Zeiss V6 vs Swarovski Z6

[khmplus]

I have a Swarovski Z6 3-18x50 and that Zeiss or any Zeiss will not come close optically for clarity or low light image of the Swarovski. I have had several high end German produced Zeiss scopes and they did not even come close to the Swarovski.

Besides, the latest revelation about the Zeiss internal memo will keep me from ever owning another.

There are several options listed on Sport Optics site,

Swarovski Z6 3-18x50 BT - 4W

This Swarovski Z6 Rifle Scope is equipped with Special HD Optics (High Definition Lenses) for superior resolution at high magnification and maximum low light performance. Swarovski Specifications Quick Review magnification range: 3X to 18X scope weight: 21.0 ounces scope length: 15.0 inches eye...

www.sportoptics.com

Doesn't even come close? When did you get a job at Swarovski? I have a Zeiss Victory scope and it's optics are excellent. To say Zeiss is not even close to Swarovski is hogwash.

 

[The Swedish Meathunter]

On paper, the Zeiss has great specs as far as glass that's used "T* six-layer mult-coatings, FL (fluoride) lenses throughout, 92% light transmission..., but I frequently read stories of inconsistent optical performance with this scope which seems odd with a scope of these specs. The Zeiss V6 reminds me of the older Diavari FL scopes, but the V6 is merely a "Conquest". ?
Swarovski apparently gave up on marketing since I can't find much on the optical specs for their Z6 line. I read the glass used depends on the specific model in the Z6 line. The 2.5-15X56 is the only one that says it uses "HD" optics in the objective. does that mean ED glass or is this merely marketing speak? This also has 91% light transmission vs the rest of the Z6 line which has 90%.
Which has the better overall sharpness, contrast resolution and low light performance?

Dear all
I am using the 2,5-15x56 - I am really happy about it, however, I cannot compare it with the equivalent Swarowski. The 3-12 x56 HD (95%) also from Zeiss is even better at low light situations. I also have one of these and hence I can recommend it for dawn or dusk hunts.
Any view of Swarovski s equipment is highly appreciated.

 

[T-Roy.]

On paper, the Zeiss has great specs as far as glass that's used "T* six-layer mult-coatings, FL (fluoride) lenses throughout, 92% light transmission..., but I frequently read stories of inconsistent optical performance with this scope which seems odd with a scope of these specs. The Zeiss V6 reminds me of the older Diavari FL scopes, but the V6 is merely a "Conquest". ?
Swarovski apparently gave up on marketing since I can't find much on the optical specs for their Z6 line. I read the glass used depends on the specific model in the Z6 line. The 2.5-15X56 is the only one that says it uses "HD" optics in the objective. does that mean ED glass or is this merely marketing speak? This also has 91% light transmission vs the rest of the Z6 line which has 90%.
Which has the better overall sharpness, contrast resolution and low light performance?

 

[The Swedish Meathunter]

Dear all
I am using the 2,5-15x56 - I am really happy about it, however, I cannot compare it with the equivalent Swarowski. The 3-12 x56 HD (95%) also from Zeiss is even better at low light situations. I also have one of these and hence I can recommend it for dawn or dusk hunts.
Any view of Swarovski s equipment is highly appreciated.

Hi again

The 2,5-15 x56 is a V6 Conquest but the 3-12x56, which I was referring to was a V4 Victory HT. Sorry for this. Both Zeiss.

 

[T-Roy.]

On paper, the Zeiss has great specs as far as glass that's used "T* six-layer mult-coatings, FL (fluoride) lenses throughout, 92% light transmission..., but I frequently read stories of inconsistent optical performance with this scope which seems odd with a scope of these specs. The Zeiss V6 reminds me of the older Diavari FL scopes, but the V6 is merely a "Conquest". ?
Swarovski apparently gave up on marketing since I can't find much on the optical specs for their Z6 line. I read the glass used depends on the specific model in the Z6 line. The 2.5-15X56 is the only one that says it uses "HD" optics in the objective. does that mean ED glass or is this merely marketing speak? This also has 91% light transmission vs the rest of the Z6 line which has 90%.
Which has the better overall sharpness, contrast resolution and low light performance?

I can't speak on the Swarovski but the Zeiss V6 is a beautiful tube to look through…even on max magnification , entire focal plane is crisp and bright from edge to edge. It tracks flawlessly…low profile, zero lock turret easy to set up, smooth eyepiece adjustment … can't go wrong with it

 

[Darryle]

Doesn't even come close? When did you get a job at Swarovski? I have a Zeiss Victory scope and it's optics are excellent. To say Zeiss is not even close to Swarovski is hogwash.

You got me, but I don't seem to recall Zeiss being the benchmark for optical clarity and low light definition.

I will update my data base

 

[marcm1]

I have not owned any swarovskis but have owned a lot of Zeiss fir the last 30 years all German 30" tubes I just put a v6 3-18x50 on my new Alamo 6.5 prc carbon with lone peak fusion ti action and I can tell you the glass is very nice and works great at dusk. I talked to Zeiss rep and I was looking to get the v8 but didn't like the weight and he said take a look at the v6 made same lines as the v8 that's why the specs are the same just upper management decided to call it the v6 conquest which he said he didn't know why. Has same glass coatings etc as the v8 so don't think twice about them being cheaper glass

 

[Despotes]

I ordered the Swarovski Z6 2.5-15X56. Thank you all for your input.

 

[Pdvdh]

Good choice!

 

[rumshooter]

I must defend the Zeiss scopes, here, I know two people who blindly went out and "Over Paid" for the Swarovski glass, only to not be able to discern any difference at any light conditions. They are both top of the line equipment, but someone has to pay for all that advertising, which is the end user. Choose wisely, by looking at the value being offered, not by what everyone says. Sometimes you don't get what you pay for!

 

[Rich Coyle]

I must defend the Zeiss scopes, here, I know two people who blindly went out and "Over Paid" for the Swarovski glass, only to not be able to discern any difference at any light conditions. They are both top of the line equipment, but someone has to pay for all that advertising, which is the end user. Choose wisely, by looking at the value being offered, not by what everyone says. Sometimes you don't get what you pay for!

I am ocnvinced one seldom gets what one pays for unless they shop carefully. I purchased four z5 5-25X52 trying to get what I paid for. I sold them all.

 

[WildRose]

I must defend the Zeiss scopes, here, I know two people who blindly went out and "Over Paid" for the Swarovski glass, only to not be able to discern any difference at any light conditions. They are both top of the line equipment, but someone has to pay for all that advertising, which is the end user. Choose wisely, by looking at the value being offered, not by what everyone says. Sometimes you don't get what you pay for!

I was lucky to get many opportunities to hunt in Europe and have hunted with a lot of Europeans in both the US and Africa since. To a man/woman they always rated Zeiss as tops for glass especially in low light conditions.

Many of them were still shooting zeiss scopes that were older than I was because they could simply see no reason to replace them.

I was invited as a backup shooter on a cape buff hunt a few years back. The shooter was an Austrian shooting a .458wm custom Mauser with a pre WWII Zeiss 2.5x FP scope on it that was still as clear as the day it was made.

I have owned several and still have a few Zeiss scopes and never had a complaint about any of them.

I'd certainly put them on part with the equivalent Swaro's I've used in the past.