Swarovski vs Zeiss

[WV Sendero]

Between my brothers and my dad and myself we have several big rifles in 6.5 rum to 340wby and .338 rum. At first we all had different scopes, leopold vx3 4-14x50, swar av 4-12 and ziess conquest 4-14. All the rifles have brakes. My dad busted the lupie so bad you could hear something lose in the turret. It was one of the older ones ie 1995 and it never really tracted good, but would hold zero good. Leopold customer service was great. Next was the ziess on my .338rum. The optics where great. I would say better than an equal price lupie, but not as good as my dads new swar. Heres my gripe with ziess. It broke two different times, and no I never dropped the rifle or miss treated the scope. It would not hold a zero. Customer service was bad! One time I sent it in, and it took 4 months to get back. And it was the worng scope! I finally broke down and bought a new swar z-6 2.5-15x56. We now have 4 swar scopes and 3 swar binos in the family. Never one problem. We have one that been switched from rifle to rifle tons and has thousands of rounds from big mags and never a problem. When it comes to ziess I think there Euro made stuff is better made, and more like the swar. Just my 2c.

Thanks for all the good info. I have Leupold and Zeiss so it sounds like I need to try the Swarovski.

 

[A/C Guy]

The 1" Zeiss aren't in the same class as the Swarovski scopes when it comes to the glass. Zeiss uses more and better coatings on the glass in their 30mm tubes than on the glass in their 1" tubes. I have owned several Swarovski scopes and I have 1 Zeiss Diavari 6-24x56 with the Rapid Z 1000 reticle on my Lapua. (I got a smoking deal on the 6-24, otherwise, I would have bought the S&B.) The Zeiss glass is nice, but the Swarovski scopes perform better in low light. The Conquest scopes are brighter as mentioned because they have less coatings. The Conquest scopes do not perform as well in low light due to the lack of coatings. I also notice there is more glare in Zeiss scopes. Once you own Swarovski scopes for a while, your eyes become more discriminating, and you see more details and flaws in lesser scopes. High end glass becomes an addiction, beware.

 

[highridge1]

The Zeiss is by far the better deal it will do anything the swaro will do.The zeiss glass is excellent and I would trust the tracking even more than the swaro.Side by side comparing I do not see the swaro as being better glass.

 

[meatyrem]

+1 on Swarovski

Have a 3-10x42 av on a 300 rum and love it. Wish I could afford to buy a couple more.

 

[thechamp]

I'm looking into getting a new hunting rifle that is lighter and shorter than my current rifles (Edge, and Ultra mags) and I am trying to decide on a scope. I am interested in a Zeiss Conquest 4.5-14 and Swarovski Z3 4-12 or possibly a Z5 3.5-18. What are your thoughts between the Zeiss and Swarovski? Also is there any difference between the Z3 and Z5 other than magnification range? This will not be my long range gun and most shots with this gun will likely be well under 300yds. Any info would be appreciated.

The Z5 has the same springs and innards that the Professional Hunter series had and that the Z6 series has. The Z3 isn't as tough. It should perform fine on most rifles but it's not the scope the Z5 and Z6 are. The Z5 is a very good scope and has good glass. I had one and would have kept it had it been illuminated. Low light visibility was great. The Z6 is the big dog now though and once you own one you'll never see the others the same way again. The coatings on the Z6 are superior to the other two lines giving you even more low light visibility. The Germans use them to hunt at night with little moonlight.

Your comment that most shots will be under 300 yards would make the 1.7-10x42 Z6 or the 2-12x50 z6 some excellent options. I have 3 of the z6 2-12s and find them to be the best low light scopes in the series. The z6 2.5-15x44 and 3-18x50 are also both very good scopes. Couldn't go wrong with either. The illuminated ones with the rails and ballistic turrets are around $3,000 but they're nice.

Last Conquest I had was the 4.5-14x50 and it was a good scope. Was very good in low light in spite of them not having the super coatings on them. Wouldn't hestitate owning one down the road. They've come a long way since they were first introduced. Rumor has it that one of the big boys is going to be offering illumination on their 1" models in the not to distant future. Should be interesting as to which one it is because they will grab a bunch of the market share.

 

[meatyrem]

I Have the 3-10x42 (z3) I believe and it's on my 300rum sporter weight rifle. It has take everything that it can dish out. Great glass and still solid after the recoil
of of the 300rum w/o break.

 

[thechamp]

I Have the 3-10x42 (z3) I believe and it's on my 300rum sporter weight rifle. It has take everything that it can dish out. Great glass and still solid after the recoil
of of the 300rum w/o break.

Don't doubt for a second that it has given you good service. I've had a bunch of the AVs over the years and they are essentially the same scope as the Z3 other than a new outside tube to look more like the Z5 and Z6 models. I can't recall off the top of my head how the springs are different but the PH and Z6 models were set up to withstand just about anything without breaking or moving. 505 Jeffreys, etc... I think it is explained on the Swarovski website though how they are different.

