Litehiker
Well-Known Member
I keep reading about the excellence of SCHOTT optical glass. Why is it better than other HD (ED) optical glass? Do Germans know how to make better ED glass than the Japanese?
Eric B.
Eric B.
Difference between SCHOTT HD glass and other HD glass??
- Thread starter Litehiker
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
WeiserBucks
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2016
- Messages
- 2,609
I can't explain it, but yes , German glass is "better". Other HD glass is great but the German glass is a small step ahead.
In my opinion, Swarovski , S&B , Hensolt and USO have the best glass available and they're either made in Germany or use German glass.
In my opinion, Swarovski , S&B , Hensolt and USO have the best glass available and they're either made in Germany or use German glass.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Have you compared Swarovski z5 3-18X or 5-25X with a Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X? I'm not including the 6500 2 1/2-16X. They are more like a Swarovski. I had four of the z5's and none of them had glass as good as the three 4 1/2-30X's I have. The only S&B I compared my Bushnell with was a 12-50X. It smoked my Bushnell even more than my Bushnell beat the Swarovskis. At the range I had a chance to compare my z5 with a z6. I couldn't tell any difference in the glass. Maybe in the past they were great. Today they are an also ran because others have come up in quality.
I will admit the Swarovski lasted as long in low light tests as the Bushnell and the Leupold VX-6 4-24X.
The company premier had a huge hand in cutting edge glass design. When the company went under those folks and designs split between Minox and Tangent theta. The TT is crazy nice and crazy expensive. The Minox is the bargain and it shows. Although people keep talking about the Minox and the price keeps going higher. But the Light Optic Works of Japan is very good glass as well its all relative. The company that is willing to pay more for more polishing will have better glass usually. But it's labor intensive and more expensive. But not all glass is created equal. U can polish a turd but it won't ever be as nice as SCHOTT glass.
middleofnowhere
Well-Known Member
Where does the new Vortex AMG glass fit in? Not German or Japanese, but US.
coyotezapper
Well-Known Member
German glass is good - I have both Zeiss and Swarovski scopes. But the new March scopes and the NF 15-55 Comp have as good if not better glass. These scopes are designed for LR comps so the magnification range is way overboard for hunting. FWIW my Swarovski Z6 is only marginally and by that I mean barely better in low light than my VX6 and low light is where a hunter needs good glass.
BallisticsGuy
Well-Known Member
Where glass is made is not entirely relevant. There are different grades, densities, coatings and all sorts of things. Some useful info. FWIW, HD is mostly a marketing term.
Some helpful videos.
SHLowLight from SnipersHide at Vortex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvhL1SsNpqE
TiborasaurusRex of Sniper101 fame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCISX9id86I
Some helpful videos.
SHLowLight from SnipersHide at Vortex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvhL1SsNpqE
TiborasaurusRex of Sniper101 fame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCISX9id86I
coyotezapper
Well-Known Member
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
This is seldom true. One gets what's really good only when they shop and compare. None of my $1,500 and up scopes are still with me. But I will get a March 5-50X56 for my upcoming big seven. The reamer won't be here until about September so I guess there is no hurry for an expensive scope yet.
coyotezapper
Well-Known Member
Example???
You say its not true but don't give an example and the scope you mention is a target scope not very useful for hunting.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
I have a Tasco Trajectory 6-24X40 for about $100. It has never failed to go where I twist it and return to zero. I had a Tasco Trajectory 4-16X40 that was just as good. A friend needed a scope so I gave it to him since I could afford more. I have heard the opposite about Leupolds.
Speaking of Leupolds: I bought a VX-6 4-24X52 for $1,347. A very nice optics. I compared it to my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50 for $750. Whatever I could see on the military optics chart 127 yards away with the Leupold I could see the same thing on a lower setting with the 6500. I called both companies to check how accurate their settings are. Both claim they are spot on. It, the 6500, and the Swarovski z5 go down at the same time on my low light test.
