Zeiss V6 Vs Meopta Meostar R2. Glass.
- Thread starter Despotes
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
okie hunter
Active Member
I own Nightforce nxs (2), Leupold vx3,vx5 and vx6, Meopta meopro, Sightron (2) and ZEISS hd5,v4 and v6. My favorite of all, my ZEISS v6. It's a 5-30x50 on a 7 saum. Good glass, tracks very well and nice low light performance. I've shot deer out to 530yds and steel out to 1500. Can't think of anything I'd complain about it.
Bullmark
Well-Known Member
No doubt when you start spending over $1000 for a rifle scope it should be a given that it's "good glass" optically, and the larger the objective the more usable light that is gathered....that's why you'll see better detail in low light with a $1000 scope with a 56mm obj than with a $3000 set of binocs w/ a 40mm.
To a certain extent, you really begin splitting hairs comparing most of the glass mentioned throughout this post. To someone who doesn't stay on their binocs a lot while hunting and looks through their scope even less, they will not immediately recognize the finer points of some of the optical technology. And to be fair, that Hunter is no better or worse off because of the finer details.
Ive gotten a lot of reviews from, of all people, avid bird watchers or "birders". These folks are brutal when it comes to being critical of their optics. If u think about it, they spend a lot of time behind their glass and need the finer points like color separation and edge distortion, to identify the gazillion different birds that they are in search of. The difference between two very similar colors could be the difference from one bird to the next.
All I can say is I spend a ton of my time hunting behind my optics. I have an older Zeiss Conquest from the Meopta partnership days and it's good clear glass. But when I look through my Swaro Z8i it's a whole different level of everything. The same can be said for a Z6 that I recently sold....super good glass but I could totally see a noticeable difference.
To a certain extent, you really begin splitting hairs comparing most of the glass mentioned throughout this post. To someone who doesn't stay on their binocs a lot while hunting and looks through their scope even less, they will not immediately recognize the finer points of some of the optical technology. And to be fair, that Hunter is no better or worse off because of the finer details.
Ive gotten a lot of reviews from, of all people, avid bird watchers or "birders". These folks are brutal when it comes to being critical of their optics. If u think about it, they spend a lot of time behind their glass and need the finer points like color separation and edge distortion, to identify the gazillion different birds that they are in search of. The difference between two very similar colors could be the difference from one bird to the next.
All I can say is I spend a ton of my time hunting behind my optics. I have an older Zeiss Conquest from the Meopta partnership days and it's good clear glass. But when I look through my Swaro Z8i it's a whole different level of everything. The same can be said for a Z6 that I recently sold....super good glass but I could totally see a noticeable difference.
Received my Meostar R2 2-12X50 today. 2X has A LOT of distortion 1/3 of the way in around the edge. Very disappointing. At 3X some, but not a lot. 4-12 not any I could notice. Quick comparison In bright sunlight compared to my Swarovski Z3 3-10X42 both at 6X very similar. Maybe a slight edge to the Z3.
Low light comparison won't be until Friday evening. Prefer the Z3 BRH reticle over the BDC3 reticle of the R2.
I'm hoping the R2 beats out the Z3 in low light. If so, I might keep it.
Low light comparison won't be until Friday evening. Prefer the Z3 BRH reticle over the BDC3 reticle of the R2.
I'm hoping the R2 beats out the Z3 in low light. If so, I might keep it.
Bullmark
Well-Known Member
Two words: Pearl vision. Maybe u forgot to take off the scope covers....lol
I'm just joking of course.
But all jokes aside, if you're getting distortion at 2x, something isn't right. I won't even begin to guess what. The scope has a pretty friendly eye box and edge to edge should be crystal clear, especially at 2x. I'm sure u realize it has a focus adjustment?
The Swaro Z3 is really clear glass, and no different than what they use in the Z5 line. So In broad daylight they should be very similar.
It's the scope's features that drive its price up. Larger tube, more adjustment, larger range of magnification, and illum reticle are all considerably more expensive to produce. The Z3 has none of those, so it's price reflects it.
I'd love to know where you found a new Meostar R2....I haven't seen one in anyone's inventory for some time.
Wedgy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
- Messages
- 3,276
Meopta MeoStar R2 Rifle Scopes
Get best deals on Meopta Meostar R2 Riflescopes at Scopelist.com. Buy online and save More. Best price, No Tax. Order Now
www.scopelist.com
Just had the chance to compare the two this evening. R2 has better flare control, but there's no discernible difference between the two otherwise in low light. Scopes side by side viewing into the tree line 120 yrds away 'til dark. My Z3 must be a golden sample. Not sure what to try next. T96?
The barrel distortion is pretty bad at 2X regardless of the diopter setting.
The barrel distortion is pretty bad at 2X regardless of the diopter setting.
