Zeiss vs. Nightforce

[spiaailtli]

I wanted to find the answer to this and Ziess vs Leupold. Every person that answers has a different point of view and every forum you visit has a different answer for some reason.

Here is what I found. There are labs that test optics for clarity, repeatability, etc.. They use equipment and in the end the results are not ones point of view, nor are they who likes what best. Pure and simple they list which glass passes all the colors, reflect the most glare, make things clear, do not leak, etc. The results are online and can be found with a simple search. The bottom lime is while Nightforce is "good" they are far from best and they are not as good as Ziess or any other glass from the same region. I was quite shocked at the market place over there and the fact that most USA made glass isn't even allowed over there mostly due to quality. This article explained many times over how it shouldn't matter because the lower class USA made glass isn't available over there. People wanted the test done so they did it.

Leupold was tested and is available to the market over there and there was a note that said it took Leupold many years to gain their trust and improve the quaility of the glass to get to that point.

Like others said the Nightforce has strong points in a heavy built tank type scope. The quaility of the glass needs work to catch up to scope manufactures that start with Z or S.

Leupold was given pretty high marks, so was Ziess, but neither of them was in the top three and Nightforce was way down the list in almost every catagory.

 

[spiaailtli]

BTW Burris flunked many of the test and in the end couldn't even be rated.

 

[pressman]

please post the link for these test...i am curious of all the results and how they came up with it..
thanks you.

 

[Buano]

Those test results do not surprise me. Much of European hunting is done by moonlight. This requires glass & coatings that let hunters aim accurately with very little light. In the lower 48 states, almost no hunting is allowed at night, so US made optics are designed to meet these needs, which obviously don't require as good of glass as European hunters need. Additionally, "cheap" optics are almost unheard of in Europe.

It is good to see Leupold finally making optics the European community will consider.

Nightforce's forte has always been indestructibility and a huge range of adjustment that is necessary for very long range shooting — and not their optical quality. Their glass & coatings are good, just not when compared to the best.

 

[scottyd2506]

Depends on what you are using it for? for benchrest punching paper only, the Nightforce would be better but for hunting in low light conditions, the Zies is worlds better.

Most deer hunting is at dusk and dawn, plenty of light most of the time, but that deer or elk across the field in those dark woods that sometimes you can not make out the rack count or if a branch is going to deflect the bullet can be a loss. . the Zies will destroy the Nightforce in those real life hunting where you need more light gathering so to speak.
,, the Zies is better in low light.

for coyote hunting that 99.999999% of the time at dusk/dawn or low light the Zies will be better.
This is not to say a Nightforce is as poor as a Simmons scope, they in my mind are superior to Leupold for durability and slightly for optics.

For paper punching in the daytime, or day hunting none is better than nightforce


Low end 3-12x56mm and 6-20-50mm Zies are not cheap, like $1000.. and are assembled in America with Geman glass.

, the high end Zies stuff is $2500 and made in Germany, the 6-24-56mm high end is like $3500, and the huge 6-24x72mm (34mm tube) is $3700

Actually the 56mm Nightforce at $1800 is cheaper than a high end Zies with a 56mm, about double the price.

Personally i'd buy a $1800 Nightforce over a $3500 Zies and just go home from the Coyote hunt 1/2 hour early. $3500 to me is a lot of money for optics.


For 1000 yarsds, the moa adjustment on the nightforce will be better, but they do make 20 deg moa bases to help poor moa scopes

Moa Adjustments, and tank construction = Nightforce

But German glass is so much superior to mediocre poor American and Japanese glass, it is not close.

 

[jrsolocam]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe any "glass" or actual lenses are made in the USA. 95%+ of the world's glass comes out of only a few factories in Europe and Japan.

In these tests that were discussed, the glass that performed poorly was spec'ed out that way by the manufacturer. They aren't as good because they were designed that way. Thats why a Burris scope costs less than $500 and an Alpha over $1500 to $4000. Thats why a NF costs $2000 and a S&B is $3500. If you want a scope as rugged and repeatable as a NF with the superb glass of the Alphas it gets expensive in a hurry.