Swarovski: When I ordered my first Swarovski z5 5-25X52 for $1,675 I was very optimistic since my only experience with Swarovski was an 8 1/2X binocular. It was fantastic! The z5 weighed 18.1 ounces on my postal scale. That's why I bought it. I figured it would blow the doors off the Bushnell. It weighs 22.0 ounces. I got out my Nightforce NSX 12-42X56 ($1,440) to compare them all at the same time. That was before I had the military optics chart. I made a line chart with 1/4" lines and 1/4" spaces. I checked at several yardages. I will go to where the Nightforce first came off its 12X setting: 572 yards the settings were as follows. Nightforce 12 1/4X, Bushnell 15 1/2X and the Swarovski 16 1/2X. I returned it thinking I received a bad one. I took them to a couple gunsmith friends. One could see no difference in any of the scopes and the other noticed when the sun went behind a cloud the z5 was better than the 6500. When the sun came back out the 6500 was better. At that time, 2010, he told me the Nightforce was the fines optic he ever looked through. He now has Nightforces and Schmidt & Bender.
Swarovski #2: Worse than the first one. I showed it to the second gunsmith. He was amazed at the lack of consistency in Swarovski. I returned it.
Swarovski #3: Matched the second one. Returned it.
Swarovski #4: Matched the first one so figured this is as good as it gets. I wanted to take advantage of its four ounce weight advantage over the 6500. The first day I used it I tried to adjust it for sighting in. The groups was 3" right. I moved twelve clicks and the group didn't move. I moved it twelve more clicks and the group moved 3" to the other side. Not real confidence inspiring. I really enjoyed playing with the Ballistic Turret and practiced a lot with it. About two days before a sheep hunt I wen to the range one more time. The Ballistic Turret wouldn't work. I did get it to stay sighted at 300 so took it hunting. Jump forward a few weeks.
Swarovski had repaired it and included a note telling me they had to replace the erector. I practiced with it again for my entertainment. A couple days before I was heading to Alaska it did the same thing as before. Again I was able to get it sighted in for 300 yards. When I got home I sent it in to customer service. Again they included a note stating they had to replace the erector. Charged me $30 this time!
Vortex: I compared everyone I saw at the range with my 6500. It made no difference how much the Vortex cost. It is not as clear as the Bushnell. A new friend bought four FFP Gen 4 or whatever it is 5-20X. Anyway it was supposed to blow away my Bushnells. I have three of the 6500 4 1/2-30X50s. He let me take one outside but would not let me take it home to compare on my military optics chart. I found a sign several blocks away with writing I could not see with the unaided eye. I adjusted the Vortex to my eye and adjusted it on the sign on its lowest setting of 5X. I fooled with it awhile to make sure I was giving it a good showing. Then I switched to the 6500. I didn't have to fool with it at all. When I looked through it on 4 1/2X it was obviously better.
I took both scopes in and told him my results. He looked through the Vortex and then through the 6500. There was a shocked look on his face. He said, "These cost about a grand, don't they?" "I got that 600DOA model for $750 delivered the other day. My first one was $620 delivered and the other was $785."
Minox: I bought a 5-25x56 thinking it would smoke my 6500 in low light. But first I compared it on the military optics chart. My low light test is to compare them on deer antlers in the woods 131 yards away. The moment I would not shoot at the deer because I can't absolutely see the second tine I mark the time. This scope was a joke. The only magnification setting it was any good was on 25X. And it didn't do any better than the 50mm 6500 on the low light test. Despite paying a restocking fee I returned it.
Continuing with Minox: I bought some nice 13X56 for $600. I really liked them but the worse 6500 with only one 50mm objective beats in it low light by two minutes. But I digress. I ran into another hunter who was carrying some Minox 15X58 on a neck strap! Say what?! I use mine on a tripod. Anyway he wanted to trade. Between heartbeats I said, "Yea!" The 13X are about a pound or two lighter. They cost about $100 more. When I compared them on the optics chart the cheaper one made the more expensive one look like a $200 optic. It's no contest between it and the 6500 for low light. It would last several minutes longer than the 6500.
There are others but this is getting out of hand. I didn't realize I was going to write an essay. I am going to copy and save this in case anyone else asks the same question.
coyotezapper
Well-Known Member
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
To use a Tasco as an example to me is reaching. Never had one that would withstand any kind of recoil or would ever track other than the original super sniper scopes that were built to someone else's specs. In fact when SWFA contracted Tasco to build more of the SS scopes they turned out to be total junk. They cut every corner for an additional dime in their pocket. It was after this that SWFA bought the rights to this scope and continue to produce it today.
Bushnell 6500's are nice but are not even close to Swarovski IMO. Each person's eyes vary and obviously your eyes prefer Bushnell. Bushnell scopes have a very narrow eye box - too narrow for me. I have owned a HDMR and a LRHS and the optics were good but were not even close to my MK6 / MK8 or SB Klassik. The Klassik has stunning glass. SB US also had very good glass, the PM11 3-27x56 was horrible and suffered mechanically as well.
