ModernRedneck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2014
- Messages
- 87
Thanks for this! I've basically nailed it down to the Zeiss V8, Swarovski Z8i, and the S&B PMII or T96. Wish I could bet behind all four at twilight to compare.
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Absolute Best Low Light Scope with Illuminated Dot (No Price Limit)
- Thread starter ModernRedneck
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
DonBogaerts
Well-Known Member
Would it be a pure hunting set up? If yes the PMll might be overkill.. then its if you need the low light above the extra zoom range of the v8/z8 as they would be the same. My dad has the v8 and never runs short on anything with it... i dont think you can go wrong...
ModernRedneck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2014
- Messages
- 87
100% hunting setup. To shoot between 75-600 yards, depending on where I'm hunting. With the best low-light capabilities to expand across those ranges.
ModernRedneck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2014
- Messages
- 87
Appreciate all of the advice thus far. Looks like it's down to the Zeiss V8 2.8-20x56 60 or the S&B Polar T96 in 3-12x54 D7.
Decisions...decisions...
Or should I just go with the Zeiss V8 4.8-35x60 and cover all the bases. Only sacrificing field of view at 2.8 magnification....
Decisions...decisions...
Or should I just go with the Zeiss V8 4.8-35x60 and cover all the bases. Only sacrificing field of view at 2.8 magnification....
ultraedge
Well-Known Member
The Z8i Swarovski in 2.3x18x56 is good and the center dot has 64 levels of illumination. The X5i 3.5x18x50 Swarovski has great turrets,just as good in low light, and 10 levels of reticle illumination . I have both and prefer the X5i. I have a Z8i 2.3x18 x56 P with BRX-I reticle in great shape if you are interested. Gary 478-957-5213
ModernRedneck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2014
- Messages
- 87
Appreciate it but I think I'm going to pass on Swarovski. I'm really leaning towards the S&B Polar T96. I already have the Zeiss Victory HT and want to try something different. From what I've seen so far, the T96 will shine in low light situations, which is mainly what I'm looking for.
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
You know it's a worthy thread when 2 pages of discussion of top-performing low light scopes focus on the real deal - Zeiss, S&B, and Swaro with a brief Meopta mention.
Thank heaven nobody started talking about their "vary-ex Leah-pold" or anything else made in China or the Philipines.
I've tried the R2 meopta and some Swaros and Leicas and was not impressed, and I have a pile of Diavari V's, Helia C's, trijicons, and a fixed power S&B, which are all fine previous-generation scopes which easily outlast normal hunting hours, but since this past hunting season had too many days of very dark overcast conditions, I was about to update my primary rifle. So I was also torn between the Victory HT and T96. I'd appreciate hearing about the t96 when you get it. You already have a Victory, so you can make valid comparisons if you test them out side by side.
and just as a guide for the quality of glass between brands, this article is interesting. https://precisionrifleblog.com/2014...ptical-performance-field-test-results-part-1/
Thank heaven nobody started talking about their "vary-ex Leah-pold" or anything else made in China or the Philipines.
I've tried the R2 meopta and some Swaros and Leicas and was not impressed, and I have a pile of Diavari V's, Helia C's, trijicons, and a fixed power S&B, which are all fine previous-generation scopes which easily outlast normal hunting hours, but since this past hunting season had too many days of very dark overcast conditions, I was about to update my primary rifle. So I was also torn between the Victory HT and T96. I'd appreciate hearing about the t96 when you get it. You already have a Victory, so you can make valid comparisons if you test them out side by side.
and just as a guide for the quality of glass between brands, this article is interesting. https://precisionrifleblog.com/2014...ptical-performance-field-test-results-part-1/
Last edited:
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
the fewer the lenses, the less light is lost. Each lense inside a scope will rob you, which is why the fixed power 8x56s were the low-light standard for so long. Without looking at a diagram, I'm only guessing, but I would think that the 2.8-20 Zeiss with it's wider range of magnification will use more lenses than the 3-12 S&B.
ModernRedneck
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2014
- Messages
- 87
I remember years ago I bought a Leupold VX3 that folks were raving about. Bought it and went out on a hunt. As soon as the sun started to go down, I couldn't see a thing. Compared it side by side the next evening with my Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40 and it embarrassed the VX3. At that moment I vowed to never buy another Leupold and sold it the next week. Used that money to buy the Zeiss Victory HT a few weeks later and never looked back!