Years ago I thought optical quality in a scope was the most important feature. I don't think that way any more. Basically any Zeiss, Leupold, Nikon, etc for a $1,000 has good enough optical quality for almost any LR hunting need, but where they come up short is adjustment range, rock solid internals and the tactical features that we have grown to appreciate.

 

[aspenbugle]

Good posts. I can vouch "eye" witness testimony on the glass - the Nightforce is not as good as Zeiss/Swaro (not talking the cheap Zeiss, 1" tube "American" scopes). I have a nice Swarovski scope and bought the NF for another gun - got bored/curious in the off-season and had them out several times in real low light mounted side-by-side. The Swaro was noticably better - brighter, more crisp and clear - not massively better, but noticeable to my eye. Even had the wife look without here knowing which was which or why and she agreed. As many posted - pros and cons. NF has excellent adjustments, toughness etc. making it a great LR scope, it just doesn't match the fine European glass.

I agree JRSolocam - NF fits bill for 95% of LRH. I will say, there is still that 5% - which is what made me buy my Swaro originally. It's near the end of shooting light, I'm on the backside of a mountain (East side with sun going down in West), I have a herd of elk at 350 yards below in the broken timber, several branch-anterlered bulls. (Many Colorado areas require 4 points to a side or a 5" brow tine to make a bull legal.) I had a Leoupold VARXII, my brother with me had a VARXIII - even using his, we couldn't figure which, if any were legal...close, but maddening, especially when those opportunities were sparse. Then and there I decided the extra $ for a Swaro would have been worth it (especially when spread out over many years). Most times now, I have more light, and any reasonable scope would work, but when trying to resolve antler points in the shadows when you have an easy shot, the best glass can make a difference. We had plenty of magnification.

If you have the coin, I guess the best of both worlds is a Schmidt and Bender. If not, I'd probably go with a Swaro/Zeiss on my walking hunting rifle (if enough $) and the NF on the LRH rig. My $.02

 

[scottyd2506]

Good posts. I can vouch "eye" witness testimony on the glass - the Nightforce is not as good as Zeiss/Swaro (not talking the cheap Zeiss, 1" tube "American" scopes). I have a nice Swarovski scope and bought the NF for another gun - got bored/curious in the off-season and had them out several times in real low light mounted side-by-side. The Swaro was noticably better - brighter, more crisp and clear - not massively better, but noticeable to my eye. Even had the wife look without here knowing which was which or why and she agreed. As many posted - pros and cons. NF has excellent adjustments, toughness etc. making it a great LR scope, it just doesn't match the fine European glass.

I agree JRSolocam - NF fits bill for 95% of LRH. I will say, there is still that 5% - which is what made me buy my Swaro originally. It's near the end of shooting light, I'm on the backside of a mountain (East side with sun going down in West), I have a herd of elk at 350 yards below in the broken timber, several branch-anterlered bulls. (Many Colorado areas require 4 points to a side or a 5" brow tine to make a bull legal.) I had a Leoupold VARXII, my brother with me had a VARXIII - even using his, we couldn't figure which, if any were legal...close, but maddening, especially when those opportunities were sparse. Then and there I decided the extra $ for a Swaro would have been worth it (especially when spread out over many years). Most times now, I have more light, and any reasonable scope would work, but when trying to resolve antler points in the shadows when you have an easy shot, the best glass can make a difference. We had plenty of magnification.

If you have the coin, I guess the best of both worlds is a Schmidt and Bender. If not, I'd probably go with a Swaro/Zeiss on my walking hunting rifle (if enough $) and the NF on the LRH rig. My $.02

Some of those Ziess scopes are not top level, 3-9x40 are only $400-500, but I've looked through them and they still look better than the Leupold's and Nikon 3-9x40's

The $1100 Zeiss 6-24x50 and 3-12x56 (both 30mm tubes) are to have high end glass but assembled in America to save cost, I'm not sure if they are put together as well as the German optics industry would, but I would like to compare a 6-24x50mm to a 5.5-22x56 nightforce.

Of course out to 1000 yards, the Zeiss 20 moa adjustment limitation would limit range, but they do sell 20 moa bases that would help.


a Zeiss 56mm would of course surpass a Nightforce with a 56mm in clarity and low light conditions.

The 56mm on the Nightforce would seem to be better than the 50mm with the Zeis as bigger objective.

