lens known as the objective lens. Only the inner element of that lens is flurite
glass even on the best scopes.
(ALL other glass) in that scope is regular glass same as the non flurite models. That small ammount, allows the manufacturer to advertise the better quality glass.
Check it out by asking directly to the right source, and not some guy standing behind
a counter at a place like Cabellas.