xTheShootistx,
I think your assertion that everyone who is singing the praise of this new LRF is a fan-boy is a bit silly, though I do understand your frustration. I am guessing that 99% of people discussing the Kilo are not intending to use it like you. Just give a bit of charity to those people who have discovered a product they like. Your post simply turned into the "official" thread where all sorts are discussing the Kilo. As for optical quality - I compared the Leica 1600-B to the Sig Kilo 2000 side by side inside a Cabela's. I own neither and I am still looking for a good deal on both of them. Like you, I also do value optical quality. My biggest objective when I went into the store to compare the two was to examine optical quality. This is what I observed (I do know how to use adjustments such as focus by the way):
- The were instances where it seemed that one was superior to the other. I was looking at price tags and reading text that pushed my ability to read. I couldn't establish a clear winner.
- One "category" in which the Leica shined over the Sig was in low light. When I looked into the dark fish cave area, the Leica was noticeably brighter and I was able to make out a lot more detail compared to the Sig.
I would love to own both units and run a much more rigorous range of tests, that isn't in the cards right now. Happy hunting!
Paul in Idaho
First rule of comparing optical quality , is to take it outside. Under indoor lighting, if the optical quality of the units being compared is close, they will all look the same.
Therefore I took someones advice and went to cabelas this morning. I spent 3 hours comparing 5 rangefinders.
Due to this thread, Sig was at the top of the list. This is what I discovered.
1. SIG - Handy unit. Small, compact, light 25mm objective 7x. Felt like quality. Ranged an outback steak house at 1723 yards. Then used the scan feature on closer in targets anywhere from 100 to 300 yards. The unit is fast. Much faster than 3 of the other offerings. Even tho this is not what I was looking for, I noticed that the unit ranges far, and quickly. Optical quality was better than expected. However, paled in comparison to 3 of the other brands. Optical quality was head and heels above Nikons aculon, Nikon prostaff, and a bushnell Truth. One of the things I did not care for with the Sig is the reticle. I wish one of the rangefinder manufacturers would recognize this and give the option of a red dot with adjustable intensities. Oh and, when focused at longer ranges, the Sigs reticle became slightly blurry and OOF(out of focus. At the end of the comparison I went back to the Sig. The Sig seems to be top dog in the ELR department. Got a range on a water tower behind and to the side of the steak house at 2013 yards. Fluke or real, I do not know, but it certainly did return this reading.
2. Leica-1600B 7x with 24mm objective - Very nice unit. Optical quality is what you'd expect from Leica. Sharp, clear, great contrast, high end optics. But it was slow compared to the Sig Kilo. Noticeably much slower in scan mode. It ranged the outback steak house at 1722, which I did not expect it to do. It's only supposed to range to 1600 yards. It ranges further. I was surprised by this.
3. Zeiss Victory PRF 8x with 26 mm objective- By far the largest of all units compared. This unit gave no reading on the outback steak house. BUT, optically, it was the crowned Jewell of the bunch. As optics go, it is extreme. Sharp , crisp, very clear, great contrast, visually stunning for a rangefinder monocular. However, it was SLOW. Much slower than the Leica, and the Sigs electronics and microprocessors made the Zeiss look like it was stuck in the early 1990's where a 200 megahertz processor was considered fast. The scan feature on the Zeiss was nothing compared to the Sig, in fact, you may as well not even use it. It only gets frustrating. But optically, it is Superior to everything compared. I would rate it a step above the Leica in that regard. Same reticle problem as the Sig. Large round reticle. It too did not remain in focus.
4. Vortex ranger 1000- 6x with 22mm objective.
It is built like a tank. This is all the good I have to say about it. Obviously would not give a reading on the outback steak house. SLOW cumbersome. Optics were ok. Better optically than the Nikon Aculon, but not close to the other 4 mentioned rangefinders being compared. It is SLOW. Did you HEAR ME? IT IS SLOW. I put it down right away. It should not have even been in this comparison.
5. Leupold RX1200i TBR with DNA. 6X WITH 22mm Objective.
This is the one I purchased. I can give dad his rangefinder back now.
