Swarovski z8i 3.5-28x50 thoughts?

Kelly1278

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
749
Looking at purchasing a Swarovski z8i 3.5-28x50 I would like some opinions on this scope since there aren’t any dealers near me . It will go on a 30 sherman mag for hunting mainly
 

Rich Coyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,557
Location
Grants Pass, Oregon

Kelly1278,​


I don't want to burst your bubble but I just returned one without mounting it. The way I check scopes is open them, adjust the reticle by putting the parallax on infinity, adjusting the magnification to max and thengetting the reticle as sharp as I can. Then I compare it to what I now have: A Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50. First let me say most scopes' glass do not match its clarity on the optics chart at 127 yards. Not even the Bushnell 6500 2 1/2-16X. I bought four and sold them because I am spoiled. Some that have better glass are March 2 1/2-25X52, Nightforce NSX 12-42X56, a Swarovski z6i 2.3-18X56, and a Schmidt & Bender 12-50X. I forgot its objective size. It was definitely the best, but the Nightforce was extremely good. Notable scopes that did not match it were four Swarovski z5 5-25X52 and a z6 5-30X50. Now I can add to the very long and growing list, of maybe fifty pages of notes, the Swarovski z8i 3.5-28X50. The Leupold VX-6 4-24 was slightly better than the Swarovskis that didn't make it and about the same as the Bushnell.

I really wanted the 3.5-28X50 to replace my Bushnell. But there is no way I will settle for a scope, at any price, that is not sharper on the chart than the Bushnell 6500. It looks like I will put a March on the new rifle. They are $700 or $800 cheaper so I guess I can use the savings on Hammer Bullets.
 

Kelly1278

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
749
Thanks ! Thats why i was wanting some input before i buy anything. May look into the leupold you mentioned . Hard to find the magnification i want without getting a heavy scope
 

Cred1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
47
Location
portland
Just in case anyone reads this and decides the z8's are not amazing, please bear in mind that Rich Coyle above has been repeating this otherwise un-beleivable swarovskireview everywhere I can find on the internet for a while. I love you buddy but you gotta admit it's you against the world on this one and generally when it seems like everyone else is nutz, it might be you.....I'm sure Coyle's a great and intelligent guy, but please understand that Ilya Koshkin and the rest of the known universe RAVES about the Z8's, not to mention most any and all Swaro glass in relation to their corresponding product peers as pretty much as good as it gets glass-wise. Please research this before making any purchase decisions, as it seems like important testimony but is 1 in about a gazillion people that would state, perceive, or express this opinion, that is that Z8's are somehow inferior to bushnell anything in Image Quality. It is, unequivocally, utter nonsense.
I don't like confrontation, NO COMMENTS PLEASE, Folks just do your research beyond this one opinion before plunking down your own cash. Rich you're awesome, thanks so much for all your swarovski comments, I don't want to argue, just to present another point of view.
FWIW I love my Swaro's, Nightforces, and old Bushnell 3500 and 4200's as well a my Sig Whiskey 3's! They are all tools and have their appropriate places in my tool box.
Also own a March 2.5-25x52 mtr-4, favorite reticle EVER.
Also own a March 5-42 Highmaster Wide Angle with Ilya's reticle. Love it, and I'm a Second focal plane kind of guy. Amazing amazing amazing pieces of gear. Just as are my Z8's...High Master Glass is the only thing that hangs with the Z8's, to me. Have not seen the Theta, at 28 ounces I actually love my NX8 4-32 F2, SFP kind of guy like I said.
The above is a statement. Read it, consider it, ignore it, hate it.....just don't respond to it. I'm not interested. Thank you. C
 
Last edited:

Rich Coyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,557
Location
Grants Pass, Oregon
Just in case anyone reads this and decides the z8's are not amazing, please bear in mind that Rich Coyle above has been repeating this otherwise un-beleivable swarovskireview everywhere I can find on the internet for a while. I love you buddy but you gotta admit it's you against the world on this one and generally when it seems like everyone else is nutz, it might be you.....I'm sure Coyle's a great and intelligent guy, but please understand that Ilya Koshkin and the rest of the known universe RAVES about the Z8's, not to mention most any and all Swaro glass in relation to their corresponding product peers as pretty much as good as it gets glass-wise. Please research this before making any purchase decisions, as it seems like important testimony but is 1 in about a gazillion people that would state, perceive, or express this opinion, that is that Z8's are somehow inferior to bushnell anything in Image Quality. It is, unequivocally, utter nonsense.
I don't like confrontation, NO COMMENTS PLEASE, Folks just do your research beyond this one opinion before plunking down your own cash. Rich you're awesome, thanks so much for all your swarovski comments, I don't want to argue, just to present another point of view.
FWIW I love my Swaro's, Nightforces, and old Bushnell 3500 and 4200's as well a my Sig Whiskey 3's! They are all tools and have their appropriate places in my tool box.
Also own a March 2.5-25x52 mtr-4, favorite reticle EVER.
Also own a March 5-42 Highmaster Wide Angle with Ilya's reticle. Love it, and I'm a Second focal plane kind of guy. Amazing amazing amazing pieces of gear. Just as are my Z8's...High Master Glass is the only thing that hangs with the Z8's, to me. Have not seen the Theta, at 28 ounces I actually love my NX8 4-32 F2, SFP kind of guy like I said.
The above is a statement. Read it, consider it, ignore it, hate it.....just don't respond to it. I'm not interested. Thank you. C