The high end Vortex glass to me is identical to NF NXS. Very good but not superb.
FWIW, I have owned or now own the following scope brands. So my comments / opinions are from actual use. AGAIN ONLY MY OPINION.
Swarovski
Zeiss
Leupold
Bushnell
March
NF
SWFA
Nikon
Weaver
Huskemaw
There may be others that I did not keep long and have forgotten.
I will say again that glass quality is about lens grind and surface coating technologies and this is where you find the high costs. That being said you do find some duds. I sent my SB 3-27 in for repair and it took about 9 months to get it back and then sold it off because the glass quality was still not there. I would not hesitate to buy another Klassik or US though.
I have looked through Minox and Meopta but they all look good in the store.
The opinion of a lot of people in Europe is IOR has the best quality optics. There again another one to consider.
To use a Tasco as an example to me is reaching. Never had one that would withstand any kind of recoil or would ever track other than the original super sniper scopes that were built to someone else's specs. In fact when SWFA contracted Tasco to build more of the SS scopes they turned out to be total junk. They cut every corner for an additional dime in their pocket. It was after this that SWFA bought the rights to this scope and continue to produce it today.
Bushnell 6500's are nice but are not even close to Swarovski IMO. Each person's eyes vary and obviously your eyes prefer Bushnell. Bushnell scopes have a very narrow eye box - too narrow for me. I have owned a HDMR and a LRHS and the optics were good but were not even close to my MK6 / MK8 or SB Klassik. The Klassik has stunning glass. SB US also had very good glass, the PM11 3-27x56 was horrible and suffered mechanically as well.
The high end Vortex glass to me is identical to NF NXS. Very good but not superb.
FWIW, I have owned or now own the following scope brands. So my comments / opinions are from actual use. AGAIN ONLY MY OPINION.
Swarovski
Zeiss
Leupold
Bushnell
March
NF
SWFA
Nikon
Weaver
Huskemaw
There may be others that I did not keep long and have forgotten.
I will say again that glass quality is about lens grind and surface coating technologies and this is where you find the high costs. That being said you do find some duds. I sent my SB 3-27 in for repair and it took about 9 months to get it back and then sold it off because the glass quality was still not there. I would not hesitate to buy another Klassik or US though.
I have looked through Minox and Meopta but they all look good in the store.
The opinion of a lot of people in Europe is IOR has the best quality optics. There again another one to consider.
Litehiker
Well-Known Member
Ballistics Guy,
I agree, "HD" (High Definition) can mean anything the manufacturer wants it to mean.
But "ED" (Extra-low Dispersion) means exactly that and there are standards to measure dispersion. Yes, some "HD" glass truly IS ED glass but most is not.
We all know by now that advertisers often play "antics with semantics" in ad copy. Hey, we're Americans, raised on a diet of slick ad campaigns. We should know by now to be very careful of any and all ads.
Eric B.
I agree, "HD" (High Definition) can mean anything the manufacturer wants it to mean.
But "ED" (Extra-low Dispersion) means exactly that and there are standards to measure dispersion. Yes, some "HD" glass truly IS ED glass but most is not.
We all know by now that advertisers often play "antics with semantics" in ad copy. Hey, we're Americans, raised on a diet of slick ad campaigns. We should know by now to be very careful of any and all ads.
Eric B.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
coyotezapper,
I think you missed the part about other guys noticing the same things I did. I was not alone. The owner of the Vortexes noticed that the Bushnell has better glass.
To be on the safe side I did buy a Nightforce to go on my new Creedmoor because I don't know if a 6500 will cooperate with twisting the turret. Both my son-in-law and I saw the Bushnell has marginally better glass than the Nightforce. The Nightforce,with its 56mm objective, lasted one minute longer in the low light test.
The three 6500's are very consistent from one to the other. That's not my experience with Swarovski.
I think you missed the part about other guys noticing the same things I did. I was not alone. The owner of the Vortexes noticed that the Bushnell has better glass.
To be on the safe side I did buy a Nightforce to go on my new Creedmoor because I don't know if a 6500 will cooperate with twisting the turret. Both my son-in-law and I saw the Bushnell has marginally better glass than the Nightforce. The Nightforce,with its 56mm objective, lasted one minute longer in the low light test.
The three 6500's are very consistent from one to the other. That's not my experience with Swarovski.
