Zeiss RF vs. Swaro RF

[Boman]

Hey guys, for those of you that have used or tried both of these Rangefinders can you give me yours thoughts. I am in the market for new Rangefinder and was wondering which I should go with. I know the swaro's are great but was wondering how the zeiss compare?

Thanks,

 

[LewisH]

Zeiss is great to 1300 yrds. The Swaro ranges farther (if that's important to you).

 

[Boman]

Is the Zeiss as reliable as the Leica or Swaro? I've read some things about the Swaro that said it wasn't as reliable close in but did much better farther out. 1300 would be far enough for me, I care more about reliability over 700 yds.

Thanks

 

[LewisH]

I have the Zeiss 8X26T PRF monocular. I has the great Zeiss glass, the BIS (ballistic information system) which is kinda nice. I've read that the Zeiss reads faster than the Swaro and has a more precise aiming reticle. I haven't read of any reliability problems with the Zeiss.

If I had my first choice, I'd defy my wife, and get the expensive binocular model, so I'd have a great binocular and RF in one instrument.

 

[Broz]

I did some research on the beam divergence of all three units once. Plus I have used all 3 in the field.

Here are the size of beam of each unit at 1000 yards.

Leica.... .5 x 2.5 m rad. or a 1 1/2 ft tall by 7 1/2 ft wide beam at 1000 yards.

Swaro.... 2 m rad in all directions or a 6 ft circular beam at 1000 yards.

Zeiss..... 2x4 m rad or a 6 ft tall by 12 ft wide beam at 1000 yards.

This info will be more usefull if you plan to use the unit on flat ground. Pretty easy to see which one will be more precise at returning accurate numbers of exactly what you need the range on.

Hope this helps.

Jeff gun)gun)

 

[LewisH]

The beam divergence numbers on the Swarovski rangefinder are 2.5 x 2.5 and on the Leica Geovid they are 2.5 x 0.5. At 1.6 x 0.5, the Zeiss Victory RF 10x45 Rangefinder Binocular beam divergence numbers are the lowest I know of for a consumer level rangefinder.

Here's a good reason to splurge on the Zeiss binocular RF (if your wife will let you).

 

[Varmint Hunter]

The beam divergence numbers on the Swarovski rangefinder are 2.5 x 2.5 and on the Leica Geovid they are 2.5 x 0.5. At 1.6 x 0.5, the Zeiss Victory RF 10x45 Rangefinder Binocular beam divergence numbers are the lowest I know of for a consumer level rangefinder.

Here's a good reason to splurge on the Zeiss binocular RF (if your wife will let you).

At $3,000 for the Zeiss my Swaro seems like a better idea all the time. Funny how I was complaining when I laid out the $900.

 

[Boman]

I wish I could spring for the Zeiss RFB's but since I just got divorced I can't afford it.. I guess you could say my Ex wife won't let me buy them either.. haha.

I have good bino's now but I will be upgrading to a combo unit someday.

I looked at the new Leica CRF and the Swaro LRF at Bass Pro Shops today and was surprised that the Swaro seemed to be hard to read for me. I am red/green color blind and the swaro seemed to bother me more than the red Leica readout. My question is this, is the New Leica CRF better than the older LRF model because I have model now? Nothing wrong with it but was thinking the Swaro or zeiss might be better. For those that have the Swaro unit is it easier to see outside than inside? Bass pro is kind of dark so I don't know if that was a fair comparison.. Thanks for your help

 

[Broz]

My question is this, is the New Leica CRF better than the older LRF model because I have model now? Nothing wrong with it but was thinking the Swaro or zeiss might be better. For those that have the Swaro unit is it easier to see outside than inside? Bass pro is kind of dark so I don't know if that was a fair comparison.. Thanks for your help

I have owned 5 Swaro Laser Guides (3 were returned for warranty) and Two Leica CRF's ( still have both).

Most people agree that the Swaro is hard to read. Most of the time I can back my eye off a bit and read it better. But there is no doubt the Leica display and ret. are much easier to see. Also the Leica CRF has a saller reticle box and I like that.

Is the Leica CRF better than the previous LRF model ? After much testing I say yes, much better. Although you will get mixed aswers on this as many people stepped up from the old Leica to the new Swaro and insist on compairing the old Leica to the new Swaro.

Jeff

 

[Broz]

Bowman, I have to add,..... I have spent way to much time critiquing the Swaro LG vs Leica CRF. I still have one Swaro and two Leica CRF's. I wish you were a bit closer to me, I would meet ya for a little field time with both. You need to get them outside to tell ANYTHING. In my vaery small and stubborn mind, it boils down to these two things. How far are you going to range, and, will you ever range on flat ground like hunting antelope or deer in a grain field?

For game ( not trees and rocks) but game on flat ground out to 1000 yards I prefer the Leica CRF.

From hilltop, to hillside, in the mountains on game out to 1400 yards I say the Swaro.

For impressing your buddies by ranging trees, rock ledges and stuff right at last light out to 1999 Yards, it is the Swaro hands down. My Leica will only get to just under 1500 at last light. But I find trees and rocks hard to chew and prefer a tender antelope or Elk.

Jeff...gun)gun)

 

[Boman]

Broz,

You make some excellent points regarding both.. and yeah I wish I was closer I'd definitely like to see them in hunting conditions. As it is now I hunt from 3000ft flat ground out in Kansas for deer and 3500-4000ft for Antelope in Eastern CO as well as from 8000-12500ft in the mtns of CO.. My only concern is ranging animals or bushes or trees next to them if I can't get the animal. I love to shoot long range but I can set up reflective targets at the range and I can always get a reading on them. My biggest concern is ranging animals consistently from 600+ that's where I seem to have some problems sometimes. I have ranged hillsides out to 1300+ but not consistently. Given that what would you do if you could have only one? It sounds like we hunt the same kind of terrain.

Thanks,

 

[Broz]

Funny you mention Kansas for deer. I hunted Kansas for deer in 2008. Opening evening just before dark two huge Kansas Bucks feeding in a corn field. Huge flat bottom ground with trees about 100 yard behind them. My son on the spotter and had a video camera on a pod. I was on them with my 338 Lapua. I picked the larger one... Huge!! took out the Swaro ..... I could not get 3 consecutive ranges. It kept grabbing ground in front, the trees behind, and probably the deer too. And it was on a solid rest too. The ranges were varying 50 yards or more. They were between 890 and 1050 if my memory serves me right. I didnt take the shot. Two days later I filled my tag with a small doe from the top of one hill to the side of another where she was feeding. 1137 yards DRT. The swaro and its larger beam worked well in this senario. I now carry a Swaro and a Lieca 1200 CRF. They both are good units but you need to know there strong and weak points.
If you really want me to tell you what I would buy. Well, if I could only have one, it would be the Leica and I would practice with it just like I do my rifle. Put it on a sand bag and learn to use it to it's full potential.

Jeff

 

[Boman]

Sorry to hear about the deer in Kansas. That sure sucks. I shot a little 5x6 whitetail this year, but man I saw some real whoppers too. They were running before we saw them.. Sounds good about the Leica. I've read some real good things about the Swaro but nothing like that so that's good to know. Thanks again for all your help. Maybe you could PM me on where you hunt in Kansas. I might be able to help out. I have family over there.

 

[theodore]

Okay beam divergence comparison- zeiss monocular rangefinder is 2x4 m rad and zeiss victory RF binoculars is 1.6 x 0.5

That seems to be a huge difference with the bino performing better than mono.

Leica BRF is the same as Leica 1200 mono from what I know.

Could use clarification cause I only went by review, not field comparison.