I will start at the bottom of your post.

You make some claims and don't want anyone to respond?! You perhaps have some superiority complex where you think you can influence others. You come here attacking a guy who has compared lots of scopes with lots of different people. Those who have brought scopes to look at my optics chart 127 yards from the porch agree with my findings.

To claim you don't like confrontation and then post the garbage you did shows you don't understand words.

To say that I am "awesome" and in the same paragraph try to convince people who have not experienced what I have that I am wrong is practically criminal. Do you want me, who has looked through both the March and different Swarovskis, to agree with you the Swarovski glass is as good as that in the March? You are delusional.

One of my friends who has lots of expensive optics brought two of his scopes to compare on my optics chart. One was a Swarovski z6 5-30X50 and the other was a Swarovski z8i 2.3-18X56. He laid them down on the sandbags next to the Bushnell. It took him about one second to look through the z6 and the 6500 to say, "I always thought that one wasn't very good." He sold it the next week. When it came to the z8i it was a totally different story. It was probably what the engineer had in mind. It was noticeably better than my Bushnell. In fact it was more like the March. But, just like the four z5 5-25X52 I purchased no two had glass as good as the good z5 I kept and used. That is perhaps the way that 2.3-18X was.

By the way, before I got the optics chart I thought the Bushnell was as good as the Nightforce. Back then I was comparing them on leaves and twigs in the trees about 150 yards away. The optics chart showed me the Bushnell is not even in the same optical league.

By the way I ordered a March 2 1/2-25X52 FD 1.
 

Cred1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
47
Location
portland
Oh jeez I just googled this guy some more...well established as some kind of "winder". I despise negative talk but people should know he's a well known...different kind of optics fella. Take his as you would any other internet opinion, with a grain of salt. And do google his stuff, it dates back over ten years, it's good fun to read. As I'm sure this thread may be...if you like blather and drivel...He sure is entertaining when you look back at this stuff over the years! He's some from 2011!
 

Cred1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
47
Location
portland
Posted by Koshkin ELEVEN YEARS AGO....Coyle's still going! Bravo dude!

"Apparently we need another thread on this.

To re-iterate for those who did not see the earlier thread on the subject.

Rich Coyle suffers from night blindedness, hence his eye pupils do not dilate very much. On top of that, it is very likely the the concentration of rods in his retina (I am guessing here, but it is an educated guess) is comparatively low, making his eyes less sensitive to certain wavelengths (blu-green spectrum, largely) that are prominent in low light conditions.

The results of his (any way flawed due to very different scope configurations) tests are only relevant for him.

For 99.9% per cent of the people out there, they are misleading, which is worse than useless.

Now, I am done with this argument.

ILya"
 

Rich Coyle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
4,557
Location
Grants Pass, Oregon
Posted by Koshkin ELEVEN YEARS AGO....Coyle's still going! Bravo dude!

"Apparently we need another thread on this.

To re-iterate for those who did not see the earlier thread on the subject.

Rich Coyle suffers from night blindedness, hence his eye pupils do not dilate very much. On top of that, it is very likely the the concentration of rods in his retina (I am guessing here, but it is an educated guess) is comparatively low, making his eyes less sensitive to certain wavelengths (blu-green spectrum, largely) that are prominent in low light conditions.

The results of his (any way flawed due to very different scope configurations) tests are only relevant for him.

For 99.9% per cent of the people out there, they are misleading, which is worse than useless.

Now, I am done with this argument.

ILya"


Cred1, thanks for posting the "Line test". I used that before I got the optics chart. You are welcome to come to my home and bring any optic you want to compare with my Bushnell on the optics chart.

The problem with the "night blindness" argument is two fold. Most of the comparisons are done in full daylight. Another thing is my son-in-law goes out at night without a flashlight because he can see extremely well in the dark. He lives right next door so he gets to compare the same scopes I do. His observations agree with mine.