But I have heard the coating are so good on the German glass that in reviews a 40mm Zeiss was better than a 50mm scope they had on a particular gun for low light conditions.

Would than the American assembled Zeiss 6-24x50 for $1100 with 20moa bases be better than the top end Nightforce for $1800 ?
not to say the optics on the Nightforce are low end, and the tracking is 2nd to none. I've not heard any complaints on Zeiss tracking, but reviews are limited to a few dozen, where Nightforce reviews are in the 1000's.
I always look over negative reviews.

Not sure the mid range price $1100 Zeiss would have the optics the Zeiss Diavari or Hensoldt would at $2500-$3700.

But this is something to consider when looking for a scope between $1000
and $2000 depending on if your a target shooter or hunter.

 

[Buano]

Some of those Ziess scopes are not top level, 3-9x40 are only $400-500, but I've looked through them and they still look better than the Leupold's and Nikon 3-9x40's

The $1100 Zeiss 6-24x50 and 3-12x56 (both 30mm tubes) are to have high end glass but assembled in America to save cost, I'm not sure if they are put together as well as the German optics industry would, but I would like to compare a 6-24x50mm to a 5.5-22x56 nightforce.

Of course out to 1000 yards, the Zeiss 20 moa adjustment limitation would limit range, but they do sell 20 moa bases that would help.


a Zeiss 56mm would of course surpass a Nightforce with a 56mm in clarity and low light conditions.

The 56mm on the Nightforce would seem to be better than the 50mm with the Zeis as bigger objective.

But I have heard the coating are so good on the German glass that in reviews a 40mm Zeiss was better than a 50mm scope they had on a particular gun for low light conditions.

Would than the American assembled Zeiss 6-24x50 for $1100 with 20moa bases be better than the top end Nightforce for $1800 ?
not to say the optics on the Nightforce are low end, and the tracking is 2nd to none. I've not heard any complaints on Zeiss tracking, but reviews are limited to a few dozen, where Nightforce reviews are in the 1000's.
I always look over negative reviews.

Not sure the mid range price $1100 Zeiss would have the optics the Zeiss Diavari or Hensoldt would at $2500-$3700.

But this is something to consider when looking for a scope between $1000
and $2000 depending on if your a target shooter or hunter.

I've never heard of tracking problems on a Zeiss, even a bottom-of-the-line Zeiss Conquest. The limitations come from what the Zeiss doesn't have, that being a tube you could use to drive nails with, more adjustment range, and lighted reticles (not available on most Zeiss scopes). The advantage of the Zeiss scopes are also simple: they are lighter, with better glass & coatings so you can cary them up mountains and see animals at dawn & dusk.

I'd opt for a Nightforce on a heavy gun used primarily in the middle of the day, like my woodchuck rifle. On a deer or elk rifle I'm going to cary over mountains & hunt early & late, Zeiss & Swarovski (and yes, Leupold) get the nod.

 

[Hunter2678]

Having regular interaction with both brands on a weekly basis I feel fairly qualified to say a few things about them. Both scopes are high quality, there's no doubt about that. I shoot with a fella who is NF to the bone and I dont fault him for that since he primarily punches long range paper with his rigs. The NF's 30 mm tubes are noticeably more stout in body construction and their weight proves it. They do give you more adjustability for LRS&H as well. But when it comes to glass, clarity & brightness I'll put my $1000.00 6.5-20x50 1 inch tube Conquest against his $1800 NXS anyday. The Zeiss glass IMO is right there with the NF if not better. When his 22x NF is @ max power, the overall picture & color contrast IMO is dissapointing for a scope in that price range. In fact I was a little surpised it was so noticeably flat. When my Zeiss is maxed out at 20x it still gives me excellent color contrast and clarity, noticeably more than the NF does, call me a blaspheme, call me crazy. It all boils down to what your priorites are. For me its was to be a moderate weight, bright, ultra clear & repeatable varmint scope at $1000 or under. I honestly think the Conquest line gives you a rare value right now in today's scope mkt. I have one on my 22-250 (6.5-20x50) and one on my hornet (3.5-10x44) both are Conquests. Now, if I were going to build a long range paper puncher then I would strongly consider a NF. But I would also look at others as well. I'll always take better glassed scope with less bells and whistles over one that gives me the opposite. Just my 2 pennies. To be honest I felt for a long time that I was the only one who felt this way when comapring the 2 scopes but it seems that others on here are on the same page as well.