Bullmark
Well-Known Member
I could be wrong, but if your barrel is obstructing the sight path from the scope, that's not a scope issue.....it's a mounting issue. You can't expect a scope to give you X-ray vision through a solid object that is in the way. Try a higher mount to clear the barrel.
Or you might seriously consider sending it back and buying another z3...for probably half the price. It really is comparable glass, just without the bells and whistles.
Or you might seriously consider sending it back and buying another z3...for probably half the price. It really is comparable glass, just without the bells and whistles.
Savagehunter1968
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2016
- Messages
- 182
Zeiss v6 is German made with schott glass. I have the 5-30 and am very impressed with it . I think it is clearer than my razor 2 . Never looked through a meopta scope but I see a lot of good things said about them. I dont think you would be sad with either one.
Barrel distortion is not the barrel obstructing the view.
The Meostar R2 is the scope in review which is going back for a refund.
Bullmark
Well-Known Member
I see...you're talking about actual, noticeable distortion of the size of objects....I've always called it the "keyhole" effect....where the center of your sight picture is larger than the edges.
If you are seeing this at a level thats easily noticed, you likely have a damaged scope. 100% of all glass has flaws...generally the more expensive scopes are a lot closer to perfect than the cheaper ones. But to be able to see and identify specific flaws is generally hard to do.
You shouldn't notice a keyhole effect, or barrel distortion, on any scope that costs more than $79.99 at 2x mag. So I would send that one back as well.
As for trying a T96, I happen to be running one of those....the 4-16x56....and I love it. It's also in a different price point stratosphere. I happened to find mine as a showroom demo and saved some $.
Everyone's eyes are different, so when I look through a scope I see what I see. And in my eyes, my Leica Magnus has a friendlier eye box and eye relief. The colors, clarity and light gathering is a dead heat b/t the two. The Leica is shorter and a bit lighter, and the turrets on both are firm and true. Mine has the bdc exposed turrets that look very similar to the Polar's. Both have an illuminated 4a reticle and both are just as you would want a red dot to be....tiny, clear and no bleeding.
I don't think you could go wrong with either, but I also thought highly of the Meopta.
That said, I really think you may have gotten a lemon Meopta. Regardless, the Polar t96 and the Magnus are both different calibers of glass altogether.
I will say that I've found the Magnus for sale at some incredible discounts at multiple places. Your source for the Meopta, Scopelist, had one for $1000 off it's retail of $3200. Not sure what's going on there, but that's a lot of scope for the $$. Good luck.
If you are seeing this at a level thats easily noticed, you likely have a damaged scope. 100% of all glass has flaws...generally the more expensive scopes are a lot closer to perfect than the cheaper ones. But to be able to see and identify specific flaws is generally hard to do.
You shouldn't notice a keyhole effect, or barrel distortion, on any scope that costs more than $79.99 at 2x mag. So I would send that one back as well.
As for trying a T96, I happen to be running one of those....the 4-16x56....and I love it. It's also in a different price point stratosphere. I happened to find mine as a showroom demo and saved some $.
Everyone's eyes are different, so when I look through a scope I see what I see. And in my eyes, my Leica Magnus has a friendlier eye box and eye relief. The colors, clarity and light gathering is a dead heat b/t the two. The Leica is shorter and a bit lighter, and the turrets on both are firm and true. Mine has the bdc exposed turrets that look very similar to the Polar's. Both have an illuminated 4a reticle and both are just as you would want a red dot to be....tiny, clear and no bleeding.
I don't think you could go wrong with either, but I also thought highly of the Meopta.
That said, I really think you may have gotten a lemon Meopta. Regardless, the Polar t96 and the Magnus are both different calibers of glass altogether.
I will say that I've found the Magnus for sale at some incredible discounts at multiple places. Your source for the Meopta, Scopelist, had one for $1000 off it's retail of $3200. Not sure what's going on there, but that's a lot of scope for the $$. Good luck.
Bullmark
Well-Known Member
I've yet to take either to the range or the field. The Leica's I've owned in the past have been stellar. And for my eyes, the only scope I've tried or owned that is better optically is the Swaro Z8i. It blows me away every time I use it. If it had the ruggedness of my S&B's/Leica, it would be the only scope I'd own. It's never failed and has taken some bumps, always returns to zero. Maybe because it's quite a bit lighter, it just doesn't feel as durable and tactical as my others. I've always thought that Z8i and Nightforce design would be the ultimate.
My one rifle where weight isn't a huge concern I run the S&B Exos 3-21x50. Its not as heavy as the Atacr, but still right 31oz.
The one scope I've wanted to try is the March 2-25x52 (I think that's the size). It's light, built solid, and prices out well. I may try to pick one up.
My one rifle where weight isn't a huge concern I run the S&B Exos 3-21x50. Its not as heavy as the Atacr, but still right 31oz.
The one scope I've wanted to try is the March 2-25x52 (I think that's the size). It's light, built solid, and prices out well. I may try to pick one up.