The bottom line is they are all Swarovskis so you'll have good mechanics no matter which one you get. I have a 6-18 AV on my Colt Sauer 7 Mag and have had them on 300 Wbys in the past with no problem.

 

[highridge1]

The swarovski isn't worth that much more cash. The Zeiss is a great scope more than enough than is needed to shoot well and the glass is excellent.Zeiss has been making scopes for a long long time they know what they are doing. If you want to pay more you aren't going to get anything that will actually do better. There's a point of diminishing returns.

 

[thechamp]

The swarovski isn't worth that much more cash. The Zeiss is a great scope more than enough than is needed to shoot well and the glass is excellent.Zeiss has been making scopes for a long long time they know what they are doing. If you want to pay more you aren't going to get anything that will actually do better. There's a point of diminishing returns.

I guess that's why both are in business. To my eyes the Swarovski outperforms the Zeiss. Not saying by much but it is there. Where Swarovski pulled ahead by miles is in the reticle department. Swarovski made the TDS reticles which I liked (have 4 of them) and they are making the Ballistic turret system which I find very useful on some of my rifles, (3 in fact). Zeiss has the rapid z system which is way too busy and confusing to ME. Others love it and that's great if it works well for them. In low light it is so busy it looks like you're shooting through another tree.

Swarovski's rail system is #1 in that the scope is locked in place with the teeth from the base and the teeth under the scope. Zeiss's system isn't quite a strong. It is however better than Schmidt & Bender's system which relies on simply having enough torque on the pieces to keep them from moving.

Also from what I've experienced in dealing with their offices here Swarovski has come out ahead. I bought a 6-24 PH a couple years back that had been on a rifle that was knocked over at the range and the top target turret was broken off. Definitely NOT a warranty issue. I called them and they said to send it in and it would have to be returned to Austria for repair. I had no idea what it was going to cost and they couldn't give an estimate because they didn't know what else might be damaged in the controls. Made sense too from their point of view. I shipped it to them and waited for an estimate. Month and a half later I hadn't heard anything and called SONA and asked if they'd ever gotten an estimate for the repairs. She said no and stated that they had just gotten a bunch back that they'd sent in for repairs. She came back shortly and said it was in the batch and the charges were ZERO. They paid the insured shipping back on top of fixing it for free. They had not only replaced the broken turret but updated and replaced the other one since they had new style turrets out by then. No charge for anything and all cleaned up and like new.

Earlier this year I bought a Z6i 2-12x50 TDS-4 from a woman in Florida whose husband had passed on. Paid $1900 for it and when it came in the illumination module wasn't working right on the low side. Again sent it in and they shipped it to Austria and replaced the entire module with a new one and sent it back. My cost was sending it in. No hassles, no arguments, just outstanding service.

Little over a year ago I called Zeiss on a Silver 4.5-14x50 that I had. At the time I hadn't had a Rapid Z and from the pics thought that would be similar to the TDS. I asked if they could swap the reticle and how much it would be and was told to go buy a new one. They didn't have time for stuff like that. Well I did buy a new one and sold it a few weeks later when I found it was not what it appeared to be. Recently traded the gun that had the Zeiss on it to another fella. There was nothing wrong with the 4.5-14x50 and I really did like the clarity of the scope. However in my world it comes down to the reticle and I don't care much for plain reticles anymore. IMO Zeiss is behind in the reticle department. For those who like what they offer that is fine and I have no problem with that. But they don't' fit me so Swarovski is the only option out there as far as I'm concerned.

Also in the weight department Swarovski is killing the competition. I had a Z5 3.5-18x44 earlier this year that was super light. 15.9 ounces for a scope that size is unheard of. If you are aiming for a light weight rig the Swarovski will give you that setup.

Granted in the low end Swarovski and Zeiss scopes the Swarovski's do cost considerably more. Zeiss is kicking butt on that end of things. And I'm happy for them. Comparing their scopes to Leupold there is NO comparison. And the price difference is well worth going with the Zeiss. However when you go to the 30 mm tubes the cost difference is not nearly as pronounced.

As far as diminishing returns. I don't see it as a diminishing return considering the value of the scope doesn't go away like it would on a car or other 'equipment'. Take care of the scope and it will do well in holding its value. I sold my Z5 this past year for what I bought it for last year. Thus it cost me nothing to go first class. I traded off the Conquest and since I'd bought it right a couple years back I might have broke even on it but compared to the new prices it would have been $200 less than a new one, minimum that is.

Each his own but to be fair to the newbie they need to know all the ins and outs of what each brand has to offer. Then they can decide which fits their needs and their pocketbooks.

 

[orangeride]

Nicely said.

 

[thewileyone13]

+1 Zeiss conquest very good clear scope. You will not be disappointed.

The Champ has some excellent points about the warranty department. Swaro often fixes and even upgrades you for little to no $. Zeiss is a different story.. you will get something back, usually for no money but that does not mean that it was fixed or 100% when you get it. Just MHO. We sent a pair of older swaro bino's in and swaro completely rebuilt them and upgraded the lenses... they are amazing binos and it was like $250.. well worth it and more.