For some reason I don't understand folks don't like to hear one product is not as good as another. Remember, I purchased the Swarovskis with my own money because I heard how great they are. No one wanted them to be as good as their reputation more than me.

After reading some of the posts from a decade ago I discovered one poster says the glass in the 4200 is the same as the 6500. From my comparisons they're NOT! Even the 6500 2 1/2-16X don't have glass as good as the 4 1/2-30X50. This shows the posters are going from reading ad material instead of comparing them for themselves.

I would like to hear an honest poster who has two or more Swarovskis of the same model compare them on an optics chart in day and low light and get back to us. From my experience their quality from one to the next is not very good.
 

LeddSlinger

Well-Known Member
LRH Team Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
715
Location
Montana

Kelly1278,​


I don't want to burst your bubble but I just returned one without mounting it. The way I check scopes is open them, adjust the reticle by putting the parallax on infinity, adjusting the magnification to max and thengetting the reticle as sharp as I can. Then I compare it to what I now have: A Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50. First let me say most scopes' glass do not match its clarity on the optics chart at 127 yards. Not even the Bushnell 6500 2 1/2-16X. I bought four and sold them because I am spoiled. Some that have better glass are March 2 1/2-25X52, Nightforce NSX 12-42X56, a Swarovski z6i 2.3-18X56, and a Schmidt & Bender 12-50X. I forgot its objective size. It was definitely the best, but the Nightforce was extremely good. Notable scopes that did not match it were four Swarovski z5 5-25X52 and a z6 5-30X50. Now I can add to the very long and growing list, of maybe fifty pages of notes, the Swarovski z8i 3.5-28X50. The Leupold VX-6 4-24 was slightly better than the Swarovskis that didn't make it and about the same as the Bushnell.

I really wanted the 3.5-28X50 to replace my Bushnell. But there is no way I will settle for a scope, at any price, that is not sharper on the chart than the Bushnell 6500. It looks like I will put a March on the new rifle. They are $700 or $800 cheaper so I guess I can use the savings on Hammer Bullets.
That Swaro must have been really bad because I’ve had a Bushnell 4.5-30 6500 and that glass was junk anywhere past 25x.
 

phorwath

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
7,282
Location
Alaska
I continue to accrue Swarovski rifle scopes. No Z8s. Last one was a Z6. Other two are Z5s.

My eyes like what I see thru them. The ones I own.
 
Last edited:

Cred1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
47
Location
portland
I have too much time and a fat credit card, and recently set out a gong at 1200 yards, so I'll share my swaro thoughts for what their worth...
z5 3.5-18 has for many years been the grail scope for lightweight builds, for me at least. Basically the argument has been lightweight and great glass , swaro owns the market. Always dialed great for me, but I didn't twist much before. Now I have a NF because it's purpose built to twist, but I have utter confidence in all swaro tracking (above the z3's.)
Dialing: bad reputation due to very thin tubes (lightweight isn't magic) and men's tendency to crank down rings. We don't intuitively understand the clamping pressures that are possible with a little torx bit. Don't crush your lightweight scope and it will probably track. I was the king of too much torque, so please don't get your feathers ruffled, it's a guy thing. Lightweight doesn't mean it's not tough inside, it means you have to mount it correctly, even NF is having to include mounting instructions for all us knuckle-heads....Take away is light weight means you can't treat it stupid. I'm hard on stuff, but not high end optical stuff! Don't beat it and it wil work with it's coil spring and newer tracking systems. They work.
Also swaro's were traditionally hunitng scopes, hunting until recently was a 700 yard max proposition, and swaro has responded with the X5, a now well tested known-shooter. If you want more travel on your swaro z5/z6 Ballistic Turret just take out the limiter and you can generally get another turn. Not a nightforce, but it'll get you way out there if you set it up on a rail.
What got me to plunk down the crazy z8 money is it's ALMOST everything I ever wanted.
-Lightweight with stunning glass and bright, like a swaro.
-Great new locking turret with bombproof tracking alla X5, like a NF.
-The 8x range of a March, but with a completely flat image and good DOF and parralax.
-Illumination.
-BRX reticle and the 7mil single turn turret gets me out to 1700 on 15 power.
-The new BFT turret is pretty frikin well done. Locks, clicks, 7mils only. That's the almost part. But if swaro gave it 15 mils, they'd eat their own Kahles/X5 market.

Now I love my Marches, my NF's, and my z6's. Wouldn't swap them all out for z8's. But if I had one or two rifles, and could have one scope to plink, stalk, night hunt, bang steel out far, and carry comfortably with absolute unquestionable alpha glass, well then the crazy price is almost reasonable. I'm blessed to have one of each, but really want folks to know the value of swaro's new stuff. Its just silly good what their doing. C
 
Top