 

[scottyd2506]

but it seems that others on here are on the same page as well.

I'm not sure, but a lot of people who buy the Nightforce claim it has the bet glass or clarity on earth, but what do they compare it to, a Leupold at best .
Leupold's are great great scopes with a great warranty, but the optics on them, although better than most, are not as good as the German glass.





I wonder how good the Zeiss 3-12x56mm (30mm tube Conquest) is for $999.00.

I am looking at it and the 6-24-50mm.($1000) most of my hunting is crow up to 300 yards or coyotes up to 400-500 yards, so I think the 12 power might be enough, the 30mm tube and 56mm bell should be superb in low light, my bad eye's may like it,

I wonder though if the 56mm vs the 50mm and 30mm vs 25mm (1 inch) tube is going to make much low light performance difference , as I would like to have 24 power option. for targets and such.

Righjt now my eye is set on the 3-12x56mm 30mm tube for $999.
at 12x power my 4-12x40mm Nikon buckmaster on a crow at 300 yards is still enough, same for my Leupold 6-20x50mm AO VXIII at 12 power, crosshair is smaller than crow at 300 , and low light hunting for coyotes, is there a better scope on earth for under $2000?

 

[schwabdog]

I love the Zeiss I have a 2.5-10X50 T* Diavari on me TIKKA T3 270 win for Deer hunting out to 250 m the quality of this optic is very GOOD. I do use it for long range I've been out to 525 yds. a few times and un les your shooting target or small game like rabbits this is what you want.
It's a lot lighter than the nightforce and the glass quality is grate EXELENT the mil (1CM) adjustments are spot on.
I payed $1750 for the ziss and the Night Force is $1900 about. I don't have a Nightforce and I wouldn't get one IF I was shooting less than 300m.
But I will be getting a NF F1 Mil/Mil for on me 300 WM for the 1000m line.
In my opinion the Zeiss Diavari 2.5-10x50 is the best hunting rifle scope even out to long range.
Last week I fell over the chick peace of the tikka with the Zeiss, and I knocked it really hard, so I thought it would be out of Zero when I got home I wanted to see if it is out of zero, BUT it DIDENT even move.

 

[scottyd2506]

when it comes to glass, clarity & brightness I'll put my $1000.00 6.5-20x50 1 inch tube Conquest against his $1800 NXS anyday. The Zeiss glass IMO is right there with the NF if not better. When his 22x NF is @ max power, the overall picture & color contrast IMO is dissapointing for a scope in that price range. In fact I was a little surpised it was so noticeably flat. When my Zeiss is maxed out at 20x it still gives me excellent color contrast and clarity, noticeably more than the NF does.

Amazing, if the Cheap Conquest has better clarity than the best Nightforce, then think what the good Zeiss scopes would look like.

I have done some research, and found out the Conquest scopes have cheaper glass in them than Diavari's, the grinding is not the same, and the coating at not as good,.

If a cheap 50mm Zeiss with a 1 inch tube is more clear and brighter than a top of the line 56mm Nightforce with a 30mm tube, just imagine what the difference a quality Diavari io Hensoldt would look like. of course you pay a premium.

 

[Hunter2678]

Amazing, if the Cheaper Conquest has better clarity than the best Nightforce, then think what the good Zeiss scopes would look like.

I have done some research, and found out the Conquest scopes have cheaper glass in them than Diavari's, the grinding is not the same, and the coating at not as good,.

If a cheap 50mm Zeiss with a 1 inch tube is more clear and brighter than a top of the line 56mm Nightforce with a 30mm tube, just imagine what the difference a quality Diavari io Hensoldt would look like. of course you pay a premium.

To my eyes they are better, not by alot but its noticeable, I think the coatings are what sets them apart,...like I said call my crazy, call me a blaspheme...Im sure the diavari glass is killer..but Im not "there" yet on wanting to buy one...still high for me. Look through both Zeiss & NF at max power and decide for yourself.