Zeiss Victory 2500 vs Leica Geovid 3000

[31perersen]

I was hoping somebody who owns either of these or can get their hands on them could do a review and or comparison? They have been out for a little while now and I'm having troubles finding alot of good information and reviews. I think alot of us would really like to see how well they do on soft targets (i.e. hunting situations) compared to like a geovid 2200 where there is quite a bit of data to use references to compare. I have the 2200 geovids and like them but wish the reticle where smaller for ranging small targets or targets with things like trees, shrubs, buck brush or small hills around them. I remember some very good info we had gotten from in depth reviews on the kilo 2400 when it came out as far as ranging soft targets and reticle size/actual location of beam vs reticle location and so on. If anybody could give their thoughts on these 2 binos that have fairly in depth use with them I'd really appreciate it. Is the ranging reticle smaller on the new geovid 3000 vs the 2200? I see the beam divergence is quite alot smaller which is great, but havent been able to find any info on whether the reticle is as well to reflect it. Thanks for any and all info guys!

Josh

 

[dv808]

I have the 3000 and my cousin has the 2200. I've had mine for less than a year and took it on a couple of hunts. I don't have enough time behind it to be that comfortable with it yet but here are some observations when playing with both of them side-by-side.

His reticle is square while mine is circular. I'm not sure if my reticle is smaller or if it just feels that way because I'm missing the corners. The ranging response is a lot quicker on the newer model. It seems easier to hit the targets and get a positive response with the 3000. The LED is seems sharper or brighter also. If I remember anything else, I'll be sure to edit this post.

 

[31perersen]

Thanks dv808, I appreciate the input. I have the 2200s and always thought they had a good response so they must be real fast now. I sure would like to have them side by side in the flats to compare how precise the beams are. Thanks, keep them coming!

 

[WildBillG]

I like your thread and would like to know if the Ziess have improved since the first 1400yd model. By that I mean is it easier to read the read out. As mine are very fussy how you hold them to your eyes. I am a Lieca fan when it comes to range finders.

 

[31perersen]

I cant believe we havent seen more info and comparisons with these newer range finders. It seems like alot of us on here would be very interested in either and some good info on good solid comparisons. Reticle size and accuracy of the beam within the reticle are big considerations and it's crazy to me how many people review range finders but dont use actual animals or soft targets for testing. It would also be nice to know how rangefinders compare in different ranging conditions such as mountains, where you get a bit of a backdrop typically, versus the plains or sage brush country where it's tough to differentiate between target and brush, especially with flatter ground. Keep us posted if anyone has experience with either or both.
Thanks guys,
Josh

 

[WildBillG]

I can only compare my older Ziess to my friends older 1600 Lieca. Both range on game what they claim is max ranging distance. This is good because most companies use that max but it is only on reflective targets. As I have said before my only complaint of my Ziess is how fussy they are on eye position.

 

[31perersen]

I have the Zeiss PRF and the leica HD-B 2200, I just wanted to see how much the reticle sizes have changed and how well they work on soft targets on these two new rangefinding binos.

 

[223dude]

I have owned a HD-B 2200 10x42 and a Swarovski 10x42 range.
I was not happy with ether of them & sold them.
So I broke down and bought the new zeiss 10x42 rf
last week.

I'v have not had them long
but at this stage of my tests
here is what i found.

The glass-
Its vary good, the sweet spot is about 85%
there are bright .The light transfer is about 88%
I would say the glass is 10% better then the hd-b or Swaro's to my eyes.

The size-
There small for rf bino's about
the size of regular 10x42.
The body has a good rubber armor
on them is better then the hd-b but not as good as the Swaro's.
The wight is 32.5oz about the same as the hd-b.
They feel rely good in the my hand.
They also range on release witch
Is no accurate/ more steady.


The range finder -
Its the best i'v used in a rf bino so fare.
I can ping a elk at 2000 yrds
100% of the time. At 2400 yrds is about
as fare as i can reliably hit trees.
The circle is a little bigger the i would like
to be but smaller then the Swaro's.
I do think the New hd-b 3000 will have
a better range finder then the Zeiss rf.


The ballistic calculator-
Is the one thing i can't speak to much
as i have not had time to play with it to much
but so far i'm liking it.

I like them so far

 

[31perersen]

I have owned a HD-B 2200 10x42 and a Swarovski 10x42 range.
I was not happy with ether of them & sold them.
So I broke down and bought the new zeiss 10x42 rf
last week.

I'v have not had them long
but at this stage of my tests
here is what i found.

The glass-
Its vary good, the sweet spot is about 85%
there are bright .The light transfer is about 88%
I would say the glass is 10% better then the hd-b or Swaro's to my eyes.

The size-
There small for rf bino's about
the size of regular 10x42.
The body has a good rubber armor
on them is better then the hd-b but not as good as the Swaro's.
The wight is 32.5oz about the same as the hd-b.
They feel rely good in the my hand.
They also range on release witch
Is no accurate/ more steady.


The range finder -
Its the best i'v used in a rf bino so fare.
I can ping a elk at 2000 yrds
100% of the time. At 2400 yrds is about
as fare as i can reliably hit trees.
The circle is a little bigger the i would like
to be but smaller then the Swaro's.
I do think the New hd-b 3000 will have
a better range finder then the Zeiss rf.


The ballistic calculator-
Is the one thing i can't speak to much
as i have not had time to play with it to much
but so far i'm liking it.

I like them so far

Awesome 223dude, this is the kind of information I was hoping to hear. You had mentioned the reticle was smaller in the zeiss than the swaro, how does the zeiss reticle compare to the leica hd-b? Thanks

 

[223dude]

The leica was smaller.
But not by much.