Since I have been using this rangefinder, I know a little more about it than the others. I will still try to be objective with an honest straight forward review.
It did not range the outback steak house. No reading. This rangefinder is the fastest.
It gives instantaneous reads. Scan mode is blazing fast. While in " last target mode" It will range through things like electric wires, limbs from trees that fall into the view/beam. The Optical quality is close to Leica. It's sharp as a pin with excellent image quality. I didn't get to compare the others to Leupold in low light. I can say this though. With the Leupold, you can see images at 142 yards when it gets so dark, you can't see the image with the naked eye. This one has three choices in reticles. The one I use is the crosshair.
The reticle never gets blurry no matter how far out im looking. It remains in focus.
It also has intensity settings. Hi medium and low. Even at its lowest intensity, the reticle will blind you to the target ( in extremely low light) , but will still give you a reading within its ranging limits. I wish Leupold would fix that. The Sig style reticle, or Leica and even Zeiss for that matter, all nailed it with a reticle that automatically adjusts to lighting conditions.
But that is all they nailed in reference to reticles. This is just me, when I say this. I prefer Leupolds crosshair reticle to all others, but even it could be made better.
NONE OF THEM need a reticle so thick and bulky or anything that completely covers OR in the case of Sig and Zeiss encircles a bird at 100 yards. I'm exaggerating a little here, but still in all, you get the picture........or might not if your reticle covers it. On a side note, the Leupold does have a clear spot in the middle of the crosshair which is useful until light disappears, in which case it becomes useless because you're blinded by the reticle to the target being ranged. The Leupold does not give you temperatures or pressures such as the leica. It does , however, give angle compensation, and ballistics in MOA, MIL or Hold over. It also gives you a trigonometry feature. The Leupold also encompasses "Bow mode" out to 125 yards.
Reads to 1/10 of a yard within its ranging limits. (Much like the Sig) Yes the Leupold is packed with features and in my opinion is the most versatile rangefinder of the group. And yes, it's tough as a nail. Very Slightly more compact than Sig, ( Leupold is slightly shorter) weighing in at 2/10's of an ounce heavier. The Sig does not give up much as compact goes. So here are my ratings.
1. Optical quality beyond shadow of doubt,
Zeiss is the hands down winner in this category. Leica is not far behind with Leupold taking the third spot. Sig Optics are far better than I expected and to be fair, it's head and heels above many of the Nikons, bushnells, and off brands like Halo and bass pro shops brand that I have handled and it is definitely not far behind any of the three I rated above it in this category, which in itself surprised me.
2. Pure all out extended long range.
Sig wins this hands down in my comparison. Followed closely by Leica.
The other three aren't even in the running when it comes to this category.
As ranging goes, Sig clearly commands the pack in this test.
3. " the most handsome unit" Category 3 is something no one really cares about.
This title goes to Leupold and Sig. Both are attractive units. Wrap the Leupold in Mossey oak camo armor and it wins this. In straight Leupold black, it becomes a tie between Sig and Leupold. A matter of preference. Both units are more visually appealing than the large and Bulky Zeiss and the oddly shaped Leica.
4. Versatility, feature set and microprocessor speed.
Leupold wins this one hands down with Sig coming in second in the speed bracket.
The Leupold gives instantaneous readings. It's slightly faster than Sig and much faster than Zeiss and scans have no delays such as both Leica and Zeiss ( especially Zeiss) showed in this comparison. Sig was the closest competitor in this speed sub catagory but still not as fast as Leupold, but not far behind at all.
In conclusion.
I can easily see why people are choosing Sig units over some of the other top brands. This is a nice unit. The reticle problem needs to be addressed and re-tuned by Sig. I have 20/20 vision. The reticle was out of focus on the unit I tested. It was fast as hell and ranged beyond a mile, with very good optics ( in my opinion) all wrapped up in a handsome , tough package. Though not quite as optically precise as 3 of the others, it makes up for its slight shortcomings in pure all out range finding performance.
That's how I see it.
TheShootist