As I mentioned, I want to try something different to see what's out there. All signs are leading me to the S&B Polar T96. Rated for the best (96%) light transmission, on paper better than the Victory HT...I gotta see that.
I'm also considering selling my Sig Whiskey5 5-25x52 that currently sits on my 6.5-300 Weatherby and swapping it out with the Zeiss V8 4.8-30x60.
alcesgigas
Well-Known Member
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
man, that's funny. I did the same thing. A few years back, I bought one of the new vx3i's 3-10x50 that everybody said was so great and took it out in the woods with my kid and her tiny 3-9x36 vintage 90's diavari. The old zeiss with it's much smaller objective trashed the new Leupold. We were counting points at dusk with the zeiss, while the leupold was so dark that I literally looked down to make sure I had flipped the caps open.
Of course her little 3-9x36 compact is no contest to the big diavari V's that I usually take out. And I'm getting the impression that they, in turn, will not be in the same ballpark as the T96.
One thing about the S&B though. I'm considering the 2.5-10x50 instead of the 3-12x54. The reason being, I have both a diavari and a Kahles in 2.5-10x50, and again, both a diavari and Kahles in 3-12x56. In both brands, the 2.5-10x50 is the brighter scope.
ultraedge
Well-Known Member
Don't take the published light transmission values as gospel. You need to look through them side by side at dusk and dark.
I
I
Elkhunter007
Well-Known Member
Here is some reading that might help you. Having both of these scopes I can tell you that the Zeiss is far superior. The 36mm tubes are amazing. You might also look at a new player in the game called (ZRO) Zero Compromised Optics.
http://randywakeman.com/Why Riflescope Light Transmission Percentages Mislead.htm
http://randywakeman.com/Why Riflescope Light Transmission Percentages Mislead.htm
Riflehunter1776
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,088
I'm no optics engineer, but the way I understand it is this: In addition to the magnification and objective diameter giving the exit pupil calculation, and the coating allowing light transmission in a spectrum geared for low light use (some coatings cheat by making a scope look fantastic in controlled light, but they die at twilight) fewer lenses will make a scope brighter.
For example, if an optics company claims "98% light transmission per lense surface" you are losing 2% of your light for each lense it has to pass through. That can become very noticeable in the target scopes with a wide range of magnification, which have more lenses. Even the best of these type of scopes are in the 80% range because of this, and a larger objective only goes so far.
Another thing to keep in mind is the erector set up. Scopes with higher magnification are usually designed to have the maximum amount of mechanical windage and elevation built into them. There is no free lunch. What is lost is a larger aperture in the erector set up. So, you have great glass, top-notch coatings, a hubble-sized objective .....and a tiny apeture which filters out too much light.
So, the brightest scopes should be a combination of best quality glass, top quality coatings designed for twilight not mid-day use, a large objective, an erector system that has a larger apeture and less mechanical range, and fewer internal lenses.
and for what it's worth, somebody ran their own test between the victory, t96, and R2 over at SH.
https://forum.snipershide.com/threads/compared-zeiss-victory-ht-meopta-r2-and-s-b-polar-t96.6917510/
For example, if an optics company claims "98% light transmission per lense surface" you are losing 2% of your light for each lense it has to pass through. That can become very noticeable in the target scopes with a wide range of magnification, which have more lenses. Even the best of these type of scopes are in the 80% range because of this, and a larger objective only goes so far.
Another thing to keep in mind is the erector set up. Scopes with higher magnification are usually designed to have the maximum amount of mechanical windage and elevation built into them. There is no free lunch. What is lost is a larger aperture in the erector set up. So, you have great glass, top-notch coatings, a hubble-sized objective .....and a tiny apeture which filters out too much light.
So, the brightest scopes should be a combination of best quality glass, top quality coatings designed for twilight not mid-day use, a large objective, an erector system that has a larger apeture and less mechanical range, and fewer internal lenses.
and for what it's worth, somebody ran their own test between the victory, t96, and R2 over at SH.
https://forum.snipershide.com/threads/compared-zeiss-victory-ht-meopta-r2-and-s-b-polar-t96.6917510/
Last edited:
